"BUT IT MOVES!!!" - Dissecting a closed-minded starter mentality

[SuSa]

That has to deal with his arguments about the stages.... why?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Should the fact that the OP has never attended a single tournament and has no offline experience be taken into account?

Should the fact that Albert Einstein failed math be taken into account when reviewing his theories?

OH WAIT HE DIDN'T FAIL MATH.

Ad hominem is already a debate fallacy, don't add blatant lies to it as well (I have been to a tournament, and I'm going to two more this month).

sv is rated so high because between it (and arguably bf) allows for the most neutral matchups

apparently ps2 does this also, but im no SUPER expert on the stage so w/e

SV and BF do provide fairly even matchups in many matchups. They're not perfect by any means, but they're still good. PS2 is, almost without any doubt, the best starter in the game. I'm not kidding.

 

[AvaricePanda]

not that I disagree really, but I feel like this thread has been made at least 20 times. just worded differently.

also I disagree with you on saying PS2 is the best starter, among other reasons I mentioned for me thinking it's not the most competitive stage, why should a stage with elements found nowhere else in the stagelist be the absolute best starter stage? I thought the starter was in some way reflective of the match-up (you seem to not like polarizing stages as starters because of this). if so, PS2 definitely wouldn't be the best.

otherwise yes I basically agree with you.

 

[SuSa]

Oh no, the stage has elements. It must not be good.

It's the fairest, least polarized stage. The starter can sway the first match. (See his IC example, enemy strikes FD and gg)

 

[napZzz]

the future of brawl is gone

I've heard it plenty of times up until now, but I'll finally agree and just say it

The brawl community sucks

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

the future of brawl is gone

I've heard it plenty of times up until now, but I'll finally agree and just say it

The brawl community sucks

Stop whining and go and play fox vs fox, no items, FD by yourself in a corner.

 

[Laem]

oh wow
i wasnt expecting brawl vs melee in THIS thread
I'll have to refine my skills in idiocy prediction even further

 

[napZzz]

Stop whining and go and play fox vs fox, no items, FD by yourself in a corner.

wrong game bro

 

[Life]

You can still do NOITEMSFOXONLYFINALDESTINATION in Brawl. The phrase was invented for Melee scrubs but that's not relevant.

trollface.jpg

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

This Brawl vs Melee discussion is done. It should have never started. Any further discussion of that business will be appropriately infracted. It's just not okay.

I'll have more stuff to post about the actual topic later, but that needs to be said quickly.

EDIT:

BPC, I wasn't directing comments about the BBR at you. You seem to be trying to actually discuss something so let's go with that.

Susa, this isn't the topic for it nor is this the forum for it really, but there was never a Ganoncide rule from the BBR at any time and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise, and the Bowsercide rule was removed for being antiquated by recent developments involving Bowser's ability to use a technique to survive it. It'sa small rule that was mothballed into many rulesets and otherwise never thought about and generally was a solid place for the BBR to take the initiative in cleaning it up. It doesn't really have anything to do with radical stage selection processes.

I'm going to jump in and give my strong position against ad hominem as well. We definitely also don't need a discussion of the personalities involved. Debate is like chess. You play the board, not the opponent. Any discussion about rules is basically a debate. Have at it.

Averice, I agree with you saying that this is very well tread ground and that's why I'm still kinda skeptical of this thread (but not wanting to kill it just because of the obvious effort investment in the op). I think we have a subtle disagreement over the starter stage. To me, every stage is different enough from all the others that it will inevitably introduce elements not found on any other stages. When you remember that a game element isn't necessarily just a direct property (like conveyor belts) but may also be an emergent property (like how G&W's fishbowl can be used to approach from below with pass-through floors), it's really self-evident. Given that the game is like that, it would seem like every match-up will play out differently on every stage (which I believe is true). Given that, I don't think the starter stage can "reflect the match-up" so much as we can make sure it doesn't bias the match-up by ensuring we find a stage that is fair to both characters (so in G&W vs ICs, we don't play game one on FD, SV, Norfair, or Brinstar). I think there are a few ways to approach that problem, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, but I see the biggest question as whether PS2 is really among hte most ideal stages to use for that purpose. Personally, it seems like a "maybe, but also quite possibly not", and while I am 100% behind PS2 always being legal because it's completely fair, I don't know that it's so obvious it is the best starter. I don't think having conveyor belts or whatever is inherently disqualifying though.

 

[PSI.kick]

i definitely agree that the starters need to be relooked at and your list is pretty good, but i disagree with ps2 being a starter, there are way too many things that are bad for the player as well as the character: the ice, you cant pivot at all, you slide so far, no other stages have this on them. for characters that use pivoting techniques to hit many of their moves (or players that like to do them) this can completely screw their game up.
Also the wind transformation is very, very bad for characters that get juggled easily and have poor aerial game. if they get popped up there are very few ways for them to get back down if being juggled, (an airdodge won't get you anywhere if you are still in the hitbox of the attack when the invincibility frames where off)
but this is a good thread, i definitely agree with the fact that the current starter list is very imbalanced.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I was just using that a an ecamol of what he probably wants.

