The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

John12346 · Apr 7, 2011

Because that one trivial detail leaves you with only one person not following the ruleset, and he apologized profusely for not doing so and accepted the consequences of not following it.

Edit: wtf is with me and starting new pages

Supreme Dirt · Apr 7, 2011

I'm so ****ing mad at this ruleset. Moreso because my region's main TO accepts anything out of the BBR as word of God.

So ****ing mad.

I'd argue why FD should not be a starter, but that's been argued by so many ****ing people and subsequently ignored. Get better? You know what, I'm legalizing Temple at any tourney I host, since I was planning anyway on starting to host them. Getting timed out/circle camped? Get better.

5 Stage starter list. This has also been explained over and over. Subsequently, any tournament I host will have a starter list of Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar/Temple/Pirate Ship/Port Town Aero Dive.

Oh, also no counterpick stages.

Don't get me wrong, the only other part of the ruleset that I take issue with regards Ganonciding, but stage selection affects every character in the game. ESPECIALLY the starter list, in a game where losing game 1 tends towards losing the ENTIRE SET.

milesg2g · Apr 7, 2011

So much hate for a ruleset w/ like 3 things people don't like lol.

I think the real problem with the ruleset is the fact that you have to have it in order to get a sticky thread. And that just upsets TO's and Brawlers (Who don't even throw tourney's lol, just wanna be mad @ something).

I'm pretty sure if we could all agree on something then it'd be fine, oh but wait we can't even do that lol.

You got people that want their own ruleset where they can make their own rules, but then when they throw a big enough tourney where OoS players go people ***** and complain about what's what. Then when you try to make a unified Ruleset, you get *****ed @ for even trying lol.

I thought the entire goal of having this unified ruleset is so we could have something to present MLG as far as "grassroots" of our scene would go. Something we all agree on, but we can't agree on **** it seems.

#HBC | Red Ryu · Apr 7, 2011

People should calm down, and some should stop trolling.

milesg2g · Apr 7, 2011

Supreme Dirt said:
I'm so ****ing mad at this ruleset. Moreso because my region's main TO accepts anything out of the BBR as word of God.

So ****ing mad.

I'd argue why FD should not be a starter, but that's been argued by so many ****ing people and subsequently ignored. Get better? You know what, I'm legalizing Temple at any tourney I host, since I was planning anyway on starting to host them. Getting timed out/circle camped? Get better.

5 Stage starter list. This has also been explained over and over. Subsequently, any tournament I host will have a starter list of Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar/Temple/Pirate Ship/Port Town Aero Dive.

Oh, also no counterpick stages.

Don't get me wrong, the only other part of the ruleset that I take issue with regards Ganonciding, but stage selection affects every character in the game. ESPECIALLY the starter list, in a game where losing game 1 tends towards losing the ENTIRE SET.

Lolololwuttt? You're mad cuz FD's a starter?

Is he trolling?

Supreme Dirt · Apr 7, 2011

No, the problem is that there are TOs who take this as word of God and refuse to think for themselves.

The starter list is the single most impacting thing about this ruleset.

Also why should I calm down? Oh wow, I'm biased against giving Ice Climbers an advantage with a ruleset. Sure this may be influenced by having mained Ganondorf for a year and a half. But we're not giving Ganondorf an advantage with a suicide rule, why the **** are we giving characters who prefer static stages to dynamic ones an advantage? It doesn't matter that you're giving more than 1 characters an advantage, you are still giving characters an advantage.

@the post just above me you better ****ing believe I'm mad about FD being a starter on a ****ing 5 STAGE STARTERLIST. I am decidedly NOT trolling.

Yikarur · Apr 7, 2011

there is almost nothing wrong with FD as starter, People need to go away from this mentality.
If a character is bad on stages like BF/FD/SV than the character is bad.

Tesh · Apr 7, 2011

miles, the problem with all of those issues is that if we go wrong now (which many believe we are with this ruleset), its going to be even HARDER to change anything. If MLG picks brawl back up and uses this ruleset, it likely won't change. I know this new group claims they can changes things in a heartbeat, but this group is controlled by a small group of people that likely won't listen to the reason of "the little guy".

