The 8-Bit Ultimatum - A Mario Bros. Overview

[BarDulL]

 

[-LzR-]

This thread is going out of control. The OP is really good.
I think I will put this as a side event in case people agree with me about it.

 

[Raziek]

Yes, Mario Bros. can be competitive.

Competitive within the context of the REST of the game, and the skills (yes, even stage knowledge) we've decided to test? I doubt it.

The hazards are highly likely to be overcentralizing, and I'm willing to bet you wouldn't see consistent results unless you dramatically altered the set format. It also marginalizes skill in that one read is usually a stock, due to the sheer power of the hazards.

Yes, you have a case for it being competitive, but only IN AND OF ITSELF.

This stage is not competitive when set beside every other stage.

It'd be like if you had a triathlon with Running, Swimming, and Goat Milking.

Something here does not belong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@AA: Thread over, we can go home now. <3
@Raz: Dude, goat milking is totally a competitive sport in serbia.

 

[Life]

Mario Bros lends itself well to side-tournaments methinks, though I don't think people will react well if it was introduced suddenly into a main tournament.

10heylookIalreadysaidit

 

[DMG]

The overcentralization focus on manipulating hazards is strong enough to warrant the stage's removal from competitive play. Can we move on to something "better" like Greenhill Zone or Mansion? lol

 

[Dre89]

In a nutshell, a match is supposed to prove who the better player is. A beats B on every stage except this one, because there is an overcentralisation of this stage's gimmicks, and B is familiar with them. B beating A suggests that B is the better player, which is not the case.

Essentailly the argument "well a top player should have knowledge of the stage" doesn't change the fact that A is clearly vastly superior to B as a player, yet B won. The point is, this stage, moreso than other stages, sets up the possibility of the scenario where the lesser skilled player wins.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A is clearly vastly superior to B as a player under certain conditions. B is superior to A as a player in the condition of the stage being Mario Bros.

This is not really an argument for the legality of Mario Bros (which should be banned), but rather against your very bad way of thinking.

 

[-LzR-]

Dre... All that you said just doesn't apply to smash. A stage like FD removes all kind of skills that smash is about. Not that it's a bad stage, but FD IS NOT THE MOST COMPETITIVE STAGE IN THE GAME!!!

End

 

[Ghostbone]

Umm...why is winning on one stage more legitimate than another?
It's not, except in your mind where the only legitimate stages are one's that require very little stage knowledge.

 

[Dre89]

No, winning on ten stages is more legitimate than winning on one stage.

No stage will be totally fair due to character mechanics. But neutrals all replicate the same set of skills.

The point is this stage requires a set of skills so alternate that A could beat B on every stage except this one, which is not a fair reflection of who the better player is.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think it would be better to say his argument is that the stage gimmick is so over centralizing it's undermining player skill of the fundamentals on every other stage.

Dre... All that you said just doesn't apply to smash. A stage like FD removes all kind of skills that smash is about. Not that it's a bad stage, but FD IS NOT THE MOST COMPETITIVE STAGE IN THE GAME!!!

End

What skills? Jumping on a platform and stage adaption? These aren't necessities on every stage.

Nor is removing them make a stage less competitive or a worse stage.

 

[ぱみゅ]

@Dre:
That was a bad argument.

The necessary skills are different, but they are skills because they CAN be mastered. If player A lacks of them and lose in this stage because of that, is his fault completly.

 

[Ghostbone]

@Dre:
That was a bad argument.

The necessary skills are different, but they are skills because they CAN be mastered. If player A lacks of them and lose in this stage because of that, is his fault completly.

This, if a player loses to another player on this stage than that player is a worse player on this stage.
You can't claim they're a better player and just losing because of stage gimmicks when they have the same access to them as the other player.

 

[Dre89]

But if A wins on every other stage, then clearly A is the better player.

If winning on one stage means as much as winning on every other stage combined, then the criteria for competitiveness is too broad.

The fact that the above situation is possible with this stage suggests overcentralisation of the stage gimmicks.

It doesn't matter if it's masterable, plenty of things not in
current competitive play are masterable, they just require too much of a deviation from the core criteria of skill.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

But if A wins on every other stage, then clearly A is the better player.

If winning on one stage means as much as winning on every other stage combined, then the criteria for competitiveness is too broad.

The fact that the above situation is possible with this stage suggests overcentralisation of the stage gimmicks.

It doesn't matter if it's masterable, plenty of things not in
current competitive play are masterable, they just require too much of a deviation from the core criteria of skill.

Being better at every other skill doesn't make him the better player, winning makes him the better player. If a player doesn't know how to play on Smashville and his opponent counter-picks him there, HE DESERVES TO LOSE.

What exactly is the "core criteria of skill"?

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

Oh, and the general consensus seems to be that this stage should be banned because it tests a vastly different skill-set than every other stage.

From my personal play-testing, I disagree with this. It tests skill such as reaction time, technical skill, mind-gaming, spacing, approaching, retreating, baiting, stage control and many other skills that are tested on every stage.

Another argument I am seeing is that it makes punishing too simple so as to not properly determine who the more skilled player is. Again, from my experience, the better player still comes out on top, despite the ability to die at low percents.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yes they're the better player overall, but what if another player goes even with A on every other stage, but beats him on Mario Bros.? Are you saying that we shouldn't count that?

 

[DMG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ihlP50CLWk

 

[-LzR-]

The reason this won't get positive feedback is that no other stage is like this. Like playing Golf with tennis rackets would be competitive, but it's not golf anymore.