 

[Raziek]

i definitely agree that the starters need to be relooked at and your list is pretty good, but i disagree with ps2 being a starter, there are way too many things that are bad for the player as well as the character: the ice, you cant pivot at all, you slide so far, no other stages have this on them. for characters that use pivoting techniques to hit many of their moves (or players that like to do them) this can completely screw their game up.
Also the wind transformation is very, very bad for characters that get juggled easily and have poor aerial game. if they get popped up there are very few ways for them to get back down if being juggled, (an airdodge won't get you anywhere if you are still in the hitbox of the attack when the invincibility frames where off)
but this is a good thread, i definitely agree with the fact that the current starter list is very imbalanced.

You should probably read http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285744, before you post stuff like this.

Almost everything you just said is irrelevant to its qualifications as a starter stage. (Or has already been addressed and dismissed)

 

[Eagleye893]

BPC why are you not a Brawl Backroom Member?

I support this.

Simple question though. Lets say you go with the 9 starter stage list. The other 6 become Counter-Picks? If you are daring enough to go with the 15 Starters will there be Counter-Pick stages?

I basically say this....

Great points. I like the effort you put into stating this, and I believe it is completely legitimate.

FD is a stage favoring CG'ers, sonic, and a couple other people. That is definitely true.
Brinstar is a counterpick stage by every sense of that classification: one character will have an advantage on it.
SV should be the most neutral stage, IMO. The platform does enough for every character to create a fairly neutral environment. I can't think of one character who actually is dis-favored on that stage.
BF is definitely not 100% neutral: the placement of the platforms favors some characters much more than others, and the stage bottom hates some characters (ness... I hate using PKfire, PKT, and other things on that stage.)
RC is not neutral at all... super CP
Green-Greens doesn't exist to me.
Halberd, IMO, is another stage that is fairly neutral, but some aspects of it favor one character over another.
Castle seige isn't neutral...
Yoshi's is NOT neutral... Ness is completely unfavored, and several other are also.
Lylat is extremely neutral... and by that, I like it best.
PS1 is also very neutral, IMO. some parts of the stage are favoring some characters, while others favor others.
Delfino... I say favors some characters extremely... super non-neutral.
frigate favors some.
picto chat does as well
JJapes is definitely favoring some characters over others.
...?


So I basically agree with you on most points.

 

[Dajayman]

Why don't some people understand that a lot of people want to face just their opponent, not an opponent and the stage?

If anything we need to lose stages like RC and Brinstar. While it's fun to play on these goofy stages (I love places like Japes, LM, Brinstar), the point of competition is to see who is better verus another human, not who is better verus another human while dealing with stage elements.

FD is neutral, nothing happens on it. It's not FD's fault some characters like Diddy and Icies have movesets that are really amazing on such a plain stage.

 

[SuSa]

You are facing the stage, even if the stage is FD.


See:

Diddy Kong vs _______________


It's just less obvious.

 

[Dajayman]

Honestly based on how well a character does on FD alone + an overall matchup chart should determine the tier list. Imagine if Smash was like other fighting games where only plain stages existed.

This is probably why other fighting game communities don't respect us, too much goofy elements in our game (Smaah was intended to be a party game).

 

[Luxor]

Rainbow Cruise is the best stage in the game.

haha I can make unsupported inaccurate value judgments too

 

[SuSa]

Honestly based on how well a character does on FD alone + an overall matchup chart should determine the tier list. Imagine if Smash was like other fighting games where only plain stages existed.

This is probably why other fighting game communities don't respect us, too much goofy elements in our game (Smaah was intended to be a party game).

If we're to base the entire tier list for a single stage, that stage should be Smashville - out of the current neutrals it is the least polarized amongst the cast. If you want a stage that conducts the fairest test for how a character does in different scenarios and enviroments, PS2 would be the fairest stage.

Just because FD doesn't have any platforms doesn't make it the most neutral stage. In fact, I'd say having a platform increases it's neutrality. Just not when there are 3 platforms. (The middle platform of BF ruins the stage, imo)

PS:
FD is not the most neutral stage. Since when did having a platform make a stage any less neutral? Same with having movement?

 

[Luxor]

BF is more neutral than SV imo- SV is Falco/Diddy/ICs' counterpick, after all.
My reasoning is loosely outlined here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=283599

BF/Lylat fall right in the middle of the road, while SV is rather extreme.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

also I disagree with you on saying PS2 is the best starter, among other reasons I mentioned for me thinking it's not the most competitive stage, why should a stage with elements found nowhere else in the stagelist be the absolute best starter stage? I thought the starter was in some way reflective of the match-up (you seem to not like polarizing stages as starters because of this). if so, PS2 definitely wouldn't be the best.

Reread the OP, I put it very cleanly in extra large lettering that elements of a stage do not matter. The only factor that matters when deciding a stage as a starter or not is the factor of polarization/how good it is for every character.

the future of brawl is gone

I've heard it plenty of times up until now, but I'll finally agree and just say it

The brawl community sucks

Yeah, I know. We're full of idiotic kiddies who just know they're right, won't listen to reason, and refuse to play the ****ing game. Sucks ***.

