Which stage do YOU consider to be the most competitive?

Grim Tuesday · Sep 27, 2010

AvaricePanda said:
but eh, I still can't see how you consider BF to behind RC or PS2 in terms of competitiveness.
What are you judging "competitiveness" on?

also @ Raziek, is that Carl or Hazama in your avatar? or neither?

I don't know what we are judging competitiveness on, but I can tell you right now if we were judging competitiveness by depth and non-deteriorative gameplay then chain grabs would be banned.

It's Hazama. Carl? What are you smoking?

AvaricePanda · Sep 27, 2010

i dunno. it kinda looked like demented carl.

but I guess hazama kinda looks like demented carl.

also not only am I not proposing that those stages be banned, but in any case banning chain-grabs is unrealistic for seperate reasons and not really relate-able to stages IMO.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 27, 2010

AvaricePanda said:
i dunno. it kinda looked like demented carl.

but I guess hazama kinda looks like demented carl.

also not only am I not proposing that those stages be banned, but in any case banning chain-grabs is unrealistic for seperate reasons and not really relate-able to stages IMO.

My point was that you were banning the stages not because they are unfair per se, but because they aren't fun for you.

Banning chain-grabs can be done without hassle, and I see no reason for you to support CGs if you don't support those stages.

Raziek · Sep 27, 2010

Clearly Hazama.

AvaricePanda · Sep 27, 2010

GrimTuesday said:
My point was that you were banning the stages not because they are unfair per se, but because they aren't fun for you.

Banning chain-grabs can be done without hassle, and I see no reason for you to support CGs if you don't support those stages.

...but I do support those stages. I've said multiple times that those stages are fine competitively (well except Mansion IMO) and I've said multiple times I don't think they should be banned.

And I'm not against those stages because they aren't fun for me. Please actually read what I'm saying because I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

I'm just arguing which is the MOST competitive. I think that the gap between the most competitive stage and most other stages is very small, so I have to nit-pick things to get to my conclusion.

also banning chain-grabs can't be done without hassle at all, nor is it warranted or justified or any of the reasons you'd actually ban something.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 27, 2010

Sorry, misread something you said.

Mynor · Sep 27, 2010

I like Smashville because It's a flat stage with almost no advantages with the exception of the moving platform
Also like Final Destination for The basic layout
and pictochat because The drawings unexpectedly showing up makes it fun

UberMario · Sep 27, 2010

GrimTuesday said:
Banning chain-grabs can be done without hassle, and I see no reason for you to support CGs.

How about the fact you can do them just fine in SSB64 and Melee? And how about the fact that both of them (SSB AND Melee) have infinites?

Also, here's a lolzworthy one involving SSB teams, but the odd of that happening in competitive play probably aren't too high, depending on how fast your character can struggle. >_>

Banning chaingrabs would be worse than banning all non-starter stages.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 28, 2010

UberMario said:
How about the fact you can do them just fine in SSB64 and Melee? And how about the fact that both of them (SSB AND Melee) have infinites?

Also, here's a lolzworthy one involving SSB teams, but the odd of that happening in competitive play probably aren't too high, depending on how fast your character can struggle. >_>

Banning chaingrabs would be worse than banning all non-starter stages.

Firstly, I main Donkey Kong in Smash 64 and Ice Climbers in Melee. I probably know more about the "infinites" than you do.

Firstly, the DK one is not an infinite, it can be escaped with DI even with perfect timing on the part of the DK.

That Ice Climbers one is stupidly difficult to pull off, and is actually worse than their other infinite, Wobbling, which IS banned in a lot of places.

How is "you can do them in Melee and 64" a reason for not banning them?

Also note that I never once stated that I think chain-grabs should be banned, I was just pointing out how if he though those stages should be banned (which he didn't, I just read it wrong), he should want CGs to be banned for the same reason.

