The 8-Bit Ultimatum - A Mario Bros. Overview

[Grim Tuesday]

So the game turns entire into abusing the stage as much as possible with the hazards it gives, instead of performing conflict with the opponent.

So we're playing Mario's Bros. not Smash.

Only if a player is stalling does the game become entirely centered around the hazards.

And that is not a legitimate argument, because:

(Battlefield)
"So the game turns into abusing the lack of hazards and the platforms as much as possible, instead of performing ground-based, item-assisted combat.

So we're playing Battlefield. not Smash.

Also, to add onto the Fox stalling issue:

If you want to prove that Fox can stall, play against a competent player using the strategy and film it. Alternatively, play me on Wi-Fi (yes, I know it is bad -_-). I believe we work under a "legal until proven banned" system, and I don't recall Mario Bros. EVER being proven banned by anyone who knew what they were doing (just to prove this point, I believe I was the first person to even work out the timing mechanics of the stage).

 

[Raziek]

And that is not a legitimate argument, because:

(Battlefield)
"So the game turns into abusing the lack of hazards and the platforms as much as possible, instead of performing ground-based, item-assisted combat.

So we're playing Battlefield. not Smash.

You can't be serious.

 

[MikeKirby]

And that is not a legitimate argument, because:

(Battlefield)
"So the game turns into abusing the lack of hazards and the platforms as much as possible, instead of performing ground-based, item-assisted combat.

So we're playing Battlefield. not Smash.

As soon as I read this all credibility you gave and any seconds thought's I gave this stage went out the window.

 

[T-block]

First off, let me say that I LOVE this thread, and I love this stage.

On Fox:
You seem to be claiming the opposing argument is that Fox can sit in his Reflector all day and be untouchable, which, as you've shown, is incorrect. However, Fox is still very very scary because of the threat of Reflector. I don't see how characters with a slow throwing animation (Game and Watch, for example) will be able to beat Fox when Fox can basically Reflect items thrown by these characters on reaction. Is Fox unbeatable on this stage? Probably not... I think having a glide toss of Diddy's length is an amazing tool on this stage that will allow characters to beat Fox. Glide toss towards him while throwing the item up, and if he uses Reflector, grab him and throw him backwards into the item. However, what Fox (and Falco) does is to severely skew the risk-reward ratio. In any matchup without reflectors, throwing an item is low risk high reward. Against Fox, throwing an item at him is high risk high reward, while he still maintains a low risk high reward. From that, it seems inevitable that Fox will come out on top after multiple exchanges.

Also, are you really arguing for this stage to have a place within the current counterpick system? For starters, I think this stage either punishes you hard, or allows your opponent to punish you really hard for a single mistake. In a situation like that, if we want consistent results, we will almost certainly need more than three stocks.

I agree that the walkoffs are not an issue on this stage, but the circle, while not as strong as on other stages, is still very strong. However, this is not an issue for doubles.

All this leads me to argue that 2v2 with 5+ stocks for each player is definitely competitive, in that it tests relevant skills and delivers consistent results. However, I cannot see it working within our current tournament system =\

 

[Alphicans]

Grim, I think you need to undestand there IS a certain mentality when it comes to smash. Stages like this just don't fall under the competitive smash bros mentality. You can argue that battlefield is just as over centralizing as the hazards in mario bros, and you'd be right. However, this doesn't make your point valid. How to use items is reserved for play with items on, not with items off. Items have been banned since brawl's release, and maybe you can find some argument to support them, but we don't want them. I find it kind of insulting that you'd even make this thread and call the community thick headed in any way, just becaues you disagree with the foundation of competitive smash. Host a tournament with this stage, and see how your attendance goes.

 

[BSP]

Grim, I like your arguing and research and all, but like others have said, the community will not accept this, logically proven ok or not.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I don't think this is something that can be proven to be logically good for competition imo.

Like his battlefield example is flawed, because while the platforms are used they aren't so distracting to gameplay that is thrown out the window to take items the take spawn and abuse them. When my friends have joked this stage is Mario Bros. added into Brawl, in many respects they aren't joking.

 

[T-block]

Guys, it's SUPER EASY to pop in here and say "community will never accept this even if you have valid points". How about we actually address the points for this stage instead? Forget about integrating this stage into the 3-stock bo3 CP system we have at the moment and ask the question: can this stage be competitive?

How to use items is reserved for play with items on, not with items off. Items have been banned since brawl's release, and maybe you can find some argument to support them, but we don't want them.

