Pokemon Stadium 2: Arguments
In favor of keeping PS2 legal:
1. Stages are, inherently, legal until proven anticompetitive.
If a stage cannot be proven anticompetitive to the momentary stand of the metagame, then it should be legal. If you want to go against this, you'd have to set up criteria for the stage to be legalized, at which point the discussion becomes ridiculous, as you can craft the criteria however you want, with little to no competitive reasoning behind it. Asking us to prove that the stage should not be banned is like asking us to prove you don't have superpowers, or asking us to prove that god doesn't exist-first of all we can't because it's completely impossible and/or arbitrary; second of all we don't have to because you are the ones making the claim, specifically "this stage is not competitive". Additionally, saying "we tried this stage and it was busted" is a very poor argument; as said, it has to be broken in the current metagame, not the May 2008 metagame.
This firmly lays the burden of proof on those who wish to ban the stage; i.e. "prove why this stage is broken". So:
Arguments in favor of banning PS2 and counter-arguments
1. "Changes in physics are anticompetitive and/or transform brawl into a completely different game".
The first half of this argument is commonly touted, but the first and the second parts essentially have the same backing; the physics changes make the game not worth playing competitively/something totally different.
The first half is the most legitimate one, but that says more about the second half. Claiming that the physics changes make the stage anticompetitive is very far away from the truth (I'm going to, for the heck of it, count electricity as a physics change). To look into why this is the case, you have to go deeper into the complaints.
1.a.) "Ice causes increased tripping, which messes with many characters' gameplay. Additionally, the sliding is bad for some reason."
First off, ice. Ice does not even remotely make the stage anticompetitive. You claim to be slipping and sliding around like a drunken idiot on a skating rink... That only happens if you
are an idiot. I'll be fair, it takes a little bit of skill to deal with. However, once you figure out how the lowered traction works, you learn that sliding smashes, tilts, and even jabs (I've found that MK's jab, after the slide you get from ending a dash on the ice, is in fact a fairly potent pressure tool that can combo into dsmash very easily due to it being harder to DI out of. The lowered traction really helps make approaches safe on shield, and tends towards more aggressive strategies. It's only really a problem if you haven't adapted to it.
As far as tripping goes... Yeah, the raised tripping does mess with the gameplay of some characters. HOWEVER!
First of all, tripping is a part of the game. Chars who rely on dashing a lot are already at a basic disadvantage due to their character's setup; the ice merely enhances this slightly.
Second of all, dashing becomes more powerful, if more risky while on the ice due to the massive slides.
Third of all, when you slip, you really go flying, making it far harder for the opponent to effectively punish you.
Fourthly and finally, the transformation lasts for 40 (or 80) seconds during the entire course of the game. This is a big deal, as it makes it essentially a non-issue almost no matter what change it is. A simple traction change and upping the trip rate? Does not make a difference.
1.b.) "Electricity leads to excessive ledgetrapping and extreme defensive positions"
The problem with this argument is not that its essence is wrong (indeed, electricity
does provide a very, very strong defensive position). It's that it's simply not enough to ban the stage on. Compare to Delfino which has several transformations where you will have trouble approaching like on Electricity (any part with a straight walkoff, most parts with walls, especially on the tower thingy...). Compare to PS1, which is far more infamous for its stalling; you CANNOT approach on fire or ground. Compare to Castle Siege with its temporary walkoff... The fact is, this transformation is up for 40 seconds, with a 50% chance of getting another 40 seconds of time. 40-80 seconds out of 420. Not a huge deal, especially when compared to other stages.
Regarding the issue of Ledgetrapping, people who claim this are, for the most part, wrong. Yes, you may be stuck on the ledge for a while. However, your options to prevent people from assailing you while you're there are raised (almost everything is safe because you just drop back off while invincible). It is a very strong stalling place, even if your planking isn't on par with, like, MK's.
1.b.s.) "Marth's dancing blade glitch on electricity has anything to do with the overall stage's legality"
Marth's dancing blade glitch, for those of you who don't know, happens whenever marth hits a ledge while moving and performing dancing blade. He flies off the side of the stage and dies. This is not an issue. Ganon and CF can't use their sideBs while under the stage... Yeah, okay, lousy comparison. However, even if dancing blade was all marth had going for him, him not being able to use it on one small portion of 1/8th or 1/16th of the approximate time span of the stage... Well, if that's you're argument, you've REALLY hit the bottom of the barrel.
1.c.) "Air leads to:
I-Anticomeptitive stalling
II-Ridiculously potent aggresive strategies
III-all-around anticomeptitiveness"
I. Well, it's kind of like with electricity, honestly. You have this part of the stage that you can stall quite effectively on (some chars, like fox and jiggs, have ridiculously powerful stalling possibilities; I won't deny this), but the tactic is not broken because it's not there long enough to matter. Stalling on the air transformation is not reason to ban the stage due to its inherent short duration. Furthermore, this explicitly clashes with point II, which appears fairly sensible as well.
II. Now this would be reasonable ground to ban the stage if it was really busted. While incredibly potent stalling over small periods of time are not broken due to the nature of stalling, short-term aggressive spurts can be a hassle. However, most chars can stall out the stage very effectively. A few chars, like Sheik, Ganon (yeah, ganon), and especially Sonic
can have very potent offensive games on the air transformation. However, extensive playtesting in varous regions have shown that these are not really as good as many thing. Furthermore, before
anyone mentions MK, MK is actually fairly limited by the lowered gravity; he dies far easier, has a terrible air speed, and ends up floating around a lot.
III. Define competitive? Why would this be anticompetitive? The person who is better will still win; it's just that extra criteria are added to "better". And this by
the game itself.
1.d.) "Overall, physics changes are anticompetitive."
