Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Cactuar]

Ok, so picking random numbers, the stage rises fully 2 times a match, you have to account for there being one available safe spot on the map.

The stage also rises on level with the bottom platform and stays there twice a match. While this is happening, characters cannot do aerials because their hurtbox will extend below the platform and into the lava. This is an effective zoning method that does not involve either player doing anything.

And more than 2 times a match, the lava sits under the stage, ready to save an otherwise dead player.


You think the combinations of these situations is not greater than that of the turnip threshold? You think that the likelihood of any one of these situations having a great impact on the outcome of the match is lower than the turnip threshold?

 

[Kal]

it's ****ing stupid that in that situation, it is disadvantageous for Ganondorf to take an opportunity to kill his opponent because of the stage.

In Chess there are situations where it's disadvantageous to take a piece. Why is this different?

and yes I am arbitrarily stating this, subjectively, and I don't think many people will disagree with me either.

And even if I agree with you, the point is that you shouldn't be trying to mandate rulesets according to your subjective preference. I happen to think it would be ****ing cool if someone were to lengthen their combo rather than taking a kill, knowing full well that doing so would increase their chance of success.

It's not much different than choosing to combo your opponent to a particular side of the stage on Yoshi's (due to Randall's presence). We just have this predetermined notion that "kill = success 100% of the time," and this notion is self-fulfilling because we change the ruleset in order to remain consistent with it.

 

[Kal]

Ok, so picking random numbers, the stage rises fully 2 times a match, you have to account for there being one available safe spot on the map.

The stage also rises on level with the bottom platform and stays there twice a match. While this is happening, characters cannot do aerials because their hurtbox will extend below the platform and into the lava. This is an effective zoning method that does not involve either player doing anything.

And more than 2 times a match, the lava sits under the stage, ready to save an otherwise dead player.

Things like how frequently the lava sits under the stage are not equivalent to their expected values. Again, you have to consider how often a player will get spiked into the lava when it's there, and how large of an impact this has on the match. Much of the time the opponent will just fall into bottom and die. That is something which needs to be considered as well.

You think the combinations of these situations is not greater than that of the turnip threshold? You think that the likelihood of any one of these situations having a great impact on the outcome of the match is lower than the turnip threshold?

Yeah, I think that these situations do not outweigh the Turnip Threshold, in part because I think they can be accounted for (and thus the associated probabilities necessarily decrease).

 

[Sauce Boss]

So like, does fox really get affected by this in any way. I would think not because he doesn't really like Counter-Picks.

 

[Winston]

In Chess there are situations where it's disadvantageous to take a piece. Why is this different?

What if you had planned out a forced capture 5 moves ahead, only for you to suddenly receive a warning that you shouldn't capture that piece because the lava's randomly about to rise? You can still cut your losses, but don't tell me there's nothing wrong with that picture.

 

[Cactuar]

I am considering how often the player will be affected by the lava. For a player to have to move in any way is that player being affected by the lava. It doesn't have to do damage for it to have value.

 

[Kal]

What if you had planned out a forced capture 5 moves ahead, only for you to suddenly receive a warning that you shouldn't capture that piece because the lava's randomly about to rise? You can still cut your losses, but don't tell me there's nothing wrong with that picture.

This analogy makes a good point, but I feel it doesn't encompass the whole picture. What if there is an option to wait for the lava to come down before you capture the piece, perhaps by doing something different?

My analogy was just to make a point that being punished for doing what you think should work is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that we simply dismiss any negative impact anything has.

I am considering how often the player will be affected by the lava. For a player to have to move in any way is that player being affected by the lava. It doesn't have to do damage for it to have value.

In those cases, if this value were quantifiable, I would expect it to be lesser. Again, expected value is the product of frequency and value.

 

[Cactuar]

Lolk. Good thing the Turnip Threshold has no place here.