AvaricePanda · Sep 28, 2010

but even if that's what I said, the correlation can't be made because 1) they aren't really similar reasons, 2) they aren't similar things, and 3) a chain-grab ban can't be enforced. Good luck banning Falco's CGs, D3's CGs, Pikachu's character specific CGs—unless you just mean infinites, which still wouldn't be banned for a similar reason for banning Mansion.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 28, 2010

AvaricePanda said:
but even if that's what I said, the correlation can't be made because 1) they aren't really similar reasons, 2) they aren't similar things, and 3) a chain-grab ban can't be enforced. Good luck banning Falco's CGs, D3's CGs, Pikachu's character specific CGs—unless you just mean infinites, which still wouldn't be banned for a similar reason for banning Mansion.

Lol at can't be enforced.

• Players are not allowed to follow up a grab with another grab if the opposing player has no opportunity to escape.

Simple.

Life · Sep 28, 2010

That relies on every TO and every player knowing exactly which CGs can be escaped and which ones can't. Then you have the issue of the chaingrabber purposely ruining their timing by 1-2 frames so the opponent has a chance to escape from what would otherwise be infinite.

Then there's the fact that chaingrabbing isn't broken. Except arguably ICs, who, while top tier, aren't exactly dominant..

Grim Tuesday · Sep 28, 2010

InferiorityComplex said:
That relies on every TO and every player knowing exactly which CGs can be escaped and which ones can't. Then you have the issue of the chaingrabber purposely ruining their timing by 1-2 frames so the opponent has a chance to escape from what would otherwise be infinite.

Then there's the fact that chaingrabbing isn't broken. Except arguably ICs, who, while top tier, aren't exactly dominant..

I never said anything about chain-grabbing being broken.

There aren't that many chain-grabs in the game, and the only ones you see frequently are Pika's, Falco's, D3's and IC's. And you can tell if a CG is escapable just by looking at it most of the time.

If they ruin their timing by 1 or 2 frames, then that gives the opponent a chance to escape, meaning that it is their fault for not escaping.

ngfc_0 · Sep 29, 2010

If you consider PS2 as the most competitive stage please tell me why Rainbow cruise is not instead.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 29, 2010

ngfc_0 said:
If you consider PS2 as the most competitive stage please tell me why Rainbow cruise is not instead.

PS2 introduces a greater number of variables into play than RC.

Also, RC heavily favours some characters, leading to competition that is less based on the player's skill, and more on the characters chosen, this could be considered un-competitive.

ngfc_0 · Sep 29, 2010

@GrimTuesday
hmm you mean ice, low gravity and treadmill... I get it.

well RC has different stages in one, with lots of variables too that aren't so represented in PS2, like teching the stage, keeping the opponent down on the rising part, it has side scrolling (like mushroomkingdom lol), a wall on the boat part... RC also has less random events, even if PS2 tells you what transformation is coming you can't expect what it is before it warns you (ok you can make an educated guess considering the previous).

As for character advantages, the unfavoured character is just a bad character to play with. He should just learn to play lol
But seriously i understande why you say it's on the verge of not being competitive, its just that people stated before that competitive=/=balanced.

Zatchiel · Sep 30, 2010

ngfc_0 said:
well RC has different stages in one, with lots of variables too that aren't so represented in PS2, like teching the stage, keeping the opponent down on the rising part, it has side scrolling (like mushroomkingdom lol), a wall on the boat part...

It doesn't take competitive strategy to play good on RC. All you really have to do is keep your opponent in the same place, or force them in the opposing direction the screen is scrolling.
The blast lines around the boat are also very, very easy to pass.

ngfc_0 said:
RC also has less random events, even if PS2 tells you what transformation is coming you can't expect what it is before it warns you (ok you can make an educated guess considering the previous).

That's actually a point that makes PS2 competitive. It doesn't go in a predicted cycle, unlike RC. Its transformations alter strategy, making the competitors have to adjust to the playing field; RC just makes them force each other past the easily reachable blast lines.

ngfc_0 said:
As for character advantages, the unfavoured character is just a bad character to play with. He should just learn to play lol

Actually, people with disastrous aerial games **** on RC, especially if they can camp the air to a major periodic degree (I.E Jigglypuff's Rising Pound stall).

ngfc_0 said:
But seriously i understande why you say it's on the verge of not being competitive, its just that people stated before that competitive=/=balanced.

