The "turnip threshold"

[Hax]

It's definitely possible to keep track of the cloud, at least at key points. It's not like you have to grind through the RNG algorithm. You don't have to be a computer, although you may have to be a musician.

The issue is that people feel like it should be standard to be negligent towards timer specifics in Yoshi's Story since it is not necessary to take it into consideration in other stages that lack time-dependent specifics. It itches when people call the position of an object random when its position is linearly related to time.

i'm not calling randall random. i'm calling it random due to human error, which is impossible to completely eliminate. therefore it will always cause variance to some degree. this is factual. and due to its small size, how often its completely off camera, the suddenness with which it can become relevant, its occasional placing directly next to the ledges, and its ability to interrupt spikes, this variance is unacceptably high.

throw in shy guys for more variance, a slanted ledge, and a stage size that prohibits movement, and youve got a ****ty stage

If counterpicking a stage from 50-50 to 60-40 doesn't make any competitive sense, then neither does counterpicking a character from a 50-50 matchup to a 60-40 matchup. The point of being to counterpick stages is that so that the match-up has some malleability within the limits of a character.

If your reasoning is that people ought to have the most balanced match-up at all times, then from your reasoning follows that each specific character match-ups should be confined to the stages with the most balanced match-ups, which aren't always Battlefield. For instance, Marth vs YL should always take place in Dreamland 64, and such; any other stages that change the match-up weights would not make any competitive sense.

Battlefield is probably the most viable neutral stage in the game, but calling it always ideal is too arbitrary.

the first paragraph doesn't make sense, because characters are who you play as. characters are available to those who have learned them, stages are available to everyone. if someone took it up to learn a character with a 60-40 matchup vs their opponent's character, then by all means play that character. but Peach doesn't have to learn much to counterpick DL64 and suddenly live for way longer, Pikachu doesn't have to learn much to cp FD and chaingrab Falcon to death, etc. the benefits given to characters by non-Battlefield stages are usually large and always obvious, and aside from a few stage-specific tricks, don't require much learning/skill to utilize. they're just automatic benefits given to the person who lost the previous game, which doesn't make sense when you could've just played Battlefield, clearly the most neutral stage, all the way through.

the goal is not to make matchups 50-50, it's to play on a stage that
-doesn't artificially create large advantages for either character, allowing the true matchup to be played
-adds no variance (whether random, like PS transformations or pseudo-random, like randall) to the game, maximizing the chance that the best player wins

the only stage that does this is Battlefield

something that is coincidentally the result of Battlefield only is closer matchups across the board, which is great. it's not the reason i propose BF only, but it is the result of BF only and it makes the game better so i can only support BF only even more because of it. take your Y. Link vs Marth example. first of all, choosing a specific stage for each individual matchup to be played on is impossible for obvious reasons. second, the only stage we could even begin to consider having as the only stage is Battlefield. that means the only way DL64 is legal is if FoD, Yoshi's, FD, and Stadium are too. Young Link will get his **** packed in by Marth on FoD and Yoshi's. having DL64 as a good counterpick for YL doesn't make up for Yoshi's/FoD being exceptional counterpicks for Marth. Young Link is by far better off vs Marth fighting only on Battlefield. this is because top/high tiers are generally able to magnify the benefits of the counterpick stages way more than low tiers

even when Battlefield is a low tier's 2nd best stage, adding their best stage does not make up for adding 4 stages worse than Battlefield (this is a very common situation with low tier vs top tier)

 

[Ripple]

-doesn't artificially create large advantages for either character, allowing the true matchup to be played

this is where your argument is going to fall apart.

by limiting the number of stages, you aren't allowing a "true" MU to be played. Hypothetically, if marth destoyed a character on every stage BUT BF, is playing BF only really indicative of the MU? no, it isn't. you're doing exactly what you say we shouldn't do. you're artificially nerfing marth (or buffing another character) by saying BF only.