How about this one. The "Forced Movement" Threshold. Any stage that forces you to move your character to avoid losing a stock or taking damage is illegal. And I'll combine it with my trap card Cheerleader Troll to make:

========================================= ./,/==/ /== /|======
======================================== ,/ ./=./ ./ = / /=======
=====================================,-~'¯'¯¯'~-/. /= / ./=======
===================================,~' . . . . . . . . '~,/. /========
================================= ,/'. . . . . . . . . . . . . '\,========
================================,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |,=======
===============================,/' . . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . |=======
==============================,/' . . /###\ . . . . . . . . . . .,|'=======
=============================,/' . . . \###/ . . . __. . . . . ,/'========
============================,/' . . . . . ¯¯ . . . /###\ . . .,/'========
============,/'¯¯'*~-,=========,/' . . . . . . . . . . . .\###/ . .,/'=========
===========,/'. . . . . .'*~-,===== ,/' . . . . . . . _ . . . .¯¯. . . ,/'==========
==========,/' . . . . . . . . . '~-,==,/' . . . . . . . ./##| . . . . . . .,/'===========
=========,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . .'*~' . . . . . . . ./##/ . . . . . . ,/'============
========,/' . . . . .,/''*~-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./##/ . . . . . . ,/'======,-~*'¯*-,==
=======,/' . . . . .,/'===='*~-,_ . . . . . . . . . |##/ . . . . . .,/'======,/' . . . . |==
======='|, . . . .,/'======= ,/' . . . . . . . . . . ¯ . . . . . .''~ -,====,/' . . . . .,/'==
======= ''~-,-~'========,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'~ -,/'. . . . . .,/'===
===================,/'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/'====
==================,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,/'~-, . . . . . . . . . .,/'=====
=================,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,/'==='*~-, . . . . . .,/'======
================,/'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/'======='*~-, . .,/'=======
===============,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,/'===========¯¯========
==============,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,/'======================
=============,/'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/'======================
============,/' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '*~-,=====================
=,-~'¯¯¯'~-, == ,/' . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . '*~-,==================
,/' . . . . . . .''*~*'. . . . . . . . . ,/'='*~-,_ . . . . . . . . . . . '*~,================
'|, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/'===== '*~-, . . . . . . . . . . . '*~,=============
='~-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/'========= '*~-, . . . . . . . . . . |============
=== '*~-, . . . . . . . . . . .,/'============='| . . . . . . . . . ,/'============
====== '*~-, . . . . . . .,/'=============,/' . . . . . . . . ,/'=============
========= '*~-,___,,/'=============,/' . . . . . . . . .,/'==============
=============================,/' . . . . . . . . ,/'===============
============================,/' . . . . . . . . ,/'================
===========================,/' . . . . . . . . ,/'=================
==========================='|, . . . . . . . ,/'=================
============================'*~-,__,-~*'`===================

 

[Strong Badam]

but catcaru that's an arbitrary & subjective threshold who are you to determine that!!

 

[Cactuar]

but catcaru that's an arbitrary & subjective threshold who are you to determine that!!

My GOD you're RIGHT!

**

Edit: Man, cheerleader troll is ****ing awesome.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

i dig both of those

 

[DelxDoom]

i think it's a problem that the 5 neutral, 1 CP stage is between two metagames.

if the stagelist is to be based on reducing the impact of the stage on the matchup, the stagelist should be even smaller. I think Battlefield and Final Destination are the only stages without some sort of movement.

if the stagelist is to be based on having more stages so as to not get monotonous, to have an extra layer of strategy in counterpicking, and to get more color in our lives, there should be more than 6 stages. it also adds a worrisome detail of balancing stage-countering with stage-striking and etc.

a middle ground is hard to determine because you're trying to balance two different mindsets

 

[Kal]

Lolk. Good thing the Turnip Threshold has no place here.

How about this one. The "Forced Movement" Threshold. Any stage that forces you to move your character to avoid losing a stock or taking damage is illegal.

Glad to see I was right that you would dismiss anything anyone has to say which doesn't fall within your own poorly defined, biased as hell criteria.

but catcaru that's an arbitrary & subjective threshold who are you to determine that!!

It's nice when you agree with the majority. You can just circle-jerk and agree with what your friends have to say without providing any sort of real input.

 

[Strong Badam]

dat ad hominem
**

 

[Cactuar]

Lol Kal, we are just having fun. Lighten up.