Wait, why the hell are you complaining?

i definitely agree that the starters need to be relooked at and your list is pretty good, but i disagree with ps2 being a starter, there are way too many things that are bad for the player as well as the character: the ice, you cant pivot at all, you slide so far, no other stages have this on them. for characters that use pivoting techniques to hit many of their moves (or players that like to do them) this can completely screw their game up.
Also the wind transformation is very, very bad for characters that get juggled easily and have poor aerial game. if they get popped up there are very few ways for them to get back down if being juggled, (an airdodge won't get you anywhere if you are still in the hitbox of the attack when the invincibility frames where off)

See what I said to AP.

Why don't some people understand that a lot of people want to face just their opponent, not an opponent and the stage?

Why don't some people go play street fighter? Brawl, as a game, is built with stages. It's built so that characters are made to interact with stages. Forcing stages like FD only

If anything we need to lose stages like RC and Brinstar. While it's fun to play on these goofy stages (I love places like Japes, LM, Brinstar), the point of competition is to see who is better verus another human, not who is better verus another human while dealing with stage elements.

This point has been refuted so many ****ing times it's not even funny. You're arbitrarily redefining "competition". It's like saying "I want blue food", then someone gives you a plate of my grandma's mashed potatoes and you say "that's not blue food" (it is). The point of competition is to determine who is the better Super Smash Bros player. This cannot be acheived by simply 1v1, FD only. Doesn't work.

FD is neutral, nothing happens on it. It's not FD's fault some characters like Diddy and Icies have movesets that are really amazing on such a plain stage.

Yes, but it's our fault for encouraging the mindset that that should be rewarded.

Honestly based on how well a character does on FD alone + an overall matchup chart should determine the tier list. Imagine if Smash was like other fighting games where only plain stages existed.

It would be dull and boring, with a far less deep metagame and far less to the actual game itself. This is bad and you should feed bad.

This is probably why other fighting game communities don't respect us, too much goofy elements in our game (Smaah was intended to be a party game).

Or, you know, the fact that we don't respect the rules of "ban only what needs to be banned", the fact that we basically reconstruct the entire game, and the fact that half of the things banned are banned simply because someone doesn't like them. That could be it too; I'd see that as enough to scorn a fighting game community.

Basically, your mindset would work if, for whatever reason, static stages (especially FD) were the default. They're not. When you want to "just play on static stages" as you implied above, you really should just go play a different game, because at that point it's clear-you're not actually interested in competitive Super Smash Bros Brawl, you're interested in scrubby "whatever the **** goes". The only thing that stages affect when it comes to competition itself is CONSISTENCY. That is the only thing that matters. If a stage does not contain an overcentralizing tactic, and is effectively non-random, it can be seen as consistent. The irony, of course, is that all of the stages you just mentioned are consistent. RC? Brinstar? JJ? Luigi's Mansion? All completely non-random and lacking in overcentralizing tactics.

Furthermore, you say we should remove the PvS part of the game. This is not possible. There will ALWAYS be PvS, no matter what stage. Why should we bother to minimize it if it's built into the game like that, and stages with heavy PvS are still definitively competitive? Because we as players can't deal with it? Because the characters we love can't? Stop playing the game you wish smash was and ruining it for those of us who actually enjoy the game; go play TvC or some other stage with dull static elements.

 

[SuSa]

BPC, I usually disagree with a lot of the **** that comes from your mouth. But the above post is poetic ****.

Brawl is designed to make the player fight the stage as much as the enemy character. Can you name any other fighting games where your goal isn't to kill the person, but to get a ring out? I swear if someone says Soul Caliber.....

I sure as hell can't.... then again, most other games work with some form of life bar and rounds. (See: Blazblue, Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom....) Brawl works with stocks/lives as well as rounds.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

...
Weeeeeellll, in Soul Cali- *Shot*

 

[Dajayman]

Stating your opinion and viewpoint gets you shot. Wish my side had more shooters. :/

Just saying what other fighting games do, they seem to be doing fine yet we have numerous problems due to how much other "fun" elements Smash Bros. has.

The argument that having only FD as a stage would be boring is just ridiculous in my eyes. If you all want fun then put on those goofy stages, items, and a two minute timer. You want a serious and competitive game then play with stocks, no items, and no goofy stages.

Unfortunately Nintendo won't update the game to balance the characters in competitive play, the competitive community gets ignored. We can't ever hope for balance, but adding goofy stages, in my opinion, does not help at all. And unfortunately communities attempts to recreate the game with hacks gets ignored as well. You can't argue that FD itself isn't one of the simplest stages in the game, it's certain character's moveset which make the stage "unfair".

So in the end this topic, like all other suggestions and ideas will have people like all you and people like me disagreeing and arguing with each other. The split will never see this happen.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC, I usually disagree with a lot of the **** that comes from your mouth. But the above post is poetic ****.

