-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Official Stage Legality Discussion: Philosophical
- Thread starter Amazing Ampharos
- Start date
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
Fox has to jump to circle camp.
fox moves slowly in the air.
MK can glide/tornado.
Mk has a move that can basically go through solid parts of a stage, and covers a huge distance.
It's kinda obvious...
fox moves slowly in the air.
MK can glide/tornado.
Mk has a move that can basically go through solid parts of a stage, and covers a huge distance.
It's kinda obvious...
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,050
Fox's running speed may be faster, but his path is longer and more awkward than MK's. MK's path is more clear-cut. He can cut a lot of corners while doing the circle, and if he wanted to, he could glide through everything, which would cut even more corners.
You're not seeing it because you're clearly theorizing it. You haven't witnessed it being done correctly in-game. Get a friend and try it out.
T-block
B2B TST
I'm not convinced (but I haven't tried it either).
Fox only needs one circle. What if he only abuses the "main circle" (through the drop through platforms into the cave, up through the tunnel, across back to the drop through platforms)?
I believe that Fox can't catch MK though, because he can abuse the rest of the stage.
Fox only needs one circle. What if he only abuses the "main circle" (through the drop through platforms into the cave, up through the tunnel, across back to the drop through platforms)?
I believe that Fox can't catch MK though, because he can abuse the rest of the stage.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,050
That's the circle I was talking about. Fox has trouble going upwards, while MK doesn't. MK can do like 2 jumps then UpB and laglessly hit the ground, Fox has to double jump > wall jump > land slowly, and Sonic has to UpB and wait in hangtime for like an hour before he can start moving.
Trust me, just try it and you'll understand.
Trust me, just try it and you'll understand.
Fox does have side b so he doesn't really have to wait to land you know....
Also Sonic has side-b and stuffness
Edit:
Wait Fox has trouble going upwards?
He has like one of the highest vertical accelerations in the game, by comparison MK's jumps go very slowly upwards.
Fox also falls way faster when he wants to, meaning he can go down faster than MK.
He goes up, left, right and down faster than MK does....i don't think Up-b auto-cancelling will really help MK that much.
Next time I get a chance to try this I will though. (tournament on the 10th, I'll get the fox main in my area to try and circle camp my MK on temple in a friendly or something)
Oh and if possible I'll get it recorded I guess.
Also Sonic has side-b and stuffness
Edit:
Wait Fox has trouble going upwards?
He has like one of the highest vertical accelerations in the game, by comparison MK's jumps go very slowly upwards.
Fox also falls way faster when he wants to, meaning he can go down faster than MK.
He goes up, left, right and down faster than MK does....i don't think Up-b auto-cancelling will really help MK that much.
Next time I get a chance to try this I will though. (tournament on the 10th, I'll get the fox main in my area to try and circle camp my MK on temple in a friendly or something)
Oh and if possible I'll get it recorded I guess.
popsofctown
Smash Champion
Ruleset Philosophy - Banning a dominant strategy vs. Rebalancing a game.
Not much happens in ruleset discussion, mostly it's just a clash of personalities and ideologies, and no one's mind is changed.
The current stage debates have brought to mind the two perspectives Overswarm taught me, putting into words something I already knew (I still think it's amazing that nobodies can instant message famous smashers and half the time they answer. Forever young.)
There's two irreconcilable ideologies about changing rulesets: banning only broken strategies, or banning broken strategies, and weakening powerful strategies. It's important to use the word strategies because some people love to pretend the game doesn't start until after the character select screen. But I digress.
I'll make a note here that banning random elements is a separate issue because the intent of such changes is unrelated to balance.
A broken strategy is one that two rational players will select every single time. IDC legal Metaknight. Sonic on Hyrule. "If a player crashes the Wii, that player wins the game"-Sheik.
Choosing between the two ideologies might be seen as a matter of preference. There's a few people. But the conservative ideology, on the whole, more popular I think. If it wasn't, Ganon would have a 10% handicap, at the least, against everyone by now.
I argue that strict adherence to conservative ruleset philosophy is superior in the case of smash. Especially smash. For a few reasons, in ascending importance:
1. Occasionally restricting powerful strategies leads to less content. If Fox were banned at the height of his popularity, in the long term the result would really be just one less character.
2. Nerfing a character punishes a certain group of players in an unexpected way. It's a harsh outcome for people who were practicing a character based on its current viability.
3. The smash community is small enough, especially for the best of the best players, that power is frequently almost indistinguishable from player skill in a group of individuals.
4. There is no neutral, nonparticipant regulating body to make unbiased decisions about who is weakened or strengthened. Even if they are able ignore every selfish incentive, their viewpoints are sculpted by their preferences, skill, and the way they play the game. And 3. plays into things a lot too.
The fourth has worried me more now that the ruleset authority is a smaller group of people - probably irrationally so, a large, more representative group could still oppress a minority rather easily.
Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar are up for consideration to be banned with rebalance logic: some characters are too weak there. But I've realized the stagelist has already been hit with rebalance logic for quite some time, actually. Jungle Japes has no variability. No one is broken on the Mario Kart level, just really good. Circle camping is the only example of broken that has ever happened.