Serious post: The methodology for creating the MBR Recommended Rule Set is already in place, and it doesn't include the nonsense you guys made up to cater to yourselves in the No Johns Ruleset thread. As I said before, your posts don't really have any relevance to the thread. I am more than willing to discuss things, as well as change the ruleset based on sufficient evidence presented, but to change a methodology behind creating the ruleset is to change the source and idea of that ruleset. The MBR at this point is purely focused on the competitive scene AS IS, not AS YOU WANT IT TO BE. We are changing the ruleset to be more appropriate for where the competitive scene is going. If you want to have a liberal stage list, you are more than welcome. That just isn't going to happen at the current nationals.

The community as a whole influences the metagame through its actions, not through our words. The threshold for what makes a stage legal honestly has nothing to do with random stage elements or whatever other nonsense you want to port over here. It is based on what has been seen to be fair or not. It is opinionated and biased, but that is how it has always been.

You want there to be these systematic mechanisms for removing stages. That is an opinion for what methodology to use. We tend to remove stages that everyone hates or that everyone believes is a negative influence on the outcomes of tournaments/matches. That is also an opinion. And one that heavily outweighs yours. While I may be the messenger, I didn't really write the message.

The community wants to see the top level players duking it out on as even of a playing field as possible. Does anyone really want to see Armada beat Mango because Mango got hit into the lava? No. They want to see Armada beat Mango because Armada outplayed him and ****ing earned it. When Peach players get a bomb kill randomly, the community doesn't say "Good **** Peach" (unless sarcastically), they say "That sucks dude". It has no place in competitive play, but we can't just remove Peach's bombs. We don't collectively spend so many thousands of dollars to travel to nationals just to watch people getting swatted around by random **** or stages that we all know to have janky bull****, just because it is arbitrarily determined by random dudes who don't have understanding of the current metagame to be under the Turnip Threshold.

You want that stuff, host your own tournaments. I'm sure the turnout will be great. In the meantime, we are going to play the way we want to.

 

[Archangel]

I like the ruleset. I just don't understand the point of keeping PS at this point. Might as well just make it a neutral and have players strike down to 2 stages then hit random. *shrugs*...

 

[Strong Badam]

The point of stage striking is to eliminate randomness factoring into deciding the first stage of the set. Doing that would defeat the purpose.

 

[Mike G]

Lol Kal, we are just having fun. Lighten up.

Serious post: The methodology for creating the MBR Recommended Rule Set is already in place, and it doesn't include the nonsense you guys made up to cater to yourselves in the No Johns Ruleset thread. As I said before, your posts don't really have any relevance to the thread. I am more than willing to discuss things, as well as change the ruleset based on sufficient evidence presented, but to change a methodology behind creating the ruleset is to change the source and idea of that ruleset. The MBR at this point is purely focused on the competitive scene AS IS, not AS YOU WANT IT TO BE. We are changing the ruleset to be more appropriate for where the competitive scene is going. If you want to have a liberal stage list, you are more than welcome. That just isn't going to happen at the current nationals.

The community as a whole influences the metagame through its actions, not through our words. The threshold for what makes a stage legal honestly has nothing to do with random stage elements or whatever other nonsense you want to port over here. It is based on what has been seen to be fair or not. It is opinionated and biased, but that is how it has always been.

You want there to be these systematic mechanisms for removing stages. That is an opinion for what methodology to use. We tend to remove stages that everyone hates or that everyone believes is a negative influence on the outcomes of tournaments/matches. That is also an opinion. And one that heavily outweighs yours. While I may be the messenger, I didn't really write the message.

The community wants to see the top level players duking it out on as even of a playing field as possible. Does anyone really want to see Armada beat Mango because Mango got hit into the lava? No. They want to see Armada beat Mango because Armada outplayed him and ****ing earned it. When Peach players get a bomb kill randomly, the community doesn't say "Good **** Peach" (unless sarcastically), they say "That sucks dude". It has no place in competitive play, but we can't just remove Peach's bombs. We don't collectively spend so many thousands of dollars to travel to nationals just to watch people getting swatted around by random **** or stages that we all know to have janky bull****, just because it is arbitrarily determined by random dudes who don't have understanding of the current metagame to be under the Turnip Threshold.

You want that stuff, host your own tournaments. I'm sure the turnout will be great. In the meantime, we are going to play the way we want to.