What's inherently wrong with Marth being really good on FD? because he can CG spacies? because he's the best on FD? so what? that's other characters' weaknesses . Marth on FD isn't degenerative gameplay because we've seen for years that he can lose on that stage.

Falcon get's CG on FD by pika? so? your character's weakness. deal with it, even if its a huge flaw you've chosen to deal with it. no one can complain about this, otherwise I'd be able to say that jiggs dies too fast on PS from fox upair.

 

[Theftz22]

first of all, choosing a specific stage for each individual matchup to be played on is impossible for obvious reasons.

That's wrong though, striking down and playing the rest of the set on that stage will naturally get the most fair stage for that matchup of all the legal stages.

Also, please don't make me quit luigi.

 

[thespymachine]

If there was one stage that we had to choose to play on, forever, BF would be the most balanced/neutral one. I think that's (sort of) what Hax is getting to, maybe.

 

[Ripple]

that completely rids 1 aspect of the our counter pick system.

 

[Jiv]

What you guys are forgetting are people like me who don't play competitively but watch all the time. I love stage counter picks and stuff, battlefield only would be boring as hell.

 

[thespymachine]

that completely rids 1 aspect of the our counter pick system.

It sure does, but if we had to choose one stage, that aspect wouldn't be needed. We'd be on the same CP system as SF. lol
I mean, I do think stage diversity is a key to Smash, but as far as what we have to choose from in Melee (and the imbalances in MUs), we really don't have much to choose from that isn't reaching or past the 'turnip threshold.'
SD Remix could fix this. So does PM.

What you guys are forgetting are people like me who don't play competitively but watch all the time. I love stage counter picks and stuff, battlefield only would be boring as hell.

Questions:
- Do you enjoy watching SF? All of their stages are the same, just different backgrounds. Would changing the color scheme and background of BF for every game do the trick to prevent your boredom? Like, 6 different versions of BF?
- Do you think that a competitive fighting game community's goal with their ruleset should be to please and entertain the spectators or for as good of a competitive environment as possible?

 

[Ripple]

It sure does, but if we had to choose one stage, that aspect wouldn't be needed. We'd be on the same CP system as SF.

correct me if I'm wrong but in SF, not only do you get to CP character, you get to CP ultra, which can make a difference. (or so I've heard).

 

[thespymachine]

correct me if I'm wrong but in SF, not only do you get to CP character, you get to CP ultra, which can make a difference. (or so I've heard).

You are correct.
Winner stays their character and ultra, loser can choose a different ultra or a different character (which comes with a different ultra). So, it's not completely like how Melee is now, but it's close. [The best analogy of this ruleset to Melee I can think of would be: you can choose a new stage, but stay the same characters; or when you choose a new character you have to choose a new stage. *shrug*]

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

i'm not calling randall random. i'm calling it random due to human error, which is impossible to completely eliminate. therefore it will always cause variance to some degree. this is factual. and due to its small size, how often its completely off camera, the suddenness with which it can become relevant, its occasional placing directly next to the ledges, and its ability to interrupt spikes, this variance is unacceptably high.

throw in shy guys for more variance, a slanted ledge, and a stage size that prohibits movement, and youve got a ****ty stage

All factors cause variance to some degree due to human error. You decided that it's all right to be negligent towards Randall and the slanted ledge, but not Battlefield's weird ledges, which are also prone to cause variance due to human error.

All stage sizes are limiting. Yoshi's Island's stage is only small relative to other stages. In any case, Final Destination would be the stage with the least variation due to human error since it's the most stripped down (no platforms).