The Japanese have a nice thing going for them in that since they don't use the counterpick system at all, they don't have to stomach playing on stages like Jungle Japes that are so polarizing it's kind of unfun, but ultimately totally unfair to ban. I'd prefer to be locked into the three most basic stages in the game and not play Yoshi: Pipes.
But in our system, every stage without variability or stalling should be legal. The URC, nor any sort of ruleset group, can make an unbiased assessment of Falco is too powerful on Japes, or we just have really good Falco players. The same goes for everything, up to and including Hanenbow. If not, there will be no end to a tug of war on who gets a favorable stagelist. And the people who manage to gain the most influence may have the best chances of winning in tournament, and that's not fair. Minority groups that master a stage and brutally counterpick opponents will lose it. That's not fair.
I doubt people fully agree with me enough to agree with this ideology. If public by, by some fortune, does, then there's a few options. We could use the Japanese stagelist, that's what I like. We could use all the stages with no variability, which would include stages like Mushroomy Kingdom that were banned from Day 1. Or we could go with "oh come on, we can't give all the land back to the Native Americans" sort of logic and just freeze the stagelist now. All of those are pretty good options.
No tl;dr summary. Skim wisely if you must.
I meant to post this to ruleset discussion, but it's about stages too so whatever. Up to mods.
Not much happens in ruleset discussion, mostly it's just a clash of personalities and ideologies, and no one's mind is changed.
The current stage debates have brought to mind the two perspectives Overswarm taught me, putting into words something I already knew (I still think it's amazing that nobodies can instant message famous smashers and half the time they answer. Forever young.)
There's two irreconcilable ideologies about changing rulesets: banning only broken strategies, or banning broken strategies, and weakening powerful strategies. It's important to use the word strategies because some people love to pretend the game doesn't start until after the character select screen. But I digress.
I'll make a note here that banning random elements is a separate issue because the intent of such changes is unrelated to balance.
A broken strategy is one that two rational players will select every single time. IDC legal Metaknight. Sonic on Hyrule. "If a player crashes the Wii, that player wins the game"-Sheik.
Choosing between the two ideologies might be seen as a matter of preference. There's a few people. But the conservative ideology, on the whole, more popular I think. If it wasn't, Ganon would have a 10% handicap, at the least, against everyone by now.
I argue that strict adherence to conservative ruleset philosophy is superior in the case of smash. Especially smash. For a few reasons, in ascending importance:
1. Occasionally restricting powerful strategies leads to less content. If Fox were banned at the height of his popularity, in the long term the result would really be just one less character.
2. Nerfing a character punishes a certain group of players in an unexpected way. It's a harsh outcome for people who were practicing a character based on its current viability.
3. The smash community is small enough, especially for the best of the best players, that power is frequently almost indistinguishable from player skill in a group of individuals.
4. There is no neutral, nonparticipant regulating body to make unbiased decisions about who is weakened or strengthened. Even if they are able ignore every selfish incentive, their viewpoints are sculpted by their preferences, skill, and the way they play the game. And 3. plays into things a lot too.
The fourth has worried me more now that the ruleset authority is a smaller group of people - probably irrationally so, a large, more representative group could still oppress a minority rather easily.
Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar are up for consideration to be banned with rebalance logic: some characters are too weak there. But I've realized the stagelist has already been hit with rebalance logic for quite some time, actually. Jungle Japes has no variability. No one is broken on the Mario Kart level, just really good. Circle camping is the only example of broken that has ever happened.
The Japanese have a nice thing going for them in that since they don't use the counterpick system at all, they don't have to stomach playing on stages like Jungle Japes that are so polarizing it's kind of unfun, but ultimately totally unfair to ban. I'd prefer to be locked into the three most basic stages in the game and not play Yoshi: Pipes.
But in our system, every stage without variability or stalling should be legal. The URC, nor any sort of ruleset group, can make an unbiased assessment of Falco is too powerful on Japes, or we just have really good Falco players. The same goes for everything, up to and including Hanenbow. If not, there will be no end to a tug of war on who gets a favorable stagelist. And the people who manage to gain the most influence may have the best chances of winning in tournament, and that's not fair. Minority groups that master a stage and brutally counterpick opponents will lose it. That's not fair.
I doubt people fully agree with me enough to agree with this ideology. If public by, by some fortune, does, then there's a few options. We could use the Japanese stagelist, that's what I like. We could use all the stages with no variability, which would include stages like Mushroomy Kingdom that were banned from Day 1. Or we could go with "oh come on, we can't give all the land back to the Native Americans" sort of logic and just freeze the stagelist now. All of those are pretty good options.
No tl;dr summary. Skim wisely if you must.
I meant to post this to ruleset discussion, but it's about stages too so whatever. Up to mods.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Another shameless plug for my thread: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=315529
Still waiting for someone to suggest a better ruleset creation method than the one I outline in that thread.
Still waiting for someone to suggest a better ruleset creation method than the one I outline in that thread.
Arcansi
Smash Champion
popsofctown
Smash Champion
I didn't notice that thread. Knowing GT's views it probably is good. Probably with better solutions.
There are other venues for commenting on these ideas (I see a ruleset philosphy sticky, has that always been there?) so a mod can lock this.
There are other venues for commenting on these ideas (I see a ruleset philosphy sticky, has that always been there?) so a mod can lock this.