Why do people think FD should be a CP?

[Zatchiel]

I just showed you why its unbalanced and polarizing. It has the most unwinnable matchups of any stages. And you support it above, say, Lylat or Halberd as a balanced stage?

You don't get what i am saying.
It's completely neutral in the fact that there are no obstacles to overcome, no hazards, nothing besides a straight path that can allow CGs and Infinites to be used without caution.
Say someplace like Battlefield, where everyone with a exceptional if not indescribable up air has a keen advantage. Every time you land above the opponent you are at a strong disadvantage. Nothing about FD is disadvantageous to you unless you are very heavy and cannot escape chain-grabs with ease.
I'm speaking in the line of Falco vs Falcon, where Falco completely destroys on this stage due to nothing to hold back his chain-grabs and lasers, allowing him to pressure the hell out of his opponents.

BUT IT'S A FLAT STAGE SO IT'S PERFECT AND IS THE MOST FAIR STAGE

This is true.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You don't get what i am saying.
It's completely neutral in the fact that there are no obstacles to overcome, no hazards, nothing besides a straight path that can allow CGs and Infinites to be used without caution.
Say someplace like Battlefield, where everyone with a exceptional if not indescribable up air has a keen advantage. Every time you land above the opponent you are at a strong disadvantage. Nothing about FD is disadvantageous to you unless you are very heavy and cannot escape chain-grabs with ease.
I'm speaking in the line of Falco vs Falcon, where Falco completely destroys on this stage due to nothing to hold back his chain-grabs and lasers, allowing him to pressure the hell out of his opponents.



This is true.

Oh I see. You're appealing to "FD does not screw with gameplay at all". Go play street fighter, you lazy scrub.

 

[Zatchiel]

Oh I see. You're appealing to "FD does not screw with gameplay at all". Go play street fighter, you lazy scrub.

Glad you finally see where i'm getting at, lol
Why do you think it should be a CP?


Edit: GGs, i win.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Glad you finally see where i'm getting at, lol
Why do you think it should be a CP?


Edit: GGs, i win.

I don't. Read again. I think it should be a CP if you only have 3-7 stages in your starter list, because it is obscenely polarizing in favor of grounded characters, and a top counterpick for most of them. It forces a strike in the same way brinstar would force a strike against MK. If you want FD on the starter list, you'd better have brinstar or RC in there too.

 

[DMG]

The difference is that those matchup skews happen with nothing else in play but the characters and a flat non interacting stage. RC/Brinstar gets those skews from having stage aspects like Sharking or Hazards or moving field of play.

If characters are good on stages that do nothing, so be it. I don't think our goal is to balance the stage list by saying "Oh well this stage does nothing and favors X, we need to add in stage that does everything and favors Y to make it fair". THAT is catering to those characters because you want them to have a better chance at winning Game 1 instead of just having the stages that don't do much be the ones allowed for Game 1.

If ground characters do better with a stage list that puts emphasis on Player vs Player for Game 1, lucky them.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, but you're assuming that the perfectly flat stage doesn't skew matchups. Or, to be more clear about it, that character variability does not matter. When you claim that FD skews nothing, you are assuming that it is the "default state"; that is, the stage that gives default state for fighting. That is just as legitimate as me saying that, say, Mario Bros is the stage that provides said default state, because there is no single stage that offers a default for smash. In fact, I'd argue that claiming that FD is the stage that gives us that state is ridiculously faulty, mostly because it's literally the polar end of the "interactivity" spectrum. I'd say stages that come closer would be Halberd, Frigate, or Pictochat; the stages that are near the middle of the spectrum.

Seeing as it is completely subjective what the default state is, that concept should be dropped.

 

[Hobobloke]

The difference is that those matchup skews happen with nothing else in play but the characters and a flat non interacting stage. RC/Brinstar gets those skews from having stage aspects like Sharking or Hazards or moving field of play.

If characters are good on stages that do nothing, so be it. I don't think our goal is to balance the stage list by saying "Oh well this stage does nothing and favors X, we need to add in stage that does everything and favors Y to make it fair". THAT is catering to those characters because you want them to have a better chance at winning Game 1 instead of just having the stages that don't do much be the ones allowed for Game 1.