I concede that Shy Guys can be pretty bad due to unexpected Shy Guy DI's. It sucks.

the first paragraph doesn't make sense, because characters are who you play as. characters are available to those who have learned them, stages are available to everyone. if someone took it up to learn a character with a 60-40 matchup vs their opponent's character, then by all means play that character. but Peach doesn't have to learn much to counterpick DL64 and suddenly live for way longer, Pikachu doesn't have to learn much to cp FD and chaingrab Falcon to death, etc. the benefits given to characters by non-Battlefield stages are usually large and always obvious, and aside from a few stage-specific tricks, don't require much learning/skill to utilize. they're just automatic benefits given to the person who lost the previous game, which doesn't make sense when you could've just played Battlefield, clearly the most neutral stage, all the way through.

the goal is not to make matchups 50-50, it's to play on a stage that
-doesn't artificially create large advantages for either character, allowing the true matchup to be played
-adds no variance (whether random, like PS transformations or pseudo-random, like randall) to the game, maximizing the chance that the best player wins

the only stage that does this is Battlefield

something that is coincidentally the result of Battlefield only is closer matchups across the board, which is great. it's not the reason i propose BF only, but it is the result of BF only and it makes the game better so i can only support BF only even more because of it. take your Y. Link vs Marth example. first of all, choosing a specific stage for each individual matchup to be played on is impossible for obvious reasons. second, the only stage we could even begin to consider having as the only stage is Battlefield. that means the only way DL64 is legal is if FoD, Yoshi's, FD, and Stadium are too. Young Link will get his **** packed in by Marth on FoD and Yoshi's. having DL64 as a good counterpick for YL doesn't make up for Yoshi's/FoD being exceptional counterpicks for Marth. Young Link is by far better off vs Marth fighting only on Battlefield. this is because top/high tiers are generally able to magnify the benefits of the counterpick stages way more than low tiers

even when Battlefield is a low tier's 2nd best stage, adding their best stage does not make up for adding 4 stages worse than Battlefield (this is a very common situation with low tier vs top tier)

Counterpicking to a different character that you know how to use is just getting an automatic advantage too. In both the case of the character counter-pick and the stage counter-pick, a gains has intrinsic, predetermined advantages over another. I don't see why the criteria that "it takes more effort to learn how to counter-pick with character than it does with stages" is necessarily relevant. I think that people post value in a character's matchup not being set in stone due to the stage-counterpick system. The stages could be considered an extension of the selected characters themselves.

You do have a point though; I do think that the counter-pick system benefiting more the winner of the first match and higher tiers is a problem though, and it's something that has been bothering me as well. As others have suggested, it seems that it is more reasonable to play the entire set in the stage of the first match when balance is the goal.

Your main argument suffers of a demarcation problem though. Your criteria for establishing Battlefield as catering towards 'the true matchup' seems arbitrary.



For the people interested in catering towards the most balanced match-ups, what would happen if:

-In a 2 out of 3, the winner of the first match wasn't allowed to counterpick if he lost the second match. Instead, the stage-striking process happened again for the final match.

-When a S-B tier character faces a C-G character, they're only allowed to strike 1 stage.

???

 

[thespymachine]

-In a 2 out of 3, the winner of the first match wasn't allowed to counterpick if he lost the second match. Instead, the stage-striking process happened again for the final match.

I like this, because I like the best of 7, no bans, first game stage strike, and game 7 stage strike ruleset. In a best of 3, it seems to hinder the winner of the first game a lot.

 

[McFlyy]

Host your own tournament where you boycott every stage that isn't Battlefield, and get other people who share your point of view to do the same.

It's literally the only way. To create a new tournament standard and build from the ground up.

That being said, not everyone enjoys just playing Battlefield. If this ever followed through, it would absolutely 100% tear the community in half, and that's the last thing we ought to do.

