Honestly, I have no idea what even brought on this topic. This was the general trend ALL OF BRAWL until, what, the Apex stagelist was released and he did that SOLELY FOR OOC COMPETITORS WHO AREN'T USED TO THE STAGES!!!! He didn't do it because they were both unfair/made MK too powerful, he just wanted the stage list to seem more appealing on people coming from overseas that simply weren't used to the stages, basically the same as the japanese getting 2 bans or whatever he did (I honestly don't remember the rule).
Anyway, to discuss the actual reasoning...RC/Brinstar are very aerial based stages, obviously. This just so happens to be the best type of stage for the best character: Metaknight. However, there are stages that do this for the opposite type of character: Grounded characters. FD/SV/Pictochat are characters like Diddys/Falcos/ICs strong stages, and they are synonomous to RC/Brinstar for MK. If you ban either RC/Brinstar, you must also limit the grounded stages, even though there are infinitely more of them (SV, FD, BF, Castle, Pictochat, PS1/2).
Um...I haven't read the whole thread so if you have any other questions just ask.
Its quite funny though because both japan and europe know that you just make metaknight as a character hard to deal with when you have both of stages legal and no ban.
So you're saying that you don't want static stages as neutrals, you want neutral stages as neutrals and you believe that static stages are generally more neutral than dynamic ones?
Final Destination quite obviously doesn't fit the bill.
The things is, I honestly feel FD is balanced in most matchups between tournament viable characters. The main exceptions would between higher tiers vs non tournament viable characters.
Most of the matchups that are THAT bad on FD the losing character only loses "slightly" better on SV/BF/PS1/ect i.e. Falco vs ZSS.
Maybe this is the case if you are only considering hardcore counter-picks, but if I bring up PS2 or Delfino, both stages that require a wide range of diverse skills that no static stage provides, why would you disagree?
I personally think PS2 isnt that bad, however I still havent seen it in enough tournament play yet where I feel comfortable having it as a starter considering how little its usage is even when it is legal.
Delfino is definitely not a neutral stage... I have literally been using it as my favorite CP since 2008 bar a few matchups and while, it's more even than persay Brinstar/RC it can get ugly there.
Matches can bar down to a lot of stage gimmicks, timing out, relying on wall infinites, and abusing the **** blaszones on some parts.
That's not how the burden of proof works. It's your job to prove that what I said is incorrect (as I am arguing for the game's default).
I could throw that "burden of proof" **** back at not only this post but half the things you say outside of this particular thread LOL but I'm going to actually just respond.
Besides that, the data is pretty obvious. Why is it that Donkey Kong, Samus and Jigglypuff don't win tournaments if there planking is so broken?
It isn't a matter of being healthy for the game, if you are going to introduce this rule to surgically limit a legit strategy that you don't like, I'd suggest also introducing a "No Blizzard against Ganondorf rule". Oh, also no Up Tilt against Jigglypuff, no Tornado against Donkey Kong, etc...
1. You're "double standard" is using all character specific and move specific examples. This is legitimately one universal tactic that bogs the game down.
2. Brawl will be boring. (that matters actually, lol we want sponsors and hype)
3. The risk reward ratio vs characters that can plank bar MK, is still obnoxiously stupid even if its not on some unbeatable ****. Approaching (something that finally is being incorporated a Lot more into brawls metagame Finally LOL) is beyond the most unsafe thing. Its probably better unless its at top level where you can assume your op will not make a mistake for 8 minutes to just wait and hope they **** up than do anything.
At a higher level, its essentially like, even if youre at low percents and the ops at high if you approach then you risk getting hit offstage or ledge trapped (2 of the most crappy positions in the game to be in and your opponent literally... does NO work for it). Theres no thought involved. The game will not revolve around skill.
What? Thinking in a way which will help the community in the long run? You realize how a metagame works right? Someone discovers a powerful tactic, someone else discovers a tactic to counter it, etc... If we just go around banning things with no justification the metagame won't develop properly and we'll be left with a less skill-based game.
Im specifically talking about the way you said you want to just shape peoples opinions, like yours or anyone elses is that much better than anothers- at least thats what it led on to me.
if thats even true the fact that you even think somebody has the authority to do that is awful lmao. also what the hell is the we in that post LMAO
Good job missing the point. I said that it isn't necessarily used to run the timer. You can't prove that people are planking just for a time-out
Exactly why theres a LGL? you can plank... you just cant stay there forever until the clock runs out.
The way of telling if something is stalling or not is asking yourself "Would people still do it if time wasn't a factor?".
Not indefinitely... because the match has to end. And nobody smart would approach someone in that position lmfao. Hence once again, making an LGL is probably the easiest way to deal with problem
Alright, let's say your right and it is impossible to objectively determine match-ups. It is now completely pointless to create a starter list, as the main point of it (even ground for game 1) is impossible to determine.
So... we would just end up striking from every legal stage, basically.
That actually wouldnt be so bad... if the end result wasnt worse because it would actually just be either
A. "hey these rules are stupid, wanna go SV?!!??"
-sure-
B."hey these rules are stupid, wanna go SV?!!??"
-nope-
*picks mk*
-fuuuu.....-
*picks mk*
Err, we aren't making it worse, we are keeping it how it is. If you think that is already bad, play a different game.
A. ummm who's we?
B. LMFAO at you telling me to play a different game. At least I actually put time into brawl, and the community before I talk about it.
C. What are you keeping it as? Legitimately, everyone including yourself is suggesting rule
changes because they are all
different based on your region.
-Hence the point of having a unity ruleset
-Hence the point of trying to form the most optimal and agreeable ruleset
I've already explained why surgically balancing the game is dumb.
Yet youre for a MK only LGL? isnt that surgical?
More is NOT always better though. that's all I have to really say about it, idc about anything else.