I'm gonna bring up the obvious point of Diddy, Peach and ZSS having items even with them turned off. It's important to remember why items are banned. Is it because using them requires skills that we do not wish to test? Most people would say no. Items are banned because they introduce a randomness factor that many thought was too large - one item can significantly change the match, and they spawn at random locations. Nobody says Diddy and ZSS should be banned because they have items because there's nothing random about them. Most agree that the randomness associated with Peach's turnips is not detrimental to the game either.

Does any of this apply to Mario Bros.? The OP has shown that the turtles and crabs is actually not as random as one would first believe. The comparison to Brawl item play is invalid.

I don't think this is something that can be proven to be logically good for competition imo.

Like his battlefield example is flawed, because while the platforms are used they aren't so distracting to gameplay that is thrown out the window to take items the take spawn and abuse them. When my friends have joked this stage is Mario Bros. added into Brawl, in many respects they aren't joking.

What is your definition of "competition" and "good for competition" then?

 

[Excellence]

Falco is impossible to beat here.

 

[Life]

Can't be much worse than Fox here. And as he's much slower he can't abuse the circle as well.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think that game play here is focused on the hazards more than the OP and others are giving it credit for. Lets compare this to Battlefield again.

What do the platforms on battlefield do. They provide positioning, additional options for recovery in some cases. What do the hazards do? They provide an always shield poking item that kills really early because of the close blastzones with combination of the knockback these items have and make gameplay almost entirely about who can abuse it better, it is a form of do it or you lose, which is bad for competitive play.

Then there is the circle camping issue, that even putting hazard down isn't going to stop some characters from doing it. Falco can pick off the hazards with lasers and Wario/Jigglypuff can just hop over them all they want because of their amazing air speed, or Sonic/Fox because their running speed is too good. Another do it or you lose tactic, which is also bad for competitive play.

Do battlefield's platforms force a do it or you lose or make it exceedingly difficult for the cast to stand a chance? No. Cause the platforms don't make characters nonviable or even the existence of a platform doesn't make gameplay worse. For the hazards, options against them are more limited unless you have a reflector.

Stages like this and Wario Ware changes how the game is played considerably, this isn't like playing on Cruise or FD, it's on an entirely different level of how it changes gameplay, in many cases for the bad.

 

[Life]

RR: Kindly don't compare this stage to WarioWare. WW actually doesn't change how the game is played that much. It is banned because it arbitrarily/randomly decides the winner most of the time. Mario Bros has very little randomness to it, and is usually banned for either the circle/walkoffs or because people can't deal with the items.

 

[\/aarsivius]

I'm changing my opinion.

STs and SCs = Items. Items are banned. That is more than enough to make it Counterpick/Banned. But, I am afraid, there is more issues.

Characters that are OP on this stage. Just about any character with projectile based attacks, which leads me to my next issue.

The ledge in the middle. Prime camping spot right there. I've seen, in a 2 v 2, the Red team sitting up there using Link and Toon Link and projectile spamming like crazy and the Blue team couldn't do jack.

Blast lines. It is way too easy for someone to go past the blast line accidentally, or sit at the edge of the screen and l/rgrab the opponent past the blast line.

Ugrab and dgrab spam. I think this one explains itself.

So, when we take into account what has been said, MB should be banned. This is what MB is: broken blast lines + camping ledge + ugrab and dgrab spam + STs and SCs = broken.

As RR said, stages like this change the game considerably. We are playing SSBB, not MB.

 

[T-block]

... make gameplay almost entirely about who can abuse it better, it is a form of do it or you lose, which is bad for competitive play.

You failed to provide a definition for "competitive play". Do-it-or-you-lose is not a quality that makes a stage bannable by itself. On the most basic level, all of Brawl is hit-your-opponent-or-you-lose. This do-it-or-you-lose is only a problem when the task required is trivial to perform. Running a circle involves having the faster character and running away for 8 minutes. We have decided that running away in this manner is NOT a skill we wish to test.

If we were to redefine what we wish to test to finding who is better at running away, stages with circles could very well be competitive. However, because running away is considered trivial, or at least very easy, we choose not to allow these stages, as disallowing them allows more interesting skills to be examined. I asked in the other thread what is meant by "degenerate". This is my definition of degenerate: when gameplay devolves such that we are testing a skill that is uninteresting to test.