Wouldn't it be nifty if we had a tournament standard downloadable mod for melee that gives the players and tournament hosts a choice whether or not to turn map hazards on or off? Turning map hazards on or off could add to the whole counter pick experience. If it's the players choice to counter pick against the other player by turning map hazards on, then it's really not all that random anymore because it was chosen before the match even began to turn them on or off. Any randomness that happens during that match, whether it be bad or helpful, would be entirely the fault of the person who used it to counter pick, giving even more control to counter picking. It would actually be a lot of fun, imo

I don't know how such a system would work, nor am I implying we do it. It's just a thought I also think that things like DL wind, FoDs moving platforms, and YS shyguys all suck... but I love Randall, and I love the fact that I can use the sides of YS to wall jump with C. Falcon into a knee or a spike. It's just ****ing epic sometimes, and I'm just unwilling to part with that aspect of the game. That's what I think

 

[Hax]

forgot the whole "Battlefield allows true matchups to be played" point i made. i let my ulterior motive for Battlefield only, the fact that the game is more balanced when BF only, shine through. this is indeed the secondary reason i want BF only, and i personally think it's a very legitimate reason to have BF only, but my primary argument (that variance is unacceptable in competitive play) is easier to argue, the reason this thread was made, and imo sufficient to justify BF only, so i'll stick to that.

All factors cause variance to some degree due to human error. You decided that it's all right to be negligent towards Randall and the slanted ledge, but not Battlefield's weird ledges, which are also prone to cause variance due to human error.

no they don't. BF's ledges and Yoshi's slanted ledges may cause error, but neither involve luck whatsoever. both hazards are stagnant and have set ways to be worked around. BF's ledges aren't a problem whatsoever once you learn how to work around them. i called Yoshi's slanted ledges bad because they make waveland by the ledge stuff harder for no reason. they also make some edgeguards ridiculous. they're just jank in general, but they don't add luck at all.

because it is impossible for the human brain to calculate Randall's positioning down to the pixel at every millisecond of a game, he will always cause variance due to human error. when i say variance i mean luck. nobody will ever be able to calculate Randall's exact positioning every time they're edgeguarding and he's about to come out of the stage, every time they spike and he's on their side of the stage, etc. and so he will remain a massive luck factor at times. even if someone became exceptional at knowing where he was at all times, unless they were to have a success rate of being able to account for him 100% of the time (humanly impossible) then those few times where they did something hoping Randall wouldn't interfere = LUCK

this also incorrectly assumes that you can account for him at all times. often times, you can't. take the simplest example possible: Falco and Fox are on the left Yoshi's platform. Falco shines Fox at 90 and is going to dair him for a stock. this play would work 100% of the time on any other stage, but because Randall is on the left side of Yoshi's and would interrupt the spike, Falco has to opt for a reverse bair to set him up for an edgeguard on Fox instead.

how is this fair?

Counterpicking to a different character that you know how to use is just getting an automatic advantage too. In both the case of the character counter-pick and the stage counter-pick, a gains has intrinsic, predetermined advantages over another. I don't see why the criteria that "it takes more effort to learn how to counter-pick with character than it does with stages" is necessarily relevant. I think that people post value in a character's matchup not being set in stone due to the stage-counterpick system. The stages could be considered an extension of the selected characters themselves.

characters are the game. they're who you play as. say Falcon-Sheik is 40-60 but Falco-Sheik is 60-40. Falcon-Sheik may be 40-60 to me, but my Falco's matchup vs a good Sheik would be 5-95 because i don't know how to play the character. so no, cp'ing character is not the same as gaining an artificial advantage by having favorable terrain because you lost the last match.

in sports, when a team loses the first game of a series, i don't see the grass of an arena being changed so that it meshes better with the losing team's cleats. in every form of competition ever, the terrain remains the same throughout because it makes NO sense to give an artificial advantage to the person who lost the previous game.

similar sports example further explaining why counterpicking character isn't in the same boat as counterpicking stage: when the Knicks lose the first game of a series vs the Heat, the Knicks don't go "we counterpick Michael Jordan" because they don't have Michael Jordan.