If ground characters do better with a stage list that puts emphasis on Player vs Player for Game 1, lucky them.

The things is we are meant to cater to all characters to give them a even chance of winning game 1, the first game is meant to be played on the least skewing stages possible in the matchup.

 

[Zatchiel]

If FD becomes a CP, we all know where Falco, ICs, and MK are going when they lose, right? Either way, FD is squeezing in somewhere, so would you rather it be banned?

 

[BSP]

FD doesn't need to be banned. I think the BBR did a decent job with their starter list. If FD is a starter, an aerial stage needs to be included as well.

 

[Zatchiel]

Starter list is A-Ok by me, just some CPs look a bit questionable :S

@BPC: I know FD is a polarized stage, and in no way disadvantageous to chars with good stage control, but if it's a CP, either way, FD is stll there and it's usable. The only way it's going is by ban.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well duh. It's usable... as their counterpick stage, and even then only if you're too stupid to use your stage ban on it. It's like Brinstar for MK or Temple (if it was legal, just randomly) for fox: you will never play there, but it being on the list means you have to give up a strike, or a stage ban, or something. It doesn't matter directly if Temple is legal; if your opponent is counterpicking a speedster, you will ban it. It matters indirectly because that's your stage ban gone.
That's the same way FD matters. It matters because it soaks up a strike or a stage ban. If FD is in the starter list, then you have a stage that many characters absolutely need to strike, and a stage that will automatically be stricken and banned in many matchups. Is it fair that only one subset of characters has this? No way. Especially when the "automatically strike for the matchup" on the other end is Lylat Cruise or Battlefield (by this I mean that the falco/ics don't really have a stage like FD for the matchup that they would automatically strike and ban). It is in fact just as bad as having Brinstar on the starter list. And after all, it's pretty easy to see why in a 5-starter list with BF, FD, SV, LC, and YI(B), you can replace LC with Brinstar and a lot of matchups don't change at all-it gets "automatically stricken" instead of LC (which goes the same way).

The goal is to have enough starter stages so that each character will hate the result, regardless of who they are, as long as the player struck in a manner that wasn't stupid. In a stagelist where you each have 2 strikes, if you love 3 of the stages, then you're pretty much set.

 

[Zatchiel]

I don't follow. You want FD to be a CP because it's too polarized, and most high tiers are **** on this stage. I think SV is the same, just with a random floating platform, which lets you get shield poked by chars with broken Uairs. BF is the same way as SV, but to the extreme; 3 platforms, Diagonal Ledges(For passing through with some attacks), and a very low blast line above the top platform.
FD is straight, BF is straight, SV is straight.
FD has no platforms whatsoever, BF has 3, SV has 1.(Not counting the actual stage)
If you're saying that FD is too straightforward, you should look at some other neutrals, i don't see a bizarre difference by too many of them :/

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Did you just claim that BF and SV are as polar as FD?

 

[Zatchiel]

I said i don't see much of a difference among SV, FD, and BF outside of platforms.

When you are grounded on SV, BF, or FD, and you get walking CGd by a Falco, it doesn't end any shorter of a time between them. Taking the distance into account, Falco can still Pivot CG you to 45% on all three, no hassle. Once you take the platforms into consideration, however, there is an extreme difference among all 3.
From what i'm getting, you're saying FD is TOO neutral. Am i correct?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If by neutral you mean non-interactive, then no. That's the cause of the problems, not the problems themselves.

 

[Zatchiel]

I'm seeing FD as a comepletely flat, neutral stage that has nothing to distort the gameplay of a character in any way possible. HOWEVER, it can make you play differently than someplace like BF. Marth plays MUCH differently on BF than on FD.
Is this the point you are getting at? If so, i have somewhat more of a shift in your opinion, but i still have my few standing reasons.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay two main things.