So yes, it follows that you could say gameplay focused around items to this degree is not a skill we wish to test, but I will argue that it is NOT a trivial task, and actually does require skill. If two players were to play with 9 stocks per game on this stage (let's keep it to both players playing the same character for now, for simplicity), would you expect to be able to determine the "better" player? By "better" here, I mean there is someone who possesses skills that make them more likely to win at this game; whether those skills fall in line with your idea of Brawl is irrelevant. I would expect so.

You also missed the point of the Battlefield comparison (although I agree it's not the best). The comparison aimed to show exactly what I said in this post - that we DEFINE competition, and the "standard" definition of "competitive" is not the ONLY definition.

 

[Ghostbone]

I'm changing my opinion.

STs and SCs = Items. Items are banned. That is more than enough to make it Counterpick/Banned. But, I am afraid, there is more issues.

Characters that are OP on this stage. Just about any character with projectile based attacks, which leads me to my next issue.

The ledge in the middle. Prime camping spot right there. I've seen, in a 2 v 2, the Red team sitting up there using Link and Toon Link and projectile spamming like crazy and the Blue team couldn't do jack.

Blast lines. It is way too easy for someone to go past the blast line accidentally, or sit at the edge of the screen and l/rgrab the opponent past the blast line.

Ugrab and dgrab spam. I think this one explains itself.

So, when we take into account what has been said, MB should be banned. This is what MB is: broken blast lines + camping ledge + ugrab and dgrab spam + STs and SCs = broken.

As RR said, stages like this change the game considerably. We are playing SSBB, not MB.

Pretty much all of this was refuted in the OP just so you know.
Also, we don't ban items....
We turn them off because they add a massive randomness factor, if items spawned in the same places every time, in known time intervals, they wouldn't be banned.
Oh look, that's exactly what happens in Mario Bros.
Also, we don't ban diddy from using his bananas, we don't ban ZSS, we don't ban peach's down-b.

Just because the stage has items doesn't make it banned instantly.

Oh and as for your camping example, manipulation of the items and the POW block would overcome that.

And you're really suggesting we ban the stage because people have run off the side accidentally? All it takes is learning the positioning of the blast zone....

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Also, we don't ban items....
We turn them off because they add a massive randomness factor, if items spawned in the same places every time, in known time intervals, they wouldn't be banned.

Regarding the bold, the time intervals are fairly set, 20-25 seconds on low if my memory serves me right (with the very first spawn being after ~8 seconds iirc), so the only "massive randomness" are the spawn points... just saying.

 

[Crow!]

Interesting thread. I admit I wrote this stage off without giving it much of a chance. My statement from the BBR ruleset 3 discussion was simply:

This stage is all about manipulating the items. I've not played here enough to know for sure, but I suspect there are a lot of 0-100 matchups.

Adding this to my things to try to convince people to test with me in friendlies.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You failed to provide a definition for "competitive play". Do-it-or-you-lose is not a quality that makes a stage bannable by itself. On the most basic level, all of Brawl is hit-your-opponent-or-you-lose. This do-it-or-you-lose is only a problem when the task required is trivial to perform. Running a circle involves having the faster character and running away for 8 minutes. We have decided that running away in this manner is NOT a skill we wish to test.

If we were to redefine what we wish to test to finding who is better at running away, stages with circles could very well be competitive. However, because running away is considered trivial, or at least very easy, we choose not to allow these stages, as disallowing them allows more interesting skills to be examined. I asked in the other thread what is meant by "degenerate". This is my definition of degenerate: when gameplay devolves such that we are testing a skill that is uninteresting to test.

So yes, it follows that you could say gameplay focused around items to this degree is not a skill we wish to test, but I will argue that it is NOT a trivial task, and actually does require skill. If two players were to play with 9 stocks per game on this stage (let's keep it to both players playing the same character for now, for simplicity), would you expect to be able to determine the "better" player? By "better" here, I mean there is someone who possesses skills that make them more likely to win at this game; whether those skills fall in line with your idea of Brawl is irrelevant. I would expect so.

You also missed the point of the Battlefield comparison (although I agree it's not the best). The comparison aimed to show exactly what I said in this post - that we DEFINE competition, and the "standard" definition of "competitive" is not the ONLY definition.

I didn't really define it did I? woops, lol.

Anyways I agree with your definition. You kinda said what I was trying to say but a lot better worded.