You do have a point though; I do think that the counter-pick system benefiting more the winner of the first match and higher tiers is a problem though, and it's something that has been bothering me as well. As others have suggested, it seems that it is more reasonable to play the entire set in the stage of the first match when balance is the goal.

i support playing the entire set on the initial stage way more than i support the current ruleset. anything to get rid of counterpicking

For the people interested in catering towards the most balanced match-ups, what would happen if:

-In a 2 out of 3, the winner of the first match wasn't allowed to counterpick if he lost the second match. Instead, the stage-striking process happened again for the final match.

this is even worse than the current system. the current system ideally goes: neutral stage, stage that favors the loser of game 1, stage that favors the loser of game 2. this would go: neutral, stage that favors the loser of game 1, neutral. if you're going to favor the loser of game 1, you have to balance it out by favoring the loser of game 2.

-When a S-B tier character faces a C-G character, they're only allowed to strike 1 stage.

imo we should avoid implementing character-specific stuff like this. this would be yet another artificial advantage

either play the whole set on the first stage, or Battlefield only

 

[iRobinhoood]

I want to agree with everything Hax says on a competitive level. But deep down I enjoy playing on different stages because they look aesthetically pleasing and add some variance.

: confessionbear:

 

[Ripple]

so then if you're against all randomness Hax, why BF only? what's the problem with FD?

 

[clowsui]

hax if you're arguing for "play on the first stage only" then why should the stage list stay limited? curious.

 

[Bones0]

in sports, when a team loses the first game of a series, i don't see the grass of an arena being changed so that it meshes better with the losing team's cleats. in every form of competition ever, the terrain remains the same throughout because it makes NO sense to give an artificial advantage to the person who lost the previous game.

i support playing the entire set on the initial stage way more than i support the current ruleset. anything to get rid of counterpicking

either play the whole set on the first stage, or Battlefield only

First of all, precedence is horrible for this discussion because no other sports are comparable to Melee from a logistical point of view. Arenas don't change to suit the team that did worse in the first game of a series because it's simply not plausible to do so. If we had technology to instantly transform tennis courts from hard to clay to grass, maybe there would be rules in place allowing players to counterpick surfaces. There's simply no way to know, and just because it's not done in most sports doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in Melee.

Secondly, I would say it is a mistake to view counterpicks as inherently being in the advantage of the loser of game 1. What if we just had 5 stages and they were played in the same order for every set 100% of the time? Players would inevitably be seen as more or less powerful on certain stages like they are today, but it would no longer seem like an unfair advantage to be playing on a stage you are good on. Instead, it would just seem like that player properly prepared by making sure they were good at the matchup on that stage.

So with this perspective in mind, instead of viewing each individual game has having fair or unfair terrain, you could view the entire set as having the most fair terrain possible, just divided into 5 types. There is the platform-less terrain, the plenty-of-room terrain, the cramped-chaotic terrain, and the modest-in-most-categories terrain.

I would argue that testing both players' skills on ALL of these terrains provides a greater amount of feedback as to their skill level more than testing their skills on ANY ONE of those stages does. Certain players and characters may excel on the modest-in-most-categories terrain, but if they cannot adapt to the stages with more radical features, that is no less relevant in determining their skill than how they perform on the modest terrain.



Up to this point, my argument's been pretty boring, so I'd like to spice it up a bit.

Spoiler

That's right, the Pokemon League Challenge. What does it take to be a Pokemon Master? You must collect 8 badges from 8 elementally-radical gyms. Each one tests different virtues of the trainer and his Pokemon to ensure that they have skills suited to many terrains. Anyone can learn to beat a single gym and repeat it 8 times, but only a true trainer can master their craft on 8 separate terrains. That is essentially what counterpicks are. Each game is a different gym leader. Beating M2K on BF requires different skills from beating him on PS, and beating FD M2K might be the most challenging gym leader of all the M2Ks, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as fair as any other gym.

