And believe it or not, people are agreeing with me. Look, I know, in your views, FD is not a CP. Your views regarding starters are baseless and wrong. Please, tell me this: why is a stage that is:
-Drastically different from any other stage in the game
-A serious counterpick for half of the top tier characters
-banned in over 1/3rd of all MLG matches
Is a starter? Because it's static? Why? Tell me: what makes a stage a good starter? Please, tell me this, and then back it up somehow. Just something to convince me that a stage that is incredibly unique, a huge counterpick, and one of the most-banned stages ever should be a starter. It may seem like something you can dismiss out of hand... It isn't. Simply assuming "FD is a legit starter" is not a reasonable position to assume out of hand, because there's very, very little reason to hold it any more. FD is a hardcore counterpick.
ugh okay I have some freetime I might as well answer this, I may not reply to whatever over-the-top, ridiculous points you give in return, though. idk how much patience I have
1st point: That's an argument for it being banned, not for it being a counterpick instead of a starter.
And it's not drastically different. You know, your points might seem less strong if you wouldn't use such emphasis words. Very, drastically, serious, etc are all hella hyperbole when used in the contexts that you tend to use them, especially since you're trying to be so objective and ****.
2nd point: That's an argument for it being banned, again. Those things that are sometimes counterpicks are what your strikes are for. We get an abundance of strikes for those stages that happen to be bad in the matchup we're playing!
3rd: I thought it was just under 1/3rd.... I thought it was like 30%. Anyways, again, this is another argument related to trying to get the stage outright banned, not removed from the starter list. Now I'm sure you'll object to this, and say something without thinking like "Why? If it's unfair overall, then it's obviously unfair in a starter list!"
We get an abundance of strikes, unless we're playing with a 3 stage starter list (which would be awesome. And, hell, if we were using a 3 stage starter list, having FD off wouldn't be so bad, since you'd be able to guarantee a more pvp-based stage first round if you wanted). Our strikes are there to get rid of those stages that are unusually bad in the matchup we're playing, or that we're personally uncomfortable with.
Before you say "LOL SCRUBBY DUMMY WE SHOULD ADD RC THEN", take into account that balance of matchups may not be what we're looking for in a starter list. We may be looking for stages in the first round that ARE static. So that it's a more pvp environment, where it's to see who has more of a mastery of the basics that are present on every stage.
It'd be subjective to state that FD simply feels like a balanced player-vs-player stage in some matchups (not all). It'd be subjective to state that FD is obviously a starter because it's just a pvp fight.
Being initially subjective, though, doesn't make an idea inherently wrong. Sometimes common sense is based on a lot more than you might think after a post-intial, surface-level, "objective", inspection.
FD feeling neutral might be subjective. But stating that environments moving around, being forced off of your current ground, having options limited depending on how long you've been in a certain location, having options limited completely randomly, can take away from a player's focus on the pvp aspects of the game is pretty objective, no?
Sometimes we can't come up with an objective way of stating why we subjectively feel one way. Sometimes it can take a really long time, or possibly never even happen. Just because the theory of gravity hadn't been established didn't mean that it was subjective to think that its effects existed, and because it was subjective it was inherently wrong.
We can't necessarily give you a completely objective criteria for why FD is a better starter than RC, but most tourney-goers can probably subjectively state that RC as a starter, with its justification being that FD is a starter, is just plain ********, regardless of if some theorycrafters state it's "balanced". It doesn't feel balanced when you play it, and that's for a million reasons that I could never even begin to tell you all of them. I could give you a few if you want, but you'd likely say that it's subjective to some extent, and throw it away, even though it's impossible to not be subjective to some extent.
Reasons for why it should be a starter:
1) It provides a pure pvp experience, comparable to battlefield, and for the most part smashville (maybe a few other stages).
2) It adds diversity to the starter list, and it's the only thing that could be considered largely diverse, that would also have a huge focus on a pure pvp experience.
Due to its diversity (lack of platforms), it can make it "gimmicky", and unfair to a certain extent in matchups where platforms play an important role in the matchup on every other stage (it's a subjective thing to decide at what point platforms play too crucial of a role for it to be considered "unfair" or "gimmicky", but then again every stage that's different at all has this same issue to some extent. So I think for this we can probably use common sense to decide).
All-in-all, I think that's enough to make it a perfectly fine starter, since it can be striked in the matchups it's unfair in.