The only real thing I disagree with is the fact the item usage on this stage is a good measure of the skills we are looking for. A lot of the skills are thrown out on this stage, because the hazards and circle camping forces game play to completely change.

 

[Pierce7d]

I'm going to be brief, and I'm not going to debate.

This is a competitive stage to my knowledge. This stage has not proven itself to be inherently broken (I used to play here a good bit). This stage should NOT be legal in a tournament, because it focuses on a different set of skills than most competitive Brawl players wish to test.

Playing on Mario Bros is nearly as foreign to typical competitive Smash as playing a coin battle. Does it potentially have competitive depth? Yes. Should it be in our tournaments, no.

I do agree that it would make a FABULOUS side event. In fact, I'll see about having it added in a side event in the tourney my crew mate is running in 2 weeks.

 

[AvaricePanda]

@OP and most of thread

Mario Bros. might be competitive and might not be broken (although I honestly really doubt this), sure, but tournament going players probably won't want to play it as a main event because it's completely different gameplay than what the rest of "competitive" brawl stages provide. Coin matches are probably competitive, items are probably competitive—a ton of things in this game are probably competitive, but people still don't play them honestly for no better reason than that people don't want to.

 

[T-block]

The only real thing I disagree with is the fact the item usage on this stage is a good measure of the skills we are looking for. A lot of the skills are thrown out on this stage, because the hazards and circle camping forces game play to completely change.

Oh don't get me wrong... I realize that this stage tests skills that don't fall in line with "traditional" play. I just wanted to make it clear that this stage can still be "competitive" in the explained sense of the word.

Now that we all agree this discussion is kinda boring =(

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Sorry I'm not closed minded, this at least showed me it would be a fun side tournament, and I agreed with you.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As soon as I read this all credibility you gave and any seconds thought's I gave this stage went out the window.

As soon as you judged an argument on the personality and opinions of the stating it, any seconds thought I gave to your opinion went out the window.

--------------------

I'll be making a video soon to show how easy the circle camping is to stop.

Oh, and I realise no one likes this stage and I can understand that as a reason not to legalize it. However, that mentality is pretty un-competitive. If no one liked Smashville, would we ban it?

I don't think anyone likes RR/RC in Melee, yet it is still legal and has been for years.

I'm in Kangaroo Island this week, so I don't have constant access to the internet. Don't be surprised if I don't respond to replies immediately.

 

[CR4SH]

If we legalize mario bros as a cp can we legalize cranium too?

Cause I mean, different games are fun.

 

[Ghostbone]

If we legalize mario bros as a cp can we legalize cranium too?

Cause I mean, different games are fun.

Mario Bros. is in brawl....
We're still playing brawl, we're still playing the same game.

 

[theunabletable]

Whoa, so I start playing on this stage more than usual today and find that this stage is as legit as Green Greens, and someone's JUST made a thread about it, too. I came to stage discussion to MAKE a thread on this stage just now, and found it was already here lol. Good ****.

Ok, really?

I'm all for theory, but anyone who actually plays this stage knows this is not a competitive stage. It's a different game entirely. Like, I don't even care how much you want to logically argue it out, and I'm aware of how hypocritical this is, but this is theory gone wrong, and is almost as bad as SuSa's "ban everything random" criteria.

Be realistic. Nobody is EVER going to attend a tournament with Mario Bros. Legal. Ever.

Except maybe to ridicule it.

You're a scrub TO for not running this at your tournaments. The majority is wrong, and this stage requires intense stage knowledge, and should be legal, so we should legalize it at tournaments and shove it down people's throats, even if the majority hate it.

That's how it's supposed to work, right, Raziek?

Anyways, I personally wouldn't want to play on this stage competitively if I have something more like... SV available, but it's definitely better than Green Greens lol. I mean if we're trying to be as objective as possible, this stage REALLY IS legit.

 

[CR4SH]

Mario Bros. is in brawl....
We're still playing brawl, we're still playing the same game.

Oh sweet! Can I cp coin match then? That's in brawl.

Or even better, a subspace emissary speedrun. I'm good at that, I doubt you'll win.

 

[T-block]

Whoa, so I start playing on this stage more than usual today and find that this stage is as legit as Green Greens, and someone's JUST made a thread about it, too. I came to stage discussion to MAKE a thread on this stage just now, and found it was already here lol. Good ****.

You're a scrub TO for not running this at your tournaments. The majority is wrong, and this stage requires intense stage knowledge, and should be legal, so we should legalize it at tournaments and shove it down people's throats, even if the majority hate it.