100% agree with this post and I'm a peach player. lol

 

[Nicknyte]

Ill post my actually response in a bit, but in short, can't say I love the fact there are less stages to counter, but I like knowing Brinstar is gone. I am a torn individual.

 

[Strife]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a mistake to give precedence to the people watching the matches over the people who are actually playing the game? Who cares what people want to see, isn't having a more fair and sensible rule set more important? And shouldn't the aim be to keep as much variety in the game as possible while still maintaining a fair ruleset.

Based on what Cactuar has been saying it sounds like they're throwing diversity to the wind, in addition to making the lower tiered characters even less viable.

 

[leffen]

Cactuar laying out the BUSINESS.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I like Cactuar's honesty.

No *****footing around.

We aren't banning stages anymore because they are broken, but because we don't like to play on them.

Its ****ed up from a purist standpoint, but if you look at what smash is as a whole, maybe its the most honest way to make a ruleset. Smash is DESIGNED so that the players pick the ruleset that they like most. So tournaments are now run by that same majoritarian ideal.

I don't know how I feel about it, but at least I understand where Cactus is coming from.

 

[JPOBS]

@ Kal: I really wish oyu would stop trying to argue the arbitrariness, thresholds, and all hat other stupid **** based on the FRAME WORK of the ruleset. For fks sake man, just post a actual amendment to the ruleset and post your reasoning behind why your amendment is worth making. Your arguing about a bunch of jargon and semantics instead of actually doing anything productive.

@Cactus: What was your response to Bones0 proposed ruleset change regarding strinking and DSR in his first post o nthe first page? I personally think its the best post in the thread so far.

 

[Kal]

Cactuar, it's nonsense that you claim that there is no democratic process, no voting, involved in creating this ruleset, then go on to explain that the ruleset intends to cater to the majority.

You want there to be these systematic mechanisms for removing stages. That is an opinion for what methodology to use. We tend to remove stages that everyone hates or that everyone believes is a negative influence on the outcomes of tournaments/matches. That is also an opinion. And one that heavily outweighs yours. While I may be the messenger, I didn't really write the message.

And you reiterate here that you're not doing anything to ensure a fair, reasonable ruleset. No, **** that. You're going to cater to what the majority wants.

And then you frame your point of view as the correct one by using vernacular (and it's not even subtle) that makes my view out to be ridiculous.

The community wants to see the top level players duking it out on as even of a playing field as possible. Does anyone really want to see Armada beat Mango because Mango got hit into the lava? No. They want to see Armada beat Mango because Armada outplayed him and ****ing earned it.

Clearly, I just don't want people who win to have ****ing earned it.

This is a total waste of time. You ask us to prove to you that stages are legitimate and not worth banning, but you want us to do it according to your standards, which are already defined in such a way as to ensure that these stages are banned. It's absurd.

@ Kal: I really wish oyu would stop trying to argue the arbitrariness, thresholds, and all hat other stupid **** based on the FRAME WORK of the ruleset. For fks sake man, just post a actual amendment to the ruleset and post your reasoning behind why your amendment is worth making. Your arguing about a bunch of jargon and semantics instead of actually doing anything productive.

It's fine that you don't like the semantical debate, and that you think the discussion is stupid. I don't really give a **** what you think. But you want me to explain to him why I think Brinstar and Mute City should be legal, when he only accepts arguments which qualify under his standards, which are already set up to ban these stages? **** that.

 

[Cactuar]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a mistake to give precedence to the people watching the matches over the people who are actually playing the game? Who cares what people want to see, isn't having a more fair and sensible rule set more important? And shouldn't the aim be to keep as much variety in the game as possible while still maintaining a fair ruleset.

Based on what Cactuar has been saying it sounds like they're throwing diversity to the wind, in addition to making the lower tiered characters even less viable.

It isn't just for the people watching the matches. Do you think Armada wants to win like that? To travel all this way just for the game to give him a freebie? What pride is there to be gained from winning a match because of **** you had nothing to do with?