Brawl is designed to make the player fight the stage as much as the enemy character. Can you name any other fighting games where your goal isn't to kill the person, but to get a ring out? I swear if someone says Soul Caliber.....

I sure as hell can't.... then again, most other games work with some form of life bar and rounds. (See: Blazblue, Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom....) Brawl works with stocks/lives as well as rounds.

You usually disagree with me? This is news.

And yes, this. The fact that literally the only way of killing your opponent is, *gasp*, a stage interaction, should point to how important PvS is in this game. Please stop saying "I only want to fight my opponent", any dumdums out there.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Stating your opinion and viewpoint gets you shot. Wish my side had more shooters. :/

It gets you argued against, not shot. The problem with your side is that you can't bring up any valid reasoning for your points, beyond things like "we want to play it this way", which simply do not hold up when talking about competitive gaming; we, on the other hand, have slowly amassed a HUGE bulk of reasoning as to why the game should respect PvS. Because it's a critical, intentionally added part of the game, and completely removing it would not only be foolhardy, but impossible.

Just saying what other fighting games do, they seem to be doing fine yet we have numerous problems due to how much other "fun" elements Smash Bros. has.

What problems are you talking about? And who said anything about fun mattering? We don't have problems with fun elements that we haven't removed. Brinstar has no problems. RC has no problems. Japes has no problems. The only problems with these stages are players who refuse to adapt to simple, predictable movement and hazards, an intrinsical part of the game. In short, bad players.

Other fighting games, as SuSa said, make it possible to completely ignore the PvS element because there is no stage. In Brawl, no matter what, there's going to be a stage. And it is the only way

The argument that having only FD as a stage would be boring is just ridiculous in my eyes. If you all want fun then put on those goofy stages, items, and a two minute timer. You want a serious and competitive game then play with stocks, no items, and no goofy stages.

Well, you're right here... It being boring is a poor argument. You know what's worse? Removing half of the game for completely bull**** arbitrary reasons.

Unfortunately Nintendo won't update the game to balance the characters in competitive play, the competitive community gets ignored. We can't ever hope for balance, but adding goofy stages, in my opinion, does not help at all. And unfortunately communities attempts to recreate the game with hacks gets ignored as well. You can't argue that FD itself isn't one of the simplest stages in the game, it's certain character's moveset which make the stage "unfair".

*sigh* here we go again...

You are making a very, very hefty assumption here. One I have refuted time and time again. This is the assumption that 1v1 on FD is the natural, normal way to play the game. This is a brutally false assumption, based on...? What's it based on? Why would you assume that a stage with no random elements (7/41?), no moving elements (3/41), and no interactive/damaging elements (too lazy to get a figure) is the DEFAULT? This is the only stage in the game with no moving parts and no platforms beyond the base one. And it's the default in your eyes why? Non-random, non-moving stages are an obscene minority in brawl. You cannot view characters in a static mindset, because that's simply not how the game works. You have to view them relative to stages.

Believe it or not, for a casual game, Brawl has ridiculous competitive merit. It's almost hilarious just how much competitive depth this game has. Now if people like would stop siphoning it off with bad arguments, convincing TOs to ban any stage you don't like or feel is "anticompetitive" for completely arbitrary, bull****ty reasons (JJ, PTAD, LM, YI(M), PS2, and DP all come to mind...), we would be able to get somewhere with it!
Adding "goofy" stages (or, as smart people would put it, "not removing competitively legitimate stages") balances the system out, and, as the game intended, rewards characters with the positive character trait of being able to adapt to multiple environments. Without those stages, our CP system is basically "who does the best on these 3 flat, static stages", without explaining why all of the other competitively legitimate stages were banned.

So in the end this topic, like all other suggestions and ideas will have people like all you and people like me disagreeing and arguing with each other. The split will never see this happen.

This divide only exists because some people simply aren't smart enough to get it. I'm sorry, but that's what it comes down to. Open your eyes, and you'll realize that we're right.

 

[Orion*]

That has to deal with his arguments about the stages.... why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6lt-_xkCQ#t=5m15s

Ad hominem is already a debate fallacy, don't add blatant lies to it as well (I have been to a tournament, and I'm going to two more this month).

you went to one tournament (was it even for money). youve been posting on smashboards somewhat. you are arguing vs people who have potentially been playing this game competitively since melee, have been to countless amounts of tournaments and have put just as much theory craft into this as you have probably.

without even me personally thinking that your wrong, which i do.

its very easy to take the opinions of people who have an almost infinite amount of experience in comparison to yours in all of these subjects more heavily. irregardless, take the assumption that there is a chance you can be wrong, and propose things as ideas, not as facts.