It's not considered competitive because there's no strategic variation needed to win. If you've got the right set of characters against the right set of opponents, you'll always win on this stage with the same strategy.

ngfc_0 · Sep 30, 2010

It's much more clear now, thanks for the response DJ Rave.
I was hoping that something should be wrong with my reasoning after watching apex losers final game on RC.
But why should i care anyway, no one around me will ever want PS2 as starter instead of FD

---

To make sure i get the last part, you are saying that this stage just happens to be character unbalanced and uncompetitive (compared to PS2 for example), without one being related to the other, right?

Grim Tuesday · Sep 30, 2010

He's saying it is uncompetitive (in comparison to PS2) because
a) It skews match-ups (unlike PS2, which favours certain characters only too a small extent), and
b) It centralizes gameplay on a few strategies (unlike PS2, which forces players to adapt to various different strategies).

Budget Player Cadet_ · Sep 30, 2010

AvaricePanda said:
lol why u mad tho? opinions yo.

I agree that FD isn't the most competitive stage but it's by no means "a ****ty competitive stage on virtually every account." It's constant and one of like...three or four stages that can provide 100% consistent results.

Yeah. But guess what? The inconsistencies caused by most of the other random events in stages (Delfino, Frigate, PS1/2, etc., all the way down to where you have maybe Norfair, Pictochat, Halberd (arm only), and maybe one or two others) are so low that it's completely negligible. ESPECIALLY PS1/2.

tbh I think most stages are pretty close on competitiveness. I believe the layer of depth that things like changing terrains or physics adds to the game in most cases is very thin, and I think the amount of competitiveness subtracted by stages being randomness isn't much either, but I still probably think the latter is in most cases more important than the former and that Battlefield is still the most competitive stage (but like every stage is very competitive still, except for like Mansion oh god lol).

First of all, changing terrain makes a huge difference in gameplay. Just ask any falco trying to play on Brinstar, when compared to Battlefield; there's a very similar platform layout, it's just that the ground is jagged and uneven. On a stage-by-stage basis, it makes a huge difference; on stages like PS2 and PS1, it makes another large difference.
Physics changes... Meh, it's irritating because the only physics changes in the game are temporary and either very small things (traction nerfs), or can be stalled out for their short duration (air). Because they do make a huge difference in gameplay, and they do require whole new skillsets. How huge is debatable.

However, the sheer fact that BF doesn't have this; or rather, that PS2 does everything that Battlefield does competitively plus more, should be a fairly good sign that it's a "better" competitive stage. Maybe not by much, but still by a fair amount.

But for example, on PS2, yes there are 5 different transformations and 3 of them with completely different non-broken physics changes. Yes you could say it adds depth; personally I feel like the treadmill and air stages subtract depth because the number of viable (or at least intelligent) options is smaller; the ice, rock, and normal stages are fine. Whatever depth is added or subtracted is still kind of slim IMO overall, but another main thing that subtracts "competitiveness" from the stage is the fact that the stage transformations aren't constant. An MK vs. Diddy game that starts out with the air then electric transformations is different than the one that starts out with the earth and ice transformations. Those beginning minutes can determine momentum and in some cases the entire game (and in a 3 minute tiebreaker, while those rarely happen, they become "different stages" altogether).

I somehow doubt that these changes (especially because, you know, you can stall almost all of them out and the other ones are really quite neutral) are that inconsistent. Or at least, that they cause match inconsistencies to the level you claim. If MK can wreck your **** in 40 seconds THAT HARD, then you either got outplayed, or you suck on every transformation (not likely).

Some stages just don't add any negligible depth IMO, and some just subtract it. Yes you can "say" that Mansion adds depth because of tech skill and the factor of destroying the stage, but unless you're abusing the stage qualities you're losing—gameplay pretty much deteriorates to that.