That's how it's supposed to work, right, Raziek?

Anyways, I personally wouldn't want to play on this stage competitively if I have something more like... SV available, but it's definitely better than Green Greens lol. I mean if we're trying to be as objective as possible, this stage REALLY IS legit.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic lol

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Whoa, so I start playing on this stage more than usual today and find that this stage is as legit as Green Greens, and someone's JUST made a thread about it, too. I came to stage discussion to MAKE a thread on this stage just now, and found it was already here lol. Good ****.

You're a scrub TO for not running this at your tournaments. The majority is wrong, and this stage requires intense stage knowledge, and should be legal, so we should legalize it at tournaments and shove it down people's throats, even if the majority hate it.

That's how it's supposed to work, right, Raziek?

Anyways, I personally wouldn't want to play on this stage competitively if I have something more like... SV available, but it's definitely better than Green Greens lol. I mean if we're trying to be as objective as possible, this stage REALLY IS legit.

I'm giving you forewarning right now, I may not mod the other thread, but I mod here.

Don't pull this crap here.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic lol

He was doing this in the ruleset thread before, a lot.

 

[T-block]

I'm just wondering because it probably is less random overall than Green Greens, and people get super hung up on randomness. I probably should have known, but w/e.

 

[Ghostbone]

Oh sweet! Can I cp coin match then? That's in brawl.

Or even better, a subspace emissary speedrun. I'm good at that, I doubt you'll win.

-sigh-

Read Susa and BPC's posts, this has already been refuted.

Basically, we have to be subjective with the game mode, we don't have to be with stages.
And we're out to test someone's ability in the vs mode of the game, not anything else.
(though HRC to determine ports would be cool)

 

[Nova]

(though HRC to determine ports would be cool)

Consider it done at the next Valhalla lul.
@ the rest of this topic.
cbf, no patience. <3

 

[SuSa]

I would always get port... :V Unless I went against the guy who has the world record for Ganon.. he beats me by 300~ feet.

Anyways... don't see why HRC should determine who gets an advantage in game. There's a reason it's left to 50/50 chance. <_<''


As far as this stage list goes. Co-signing with Pierce for the most part. Every single stage in this game can be seen as "competitive" - it just doesn't test the skills we want to test.

Circle camping in itself is damn competitive. A super high risk - high reward of "get the lead and keep it for 8 minutes." there's... really nothing wrong with circle camping.

It's just not the type of skill we want to test. (Who is better at getting the first hit and running away...) which more realistically turns into "Who has the faster character and can get the lead at least 1 time in 8 minutes?"

So now I ask....

Is item control to stop circle camping and forcing the game into a select minority of characters able to shark the right skill set we wish to test?

 

[Ghostbone]

Consider it done at the next Valhalla lul.
@ the rest of this topic.
cbf, no patience. <3

You're on, I'm getting that port 4 against your Snake

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think that game play here is focused on the hazards more than the OP and others are giving it credit for. Lets compare this to Battlefield again.

What do the platforms on battlefield do. They provide positioning, additional options for recovery in some cases. What do the hazards do? They provide an always shield poking item that kills really early because of the close blastzones with combination of the knockback these items have and make gameplay almost entirely about who can abuse it better, it is a form of do it or you lose, which is bad for competitive play.

Then there is the circle camping issue, that even putting hazard down isn't going to stop some characters from doing it. Falco can pick off the hazards with lasers and Wario/Jigglypuff can just hop over them all they want because of their amazing air speed, or Sonic/Fox because their running speed is too good. Another do it or you lose tactic, which is also bad for competitive play.

Do battlefield's platforms force a do it or you lose or make it exceedingly difficult for the cast to stand a chance? No. Cause the platforms don't make characters nonviable or even the existence of a platform doesn't make gameplay worse. For the hazards, options against them are more limited unless you have a reflector.

Stages like this and Wario Ware changes how the game is played considerably, this isn't like playing on Cruise or FD, it's on an entirely different level of how it changes gameplay, in many cases for the bad.

THIS.

The main argument I will bring against this stage is "mitigation of skill". Almost all counterpicks change the way we play the game. However, they change it slightly, or moderately.

This stage completely rewrites the playbook.

 

[\/aarsivius]

THIS.

The main argument I will bring against this stage is "mitigation of skill". Almost all counterpicks change the way we play the game. However, they change it slightly, or moderately.