SV and BF do provide fairly even matchups in many matchups. They're not perfect by any means, but they're still good. PS2 is, almost without any doubt, the best starter in the game. I'm not kidding.

ex: you couldve reworded that and said

BF and SV are obviously great starter stages, however PS2 is severly underlooked and i feel that in terms of neutral matchups, it is the most balanced stage in the game. despite this, its still banned? maybe we can move this to counter first, and after subsequent tournament data has been found on the stage and recorded, maybe we can make it a nuetral

you would get a better overall response from the community that way imo (hint bbr LMAO)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Meh. I hate it when orion's right, because it always means I'm wrong about something. >.>

 

[Dajayman]

Alright, I see the problem. You stated it clearly, I'd quote you but I'm using an iPod Touch. You think the sole reason we ban stages is because people don't know how to deal with stage elements. While that is usually part of the reason, it isn't always the case unless the stage elements add a huge negative part in gameplay (like PTAD).

Want to know why people really don't like Japes? Because of Falco using sideb and lasers to have amazing stage control. Want to know why people hate Luigi's Mansion? MK, DK, Lucario. How can you say Luigi's Mansion is a fair stage when all Metaknight can do is land a tornado inside the house and **** you? Or DK can use downb and **** people who aren't that great at teching. We don't ban Norfair because of lava, we ban it because it promotes heavy planking. I'll take you to Brinstar with Ness, you'll be pro-ban for that stage right after the match.

In FD's case, FD does literally nothing. FD doesn't aid anybody, FD doesn't make Falco's lasers faster or hit harder. It's the character's fault why FD gives them an advantage, unlike say Luigi's Mansion where the mansion's ceiling makes it so that somebody caught in Metaknight's tornado comes bouncing back down into another tornado (or they can tech it and still be caught in the top of the tornado). Norfair has SIX ledges, it's pretty much inviting you to plank.

I'm not going to list why every stage is banned, just trust me that it's not simply because "I hate lava, it stinks. Ban Norfair and Brinstar." Although I admit that most of the community would rather the game be person vs. person, not person vs. person vs. the stage.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Look, bro.
The stages are part of the game. You seem to believe that because it is a fighting game between two players, that the "norm" is PvP no interruptions.

NO.

If you don't like getting laser camped by Falco on Japes, play a different game. This is Brawl, Falco is a legal character and Japes is a legal stage. Dealing with the stage is as much a part of the game as dealing with the characters is.

We don't ban stages because you find them dull to play on, we ban them if they adversely affect competitive play (either through skill marginalization or tactic over-centralization).

I also fail to see how Pokemon Stadium 2 possess ANY of those qualities you hate so much.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

tl;dr
The starter stages shouldn't be focused on being static and basic, and rather be focused on not favoring characters (if it is avoidable).

A decent TL;DR is pretty hard because it simply has so much info. I will try to compile one later though.

Also, this has nothing to do with the competitive validity of any stage. That's an entirely different discussion. This merely has to do with how the stagelist works. (I do, however, totally love Norfair )

EDIT: God dammit GT.

Mmmkay. Well then, yeah. I agree.

I mean, we all know that starters like FD do tend to favour characters like Diddy and Snake.

I support this thread. ^____^

 

[Dajayman]

Look, bro.
The stages are part of the game. You seem to believe that because it is a fighting game between two players, that the "norm" is PvP no interruptions.

NO.

If you don't like getting laser camped by Falco on Japes, play a different game. This is Brawl, Falco is a legal character and Japes is a legal stage. Dealing with the stage is as much a part of the game as dealing with the characters is.

We don't ban stages because you find them dull to play on, we ban them if they adversely affect competitive play (either through skill marginalization or tactic over-centralization).

I also fail to see how Pokemon Stadium 2 possess ANY of those qualities you hate so much.

See that's the beauty of this game. We can set the norm. Know what the actual intentional norm is? Two minute timed matches, items on, team attack off, all stages legal. So yes, we have the options to make the norm a 3 stock, no item, 8 minute PvP match with little/no stage interference. It's what the majority of the competitive community wants.

Deal with the stage? Did you even read my last post? Japes ain't banned because it's a dull stage. A good example is Ook playing as DK cp'd a Diddy Kong to Japes and two stocked him because he lived to 300% each stock. How is Diddy's lack of vertical KO power going to help him adapt to the a stage with a ridiclously high ceiling? How is anybody just going to deal with Falco's amazing stage control there?

While I don't personally know why PS2 is banned, I'm sure it's for good reason. Nobody is going to ban it just because they don't like the treadmills or low gravity. There are probably ******** exploitable strategies that invole the stage mechanics.

FD "favors" characters because their movesets are simply superior to others when zero stage elements are involved. Don't hate on FD because your character finds it hard to get through IC desynch blizzards with no platforms. Besides the lips on FD, the stage is pretty much the epitome of the norm the competitive community would want in a stage. There is no reason why FD should not be a starter, just because you don't like Falco laser spam is not a reason. Stage striking exists for the purpose of you striking FD if you know a character does well there, so you can pick BF so platforms can give you an edge.