Seriously Yikarur? How do you figure that?

John12346 · Apr 7, 2011

I know it's generally not a good idea, but

what if we had the whole community vote on ruleset changes like stagelists? Like, we'd have options to vote for 5-starter, 7-starter, or 9-starter, and I feel if arguments for all 3 categories were presented well enough, we could get away with it.

Having the community vote would result in a lot less *****ing, at the very least.

Yikarur · Apr 7, 2011

I can understand 7 but what arguments exist for 9?

Tesh · Apr 7, 2011

Pretty sure BBRRC would overrule poll results just like the BBR did with the MK ban polls.

Nothing important has ever been decided by a 50%+ majority.

John12346 · Apr 7, 2011

I dunno, but I figure we should add in the less-intuitive choices(9, maybe 3?), for the sake of less bias? I can think of some people who would say, "The vote didn't have every possible option, therefore it's corrupt, people shouldn't listen to it, etc etc etc"

I can't think of too many people who would pick 9(or 3, if it were an option), but we should just leave them in for completion's sake.

Edit: Who says we can't use a 50%+ as the deciding factor in a poll this time around? New committee, new rules, right?
Edit2: Of course, we should probably get a second opinion from the committee themselves... .___.;

Conviction · Apr 7, 2011

Wow...I was definitely not aware of how many people hated FD O__O

I would think before doing anything about FD we should remove Picto...
also what would we switch FD with if that ever happens. (I feel like I'm about disagree with a hellstorm of people)

Yikarur · Apr 7, 2011

I would put PS2 in because it's a great FD substitution imo but no one likes PS2 (most never played on it and when they do they're just complaining)

MK26 · Apr 7, 2011

Reposting because people appear to be defending PictoChat:

MK26 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epAydvCDSWk&t=13m29s

Legitimate uses of Picto's hazards in this matchup:

15:23 - piranha is chilling there and Razer rolls right into a grab-uthrow-bonus damage. Certainly preventable.

16:59 - this one is borderline...Ally did make the mistake of up-b'ing into the missile, but he didnt really have many options in the situation. 45%+stock that probably was preventable, but really had no business taking place.

Stupid Picto bull:

14:29 - Ally misses a pivot grab that couldve led to something, but mightve led to nothing. One second later, Razer begins a nair and the spikes immediately show up. Without any possible way of predicting or preventing this, Ally gets a free extra 20%, Razer's nade blows up, and Ally punishes for the stock. Good job on Ally's part for recognizing his options, but a fair amount of dumb luck factored into getting that kill.

15:33 - Razer blows up his C4 to land, but note that Ally wouldve jumped into the flame regardless of whether or not the C4 hit him. In total it's only about 5% extra damage, but Ally loses every shred of momentum he had thanks to the RNG.

17:18 - basically the stage going trolololol at Ally's attempt to chase...and yes, the damage that the stage prevents from happening is just as important as the damage it causes. No prediction/prevention possible. The transformation is stalled out and the situation goes back to neutral.

17:37 - initially I was going to disagree, but looking back at the video, this is in fact another case of Picto randomly screwing a player over. An interesting mindgame scenario turns into the game for Ally; as the cart started getting drawn in after the first grab, Razer had no chance at prediction, and if your only options are 'airdodge into/attack the guy planning on shieldgrabbing once you do' and 'jump into the path of the rapidly approaching deadly hazard', there really isn't much of a choice in the end.

===

In most cases randomness can be handled, but Picto's particular brand of unpredictable and unpreventable (one by itself is usually ok) at the same time is, imo, way too much for competitive play. I'm not one to say that the match wouldve ended similarly on a different stage, but it's pretty safe to say that the route taken to get to the finish would certainly require much less dodging around and stepping in bull****.

Supreme Dirt · Apr 7, 2011

Yeah, I'm also against Picto.

The stage is more banworthy than Rumble Falls.

Hell, I'll go so far as to say it's more banworthy than Flat Zone 2.