Anyone who played Pokemon: Yellow can tell you Brock was quite a pain in the *** considering it was only the first gym, unless you were a smartass ***** who just caught a Mankey and taught him Low Kick. By comparison, Misty's little fishies were absolute pushovers for the second gym (how do you like your sushi, *****?). Both gym battles, however, were perfectly fair. They simply varied for the purpose of testing different aspects of us as trainers, and that is why we must never get rid of counterpicks.

 

[Gea]

in sports, when a team loses the first game of a series, i don't see the grass of an arena being changed so that it meshes better with the losing team's cleats. in every form of competition ever, the terrain remains the same throughout because it makes NO sense to give an artificial advantage to the person who lost the previous game.

similar sports example further explaining why counterpicking character isn't in the same boat as counterpicking stage: when the Knicks lose the first game of a series vs the Heat, the Knicks don't go "we counterpick Michael Jordan" because they don't have Michael Jordan.

Come on now, you should know better than this. Venue is a much more difficult thing to change for a game, but sports arenas are taken into consideration. First homegame affects results. If they wanted a perfectly balanced venue wouldn't they take that into consideration and play on neutral ground? Then there's covered/indoor vs open stadiums. Some allow for more weather conditions than others. Then there's the fact that teams switch sides when indoor stadiums could easily just become the standard. They could eliminate lots of variances that change gameplay results but it is more or less considered either negligible or part of the game. I want to stress again that while mankind cannot control weather the same way we can control a stagelist, we can control venue for these sports which can shelter from unfavorable conditions and minimize the effects of weather upon the game, yet weather is considered an important aspect to play alongside of in many sports. Not all, but many.

Tennis is played wildly different based on the surface area the game is played on. Weather conditions affect golf quite a bit. The realm of "playability" within these sports allow for certain variables to change gameplay for the players and force them to play differently or adapt. Some players will be better under certain conditions than others.

So sure, counterpicking doesn't exist in the same way that it does in Smash, but it does exist in many other games. And those games have variables that smash does not. Games where maps have impact on gameplay can be quite competitive. Look at RTS games.

Also comparing athletes to characters in smash is flawed. Characters in our game are not players, they are tools to be used by the players. It is selecting a different style of car for a race, or a different kind of club for a shot, except of course you are directly competing with someone else's tool head to head.

But really, I have a question for you. What makes the advantage any more or less "artificial" than a character matchup? How is the lack of platforms helping Marth vs spacies any more artificial than spacies getting platforms to take away that risk? If we are testing nothing but playerskill, then shouldn't mirror matches be what we play? What if I play every character and my opponent refuses to ditto me? A double blind pick would give one person an advantage based on luck. One of those players was not asking for an advantage, he was asking for a level playing field.

 

[Bones0]

What if I play every character and my opponent refuses to ditto me? A double blind pick would give one person an advantage based on luck. One of those players was not asking for an advantage, he was asking for a level playing field.

Stuff like this is why I am a fanboy for so many of your posts.

 

[Gea]

F...fanboy?

 

[Hax]

so then if you're against all randomness Hax, why BF only? what's the problem with FD?

FD breaks the matchups where it introduces chaingrabs. it's a very fair stage in some matchups but it ruins/degenerates others. you also need an odd number of stages, and between BF/FD BF is the obvious choice

-

home games are necessary for money and marketing related reasons. sports leagues cannot afford to fly teams out to desolated stadiums where they can play under truly neutral conditions.

being able to adapt to conditions such as weather, a clay field, etc. is not the same as the example i gave: the grass of a field changing to favor one team's cleats over another's. if we all played the same character (or if the characters were all the people themselves, like in sports), changing the terrain would indeed be a test of one's ability to adapt. but because we don't, counterpicking just ends up being a significant advantage for the person who lost the previous game. Falcon cannot "adapt" to Pokemon Stadium as well as Fox can. Falco cannot "adapt" to DL64 as well as Jigglypuff or Peach can. counterpicking doesn't test your ability to adapt to conditions; a better analogy is making the grass favor one team's cleats over another's.