...Except when you step in to stop the abuse by destroying the place and then get a good 21+ seconds of FD-like conditions where said tactic isn't available.

Water based gameplay? Okay, but when some characters on Pirate Ship have the issue of water camping which technically isn't stalling for the entire cast, it kind of deteriorates gameplay.

LOL water camping, wasn't that shown to be bad a while ago? Rudder camping makes the stage banworthy, but WATER CAMPING?

but eh, I still can't see how you consider BF to behind RC or PS2 in terms of competitiveness.
What are you judging "competitiveness" on?

Consistency in gameplay, amount of skill required of the player, amount of different skills required by the player... those are the 3 big ones. RC and BF fulfill the first one equally well, but the second and third are taken by RC in a landslide.

also @ Raziek, is that Carl or Hazama in your avatar? or neither?[/QUOTE]

ngfc_0 said:
If you consider PS2 as the most competitive stage please tell me why Rainbow cruise is not instead.

GrimTuesday said:
He's saying it is uncompetitive (in comparison to PS2) because
a) It skews match-ups (unlike PS2, which favours certain characters only too a small extent), and
b) It centralizes gameplay on a few strategies (unlike PS2, which forces players to adapt to various different strategies).

A does not matter as far as competition goes; nobody is forcing you to play a bad character.
As for B, there is no depth-removing, broken tactic there. What are you talking about?

UberMario · Sep 30, 2010

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
A does not matter as far as competition goes; nobody is forcing you to play a bad character.

It still skews matchups pretty badly, in fact, it probably alters matchups MORE than any other legal stage.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
As for B, there is no depth-removing, broken tactic there. What are you talking about?

Aerial games are broken on Rainbow Cruise, if you're up against Kirby, Pit, ROB [somewhat], or Meta-Knight and you're not using any of the four, good luck. A lot of camping/ground based metagames are virtually non-existant for the most part.

vVv Rapture · Sep 30, 2010

UberMario said:
It still skews matchups pretty badly, in fact, it probably alters matchups MORE than any other legal stage.

Aerial games are broken on Rainbow Cruise, if you're up against Kirby, Pit, ROB [somewhat], or Meta-Knight and you're not using any of the four, good luck. A lot of camping/ground based metagames are virtually non-existant for the most part.

To be honest, I think it really only applies to MK. MK, out of those four, is the only one that can truly abuse the stage to ridiculously dumb proportions, namely because his air options are that good.

Kirby does fine because of his jumps, but once he loses those, he has to land sometime. He doesn't have a Shuttle Loop and/or Glide to move farther away or quicker. Plus, he's also slower in the air, IIRC. Kirby essentially has to get closer after going through all the trouble of actually air camping or running away. It'd be better if his Final Cutter had tons more horizontal range, but that isn't the case.

ROB sucks. That's it.

Pit I guess has no trouble on this stage, but again, he's not MK. Pit's recovery is probably even worse than Kirby's, especially his WoI, which are IMO garbage. The fact that Pit can literally get tapped on the shoulder and fall to his death or miss a platform because of the beginning dip in the trajectory of the move makes it really annoying sometimes.

In my experience, the only character to be worried about on RC is MK.

Gadiel_VaStar · Sep 30, 2010

vVv Rapture said:
To be honest, I think it really only applies to MK. MK, out of those four, is the only one that can truly abuse the stage to ridiculously dumb proportions, namely because his air options are that good.

Kirby does fine because of his jumps, but once he loses those, he has to land sometime. He doesn't have a Shuttle Loop and/or Glide to move farther away or quicker. Plus, he's also slower in the air, IIRC. Kirby essentially has to get closer after going through all the trouble of actually air camping or running away. It'd be better if his Final Cutter had tons more horizontal range, but that isn't the case.

ROB sucks. That's it.

Pit I guess has no trouble on this stage, but again, he's not MK. Pit's recovery is probably even worse than Kirby's, especially his WoI, which are IMO garbage. The fact that Pit can literally get tapped on the shoulder and fall to his death or miss a platform because of the beginning dip in the trajectory of the move makes it really annoying sometimes.