This stage completely rewrites the playbook.

QFT. Just QFT.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The sad thing about this thread is that the only posts that are convincing are the ones saying this stage is a good stage...

As much as some people want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not true, a major part of Brawl's design is that every stage is substantially different from the others. The fundamental way you approach gameplay has to be deeply informed by what stage you are on. Let's take the match-up Mr. Game & Watch vs Ice Climbers:

On Battlefield I'm going to focus on mobility between the three platforms when I have a lead as G&W. ICs basically have to run after me with uairs and Blizzards, but they have to be really careful since I can reverse direction and nail them with an aerial if they get sloppy. If ICs have a lead, they're going to just pick a side platform to sit under and uair if I get on it, making them very hard to approach.

On Smashville I'm going to be riding the moving platform around a lot. ICs are going to wait for me to pass over them and try to snipe with uair. I'm going to try to use Fire to punish sloppy uairs on shield to pop them up into position for a nair. If they get a lead, I more or less have to give up the platform play entirely which makes it extremely hard to fight them.

On Rainbow Cruise I'm going to focus on mobility and evasiveness on the ship and try to tag them with aerials if they try to chase. I may try to take a defensive position on the back of the boat and try to parry approaches. When the ship moves to the carpet section, I'm going to try to stay low and see if I can really get at them with nairs. If I can force them into real danger, I'll try to start chasing from the right to see if I can get an early fair kill which can really seal the deal for me. On the third section, I'm going to definitely focus on keeping to the right of ICs, staying on the platforms a lot, and seeing if I can snipe at them with fairs that will be hard to respond to. It's far in my interest to create trap situations when the stage is about to move downward since they have twice as many things that could go wrong as I do, and even if I don't gimp outright, I can land some good hits in the air as they come down under pressure. ICs, on the other hand, are going to try to corner me on the ship, try to just avoid combat completely on the carpets since that section is so wildly bad for them, and try to stay close to me during the third section since that's a pretty good time to cg me.

On Frigate Orpheon I'm going to stay to the right of the stage on the first form and try to "hold" the seam between the main stage and the part that moves. The vertical differences that frequently arise here make it much harder than usual for ICs to move in, and if I get in a situation that's too dangerous, I can use Fire and then drift to the left platform. On the second form, I'm going to hang in the center and try to counter approaches as best I can; it's a hard position to approach if played right. If ICs take the lead and start holding positions far from the good positions for G&W on this stage, I'm going to try to get on the ledges and fight back from those. If ICs move away from the effective attack range of ledge play, they move into areas where G&W has a lot of strong counter-play with geography on both forms.

Yeah, there are a lot of common elements, but it doesn't change that from the start to finish everything I do in the match is focused on the geography. I'm trying to create advantageous positions and avoid disadvantageous ones. I may very well be trying to run the clock and looking for ways to make hitting me hard either through stationary defense or by mobility based running. Geography dictates what positions are advantageous and disadvantageous, and it also dictates what the options are to hold defenses or approach a defense. The natural design of stages in Brawl only serves to make this more prevalent as only three of them are non-interactive (all three of which are geographically strongly different from each other) and many stages have completely unique elements to them relative to all the other stages (stuff like Distant Planet's rain effect that just has no analogue on any other stage). The amount of competitive depth this adds to Brawl is insane. Brawl already had 666 character-character match-ups. Using a different stage in many ways makes it a new match-up so if you were to include all 42 stages uniquely you would be looking at a game with 27972 match-ups. If more people looked at banning a stage as banning 666 match-ups, maybe things would be looked at differently... No one would argue stuff like how X stage changes the game too much; that's just not a reasonable position. Changes it from what exactly? You can't find me two stages that are the same or even really all that similar in the first place so a stage being an "outlier" should hardly bother us.

Likewise, the fact that that stage so deeply informs our game plans always makes the idea of "fighting the stage" or "not focusing on your opponent" so silly. You're focusing on defeating your opponent always on any stage. It's not even theoretically possible to make a stage in which you don't focus on that. You make use of the stage, on every stage, to create positions of strength for yourself. If the presence of a stage hazard is part of what makes your position strong, what difference is it?

