Wintropy
Peace and love and all that jazzmatazz~! <3
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2014
- Messages
- 10,032
- Location
- Here, there, who knows?
- NNID
- Winterwhite
- 3DS FC
- 1461-6253-6301
FIRE EM-BULL: A-FAKE-ENINGSo remember when I posted that Fake Chrom vine
I found the whole thing omg
God bless ProZD and his soul.
Still hysterical. :3
I'm of the "innocent until proven guilty" frame of mind.My local Smash scene had a discussion a while back about what our stage list should consist of. I love the idea of having as many fair stages as possible since seeing BF, FD, and Smashville gets old after a while. I like playing on Castle Siege, Delfino and Halberd. It's too bad about PS2 and Skyloft not being playable since those could be interesting stages to play on.
I want more stages to play on because I think someone from around here mentioned it, but if we start limiting stages then we start limiting the meta. Not being able to play on as many stages hampers the meta from growing as much as it could. I'm all for having a bigger stage list because I'd rather test a stage out long enough then rather ban stuff from the start. For instance with the Wuhu remark, I personally feel iffy about Wuhu but because I've only played some handful of matches on there I'm not sure if it could be a legit stage. I see the potential for it, but I also see some against it. But as I mentioned, I'd want to try it out now and have it taken off later than not have the chance to experience it in the first place. The game's almost a year old so we've got plenty of time to really go through some of these stages and test things out. Smashville gets old real fast.
Unless a stage is outright detrimental to competitive play (I am sorry, my beloved Pac-Land, that fate must keep us most wretchedly apart), I'm quite happy to get a feel for it before making an opinion.