And to be honest, a stage producing lava or having a platform isn't going to change the fact that Metaknight has lightning fast attacks, infinite priority on his attacks, and an insane recovery. It also won't change the fact that Ganondorf is way too slow, his recovery is abismal, and he suffers from a ton of coding errors which negatively effect his gameplay. What our current stages with minimal stage interference did was show the true colors of characters, what every character's potential really is. Little stage interference allows us to focus on important things like developing our characters' metagames, not developing how our character can dodge stage hazards. Adding goofy stages won't suddenly slow down Metaknight's attack speed, lower his priority, and nerf his moveset.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alright, I see the problem. You stated it clearly, I'd quote you but I'm using an iPod Touch. You think the sole reason we ban stages is because people don't know how to deal with stage elements. While that is usually part of the reason, it isn't always the case unless the stage elements add a huge negative part in gameplay (like PTAD).

Don't bring PTAD into this, that's a different thread altogether. But it belongs to a long line of stages banned due to interactive gameplay elements that are misunderstood, overestimated, and generally assumed incorrectly. There are stages like this, believe me.

Want to know why people really don't like Japes? Because of Falco using sideb and lasers to have amazing stage control.

It just so happens that Falco has an amazing stage, a very strong counterpick for his character. Our system is built to deal with that. Stage bans, you getting your counterpick if you lose on his, etc.

Want to know why people hate Luigi's Mansion? MK, DK, Lucario. How can you say Luigi's Mansion is a fair stage when all Metaknight can do is land a tornado inside the house and **** you?

Err... this is faulty info from like 2008, please don't bring it up. Tornado is really punishable in Luigi's Mansion. Far moreseo than on, say, Battlefield. Just get better at teching.

Or DK can use downb and **** people who aren't that great at teching.

You know, I'm willing to bet I can **** people who aren't that great at spacing on FD with marth... Seriously, arguing for those who are bad at a critical gameplay facet is bad and you should feel bad.

We don't ban Norfair because of lava, we ban it because it promotes heavy planking.

It doesn't; planking on norfair is actually weaker than on most other stages in the game. Nice try though.

I'll take you to Brinstar with Ness, you'll be pro-ban for that stage right after the match.

Probably not, refer to what I said about Falco and Japes.

In FD's case, FD does literally nothing. FD doesn't aid anybody, FD doesn't make Falco's lasers faster or hit harder. It's the character's fault why FD gives them an advantage, unlike say Luigi's Mansion where the mansion's ceiling makes it so that somebody caught in Metaknight's tornado comes bouncing back down into another tornado (or they can tech it and still be caught in the top of the tornado). Norfair has SIX ledges, it's pretty much inviting you to plank.

And HERE WE GO AGAIN.

*sigh* here we go again...

You are making a very, very hefty assumption here. One I have refuted time and time again. This is the assumption that 1v1 on FD is the natural, normal way to play the game. This is a brutally false assumption, based on...? What's it based on? Why would you assume that a stage with no random elements (7/41?), no moving elements (3/41), and no interactive/damaging elements (too lazy to get a figure) is the DEFAULT? This is the only stage in the game with no moving parts and no platforms beyond the base one. And it's the default in your eyes why? Non-random, non-moving stages are an obscene minority in brawl. You cannot view characters in a static mindset, because that's simply not how the game works. You have to view them relative to stages.

Do I have to repeat myself constantly?

You are still assuming that FD is the default stage in brawl. By all means, assume that. But know that your assumption is as accurate as the assumption that mario bros is the default stage in brawl.

There is no default. You cannot view a character's tools in a vacuum, you have to view them compared to stages, and other characters. So falco's camping gets a (comparative) boost on Japes. Oh well, ban it against him. It also gets a boost on FD, if you want to believe it or not-and this has entirely to do with the stage's layout, comparative to other stages.

YES, Japes helps camping. YES, PS2 allows for some stalling situations during certain transformations. YES, Brinstar lets Ness run wild. We know. This is why we have stage bans. This is why the counterpick system is built so that if you do poorly on your opponent's counterpick, you get yours the next round. This is why Game 1 is seen as so important. HOWEVER!
FD:
-Aids Camping with it's excessively large form
-Aids projectiles due to a lack of platforms to get around things like SHDL on
-Aids chaingrabs due to its excessively large form and lack of hazards/changes
-Aids static-loving characters (ICs, Falco, Diddy) due to its lack of hazards/changes

The lack of an element is, in and of itself, an element. Why? Because you cannot see FD as the default, but you have to see it as one of many stages. It's, in fact, not the norm. It's a severe outlier due to its very nature. It's exceptional for a stage not to move or transform. It's uncommon for a stage not to hurt you. It's extraordinary for a stage to not contain any random elements. Does this make sense?

I'm not going to list why every stage is banned, just trust me that it's not simply because "I hate lava, it stinks. Ban Norfair and Brinstar." Although I admit that most of the community would rather the game be person vs. person, not person vs. person vs. the stage.

Most of the community is wrong, and will never get what they want. They don't understand that what pure PvP entails is creating a stage without a way out (with stage builder, just a flat floor, 2 walls, and a ceiling) and playing stamina mode. With that, you completely eliminate the stage factor. You wanna play brawl that way? Be my guest. However, it's simply not how the game is built to work. PvP(vP(vP))(vI)vS. If it's in brackets, you can feasibly remove it. There is no way to remove PvS influence, and there is no reason to minimize it at all.