There is no aim to keep variety in the game. The aim is to keep the spirit of competition alive and burning. I'm not a ****ing carebear. I'm not here to hold your hand while you play on Pokefloats. And for the record: removing the counterpicks benefits low tiers. (opinion)

 

[Cactuar]

@Kal: Your arguments are based on your idea of these thresholds and other things that are nonsensical to me. Saying that the stages fall under the Turnip Threshold has absolutely no weight to me. I care about effect. I don't cater to the masses, I cater to competitive play.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

There is no aim to keep variety in the game.

Omg Cactus I srsly love your honesty.

But on the for real, I'm sure you can understand why some people HATE that there isn't at least a consideration for keeping variety in the ruleset.

The aim is to keep the spirit of competition alive and burning. I'm not a ****ing carebear. I'm not here to hold your hand while you play on Pokefloats. And for the record: removing the counterpicks benefits low tiers. (opinion)

lol

But by this logic, why aren't we just doing Battlefield only?

Also, how do you expect people to argue for more stages when the response will always (honestly) be "your argument has some merit but nah **** that, we don't like playing on those jank stages anyway"

 

[DelxDoom]

why would you hold my hand when i play on pokefloats?


but more seriously,
did mango vs armada ever happen on brinstar anyway???

does removing brinstar and cruise actually improve competitive play? how?

do people skip over my posts because i don't run an avatar or quote people?

 

[Niko45]

The CPs will surely not be missed in the long run. Much like the ones that are already gone aren't missed.

 

[Archangel]

I see...well to me I'd say it would add more strategy to striking

 

[Strong Badam]

But on the for real, I'm sure you can understand why some people HATE that there isn't at least a consideration for keeping variety in the ruleset.

I dunno, we considered doing so from 2003-2008 and it didn't work and then finally the TOs of Genesis and Pound 4 whittled the gayness down and it was met with success, critical acclaim, and the most successful tournaments ever run. You do the math.

 

[Strife]

It isn't just for the people watching the matches. Do you think Armada wants to win like that? To travel all this way just for the game to give him a freebie? What pride is there to be gained from winning a match because of **** you had nothing to do with?

There is no aim to keep variety in the game. The aim is to keep the spirit of competition alive and burning. I'm not a ****ing carebear. I'm not here to hold your hand while you play on Pokefloats. And for the record: removing the counterpicks benefits low tiers. (opinion)

There is a good enough point there, there is a lot of people who are simply against playing on those stages.

With the above in mind though, and the more I read up on convos like this I'm led to believe that the majority of the people who are in favor of limiting the ruleset are those who stand the greatest chance of winnings.

I think if you were to take a look on the opinions of the better players and the opinions of the lesser players I think you'll find(and this is my opinion based on my own subjective experiences, I think it would be great someone actual performed a study of this sometime) that overwhelmingly there is a split, with the better players wanting a more conservative stages lists and the weaker players always wanting a more liberal stage list.

And therefore I think it's a mistake to say that the majority is in favor of a more conservative ruleset, it's is more than the most influential players in the community/members of the mbr are the ones who want the ruleset to be as conservative as possible and I just don't think it's right for everyone to conform to what the best players think is best, especially when there aim to maximize there chance of making money.

The reason people want stages like brinstar banned, is not because it's less enjoyable but because top players feel(and they're right probably) that they're chances of winning increase along with the decreasing amount influential variables. I feel like the Smash community really the only community that operates this way and it's too bad.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I am loving Cactuars pure views on the game. Pretty soon Fox and Falco will be the only characters allowed, with Falcon sometimes legal. That's the way the game should be played.

The current stagelist is very much so in favour of spacies, in comparison to the last list. I'm loving it. If a stage switches the matchup number from 6:4 to 3:7 or something like that, that's one janky stage and it's stupid. It would show much more skill from the player if they were to overcome that bad matchup, or instead decide it's not worth trying and switch characters to a more advantageous matchup.

I would argue in this stage list that PS become neutral, because I really don't see the reasoning for it being better than the reasoning for FD being counterpick.
But for now, the changes in the ruleset are 'shocking' enough.

 

[DelxDoom]

i just think there's no reason to stay at 6 stages instead of going straight to 2 or having a more liberal stagelist.

 

[JPOBS]

There is a good enough point there, there is a lot of people who are simply against playing on those stages.