character matchups are indeed artificial; you don't use that to justify adding more artificial advantages on top. we have to deal with the artificial advantages present within matchups because characters are who you ****ing play as. there HAS to be some base level of artificial advantage simply because we don't all play the same character. i don't see how that justifies playing a neutral stage, then a stage that favors the loser of g1, then a stage that favors the loser of g2, rather than playing the neutral stage all the way through. especially when the 2 counterpicks almost never benefit either player equally, i.e. Fox gains WAY more from cp'ing me to Stadium than i gain from cp'ing him to Dreamland.

"our game isn't a perfect test of skill so let's use that to justify making it an even less perfect test of skill"

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Maybe I need to stop thinking like a physicist, but depending on the 'frame of reference', counterpicking the grass is virtually indistinguishable from counterpicking better cleats. Counterpicking stages is virtually indistinguishable from counterpicking into a different buffed version of the same character, like counterpicking ultras in SFIV.

The issue remains that you're trying to claim that one frame of reference is the "true objective" one without any solid reasoning, but just intuition and rhetoric (like "artificial" instead).

 

[Europhoria]

FD breaks the matchups where it introduces chaingrabs. it's a very fair stage in some matchups but it ruins/degenerates others.

Battlefield does this anyways

 

[ShrieK1295]

I don't care which is more fair between FD and BF. FD is gay and I don't want to play it. I don't want to play BF only either though because 1 stage sounds boring hell and that stage also has complete bull**** ledges.

 

[Life]

As I said earlier, "I got sick before Apex, therefore I lost to randomness"

Illnesses, disputes with significant others, general life-giving-lemons, changes in diet and sleep habits, and all sorts of unseen factors can add quite a bit of variance to results. If variance were truly unacceptable as Hax suggests, competitive games (traditional sports included) would be impossible. (I understand the point you're trying to make--that the existing stagelist contains too much--and disagree with that on account of the consistent tournament results put up by guys like Armada. You should just consider rewording that.)

It is extremely rare that randomness is *done well* in Smash (as I just ranted about over on Brawl's tier list thread), but it is not *inherently* a bad thing.

Spoiler

Yes I made a joke about my username/avatar, no better way to put that line, sorry

 

[Gea]

forgot the whole "Battlefield allows true matchups to be played" point i made. i let my ulterior motive for Battlefield only, the fact that the game is more balanced when BF only, shine through. this is indeed the secondary reason i want BF only, and i personally think it's a very legitimate reason to have BF only, but my primary argument (that variance is unacceptable in competitive play) is easier to argue, the reason this thread was made, and imo sufficient to justify BF only, so i'll stick to that.

being able to adapt to conditions such as weather, a clay field, etc. is not the same as the example i gave: the grass of a field changing to favor one team's cleats over another's. if we all played the same character (or if the characters were all the people themselves, like in sports), changing the terrain would indeed be a test of one's ability to adapt. but because we don't, counterpicking just ends up being a significant advantage for the person who lost the previous game.

Not to nitpick, but isn't this going straight back to what your other belief is, that you're attempting to more or less balance the game or normalize MUs by creating a BF only ruleset?

I mean ultimately it comes down to preference of values, and your values are different than mine. I don't think anyone here absolutely advocates every match having Flyguys determine the outcome, but the players that want the stagelist as is or even larger understand these risks and see them as "worth it" on the tradeoff that they prefer more stages as a test of skill between players rather than BF only.

And as much as you seem to dislike the chaingrabbing on FD, that is definitely an aspect of that character's MU on another. Neutering that purposefully by removing the stage is no different than banning the chaingrab because you believe it is over-centralizing. Whether you like it or not stages alter how matchups are played and Battlefield is no different. How do you objectively call it, or any stage for any MU the most fair? How do you prove that, anyways?