1. You're assuming that FD doesn't distort the gameplay, or more specifically that no interference leads to the least distorted gameplay. This is an unrealistic assumption to hold when you recognize that FD is the only stage with that quality, and it's one of maybe 4? stages that have no moving parts or hazards. Who's to say that the least distorted gameplay doesn't happen on, say, PTAD? Or a custom stage with static hazards? Or Pictochat? They're all equally valid assumptions, meaning they should not be used because they're really hardly valid at all.
2. The problem with FD is quite simply that some characters get an obscene advantage from it, and others get a ridiculous disadvantage from it.
Check out these two posts:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10803065&postcount=1918 <- ICs on FD are as strong as MK on Brinstar
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10832913&postcount=2056 <- 9-starter is still good for ground chars

And you'll see what I mean.

 

[Zatchiel]

..........

Where did is say playing on FD doesn't distort gameplay?

I said it has nothing to distort gameplay, not it can't affect the gameplay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm seeing FD as a comepletely flat, neutral stage that has nothing to distort the gameplay of a character in any way possible.

There. Read up. EDIT: I think you mistyped something in that post too... What do you mean?

 

[Zatchiel]

Everyone has good stage. Point blank.
Taking ICs to Brinstar is a heck of a lot different than taking them to FD. You don't even have to play FD starter against ICs. It's all opinioned in who selects the stage, and what character they're using. FD doesn't have to be a CP for people to make a choice to select SV starter.

 

[AvaricePanda]

The difference is that those matchup skews happen with nothing else in play but the characters and a flat non interacting stage. RC/Brinstar gets those skews from having stage aspects like Sharking or Hazards or moving field of play.

If characters are good on stages that do nothing, so be it. I don't think our goal is to balance the stage list by saying "Oh well this stage does nothing and favors X, we need to add in stage that does everything and favors Y to make it fair". THAT is catering to those characters because you want them to have a better chance at winning Game 1 instead of just having the stages that don't do much be the ones allowed for Game 1.

If ground characters do better with a stage list that puts emphasis on Player vs Player for Game 1, lucky them.

I agree with this.

 

[Reducas]

I'm seeing FD as a comepletely flat, neutral stage that has nothing to distort the gameplay of a character in any way possible. HOWEVER, it can make you play differently than someplace like BF. Marth plays MUCH differently on BF than on FD.
Is this the point you are getting at? If so, i have somewhat more of a shift in your opinion, but i still have my few standing reasons.

enough said

 

[Metal Reeper]

Diddy kong...

 

[Gea]

This is silly. Where do we draw the line for what's acceptable aid to a character? I'm pretty much on the side of DMG, you shouldn't try to balance a game via the starters.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

enough 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.

No, not enough said. FD is not "normal" brawl. FD is not "neutral", in fact it heavily aids several characters. Yes, in brawl, the lack of stage hazards in platforms is in itself a stage element that aids certain chars and hurts certain others. Why can I say this? Because no other stage in the game has this element. If most stages were like FD, then you could say that (Like in SC3, where almost every stage has no effect, and then you have one stage where characters slip around like crazy, one where earthquakes strike every 5 seconds, etc.-those stages are not "normal" gameplay and should probably not be seen as such; they are the exception to the rule). But in Brawl, FD is in no way the default. It's the exception. It is not broken for competitive play, but it is not the norm, neutral, or default stage.

 

[DMG]

Assuming that the default "mattered", for all you know the default or norm of stages in Brawl could be those garbage stages like 75 M and Hyrule. There are more stages like that than stages like FD, yet FD is easily the better competitive choice. "Normal" gameplay could consist of circle camping Hanenbow lol.

The point is, you use what you think is best, not what you think is the "norm" or "default". If those are garbage, do away with them and use what is better. If they are good enough, use them and whatever else you deem fit. FD is the only stage in the game that is flat and has nothing in the way. Does this mean it HAS to be a CP for being different than stages with platforms or hazards? RC and Brinstar line up more with the supposed "norm" in Brawl than FD does, yet they are CP's. Skyworld has platforms and stuff happens, but it's not seen in competitive play now is it?

Being different from the default or norm doesn't mean you can instantly be labeled as CP or not standard. If it works, it works. FD, frankly, works.