With the above in mind though, and the more I read up on convos like this I'm led to believe that the majority of the people who are in favor of limiting the ruleset are those who stand the greatest chance of winnings.

I think if you were to take a look on the opinions of the better players and the opinions of the lesser players I think you'll find(and this is my opinion based on my own subjective experiences, I think it would be great someone actual performed a study of this sometime) that overwhelmingly there is a split, with the better players wanting a more conservative stages lists and the weaker players always wanting a more liberal stage list.

And therefore I think it's a mistake to say that the majority is in favor of a more conservative ruleset, it's is more than the most influential players in the community/members of the mbr are the ones who want the ruleset to be as conservative as possible and I just don't think it's right for everyone to conform to what the best players think is best, especially when there aim to maximize there chance of making money.

The reason people want stages like brinstar banned, is not because it's less enjoyable but because top players feel(and they're right probably) that they're chances of winning increase along with the decreasing amount influential variables. I feel like the Smash community really the only community that operates this way and it's too bad.

I think you are only partially right.

"weaker players" who are striving to be more competitive and raise in the ranks, I'm betting would all votes for a skimming of the stages the same way a top player would.

Its only the "new" players who argue for stage variety. Seriously, lower level players who are competitve still hate brinstar. Its only the real newbies who are really gun-ho about stage variety.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. My statement about variety is slightly exaggerated. We don't aim to keep it, but we also aren't aiming to remove it without reason.

 

[Strong Badam]

i just think there's no reason to stay at 6 stages instead of going straight to 2 or having a more liberal stagelist.

I just think there's no reason to go straight to 2 or have a more liberal stagelist instead of staying at 6 stages.

???

 

[Kal]

@Kal: Your arguments are based on your idea of these thresholds and other things that are nonsensical to me. Saying that the stages fall under the Turnip Threshold has absolutely no weight to me. I care about effect. I don't cater to the masses, I cater to competitive play.

My Threshold thing was really just made to a complaint Bones0 had about us not posting what rulesets we wanted to use. It was just posited as another methodology.

I have no problem with someone wanting to limit randomness, but you must acknowledge that some randomness is acceptable, otherwise we would ban Peach's turnip. It was you who tried to address Brinstar and Mute City according to the Threshold, and once you realized you were getting nowhere (perhaps due to my stubbornness), you chose to respond with nonsense about how the Threshold is unimportant here.

Well no ****. I had no plans on utilizing it. It was an example of a set of criteria. Does the MBR have any sort of fair criteria for banning anything? It appears to be "if enough people ***** about it, and it's not a character, ban it."

My original point was that these notions of "neutrality" and "player vs. player vs. stage" are nonsensical, and that a ruleset should be fair. It should not necessarily cater to the majority.

It's cute that you claim to cater to "competitive play", since these bans are nothing short of extreme scrubbiness. QQ more about janky bull ****, please, and give credit for a player's accomplishments to the stage.

You went on a short tirade about how people hate it when someone gets hit by lava and loses a stock. It's lame. What do you feel about chaingrabs on FD? People seem to hate that too. People also seem to prefer combos over gimps. Are we going to address that? No one wants to watch Jigglypuff play. What about that?

Yeah, let's totally subject our ruleset to the scrutiny of the players who don't respect the game in the first place. Brilliant.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I think you are only partially right.

"weaker players" who are striving to be more competitive and raise in the ranks, I'm betting would all votes for a skimming of the stages the same way a top player would.

Its only the "new" players who argue for stage variety. Seriously, lower level players who are competitve still hate brinstar. Its only the real newbies who are really gun-ho about stage variety.

Yeah man, me, Kal, and Kishprime are totally newschool lol.

And there are plenty of top players who want Brinstar to stay legal. They just don't happen to play Fox or Falco.

Vanz made a big rant about it a while ago for example..

 

[Cactuar]

@Kal: That you are comparing getting hit by lava and getting chaingrabbed on FD really shows that you and I play a different game. One is a punishment that is unearned (opinion), and the other is, despite being enabled by the stage, one that is executed entirely by the player.

I know full well the pain of being chaingrabbed for hours and hours on FD or gimped repeatedly at minimal percents. It still doesn't compare.

@TCB: I wouldn't use Vanz as your example...