 

[Strong Badam]

I don't care which is more fair between FD and BF. FD is gay and I don't want to play it. I don't want to play BF only either though because 1 stage sounds boring hell and that stage also has complete bull**** ledges.

out of curiosity, do you main fox or falco?

 

[Life]

Another thing I don't get is the idea that chaingrabs are different from other combos.

 

[Dark Sonic]

You can counterpick stages in both tekken and soul calibur in addition to characters, and in both games stages can play a massive roll in matchups. The first stage is also random, there are no bans or stage striking of any sort.

Incidentally both games are played 2/3 with each game having 3/5 rounds.

Food for thought?

 

[Life]

A round in other games is basically a stock in Smash.

 

[ShrieK1295]

out of curiosity, do you main fox or falco?

I main Falcon. And ****ing battlefield, sometimes I don't grab the ledge, and I'm jumping early so it's not even sweet spotted

 

[Voltz]

The Turnip Glitch (my experiences,different accounts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJrSTP2XA2E&sns=em
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0YLmkvVsRo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[ph00tbag]

Another thing I don't get is the idea that chaingrabs are different from other combos.

I call them throw loops when talking about the game with people from the FGC.

 

[thespymachine]

I call them throw loops when talking about the game with people from the FGC.

I mean, CGs - for the most part - are throw loops. I like using FGC terms for smash.

Alucard (sp?) was on MioM, and said he explained Fox's shine to FGC players as a SRK that can be jump-cancelled on wiff.

 

[Gea]

Yeah, I want to hear more of his comparisons.

 

[odinNJ]

I wanna hear an analysis of what ironman would be like in melee.

but i dont think thatll happen

 

[Signia]

Randomness is a part of the game. It will always be a part of the game. There is literally no way to remove randomness from a game like Melee that focuses so hard on reading. Even if you're amazing at reading it's going to come down to whether you guessed right. Not to mention mango and his completely random techs.

That's not the same kind of random. True randomness doesn't exist, but it's word we use to describe something we can't reasonably expect to predict. Player decisions are far easier to predict than the output of the RNG algorithm, since it can be based off of SOMETHING rather than nothing.

You can counterpick stages in both tekken and soul calibur in addition to characters, and in both games stages can play a massive roll in matchups. The first stage is also random, there are no bans or stage striking of any sort.

Incidentally both games are played 2/3 with each game having 3/5 rounds.

Food for thought?

No, in Soul Calibur and Tekken you cannot counterpick stages. The first stage is random. After each match, the loser has the choice of remaining on the same stage or rolling another random stage.

 

[SpiderMad]

Playing one stage only is actually the PRIME example of showing the ability to adapt: to going completely insane.

 

[Battlecow]

Reading is not randomness, it's psychology. It is a skill and some people are better at it than others

mango's random thing is interesting but not optimal (I mean obv it's optimal for him but if he was great at calling where they were gonna stomp or w/e it'd be BETTER)

 

[Varist]

Randomness is a part of the game. It will always be a part of the game. There is literally no way to remove randomness from a game like Melee that focuses so hard on reading. Even if you're amazing at reading it's going to come down to whether you guessed right. Not to mention mango and his completely random techs.

Randall isn't random and you can even tell EXACTLY where he is by just looking at the clock. Dreamland wind and YS shy guys kind of suck, but in general they aren't that big of a deal. If you have a huge issue with them then strike the stage. That's why we have the stage striking system, so you don't have to deal with stuff you don't want to.
Unless it's a 3/5 game, if you get sent to a stage you don't like then it's because you let it happen. Don't go complaining about it IF YOU AGREED TO GO THERE.

hey bro, your logic sucks ****.

i want to go to battlefield, so we strike right mate

That piece of **** strikes battlefield, so I'm like well **** you I'm striking FD and Dreamland, that **** face strikes FoD so we go to Yoshi's

I didn't agree to Yoshi's

Why this ***** takin me to Yoshi's