Also, I know why most stages are banned, thank you. I hold most of the reasoning for wrong and ridiculous.

EDIT: Oooh, now you've gone and done it.

See that's the beauty of this game. We can set the norm. Know what the actual intentional norm is? Two minute timed matches with team attack off.

The "norm" is "we set it up how we want". Settings you can **** around with. How the hell do you set up your stage selection in-game? Well, there's random.........

So yes, we have the options to make the norm a 3 stock, 8 minute PvP match with little/no stage interference. It's what the majority of the competitive community wants.

Yep. And guess what? The majority of the community are anticompetitive scrubs. I've described quite extensively why more stages is better. Why interaction leads to more competition. Why allowing stages that make you think/work differently is a good thing. I'll reference if you want me to.

Deal with the stage? Did you even read my last post? Japes ain't banned because it's a dull stage. A good example is Ook playing as DK cp'd a Diddy Kong to Japes and two stocked him because he lived to 300% each stock. How is Diddy's lack of vertical KO power going to help him adapt to the a stage with a ridiclously high ceiling? How is anybody just going to deal with Falco's amazing stage control there?

Well, your example of Ook vs. Diddy reminded me of... well, Olimar vs. MK. Obviously, if you take a character's best stage, put them in a matchup where there opponent is too dumb to switch to a decent counter character, and let them loose on it, they're going to lose. Why didn't the Diddy go Falco? Or DDD? Or some other char that does well against DK there? Why didn't Brood switch to G&W, Wario, or MK when M2K CP'd him to RC? He could've.

While I don't personally know why PS2 is banned, I'm sure it's for good reason. Nobody is going to ban it just because they don't like the treadmills or low gravity. There are probably ******** exploitable strategies that invole the stage mechanics.

1. It isn't,
2. They would; in fact
3. They do
4. There aren't.

PS2 is really a pet peeve of mine. There is not a single legitimate reason to ban the stage. It's proven itself fairly extensively to be one of the most fair and balanced stages in the game, and everyone still bans it for no good reason. I've said it before, I'll say it again:
"If you, as a TO, ban PS2 in your tournaments, you are a scrub. If you, as a player, ask your TO to ban PS2 in his tournaments, you are a scrub. If you do not like the stage, that's fine, but you must respect the competitive viability of the stage."

FD "favors" characters because their movesets are simply superior to others when zero stage elements are involved.

BOOM! They are superior to others when zero stage elements are involved? Heh, what a coincidence. There are only a tiny subset of stages in the game that provide these conditions! This must mean something, right?
OH LOOK ALL OF THESE STAGES ARE STARTERS.
OH LOOK THESE CHARACTERS ARE TOP TIERS.

Just pointing that out.

Seriously, though, how is it not obvious by now that you have to view a lack of elements as an element in and of itself?

Don't hate on FD because your character finds it hard to get through IC desynch blizzards with no platforms.

Yes, and it's just a coincidence that FD is the only stage where there are no platforms. And no hazards. And no changes.

Besides the lips on FD, the stage is pretty much the epitome of the norm the competitive community would want in a stage.

The lips are perfect. I.e. they're the only thing that makes the stage any challenge at all in PvS. And furthermore, FD is not and should not be the norm. AS I KEEP ON SAYING.

And to be honest, a stage producing lava or having a platform isn't going to change the fact that Metaknight has lightning fast attacks, infinite priority on his attacks, and an insane recovery. It also won't change the fact that Ganondorf is way too slow, his recovery is abismal, and he suffers from a ton of coding errors which negatively effect his gameplay.

True. It won't. It will, however, show these movesets off in a different light. MK is going to be ******** no matter what stages you use. Let's take a better example-Mr. Game and Watch.

G&W's moveset is, once you get past that Bair, fairy easy to outprioritize on flat, "normal" stages. He has very little going for him in the realm of safe approaches. His punishing and juggling games are, without platforms to aid him, subpar.

G&W is AWFUL on FD.
Throw some platforms into the mix though, and his moveset stops being so awkward. Things start to click. That nair with the uselessly vertical hitbox? Whoops, if you're on a platform, it will **** you with a rake. That weaving dair which is often so easy to punish? Throw in some platforms and the mindgames are gross. Et Cetera. And suddenly, you have a char who ***** on stages like Battlefield, Lylat Cruise, Brinstar, etc., but is horrid on FD. Why is this? Perhaps because his moveset just isn't built to stand up on the one stage you have singled out as the "norm" despite all contrary evidence.

What our current stages with minimal stage interference did was show the true colors of characters, what every character's potential really is.

You're still not getting it. Characters don't show their true colors on FD. They show their FD colors on FD. They don't show their true colors on stage X, they show their stage X colors on stage X. There IS no normal stage. There is no stage which should be hoisted onto a pedestal for any reason beyond "all other stages directly harm competition". You have one level where your banned stages are, the ones that make competition trivial or impossible due to overcentralizing tactics or excessive randomness. Then you have another level, where you have all the stages that aren't in that last group. FD is not on a pedestal for any reason-in fact, it's a fairly bad competitive stage, as shown in a thread a little ways down the listings for the stages forum about what stage is the most competitive (look around the first page, it's there).