Meru. · Apr 7, 2011

Flayl said:
They should never have been called neutrals in the first place. Just starters.

God-is-my-Rock said:
To me a neutral stage is where character vs. character interaction is the least interfered with. This is why FD is such a good pick. It's not about who does well on the stage over other characters.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

BSP said:
That's in comparision to what people usually consider a CP stage. FD shouldn't be a starter >_>

This is bad logic, and it seems you are not the only one thinking this. Well yes, of course FD gets banned more often, because it's evidently a much more popular stage, resulting in the chance of getting CP'ed being higher. Pictochat is considered random, people generally have had little practice on the stage and it has few counterpick worthy features.

Battlefield is banned more often than PS1 here, but that does not mean PS1 is 'more of a starter/CP' than Battlefield.

Tesh · Apr 7, 2011

static does not equal neutral. You can't just redefine the word.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 7, 2011

Yikarur said:
there is almost nothing wrong with FD as starter, People need to go away from this mentality.

...The mentality that a stage which was banned in over 1/3rd of the sets at MLG (back me up on this, AlphaZealot? I know it was somewhere around that figure...), a stage that is known to be a really strong counterpick for most of the top tier in Brawl, a stage which is strongly different from every other in the game, just might not be very matchup-neutral? Or how do you define starter?

If a character is bad on stages like BF/FD/SV than the character is bad.

What? Okay, this one needs an explanation.

Do you mean in practice, where there is no character who sucks on those stages but is amazing everywhere else? In that case, it still doesn't matter-just because a character doesn't suck on BF/FD/SV doesn't mean that the stages don't give an advantage to other characters. For example, Wario does just fine on those three stages... But would you seriously make the claim that it's perfectly fine to force him to those against Ice Climbers for round one, and that that's a fair stage for the matchup?

Do you mean in theory, a character who is amazing on every stage except for these three should be considered "bad"? If so, you have some serious justification to make for playing favorites to that extent on these stages, which are just as valid as any other stage in the game.

Yikarur said:
I can understand 7 but what arguments exist for 9?

The exact same arguments that exist for 3>1, 5>3, 7>5, and 11>9: the more starters you have, and the more varied starters you have, the closer you come to the true median of bias for round one. Like, let's just take this example...
FD
FD/BF/SV
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC/PS1/CS
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC/PS1/CS/Halberd/DP

MK vs. ICs.
On the 1-starter list, you go to one of the harshest counterpicks in the game: ICs+FD.
On the three-starter list, you are still forced to either BF or SV as MK; these are still IC's best stages.
On the 5-starter list, you are forced to BF. Still a really good stage for ICs.
On the 7-starter, you are likely to end up on CS or YI. Still solid stages for ICs, just not bad for them.
On the 9-starter, you will probably end up on YI or PS1. These stages... actually not that bad as far as the neutrality of the stage regarding the matchup goes.

All we've done is move from "hardcore counterpick for ICs" to "notable counterpick for ICs" to "fairly even stage for the matchup". By increasing the stage count, this will almost always happen, unless you really **** it up somehow (for example going from Frigate only to Frigate/RC/Brinstar). And keep in mind that this is a fairly reasonable progression to expect. Ideally, it would look something more like this:
PS2
PS2/SV/LC
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1/YI/CS
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1/YI/CS/FD/DP

...But of course, nobody does it like that. If you're wrong enough to enforce a 3-starter stage list, you're virtually always wrong enough to pick exactly the wrong stages for it as well.

Now. There are some people saying "starters should be static". To this I respond, "why?" Stage striking was implemented to ensure fair ground for round one. Not static ground, neutral ground. By trying to force it onto a static stage, you are essentially perverting the entire process. And before anyone says it, static stages are not that neutral. FD is, in fact, a hardcore counterpick in many matchups, akin to RC or similar. BF and SV actually are fairly neutral, but I'm not advocating them being removed from the starter list. And their neutrality is matched or beaten by stages like PS2, PS1, CS, and LC.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 7, 2011

Oh yeah BTW earth to Bizkit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg3C9mhTkw&t=1m45s
There you go. Serious problem. BAN PICTO.

