I made a post in the smash back room (if you don't know what it is, don't bother asking) in response to someone who was proposing that a controversial stage should be a random/neutral stage as it is a measure of "true skill". It may be a little strange out of context, but I thought the post could apply to many different things, so I decided to post it here:
I hate when people argue about things that take "true skill" in Smash. What is "true skill" in Smash? Many people argue that you need skill with items, on every stage, and with the character to have "true skill." But do we need those skillsets? I think the Smash community as a whole has gravitated towards putting the most emphasis on skills with a character, which is the most unique skill of the 3. Everybody, with every character, can have skill with items, and the skill required with characters to play on or adapt to stages varies only a little bit. But skill with a character is something that doesn't carry over despite who you play with (well, it does a little, but only the basics). The competitive Smash community seemed to quietly agree that having copious amounts of this skill should trump any of the others. IMO, Thats how the stage selection method came about. The whole idea of a "neutral" stage is to test how two players can fare against each other with minimal other factors involved. But you can still use your stage skills by counterpicking unusual places, i.e. Pictochat. Although, even if you win your counterpick, you may not necessarily the whole set. This way there can still be tests of skills on a stage, but those skills wont (in theory) trump character skills enough to take an entire set.
The way I see it is that "true skill" in Smash is defined differently among different communities. Many non-competitive smashers think "true skill" is skill with everything unique the game throws at you. I can see why they would think this way. But through time and experience, the competitive community has naturally evolved this definition of "true skill" in Smash to being mostly about the character/match-ups, and the rest with the stages.
While this may not necessarily be true, the way I see it is that the reason "true skill" to the competitive smash community evolved in the way it did is because they were able to look at things at the 'highest level of play.' The item skillset carries over with every character, with a lot of overlap amongst the characters. At the highest level of play, having an impeccable item game would be a basic skill required, almost like being able to recover. If two players at the highest level of the metagame were to have a match, skill with items isn't a factor anymore. Instead, it boils down to inherent character advantages/disadvantages, as well as random chance, as to who is 'better' with items in that game. Much of that applies to stages as well. When two players at the highest level play each other on a stage, they will both understand the stage in and out, and be able to adapt to it, or take advantage of it, etc. And in the end, the match doesn't become a test of who has more skill on a stage, but it boils down to which character has more of an advantage/disadvantage on that given stage. The reason so much emphasis is placed on characters is that there is no single playstyle with the characters. You can play in your own unique way so at the 'highest level of play', character match-ups that aren't ridiculously one-sided can play out differently every single game. The amount of depth provided by characters, playstyles, match-ups, etc. is the only skill that, at the highest level of play, is still determined by the player, instead of inherent imbalances present in the game. At least, thats what I believe.
). Honestly...you make my heart hurt...