Little stage interference allows us to focus on important things like developing our characters' metagames, not developing how our character can dodge stage hazards. Adding goofy stages won't suddenly slow down Metaknight's attack speed, lower his priority, and nerf his moveset.

You're right. It will, however:
-Make the ICs moveset, which looks pretty **** broken on FD, fairly easy to beat due to their lack of vertical options, a reliance on grabbing, and tendency to take stage hazards poorly due to their nature
-Make G&W's moveset, by relation to all other characters in the game, slightly better, as he is almost completely unaffected by stage hazards and works no matter what

Here's a decent comparison: Brawl is like a hardcore off-road track. ICs are a formula one race car-if you keep them in the flat, even spaces, you'll outrace everyone. G&W is like Bigdog; slow and clunky, but if the going gets rough, he's almost completely unaffected, especially when compared to, say, the formula one racer over there sinking into the swamp.
Brawl is, inherently, said off-road track. You and the people who agree with you, for absolutely no good reason, want to transform it into the Daytona 500 racetrack. If you want that, then I would recommend that you to change the channel to nascar instead of Xsports; i.e. go play a fighting game that isn't so heavily built against your tastes. I'd recommend TvC, it's pretty **** fun.

 

[-Jumpman-]

It's not ad hominem, doubting your expertise is definitely not a fallacy.

Edit:
I just saw Orion's post, it's amazing how OP admits his failure when an authority like Orion says he's wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's not ad hominem, doubting your expertise is definitely not a fallacy.

Edit:
I just saw Orion's post, it's amazing how OP admits his failure when an authority like Orion says he's wrong.

Nothing to do with who orion is, just how he puts it.

My expertise is not referenced here. THis could be posted by M2K or a 3-year-old for all it matters; the weight and strength of the arguments has no correlation to my expertise or ability to play.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

While that logic normally works, BPC, not so much in this case.

You made several statements in the OP that are purely experience-based (such as the balance of PS2, you didn't provide facts for why it was balanced, just: It's been tested and it is).

In cases like these, where your experience affects your argument, it can be called into question.

Not that I disagree with you, just sayin'.

 

[Orion*]

We don't ban stages because you find them dull to play on

word? can i have hanenbow back then? idk theres no hazards there and it wasnt really tested , it doesnt matter if its boring and like every match that goes there lasts to the timer, its still legit LMAO.

You know, I'm willing to bet I can **** people who aren't that great at spacing on FD with marth...

i seriously doubt this for some reason LMAO.

While that logic normally works, BPC, not so much in this case.

You made several statements in the OP that are purely experience-based (such as the balance of PS2, you didn't provide facts for why it was balanced, just: It's been tested and it is).

In cases like these, where your experience affects your argument, it can be called into question.

Not that I disagree with you, just sayin'.

^ this x100

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

While that logic normally works, BPC, not so much in this case.

You made several statements in the OP that are purely experience-based (such as the balance of PS2, you didn't provide facts for why it was balanced, just: It's been tested and it is).

In cases like these, where your experience affects your argument, it can be called into question.

Not that I disagree with you, just sayin'.

Where did I reference my experience in the OP or subsequent arguments? Pointing to PS2 being fair is not based on my own experience, but rather the very extensive playtesting by pretty much the entire region of Nova Scotia.

 

[Life]

/namesearch time!

If you won't believe BPC, Raziek is the #1 TO in his region (aforementioned Nova Scotia), and has successfully banned MK and uses the majority (IIRC) of the BBR stagelist in his tournaments.

Also, BPC made a HUGE thread on why PS2 is balanced, it's buried somewhere...
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285744

Also, if ad hominem were not fallacy, I could knock down Orion's credibility with one word:
IRREGARDLESS
Seriously, who makes that mistake? If Orion can't even be bothered to spell correctly, why do we think he's capable of thinking through a debate on Brawl stages? (It really does bother me BTW, but does this make it a little more obvious why ad hominem is fallacy?)

 

[Orion*]

LMAO sorry i dont spend hours writing walls of text with spellcheck, i just type. at least i put in the time to make it very clear that you can read what i say, if you want to be an absolute scrub and not listen to me otherwise go ahead.

this is another reason the brawl community sucks online, its takes like a college thesis to please people for a video game. sorry bro, i have an INFINITE amount of crap i could do otherwise than waste my life away at my keyboard when i can give a simple explanation

im a jazz major living in EU for college so i can either
a) practice
b) do homework
c) go find lovely european woman and have them cook for me
d) practice tech skill
e) go the club (its a monday so not really )
f) listen to music (part of the job<3)
g) hang out with other students
ect. im pretty sure i could find 100 things to do before i legitimately will go write an essay like BPC or Raziek unless i have a specific reason to.