Conviction · Apr 7, 2011

Haha..haha...ha...

I think it's best if I just take the backseat on this stage discussion. It will save headaches on both sides lol

Juushichi · Apr 7, 2011

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
...The mentality that a stage which was banned in over 1/3rd of the sets at MLG (back me up on this, AlphaZealot? I know it was somewhere around that figure...), a stage that is known to be a really strong counterpick for most of the top tier in Brawl, a stage which is strongly different from every other in the game, just might not be very matchup-neutral? Or how do you define starter?

What? Okay, this one needs an explanation.

Do you mean in practice, where there is no character who sucks on those stages but is amazing everywhere else? In that case, it still doesn't matter-just because a character doesn't suck on BF/FD/SV doesn't mean that the stages don't give an advantage to other characters. For example, Wario does just fine on those three stages... But would you seriously make the claim that it's perfectly fine to force him to those against Ice Climbers for round one, and that that's a fair stage for the matchup?

Do you mean in theory, a character who is amazing on every stage except for these three should be considered "bad"? If so, you have some serious justification to make for playing favorites to that extent on these stages, which are just as valid as any other stage in the game.

The exact same arguments that exist for 3>1, 5>3, 7>5, and 11>9: the more starters you have, and the more varied starters you have, the closer you come to the true median of bias for round one. Like, let's just take this example...
FD
FD/BF/SV
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC/PS1/CS
FD/BF/SV/YI/LC/PS1/CS/Halberd/DP

MK vs. ICs.
On the 1-starter list, you go to one of the harshest counterpicks in the game: ICs+FD.
On the three-starter list, you are still forced to either BF or SV as MK; these are still IC's best stages.
On the 5-starter list, you are forced to BF. Still a really good stage for ICs.
On the 7-starter, you are likely to end up on CS or YI. Still solid stages for ICs, just not bad for them.
On the 9-starter, you will probably end up on YI or PS1. These stages... actually not that bad as far as the neutrality of the stage regarding the matchup goes.

All we've done is move from "hardcore counterpick for ICs" to "notable counterpick for ICs" to "fairly even stage for the matchup". By increasing the stage count, this will almost always happen, unless you really **** it up somehow (for example going from Frigate only to Frigate/RC/Brinstar). And keep in mind that this is a fairly reasonable progression to expect. Ideally, it would look something more like this:
PS2
PS2/SV/LC
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1/YI/CS
PS2/SV/LC/BF/PS1/YI/CS/FD/DP

...But of course, nobody does it like that. If you're wrong enough to enforce a 3-starter stage list, you're virtually always wrong enough to pick exactly the wrong stages for it as well.

Now. There are some people saying "starters should be static". To this I respond, "why?" Stage striking was implemented to ensure fair ground for round one. Not static ground, neutral ground. By trying to force it onto a static stage, you are essentially perverting the entire process. And before anyone says it, static stages are not that neutral. FD is, in fact, a hardcore counterpick in many matchups, akin to RC or similar. BF and SV actually are fairly neutral, but I'm not advocating them being removed from the starter list. And their neutrality is matched or beaten by stages like PS2, PS1, CS, and LC.

I frankly don't give a **** if someone accuses me of meatriding, but could someone give a good, convincing argument against this post?

As I see it, this just ***** too hard.

Alphicans · Apr 7, 2011

Yes BPC brings a very obvious point that should be clear to anyone by now. It saddens me that he needs to make such a lengthy post to get the point across, when it has been explained and done a million times.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 7, 2011

Lolmeatriding. Nothing wrong with seconding a call for logic. I'm just pointing out that a lot of people are making claims or implying things that they simply cannot back up at all. I'm just asking you guys to think about it for a minute. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 7 starters or 9 starters, as long as they do their job (which they do, almost regardless of what you put in them) of providing an unbiased starting ground for a matchup. There IS, however, something very wrong with creating a starter list that can allow various characters to force you onto their best stages, and then backing it up with nothing more solid than "Well we want to start on a static stage", without any form of justification for that statement.