This stage isn't really very random at all. This has been well established. It has randomness, but it's within tightly bound parameters that allow any player with the minimal skill needed to cover multiple possibilities with single actions to handle it easily. Anyone arguing anything based on randomness is being kinda silly here. It is hazardous. It has predictable hazards. The odd equation of hazards to randomness is perhaps tripping some people up, but there's no logical correlation between random factors in matches and stage hazards. The mobility argument is similar. How does being faster help you if both sides know where you need to be well in advance? The argument literally doesn't make sense.

There are a few real issues here, but I don't think a single person has brought them up (the only "real" issue brought up is the appeal to numbers of how no one likes the stage, which is definitely true but really speaks badly of the community more than wins any argument over what is competitively sound). I see four real issues:

1. Mario Bros.' level of hazards combined with the teching prominence cause wild fluctuation in stock length, including the possibility of losing stocks super fast. You might make a mistake that causes you to die at 50% to a thrown item. The difference in play that causes that and that causes you to live to 200% is very small. This makes matches between similarly but not equally skilled players basically completely unpredictable in terms of result.

2. This is somewhat related to the previous point, but the ability to tech (which is continuous, not boolean) is tested more strongly here than on any other stage by a big margin (even stages like Luigi's Mansion focus on teching far less than this stage). This causes discrepencies in teching ability, an ability that is mostly tech skill, to be far more pronounced in match results. Game elements that cause tech skill to be significantly more pronounced in match results are really not good for the game, though the only reason people would agree with that is because I'm saying it about Mario Bros..

3. The unique attributes of the charcters are somewhat understated on Mario Bros.. Yeah Brawl has those 27972 match-ups, but a lot of them are very similar. Fox/Bowser/Temple and Fox/Ganon/Temple are essentially the same match-up, and anyone with a basic understanding of the game could understand why. Mario Bros. pushes this even more by making wide numbers of the character attributes just not that significant. For instance, G&W's usmash on most stages is an attribute that helps define what it means to play as him and against him. It's essentially not a move on Mario Bros.. In fact, G&W's only ground moves he should ever use on Mario Bros. are dsmash (near walk-offs in certain ambiguous situations), dtilt, a few other walk-off pressure situations, to flip hazards), and jab (exclusively to flip hazards). Most characters get similarly boiled down so the 666 match-ups that exist on Mario Bros., playable though they may be, represent a far less diverse and interesting slice of gameplay than the 666 match-ups belonging to really any other of the non-loop stages.

4. The nature of the gameplay on Mario Bros., partially because of the low lack of variety between match-ups, most likely makes the skill ceiling on the stage low enough to be realistically human achievable. That is, beyond a certain level of skill on Mario Bros., all players are likely essentially equal. That's not good for the game to have elements like that. BPC did bring up "mitigation of skill", but I don't think the Mario Bros. metagame is advanced enough for this to be a currently present factor so much as a very likely future factor so only partial credit for that one.

Of course, the stage hasn't been carefully tested, and it may have surprises in store. There's definitely a lot of reason to be suspicious, and when most people are ready to throw away proven quality stages like Norfair, I'm disinclined to be pushing for such a massive experiment with many ways to prove itelf a problem like Mario Bros.. It's just unfortunate that the arguments within this topic failed to be compelling, but then again, I think most people base their stage preferences more on, well preference and gut feelings than on analysis.

 

[\/aarsivius]

Of course, the stage hasn't been carefully tested, and it may have surprises in store.

Assuming you mean that it is a good stage (I couldn't really summarize your post), I disagree with all of your post except that. Just experiment it in a tournament and see if it goes well.

Also. not everybody decides on preference or gut feeling. I provided reasons in my post.

 

[ぱみゅ]

tl;dr "It's TOO overcetralizing, but I'm not sckeptical"

I love your wall o text's, AA!!

 

[Ghostbone]

Great Post

As for number 1, that is determined largely by your position on the stage, which is controllable by the players.

As for 2, every stage promotes different player abilities, Norfair tests your ability to deal with hazards, FD tests your ability to deal with a lack of platforms, and to an extent not getting caught under the lip. I'll admit though, Mario Bros. probably has the most stage specific skills of any stage in brawl.

As for 3, that's a legitimate concern, most characters options on this stage become very similar in regards to their kill options. Though I still believe there is enough diversity in other areas.

In regards to 4....i'm not sure what you're saying, that there's a definite best strategy, and once everyone learns that everyone will be of equal skill?
That may be a problem in the long run, but as of now, Grim as far as I know is the first person to even work out the specifics of the stage. It will still be a while before any completely dominant tactics emerge.

Which is what testing is needed for basically.