Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
was wondering what that number was lol, ya i think i can.
yeah so this is an "old" facebook group. the new ones are a little different, the biggest difference for me is the chat feature, where you can talk to everyone who's online that's in the group in real time. you can come back and read through the chat later too.
hey, are you the guy living with anthony nguyen?
Yup, that's me. How did you know?
i think i asked him who he was living with and he mentioned you played smash or something, i can't remember. but anyway, i'm pretty good friends with anthony so i think i'll be over at the VIP a lot. we should play!
Yeah, definitely! I'm still pretty bad at this game, so don't expect too much haha.
It's probably true that the more meetings we have, the lower our average attendance will be. But, it's not necessarily true that any of our meetings will be worse off for it. That is, if we were to have four meetings rather than two, I would not expect the turnout to be worse at all four than the two meetings we would have had. In fact, I would expect the turnout to be the same for at least two of these meetings.
Member fees are fine, but I don't personally care either way if we have snacks.
I don't think taking a cut from a really small tournament is a good idea. However, I like the idea for any tournament where we expect a turnout of more than 20 players. I think that the cut should go towards a pot bonus for a national tournament. I'm not a fan of the "fly that national player over here" idea, because it feels too risky and somewhat wasteful. It also feels like there is no fair way to decide whom we should bring.
As long as people don't act like ****ing *** holes, I don't mind running events. Basically, don't call me a tyrant and accuse me of being unwilling to change my mind on stage bans when I obviously am plenty open minded, having moved Jungle Japes and Green Greens to the banned stage list due to convincing arguments from Xelic and Edgar. And, while I don't want to start a debate here, I'm really not ok with people pushing their personal preferences and trying to disguise them as "a different standard." That is my fundamental problem with what happened at NSIC.
Scrubbiness is independent of skill. I've met plenty of scrubs who are good at smash. If, for example, you drop your main because you think he's too easy to get good with, then you're a scrub. But you can still be good at the game.
Island camping, combined with falling apples and blocks, as well as the absurdly low ceiling, is what convinced me to ban Green Greens. Jungle Japes was a combination of things, of which island camping was a factor. However, the camping has not, as far as I've seen, been shown to be severe enough to warrant a ban. Keep in mind that there is also significant potential for camping on any stage with three platforms, and that this sort of camping is acceptable, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of players who resort to this tactic.
How does it fall apart because there's a different standard, in a different country? Your obnoxious rhetoric of my argument "falling apart" is only that; there is no content to this argument you've provided. I don't think you even understood the paragraph fully in which I mentioned the decade during which these stages were legal: it is clear that I used this fact to indicate that the sudden change in the stage's legality is an indication of the reasons for which the stage is banned being arbitrary. I'm not advocating that the stage remain legal because it has in the past.
As I've mentioned before, this standard is arbitrary. If I were to say that "I personally adhere to the standard that characters should not have projectiles," and proceeded to ban Fox, Falco, Sheik, Peach, etc., would anyone agree?
And similarly, there has been no valid argument made which suggests that, when these stages are left unbanned, the game is any worse off. It's incredibly unfair to force other people to play by your arbitrary standard.
Keep in mind that "neutral" is just a word, not suggesting any real standard of gameplay. Historically, the neutral stages arose as a result of our stagestrike system, and because they appeared to be the most "fair" stages (and I put "fair" in quotes here to emphasize that it's not really any fairer) in that no characters had any significant advantages on them. However, with a stage-strike system, calling them neutral is silly.
I'm not ok with Falco. Do I feel that he is so broken that you can't play Melee with him? Not necessarily, but I do feel that this kind of gameplay is not fit for competitive Melee.
No one will deny that there is no 100% objective way to determine a ruleset, save for "anything goes." However, it's undeniable that the standard of not banning anything until it's proven to be broken is, in a very real sense, "more objective" than your standard, which is to ban stages you have a personal distaste for.