EDIT: THANK YOU ALPHICANS

Also, another thing. I suppose it's best not to bring up stuff like this, but I wasn't the only member of the stages forum who was quite frankly outraged that we were, well, completely ignored. On almost every issue.

We showed again and again why FD is a lousy starter, at least when you have 5 starters. You did not listen.
We showed again and again why larger starter lists (7+) are better. You did not listen.
We showed again and again why Picto should be banned. You did not listen.
We showed why two stage bans is a really good idea, at least to the extent that only one stage ban with both RC and Brinstar legal should be reevaluated in favor of looking into multiple stage bans (most out of country people are fairly irked about this one, TBH, and I don't blame them). You did not listen.

So... then the thread comes around, and what do we have? People complaining about Picto. People complaining about RC/Brinstar. People complaining about FD. Geez, you'd think we might be on to something here...

Look, as much as you (TOs, players, whatever) hate to admit it, the Stage Discussion forums are important. We find **** out, we really think about the stagelist, and we get **** done that otherwise would not get done. We try very hard to make this community more competitive and less willing to ban anything on knee-jerk reaction, and we try to get people to think about this stuff. And we get ignored. But as much as you hate to admit it, we know what we are talking about. We're, for the most part, the people who know the very most about the brawl stagelist and how it should develop to push this game in the right direction. And we're sick and tired of getting snubbed. And I think that it's really justified at this point. I mean, for ****'s sake, I personally went around and talked to each and every TO on this list about starters, and I got most of you to agree that FD was a lousy move in a 5-starter stagelist. What changed? I mean, I know Alex is one of the most obstinate opponents of liberal starter or stagelists, but he's gone... who's pushing this agenda?

Ripple · Apr 7, 2011

nothing like a hot post from BPC in the morning to brighten my day

Maharba the Mystic · Apr 7, 2011

while i agree with a lot of the rules in here, i gotta say it's ****ing ******** that you people basically made it to where people can't get there tournies with even a slightly differant ruleset won't be featured on AIB or stickied here. that's an abuse of your guys "power." hell even if they went by all the gameplay rules but added or swtiched out a stage, then it's not gonna get any recognition which is stupid. does this mean we can't live stream tournies through SWF or AIB that don't follow these rules either?

as for the stagelist, can some1 explain why pk stadium 2 is legal and japes is not. and i swear if the only reason japes is banned is because of campers then im gonna **** bricks because unlike pk stadium 2, it doesn't change the in game mechanics, which is why i personally think the 2 should be switched or have them both legal. im serious could some1 point me in the direction to a discussion as to why japes is even banned? also i would personally go with a larger starter list as a lot of those on their are actually legit counterpicks on over half the cast with some people. like as a pit main, if you were to add delphino and castle siege to that list, i now can't possibly hard counter half the cast. but with this, no matter how the opponent strikes, i can always wind up with lylat, FD, or smashville. and lylat and FD are both hard counters in my favor on most characters and SV is on several characters

as for infinites on ness and lucas im kinda on the line with that as they are so easy to do so it's kind of unfair for them but at the same time it's like any1 playing iceclimbers, you shouldn't get grabbed.

but for the most part i agree with it as most tournies pretty much did these rules anyway, i also gotta say i like the lgl specifications although i think not metaknight characters should have an lgl of 70. but that's just cause ima pit main :troll:

no but 50 is good.

also on the conduct rules, the fact that you have conduct rules is such a troll as that shuts down the TO's ability to be more or less strict which again is "power" abuse.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 7, 2011

Maharba the Mystic said:
as for the stagelist, can some1 explain why pk stadium 2 is legal and japes is not. and i swear if the only reason japes is banned is because of campers then im gonna **** bricks because unlike pk stadium 2, it doesn't change the in game mechanics, which is why i personally think the 2 should be switched or have them both legal. im serious could some1 point me in the direction to a discussion as to why japes is even banned?