In my experience, the only character to be worried about on RC is MK.

Pit's recovery isn't worse than Kirby's. Kirby has only 2 more jumps than Pit's and his up-b is very linear, while Pit has the option to move around, and glide.

Final Destination is the most competitive stage IMO. There are literally no obstructions and no platforms. It is a strict player vs player, and the player with the most skill almost always comes out on top.

SV, BF, Delphino, Lylat, PKS1, Halberd, Frigate, and Castle follow in that order.

Stages like Brinstar, RC, Japes, Norfair, and PKS2 are over-powered, and do not promote skill vs skill IMO. They are often too clutchy, and players tend to rely on too many gimicks to win.

I think the neutral stages are best at determining who's a better player. The American counter-picks(RC, Brinstar) are used because most players do not have the skill to beat X player on a neutral. Essentially, the broken CPs have to many gimmicks, and they do not properly determine who's better. I agree that they are fun to play on, but I don't feel that they should be used in a competitive ruleset.

Grim Tuesday · Sep 30, 2010

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
A does not matter as far as competition goes; nobody is forcing you to play a bad character.
As for B, there is no depth-removing, broken tactic there. What are you talking about?

A does matter actually.
Matches should be determined by player skill in-game, not at the character select screen. Of course, just watching two Meta Knights fight all the time would be incredibly boring and arguably poor for the competitive side of the game. A stage which doesn't skew match-ups will give players a greater chance for them to show their skill.

*None of that probably makes sense, I'm tired -__-

I never said that the tactic was broken. Otherwise I would have used the words "OVER-centralizing". Several strategies become so good on that stage that they might as well be used all the time. For example, air camping.

ADHD · Sep 30, 2010

If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

Life · Sep 30, 2010

gadiel_vastar said:
pit's recovery isn't worse than kirby's. Kirby has only 2 more jumps than pit's and his up-b is very linear, while pit has the option to move around, and glide.

The thing is, if pit gets hit by anything greater than, like, a fox laser while using wings, he dies, whereas kirby's final cutter is a lot harder to gimp.

final destination is the most competitive stage imo. There are literally no obstructions and no platforms. It is a strict player vs player, and the player with the most skill almost always comes out on top.

They're not "obstructions". They're strategies. Let me break it down for you.

FD: You have to know how to fight each opponent in the center, near the ledges, offstage, and in cases like falco, from across the stage.

BF/SV: You have to know how to fight each opponent not only in all of the above categories, but also when on the various platforms (which vary in location: Sv because its platform moves, and bf because there's three of them [technically only two unique positions though--top and sides]). Sv also has the balloon, but that's pretty much irrelevant.

Norfair: You have to know how to fight each opponent on the center platform, on two sets of side platforms, on six different ledges (three unique pairs), from across the stage (in a different manner from fd, since the stage is 3-tiered), when there's a lava floor (which has a few different levels), when there's a lava wall, when there's both of the above, and with the geysers and massive lava wave + capsule. Also, because of the nature of the lava, perfect planking is severely diminished as each of those ledges will be covered by lava at least at one point. (it is possible to stall in the lava by powershielding it every time it hits, but that also isn't possible to do for the whole match and is rather difficult for everyone who isn't a fe character.)

PS2: BPC already explained this one.

Etc. The point is, stages with hazards have more of a learning curve and more strategies, and are therefore more competitive than final destination.

sv, bf, delphino, lylat, pks1, halberd, frigate, and castle follow in that order.

out of curiousity, following your logic, why delfino over lylat?

stages like brinstar, rc, japes, norfair, and pks2 are over-powered, and do not promote skill vs skill imo. They are often too clutchy, and players tend to rely on too many gimicks to win.