Why should it be? Perhaps it is by your definition of competitive, but your definition is likely heavily flawed. Changing the physics of the game more often than not raises the skill level required of players and the skill sets needed to perform well. The better player still wins, the bar is merely raised slightly.
1.e.) "The physics changes transform (competitive) brawl into something else."
This is one of the most silly arguments against the stage. First of all, brawl, as is, contains these physics changes as a part of the stage. It contains Pokemon Stadium 2, therefore you can assume that it was intended for people to play on the stage. These physics changes are an internal part of the video game, and belong there with good reason.
Furthermore,
every stage transforms brawl into something else. Gameplay in virtually every matchup is extremely different even between FD and SV, which you can call two of the most similar stages in the game. This variance is one of the things that makes brawl a great game.
If you'd like to invoke the "competitive brawl" argument, see below.
2. "Overall, the stage lends to stalling too much to be realistically legal."
This argument was touted by Falln from AiB. (This, plus several other posts of his in the thread) He's probably the only person debating against the stage who even
pretended to have an idea what he was talking about, and instead of dealing with meta-issues such as "this stage isn't a part of 'competitive' brawl", he cut to actual problems that the stage could cause in competitive brawl. Specifically, he claimed that all 4 transformations, and with them about half of the stage's duration, was extremely conductive to stalling, and that this was reason enough to ban the stage.
Now, the real problem here is that the theory that Ice and Ground (hell, even electricity) lend themselves excessively to stalling has simply not been proven. The issue here is, as usual, bad theorycraft. The main issue with this argument appears when you point to places like Texas, Ohio, and Nova Scotia who run this stage without any problems. In fact, various people, including a top-3 player in NS who is also the main TO of the region (Raziek) and a fairly popular Australian TO (Shaya) have stepped up and claimed that this not only doesn't happen in their tournaments, but also that the stage is ridiculously balanced and does not lead to many Time-outs. There is no proof of this whatsoever, especially when you realize that Falln comes from a place where PS2 has been banned since the game came out.
From my experience, and from the experience of many other tournament players and TOs, this "issue" is like the Terror Babies scare-it just doesn't happen.
3. "This is a broken stage for MK"
LOL. First of all, no. Smashville is a stronger counterpick for metaknight. Yoshi's Island is a stronger counterpick for meta knight. PS2 is NOT a counterpick for MK, in fact, in a reasonably balanced starter list, he would either start there or strike it after removing some other stage he dislikes more. He is genuinely BAD on air (people keep saying "one tornado = death"; this trick DOES NOT WORK. Stop saying it does.), decent on ice, decent on electricity, and fairly good on ground. The overall setup is worse for him than SV and YI. It's not a good MK stage.
Second of all, is it better than RC? Brinstar? Yeah, didn't think so. MK being "too good" on stages has never stopped us before.
4. "PS2 Disrupts Normal Gameplay/Is bad for competitive brawl."
This is not an argument. This is a horror show.
First of all. "Normal" gameplay. You have no idea how sick I am of dealing with this argument. "Normal Gameplay". Ugh, it's disgusting. You should stop using that term right now, because "normal" gameplay is
not what you think it is. It's not "1v1 flat+plat no items". It's "Whatever the game demands of us at this moment". A stage
cannot interrupt normal gameplay because normal gameplay
becomes what that stage demands. If the stage demands you to play with lowered gravity, then that is normal gameplay on that stage. If the stage demands of you to learn how to deal with temporary walls and walkoffs, that is part of the normal gameplay on that stage. Saying that PS2 changes the "normal gameplay" is a senseless and valueless statement because every stage does. And even then, what is normal gameplay? 1v1 on FD with no random elements? Under what qualifications? FD is the only stage in the game with only one main platform, and is one of the 3 or 4 with no movements or hazards and one of the maybe 6 with no randomness in the entire game; why should this be the default mode of gameplay? The game certainly does not recommend it like that.
As swordgard said:
People don't seem to understand that sv/bf/fd is not "normal brawl", its "omg we want flat stages only brawl". Normal brawl actually includes the full stage list. The you remove whats broken. Not the other way around. If you start the other way around by adding stuff from nothing, then you can add any rules to balance the game because from the beginning you decided you are making your own version of the game, not trying to play the actual game you were provided with.
Because it's how "competitive" brawl is built? "Competitive brawl" is a fully arbitrary term. You could do 4-way free-for-alls and call it "Competitive brawl". If you want to give this term
any value, you have to provide reasonable criteria for it. Like, for example, "the most consistent, skill-intensive version of brawl". And no matter what definition, you're going to have trouble keeping it reasonable as a THE competitive version of the game and excluding PS2. Why would you ever want to if you're looking to maximize the skill required? Compared to many other stages, PS2 is ridiculously consistent, fair, and advocated.
5. "I don't like the stage."
If you even have to consider this argument, then... well, I'm sorry, you're a scrub. There are serious problems with this argument, which I have gone over more than often enough. The main issues with it are that you can justify banning
anything this way with enough support, and that the competitive version of the game should not care what you like, only what is most competitive. Would the game be a more competitive game if we banned FD? Because I want FD banned. Yeah, let's ban FD.
Not liking something is a terrible reason to ban something. If you are a TO and all of your players object to the stage, try to warm them up to it by showing them this list. Remind them that banning the stage is scrubby, and that in general there is no reason to do so. Try to convince them, show them this thread and others.
Further reading material:
http://allisbrawl.com/forum/topic.aspx?id=159692&page=1 <- Me arguing for it in the wifi ladder
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285744 <- Thread going in depth about the mechanics of the stage, plus further debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3PgqzTBaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbel7gLfJY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVTP2z1Oz1Y
^three matches by top players in nova scotia on PS2
Here ya go ADHD.