 

[Enzo]

LOl at thinking that this stage is a CP, isn't this actually oen of the fairest stages for brawl?

BPC u say that this stage aids many characters to a great amount (IC,Falco,Diddy etc.) But like srsly? turning this into a CP is makign it seem as if it aids these characters to the point that brinstar/RC aids MK.
And Ideally, FD is the epitome of even stage due to no interactions with the character at all.

 

[Hobobloke]

But like srsly? turning this into a CP is makign it seem as if it aids these characters to the point that brinstar/RC aids MK.

It is, you people make me want to kill myself.

 

[Enzo]

It is, you people make me want to kill myself.

, i never knew just by saying something i could kill someone, **** that must mean im like ur god

 

[Hobobloke]

, i never knew just by saying something i could kill someone, **** that must mean im like ur god

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Assuming that the default "mattered", for all you know the default or norm of stages in Brawl could be those garbage stages like 75 M and Hyrule. There are more stages like that than stages like FD, yet FD is easily the better competitive choice. "Normal" gameplay could consist of circle camping Hanenbow lol.

Nah, we've just established-there is no norm. So no.

The point is, you use what you think is best, not what you think is the "norm" or "default". If those are garbage, do away with them and use what is better. If they are good enough, use them and whatever else you deem fit. FD is the only stage in the game that is flat and has nothing in the way. Does this mean it HAS to be a CP for being different than stages with platforms or hazards? RC and Brinstar line up more with the supposed "norm" in Brawl than FD does, yet they are CP's. Skyworld has platforms and stuff happens, but it's not seen in competitive play now is it?

We don't put stages in the CP bracket for being different. Obviously. Every stage is different, in very serious ways. We put stages in the CP bracket because of matchup-polarizing characteristics (relative to the rest of the stagelist; i.e. how the matchup looks averaged throughout the entire stagelist).

Any other explanation really defeats the stated purpose of stage striking in the first place.

Being different from the default or norm doesn't mean you can instantly be labeled as CP or not standard. If it works, it works. FD, frankly, works.

FD works... as a legal stage. It's simply too polarizing to be a starter, and fails at almost any real definition of a starter stage.

Works like this:
Step 1: Decide which stages are legitimately competitive, and not overcentralizing or matchup-destroying.
Step 2: Find the ones that are the least centralizing and skewing and are closest to the actual average of advantage a character would pull from the stagelist
Step 3: Ask oneself "Why the hell did I just go through the trouble of doing that when striking the whole stagelist just makes so much more sense?"
Step 4: Use that as starter list.

The only function the starter list provides is to shorten the time needed striking stages, which can be considerable if you look at the stagelists the regions that pay any attention to this accurate statement pull out (15-21 stages, see also BBR 3.1).

 

[DMG]

It doesn't fail if your definition of a starter stage is based on how much they interact with players/how close it is to Player vs Player. Most starters fit that the closest you will find in Brawl: BF, SV, YI, Lylat being the main 4 aside from FD. Past that, you get into PS1/PS2, Halberd and Delfino. A usual 5 starter stage list fits that pretty, FD BF SV Lylat YI. Past that point, it strays further. CS, Delfino, Halberd, etc.

Even if you disagree with using that definition, you have to admit that a 5 stage starter DOES fit if your criteria is that.

 

[Enzo]

Oh is that supposed to be you?
Your attempts at flaming me failing too hard so stop

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I've heard some people make points that Diddy does better on SV than FD despite the platform, or that BF is better for Falco because of the layout, granted the Falco example might be DEHF's preference on the stage, but eh.

The stage helps some characters, so?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It doesn't fail if your definition of a starter stage is based on how much they interact with players/how close it is to Player vs Player. Most starters fit that the closest you will find in Brawl: BF, SV, YI, Lylat being the main 4 aside from FD. Past that, you get into PS1/PS2, Halberd and Delfino. A usual 5 starter stage list fits that pretty, FD BF SV Lylat YI. Past that point, it strays further. CS, Delfino, Halberd, etc.