"skill" in what? Fd requires skill in about four ways of fighting as detailed above. Due to combinatorial explosion counterpicky stages require dozens. Naturally, players that give up a little bit of the skills fd requires to learn skills required by cp stages will lose to noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination guy on fd but win on ps2, so naturally it looks like ps2 threw the match when in reality, it's still the players that decide the outcome of the match.

i think the neutral stages are best at determining who's a better player. The american counter-picks(rc, brinstar) are used because most players do not have the skill to beat x player on a neutral. Essentially, the broken cps have to many gimmicks, and they do not properly determine who's better. I agree that they are fun to play on, but i don't feel that they should be used in a competitive ruleset.

answered already.

tl;dr:
"Skill" at what?
Also, post system is throwing off my capitalization for some reason. Grr.

ADHD said:
If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

Because PS2 was never proven to be broken.

Also, I'm surprised you forgot this so quickly.

#HBC | Dark Horse · Sep 30, 2010

ADHD said:
If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

@ADHD

It's "CP/Stater until proven ban-able."

Zatchiel · Sep 30, 2010

ADHD said:
If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

I don't really see a reasons why it shouldn't be legal :/ It has advantages and disadvantages for just about every character, making it potentially one of the most competitive stages in availability. We also have a thread that debates this entire situation, as well as giving decent points as to why PS2 should be legal, as well as points that tell why it shouldn't.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10664079&postcount=7
Credits to BlazingKatakiri for the exponential elaboration.

Raziek · Sep 30, 2010

Simple Answer as to why it should be legal: There's nothing wrong with it that isn't any worse than any other current starter or CP, like Brinstar, or RC, or Japes, or Halberd, etc etc etc.

#HBC | Dark Horse · Sep 30, 2010

@LP

Wouldn't "Advantages and disadvantages for just about every character" be a good reason for it to be legal?

Zatchiel · Sep 30, 2010

Dark Horse said:
@LP

Wouldn't "Advantages and disadvantages for just about every character" be a good reason for it to be legal?

It provides the competitive trait that we went through pages back. Also, i'm pretty sure i was referring to it becoming a legal CP.

UberMario · Sep 30, 2010

ADHD said:
If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

-None of the transformations obstruct gameplay, whereas Pokemon Stadium 1, a starter, has at least two transformations that can do so: Grass and Fire (or maybe it was rock >_> It's the one with a lot of platforms stacked on-top of each other and a huge cliff to the left.)
-There's no lip (again unlike PS1 . . . . take stage lips as you will)
-Banana Peels are really useful on the ice stage
-There are absolutely NO walls or walkoffs, something that three starters, Delfino, Castle, and PS1 have.
-The ground mode is as balanced as Castle Siege's "default" transformation. (The one on the roof)
-The flying mode can just be waited out if it's that much of an issue, but it can create some interesting combos not normally possible
-The main part of the ice mode is flat and the platforms aren't as slick

If anything, I'd swap PS1 and PS2's positions on the stage list, it's definitely one of the most balanced [current] counterpicks, along with Frigate Orpheon.

Zatchiel · Sep 30, 2010

UberMario said:
-There are absolutely NO walls or walkoffs, something that three starters, Delfino, Castle, and PS1 have.

The right side of the inclined plane on the Ground Type transformation is indeed a wall. Just thought i'd point that out.
Other than that, i agree completely. PS2 is somewhat more competitively righteous than PS1.

UberMario · Sep 30, 2010

DJ Rave said:
The right side of the inclined plane on the Ground Type transformation is indeed a wall. Just thought i'd point that out.

I could have sworn that was a slope . . . usually when that transformation comes up the battle[s I have] sticks to either the left or right side of it, so I guess that's why I forgot . . . . . plus the fact my opponents and I usually counterpick elsewhere so I rarely battle there in comparison with PS1, etc. (even though it's a great stage)

Budget Player Cadet_ · Oct 1, 2010

Gadiel_VaStar said:
Final Destination is the most competitive stage IMO. There are literally no obstructions and no platforms. It is a strict player vs player, and the player with the most skill almost always comes out on top.