Beats me... I support japes. But your statement on PS2 is just... bad. I'm sorry, but there's no excuse to clamor for PS2's banning any more. The stage is completely legitimate.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285744
Read that. It's long (if you want you can skip to the box at the bottom of the first post for a really clear argumentation; but even that's pretty long), but it really makes it very clear why PS2 should not be banned; the TL;DR version is: "There is not a single overcentralizing, overly random, or overtly anticompetitive factor involved in the stage, and the only arguments against it are based on an incredibly closed-minded, limited, and flawed view of what competition is". Seriously, don't argue against PS2. I will destroy you.

KageMurphy · Apr 7, 2011

FD is a fantastic starter, its mind blowing how people don't think this but I guess when some of you aren't that active in the scene accept from behind your computer screen it may be hard to grasp the concept of a strike. I for one like starting a few matches on FD but I know I can always strike it, that's the benefit of a strike in competitive play and why you do it after character selection, you can get rid of it for something more favorable. Stages with given walk offs/grab release walk offs or that move like Castle and Plaza should never be neutral, same with dumb hazards like Halberd.

I hope I can convince some people to run this rule set to at least try it out cause I mean, it is interesting, I'd like to collect some feedback from our region(pro and noob alike).

Supreme Dirt · Apr 7, 2011

I'm sorry Kage, you're just wrong.

I could go on for a while about why you are wrong, but it's clear you lack the ability to read.

The argument has been repeatedly presented why it's a bad idea.

Ripple · Apr 7, 2011

Pierce said:
Section 3 - Current Projects

Stage Analysis Project(led by MetalMusicMan) – The Brawl Backroom is currently working on a Stage Analysis Project. This project will review the stages in Brawl, and offer information for both new and veteran players alike, as well as reasoning on why people would feel these stages are suited, or ill suited for competitive play.

the BBR did not present ANY reasoning as to why stages were chosen (or rather, in Japes' case, not chosen)

Release it soon or I'm done with this community

and please don't say it isn't finished. What's the ****ing point of releasing a stage list if you guys won't release how you came to it, or WORSE you aren't even done?

T-block · Apr 7, 2011

^The BBR is only related to the BBR-RC by name. The BBR had nothing to do with this ruleset.

Ripple · Apr 7, 2011

T-block said:
^The BBR is only related to the BBR-RC by name. The BBR had nothing to do with this ruleset.

don't you think that's something better suited to the BRC then? they are in charge of the stage list

Maharba the Mystic · Apr 7, 2011

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
Beats me... I support japes. But your statement on PS2 is just... bad. I'm sorry, but there's no excuse to clamor for PS2's banning any more. The stage is completely legitimate.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285744
Read that. It's long (if you want you can skip to the box at the bottom of the first post for a really clear argumentation; but even that's pretty long), but it really makes it very clear why PS2 should not be banned; the TL;DR version is: "There is not a single overcentralizing, overly random, or overtly anticompetitive factor involved in the stage, and the only arguments against it are based on an incredibly closed-minded, limited, and flawed view of what competition is". Seriously, don't argue against PS2. I will destroy you.

wow. that actually changed my mind on it. thank you for showing me that.

but like we still said, why no japes? argghh i don't get why it isn't legal at all. WILL SOME! IN THE BBR-RC EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THIS?

and again, larger starter list=more equality against top tier. hence the 7 stage starter should be wats up

Tesh · Apr 7, 2011

Why isn't YI:M legal? Come on folks just legalize it already.

Juushichi · Apr 7, 2011

Not just the top tier. But with every character in general.

Supreme Dirt · Apr 7, 2011

iirc, the sole reason that Japes and Norfair aren't legal is because they did a polling of 50 tournaments, and any stage with <=50% use were gone automatically, no discussion.

Norfair, incidentally, was used in exactly 50% of those tournaments.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 7, 2011

KageMurphy said:
FD is a fantastic starter, its mind blowing how people don't think this but I guess when some of you aren't that active in the scene accept from behind your computer screen it may be hard to grasp the concept of a strike. I for one like starting a few matches on FD but I know I can always strike it, that's the benefit of a strike in competitive play and why you do it after character selection, you can get rid of it for something more favorable. Stages with given walk offs/grab release walk offs or that move like Castle and Plaza should never be neutral, same with dumb hazards like Halberd.

