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.
What? No, that's simply not the case. A stage being "drastically different" doesn't disqualify it as competitive, but it seems like most of the people coming up to bat for the stage would be swayed by this argument. In truth, that FD is different from other stages makes
absolutely no difference for either its ability to be a starter or a counterpick. Or at least it shouldn't make a difference.
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!
What? "This stage is very polar in many matchups" is a
ban argument? No, it isn't. I'm sorry, I can't quite go into the exact proof here, because this statement is just
so monumentally wrong. Case in point: RC, Brinstar, Frigate, Picto... You're just really wrong.
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.
Two. You get to strike TWO stages in this starter list. That's not an abundance. That's a bare minimum. At the same time, characters like Falco, Diddy, and ICs have three really good stages. CAN YOU SEE HOW THIS MIGHT BE A PROBLEM? Again, lemme make the comparison:
Brinstar/Frigate/Delfino/FD/BF
This stagelist. "Don't like Brinstar?
Just strike it". Of course, what that statement ignores is that characters like MK get not just Brinstar with this list, but 2 other
really good stages. And you can't strike all three of them. This is the problem with the current 5-starter stagelist; FD is simply the easiest part to attack. So how do you fix a problem like this? Well, one of two ways...
Frigate/Delfino/BF/SV/PS1
SO MUCH BETTER! LOOK AT THAT! All of a sudden you'll usually end up on BF, SV, or PS1. You
can strike all of the heavily aerial-orientated stages!
Brinstar/Frigate/Delfino/BF/SV/PS1/LC
Again, even better! More options, more strikes, and you can still strike that ****!
Now replace BF and SV in those lists with any viable stages, and replace Brinstar, Frigate, and Delfino with BF/SV/FD. Seeing where I'm coming from now? If not, have you ever played against a good ICs main?
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.
Hoo boy. You seem to be missing the underlying issue with this statement on several levels. First of all, if the balance of matchups is now what you're looking for, then stage striking is a gigantic waste of time. The entire idea behind it is more or less "find a balanced stage for round one". If you're going to cut that out, you might as well just random select between FD and BF. Secondly... PvP environment and mastery of the basics is present almost everywhere. I could
easily name 7 stages where these skills are absolutely necessary:
FD, BF, SV, PS1, PS2, YI, CS
All that the stages beyond the first three do is
add more. They don't take away from the basics in the slightest. They just demand that you are a capable player in more than one respect. And we can't do this on
game one? The most important game of the set? Justification plz.
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?
It can. Which means you have to
get better to focus on the PvP aspects. And here's the disconnect: you think that a stage moving around ruins PvP on it. This is
testably wrong in
most cases. There are only a few stages I can name that truly hurt PvP elements. If you're spending half the match dodging around hazards on PS1/PS2, then guess what:
you're probably doing it wrong.
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.
K. Debate 101. "What makes a good Axiom". An Axiom is more or less an assumption that you presuppose to the beginning of the argument to make a starting ground for the argument itself. What makes a good axiom? Basically anything that doesn't lead to a ludicrous result. For example, assuming that "depth = competitiveness" is a good assumption, because rejecting this axiom will lead to clearly ridiculous results, such as "chess is as competitive as tic-tac-toe" being a valid statement. And when choosing the Axioms... That's where we must end subjectivity. We choose the basis for our entire argumentation, and then we work with logic and evidence from there. What's your assumption, though? That subjective opinions matter? That's ridiculous; I have some friends here who I can use to prove that Temple is the best stage in the game.
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).
Okay, let's clear this up once and for all... This is the skill required on FD/BF:
PPPPPPPPPPPPvPPPPPPPPPPPP
This is the skill required on PS1/PS2/CS/YI:
SSSPPPPPPPPPPPPvPPPPPPPPPPPPSSS
Your "pure PvP experience"? Get out of here with it. It's not a positive aspect, and it destroys the very intention of stage striking. Stage striking presupposes that you are interested in going to a stage that is more or less
neutral in round one. That's the entire point. Furthermore, the PvP is still there, it just has more other skills there.
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.
Except that, get this, it's not that simple. See above. Furthermore, "diversity" is one thing, it's just that
the same characters that love FD usually love most of the rest of the starter list too.