Even if you disagree with using that definition, you have to admit that a 5 stage starter DOES fit if your criteria is that.

If your definition is that, why would you ever have more than just BF and FD in your starter list? Also, why would you strike in the first place by that definition? And why should that be the accepted method of deciding which stages are starter stages?

That definition is essentially false.

 

[DMG]

Because players wouldn't be happy playing on 1-2 stages the whole time first game. Even if it WAS the fairest combination or choice, people want variety.

 

[Enzo]

Because players wouldn't be happy playing on 1-2 stages the whole time first game. Even if it WAS the fairest combination or choice, people want variety.

And because of this variety skill level is lowered, minimally only though.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because players wouldn't be happy playing on 1-2 stages the whole time first game. Even if it WAS the fairest combination or choice, people want variety.

But it's right! I demand random between BF and FD!

No, really, "lack of interaction" is an absolutely bull**** reasoning for a stage's starter list status. Why would we ever go for that?

And because of this variety skill level is lowered, minimally only though.

Yeah, see, this is when I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me guess-you think that if the only stage legal was FD, the game would require the most "skill". I'll just quote from my other post.

To make this more clear to some of you.
The movement for stages like PS2 or GG inside the SWF stage discussion forum is, AFAIK, less of a movement to unban stages X, Y, and Z, but rather to change the way of thinking about stages-something that we ban once we see that there is a real reason to ban them, as opposed to something that we ban to have the least interesting game possible, something resembling street fighter at best.

As to why this concept matters, you really only have to look at what they add, competitively. Let's say we work backwards (everything is banned, stages are unbanned one by one). When I add FD, I have a game where, when I main a character, I have to learn 38 matchups on one stage.
Now we throw Battlefield into the mix. All of a sudden, I still have those 38 matchups, but some of them play drastically differently on battlefield than they do on Final Destination!

Now we really throw everyone for a loop and add Norfair to the mix. Now I still have these 38 matchups, but now I need to not only learn how to play them on Battlefield, Final Destination, and Norfair, but I also have to learn how to play on Norfair at all! Once I've done that, I find that trapping my opponent with the lava if he is inexperienced becomes a very potent strategy, forcing him to learn how to play the stage or to die (imagine it, if you will, like a character matchup-if I run into the ICs and never have played against them before, I won't know that one grab = death until I've already suffered it. If I run into norfair without ever having seen it before, I won't know how to deal with the lava). I also have to, in turn, find ways around this strategy.

Now we add PS2 to the mix. Now I still have the 38 MUs, but not only do I have to know them on these 4 stages, have to know how to play on Norfair, but now I also need to know how to deal with PS2's transformations, know how to take advantage of the changes to the best of my ability, and how to get around things like MK's uair on the air segment. This is a RIDICULOUS amount of things you have to learn to play the game competitively at a high level. In other words: it adds to the competitive merit of the game.

So in short, by adding more stages, we are almost always making the game more competitive by giving it a longer learning curve. If you only have to learn 38 matchups on FD... oh well. If you have to learn 38 matchups on FD, Battlefield, Norfair, RC, Halberd... It's a lot to learn, and a lot more chance for someone to shine who is good at many facets of the game, instead of just one particular part.

FD only requires one tiny element from the various skills brawl tends to normally ask for-it is therefore one of the least skill-intensive stages in the game. Which is harder to deal with-fighting your opponent on an empty lot, or fighting your opponent in an active construction zone where none of the machine operators know either of you are there?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But it's right! I demand random between BF and FD!

No, really, "lack of interaction" is an absolutely bull**** reasoning for a stage's starter list status. Why would we ever go for that?



Yeah, see, this is when I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me guess-you think that if the only stage legal was FD, the game would require the most "skill". I'll just quote from my other post.



FD only requires one tiny element from the various skills brawl tends to normally ask for-it is therefore one of the least skill-intensive stages in the game. Which is harder to deal with-fighting your opponent on an empty lot, or fighting your opponent in an active construction zone where none of the machine operators know either of you are there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvmAwdKNfHg

Yup, totally polarized that game and made it 100-0 Falco.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Point=missed, RR.