This would be true if you only accepted pur PvP ability as skill. FD requires NO skill in many, many regions, including but not limited to:
-Dealing with platform pressure and getting back to an advantageous position with platforms in your way (Battlefield is really good for this)
-Dealing with aircamping/scrooging, tech skill requiring moving platforms (Smashville)
-Dealing with varied stage construction (think uneven ground on Brinstar, or having to work around walls and walkoffs for short times on Delfino)
-Dealing with pre-announced/semi-random hazards (Norfair, Green Greens)
-Dealing with stage movement (RC, Delfino)

The amount of skills that are fairly critical for the player that are simply not required on FD, plus the fact that every skill demanded on FD is either kept the same or enhanced on other stages like BF and SV, points to a stage that, while still valid for competition, is NOT the most competitive stage, or even remotely close. Right now I've heard good arguments for BF, RC, and PS2... but....

Stages like Brinstar, RC, Japes, Norfair, and PKS2 are over-powered, and do not promote skill vs skill IMO. They are often too clutchy, and players tend to rely on too many gimicks to win.

WHAAAAT

K, first of all, including PS2 in that list shows very clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about; please inform yourself about the stage or stop referring to it in such a way. There is no gimmick on PS2 that is overpowering. There is no broken tactic. Stop claiming that.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by clutchy, and what you mean by gimmicks. Gimmicks like spamming SHDL all day on FD? Gimmicks like scrooging on SV? Gimmicks like chaingrabs? Why are these less 'gimmicky' than strategies like dair camping on brinstar and whatever the hell you mean on the other stages (seriously, NORFAIR? What's the gimmick? RC? Is it 'main a character who is good'? Because that's hardly a gimmick...).

I think the neutral stages are best at determining who's a better player. The American counter-picks(RC, Brinstar) are used because most players do not have the skill to beat X player on a neutral. Essentially, the broken CPs have to many gimmicks, and they do not properly determine who's better. I agree that they are fun to play on, but I don't feel that they should be used in a competitive ruleset.

So you're saying:
-It takes little to no skill to beat your opponent on RC, Brinstar, etc
-They're gimmicky
-It takes no skill to deal with hazards, stage movements, physics changes (YES, YOU ARE BASICALLY CLAIMING THAT DEALING WITH THE VERY BASIC PHYSICS OF YOUR CHARACTER CHANGING REQUIRES NO SKILL)...

I sincerely hope, for the sake of the people who go to your tournaments, that you understand how ridiculously wrong you are and sound.

ADHD said:
If you guys can come up with a list of valid reasons on why PS2 SHOULD be legal as opposed to why it should not be banned, then I will make a thread in the Atlantic North regional boards.

I'm working on just that, and would definitely appreciate your support on it.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Oct 1, 2010

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.

Raziek · Oct 1, 2010

Good post, but a minor nitpick: Shaya is Australian lmao, not from NY.

PS2 FOR LIFE.

-LzR- · Oct 3, 2010

Very very good post by BPC. Anyone who uses those arguments BPC covered in is post shall be declared an idiot. Where are your arguments now? BPC beat them all

Anyways, PS2 will always be legal on my tourneys.

#HBC | Dark Horse · Oct 3, 2010

BPC has crushed every anti-PS2 argument.

GGs haters.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Oct 3, 2010

Really, at this point, it's pretty simple. If you ban PS2 in your tournaments, you are either a scrub or bowing down to scrubs. If you want PS2 banned in tournaments you go to, you are a massive scrub. If you believe that PS2 is anticompetitive, you have a warped, scrubby view of competition, or are massively deluded. Period. That's all there is to it.

Which stage do YOU consider to be the most competitive?

Smash Legend

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Smash Rookie

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Apprentice

Smash Legend

Smash Apprentice

a little slice of heaven 🍰

Smash Apprentice

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Mach-Hommy x Murakami

a little slice of heaven 🍰

Charging Limit All Day

Mach-Hommy x Murakami

a little slice of heaven 🍰

Smash Master

a little slice of heaven 🍰

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Hero

Mach-Hommy x Murakami

Smash Hero

Information

Network