"Behind a computer screen"?

I live in Germany. Germany's most famous tournament, BiB, ran a 3-starter stagelist (BF/SV/FD) and banned RC, PS2, and most other similar stages (except Brinstar). I have visited pretty much every notable brawl tournament in germany since October 2010, made it out of pools at every single one of them (including the two major nationals since then), and have won MMs against at least somewhat notable players. So no, you're wrong.

"it may be hard to grasp the concept of a strike"

Brinstar/RC/Frigate/FD/BF

You have two strikes. I pick MK. This must be fine, right? After all, you can strike both of MK's really good stages on this list.

FD/BF/SV/LC/YI

You have two strikes. I pick ICs. This must be fine, right? After all, you can strike both of MK's really good stages on this list.

Starting to see the problem here? Not to mention that in including FD in a 5-starter stagelist, you snub stages like PS1, PS2, CS, etc; stages that are, you know, actually neutral. Take a look at this list:

BF/SV/LC/YI/Brinstar

Sure, you can always strike Brinstar, but doesn't it kind of stick out? This is because the stage is so ridiculously non-neutral that it's ridiculous to include it as a starter. There are simply so many more neutral stages! And then on to the last part of your statement.

"Stages with given walk offs/grab release walk offs or that move like Castle and Plaza should never be neutral, same with dumb hazards like Halberd."

Why not? You assume this as if it was such obvious common knowledge... It isn't. Notice how many people get walked off Delfino or CS in high level play. Find me some vids, come on. I want high level players getting killed due to walkoff/wall abuse on these stages! (Admittedly, I myself died to a sheik grab release chaingrab off of Delfino once. But this was before I knew that Sheik could do that. It will not happen to me again because, well, I'm smart and I improve.)

...Can't find anything? Oh right, that's because it doesn't happen. There are a few matchup-based issues (Sharking, Grab release chaingrabs, etc.) but good players don't die to gimmicky bull**** on these stages, in the same way Warios don't die to Ganon's grab release infinite very often. And if it's just a few pesky matchups, strike it. It's not like you can't strike all the stages that a certain character is good on in the matchup (like with FD/SV/BF in a five starter stage list).

Seriously, the statement "movement/hazards disqualifies for starter status" is not only not something you can just assume out of hand, it's also not really that sensible when you think about it.

EDIT: @Maharba the Mystic: Glad I could help. There are a lot of serious misconceptions floating around regarding PS2. Banning the stage simply makes absolutely no sense.

Maharba the Mystic · Apr 7, 2011

actually i forgot about that stage tesh, good call why the hell isn't that stage legal? it doesn't even have hazards and it seems like a completely fair stage that no1 gets to play on because it hasn't been legalized for what is apparently no reason.

also why not have FD and those stages as starters? uh-oh mindgames

san. · Apr 7, 2011

They probably put focus on precedent and how things have been going rather than stage theory. That is why they separated themselves from the BBR who focused on stage theory in the first place.

The issue originates when common consensus on certain opinions of stages conflicts with what they expected. I doubt they expected so many people to dislike FD and want Japes, despite the arguments supporting them. FD is a more divisive issue, though, but there hasn't been a national without FD as a starter yet, as far as I know.

Tesh · Apr 7, 2011

Its like a bunch of walls talking to other walls about politics.

The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

Smash Master

King of the Railway

Smash Champion

Red Fox Warrior

Smash Champion

King of the Railway

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Human Nature

Smash Master

Smash Master

King of the Railway

I like spicy food

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Human Nature

sugoi ~ sugoi ~

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Master

King of the Railway

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

B2B TST

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Smash Master

Smash Hero

sugoi ~ sugoi ~

King of the Railway

Smash Hero

Smash Master

1/Sympathy = Divide By Zero

Smash Hero

Information

Network