There were, conversely, several people in agreement with my ruleset. DoH, and most of Houston, liked the stage list. So did King Mosquito, SoS, and Hylian. Several players, at the very least, told me that they had no problem with it. The most vocal people are always those who dissent, so of course it appeared as though I was telling the majority to **** off (which we agree is not necessarily a bad thing to do; we shouldn't just pander to whatever the majority wants). But, in reality, the stage-list issue was, at worst, a bit undesirable for most smashers.
As I mentioned before, "neutral" is just a word. Even if it implies a standard (which I doubt; I sincerely think the term arose from the stage-strike system), that does not suggest that the standard is worth keeping.
Look, I'm not saying that they can't have input, or that we should ignore what they say. But their opinions mandate nothing by just the virtue of their skill. If they want to make a ruleset, they need to provide more than just their personal preferences.
You're arguing semantics. Yes, it's a standard I prefer, because it's more objective than yours. No, there's no way to objectively define what's necessarily broken, hence there is a grey area. But the premise here is that, until we can reach a conclusion about whether something is broken (and I am certain that you've reached no such conclusion with stages like Mute City), we avoid banning things.
You're reiterating the same argument here. The stages are listed as neutral primarily because there is little deviation in how well characters do: most match-ups won't change fundamentally from neutral stage to neutral stage. Again, this is no reason to give them special privilege, or to ban other stages, because the notion that these stages are more "fair" (which is fundamentally why these stages are listed as "neutral") is erroneous.
It's not a counter example. It's applying your argument to my opinion of Falco to show you how absurd your argument is.
Please don't equate my standard with yours. It's bull ****. Yes, there is leeway as to whether something is broken, but that does not render the entire premise arbitrary. We don't just go around choosing haphazardly which stages we consider broken. There is argument and debate; it is not arbitrary.
Maybe you can stop trying to push a stage list you can only justify with "this is how I like to play?" You've spent this entire discussion pushing this premise that our "standards" are equally valid (rather, equally arbitrary) when in fact mine tries to respect that every player deserves the right to play the game the way he sees fit, and tries not to limit what other players can do based on an arbitrary preference for how the game "should" be played.
First of all, you need to keep in mind that it's not our responsibility to try and balance the roster. You don't ban stages in the interest of balancing the game. Moreover, banning stages like Brinstar and Mute City just serves to cement the power of the already incredible characters; Fox doesn't need Green Greens or Jungle Japes to survive, but Peach has an intensely difficult time dealing with Fox without Mute City or Brinstar. While this doesn't necessarily prove anything about whether the MBR ruleset makes the game more balanced, that's actually the point I'm trying to push here: whether a stagelist is "fair" in that sense is a complex issue, and is incredibly difficult to determine.Though I'm aware that nobody in our scene uses low tiers in tournament, I think that the MBR ruleset makes these characters just slightly more viable.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
Yes, because this has been my entire argument from the start. The current dispute is that I don't think that the line for "broken" in actuality any less arbitrary than the line drawn for what is "standard". I'm sorry if presenting my point this way was incredibly insulting. It really wasn't meant to be.
Here, you establish a standard, which you later go on to retcon as somehow simply being a different application of my standard.
Here, you get caught up on the word neutral, and go into a semantical rant in which you imply that the word attached to it somehow solidifies your standard, when the issue being debated is about what the standard should be.
Here you imply that my stance demands a completely objective perspective, when in fact it simply wants one as objective as possible, while maintaining a degree of fairness.
Here you equate our debate on what standards should be had with a point of view on whether a standard is "right or wrong."
Do you honestly expect anything but for me to act the way I do? If you've ever seen me debate with Edgar or José, do you ever see me react this way? The point José made about the low tiers being more viable on the MBR stagelist is almost completely unjustified, and yet I did not refer to his argument as absurd, or ridiculous, or ignorant, or insulting. I addressed him directly because he was not acting like a pompous ****. Don't make me out to be the bad guy here; even if I argue in certain ways, your arguments are just as bad. The fact is that you're so convinced in my wickedness that you aren't even taking the time to look at your own methodology of arguing.
And how do you respond to this post? You ask me a single question in an attempt to trap me into agreeing with you. You don't even address all of the points I've made.