Nice example is nice.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The reason this won't get positive feedback is that no other stage is like this. Like playing Golf with tennis rackets would be competitive, but it's not golf anymore.

Nice example is nice.

From my personal play-testing, I disagree with this. It tests skill such as reaction time, technical skill, mind-gaming, spacing, approaching, retreating, baiting, stage control and many other skills that are tested on every stage.

Could someone provide examples of what vital skills are tested on every other stage EXCEPT Mario Bros?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Could someone provide examples of what vital skills are tested on every other stage EXCEPT Mario Bros?

I wouldn't say it removes them, more so forces much more of the game play to be about the stage gimmicks by a pretty large amount more than the other skills.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I wouldn't say it removes them, more so forces much more of the game play to be about the stage gimmicks by a pretty large amount more than the other skills.

So, the stage gimmicks promote the following skills pretty much: Throwing skill, dodging skill, catching skill, stage control, teching and mind-gaming (plays a large role in getting the hazards to hit).

And as I keep saying, the hazards aren't the entire focus. Normal combat still occurs.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So, the stage gimmicks promote the following skills pretty much: Throwing skill, dodging skill, catching skill, stage control, teching and mind-gaming (plays a large role in getting the hazards to hit).

And as I keep saying, the hazards aren't the entire focus. Normal combat still occurs.

While it isn't the entire forcus, a large portion of the match is going to be able abusing the hazards.

While the items aspects allow skill to be improve with item traits, it doesn't change the fact the game is being changed to something completely different with them to the point where normal combat is going to occur a lot less.

Competitive players are going to play to win, so they are going to go with the options that work. Having a projectile like the ones this stage offers is just eye candy to players. Players will play the game normally at the beginning, once they start forming at the top, that all stops. Players are going to aim to abuse it if they can, because it is one of the easiest ways to win on this stage.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Again, this is only speaking from my personal play-testing, but... The hazards aren't as over-centralizing as everyone here seems to think.

If I run up to my opponent and throw a hazard at them, they will catch it and throw it back.

If I do the same thing but also approach them with an attack, they may avoid the item but get hit by my attack, or vice versa.

Every match I've played on the stage has had a reasonable amount of combat for it not to be considered "a completely different game". I'm sure Ghostbone could vouch for this.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea definitely, the matches that didn't have much normal combat were the matches I lost badly due to trying to abuse certain things (such as circle camping), which basically shows that using normal combat along with the hazards is much more effective than with hazards alone.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I really encourage people to try the stage out themselves though, the more evidence we have for or against the stage the better.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea, I actually encourage people to try to find broken tactics on the stage, because if there's proof for the stage being broken then it's easily banned.

 

[GimR]

Whatever happened to making it as character vs. character as possible?

Grim you are da bess troll

 

[-LzR-]

This stage makes the game base around the stage. It's all about abusing the stage.
It's not like you abuse the flatness of FD as much as possible, it won't kill you, it's cannot be upgraded, you can't catch it either.

 

[Ghostbone]

How is it not character versus character?

It's one character using items and regular moves to beat another character using items and regular moves.....

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Whatever happened to making it as character vs. character as possible?

Grim you are da bess troll

What?

Character vs. character has never been the case.

It's more like: C+SvC+S.

This stage makes the game base around the stage. It's all about abusing the stage.
It's not like you abuse the flatness of FD as much as possible, it won't kill you, it's cannot be upgraded, you can't catch it either.

This is not reason to ban a stage unless,
a) It centralizes the game around an entirely different skill-set.

I can safely say from testing that this is not the case, having played with Apollo and Ghostbone on this stage, A LOT of ordinary combat.

b) It marginalizes skill by making the game too basic.

Again, not the case. Every player has multiple options all the time and it doesn't just become "lol throw the turtle over and over"

 

[Timic83]

i played this stage with a friend with quite a few chars

reflextors (FOX) are op
the game dosent feel like smash it feels like some bad mario party minigame with smash physics

im all for a liberal stagelist with distant, port, luigis and even summit but this stage is just too different

 

[Grim Tuesday]

1. Reflectors are not over-powered in my experience on this stage (which, I'm just going to assume considering all the work I've put into the OP, is more experience than you have). If you would like to prove me wrong, I'm always up for Wi-Fi (lol, I know) or next time we meet (either when I come to Melbourne, or when you come to SA)

2. Not feeling like Smash is not a reason for banning. Not testing the same skill-set that we want tested for competitive play, is. However (again, in my experience) that isn't the case. All of the standard skills tested on other stages are still tested on Mario Bros. to a reasonable extent.

3. My personal view on stages is: Very liberal w/o counter-picking, very conservative w/ counter-picking.

 

[-LzR-]

I will give it a try the next time I play smash. I will then give my analysis.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thankyou -LzR-.

If possible, it'd be great if you could get videos as well! :D

 

[-LzR-]

We can record stuff too. We in Finland are very open with stages, but Mario Bros. falls in a gray area. I doubt it will ever be legal, but that doesn't stop us from trying it out.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thanks!

I'd get videos myself, but the only recording software we have in my state is a hand-held camera, and that is used only for filming finals matches.

 

[-LzR-]

Many have legit recorders here. Real quality stuff. I just gotta see if I find anyone who is willing to play this stage with me. That happens to be the biggest problem.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well... I wish you the best of luck either way.

I'm sick of all the theory-crafting in this thread.

 

[Ghostbone]

Reflectors aren't overpowered considering they generally have quite a bit of end lag...which can be punished with any regular move.
Again, if you're only using the turtles/crabs you won't do as well as with 'regular' fighting.