Official Stage Legality Discussion: Philosophical

[UberMario]

No . . . . because there was time before you got down to the final stock to be aggressive, on the final stock you switch to defensive. It's better to have half of the match be based on defensive tactics on the final stock than play the whole one.

 

[T-block]

I'm not so sure about that, UberMario. We would obviously increase the number of games in a set. The penalty for losing a game is much less than in a best-of-three, so the risk would balance itself out.

 

[DunnoBro]

No . . . . because there was time before you got down to the final stock to be aggressive, on the final stock you switch to defensive. It's better to have half of the match be based on defensive tactics on the final stock than play the whole one.

If this was melee, or some other fast paced game where people could actually come back from losing stock leads. I'd agree, but really, if you're not playing defensively 100% of the match, you're not playing brawl right anyway, in my opinion.

Also with more single matches, it isn't like you'd lose the set for being ballsy.

 

[Tesh]

Don't SD? M2K had an SD first match against DEHF at Apex and he pretty much gave up costing him 1/3 of the set. With 2 players of similar skill, obviously harming yourself=a loss. An SD now can easily cost you 1/3 of the set. An SD with my suggestion costs you 1/9 of the set.

Whose fault is it if you get KO'd while trying to gimp someone?

Would you play recklessly if each set was a single 9 stock match? Sure if you SD a couple of times you don't lose immediately, but if your opponent is about as good as you are, then you are going to lose anyway.

I don't see any reason to play dumb because there happen to be more stocks on the screen. The great players play smart all game.

 

[GTZ]

upgrading the sets to best of 5, minus the already existing "final best of 5" in tourneys would not be very beneficial.. I mean, wouldn't that increase match times and slow tournaments down a lot?

 

[Tesh]

1 stock per game
3 minutes per game
9 games per set
27 minutes IF its a close set and all games go to time

3 stocks per game
8 minutes per game
3 games per set
24 minutes if its a close set and all games go to time

I doubt you could really time out too well in a 1 stock match in 3 minutes. Not while retaining stage control. Best you can do is time yourself out just to annoy the other guy.

 

[GTZ]

[Insert well-said point]
[Enter]
[I don't see any reason to play dumb because there happen to be more stocks on the screen. The great players play smart all game.]

You are so right, I agree.. anybody who knows smash at a truly competitive level already knows that fact, and the best players in the world never stop playing smart.. To make a family fun game into a fiercely competitive fighter game requires though.. Mind games and state of mind in general are key to your playing. You can't take on an MK as G&W (wink wink) for example, and just play dumb and expect a few lucky Usmash's to kill the MK.. No way hose-aye.. You have to play smart. know your matchups, approach, spare your stocks as much as possible... Tech, metagame, etc... these are all things we implement into the game to help us achieve our ultimate goal.. to be like m2k... lol jk..maybe *shifty eyes*, but seriously though.. SD-ing is 99.99999% error.. if you are too aggressive and punished or gimped.. bye bye.. If you lack the balls to approach at the correct moment, thats bad too.. You don't follow an MK off the stage with LINK, and then wonder why you are d-e-a-d! So the point of this essay is to agree with what the comment above states... NEVER EVER just rely on LUCK.. I tried to luck my way through tournaments and ended up sitting pretty and knocked out.. ha ha... people like KDJ and OBM put me into my place..

DO NOT let me disenhearten you however... anybody out there who lacks prominent skill, (I am in no way "top pro" yet), just needs to do some homework and practice.. go online and play PEOPLE, no LvL9. CPU's... go to tourneys.. those stocks wont diminish as much, I promise...

Now about stage legality issues...

**oh and the one stock thing is okay, but may lack some substance in the match.. a match needs to have a chance of comeback, victory.. that one stock seems like a sudden death

 

[Raziek]

That's basically how I feel about it, GTZ.

There isn't enough time to learn your opponent, get into a rhythm, or fight any REAL INTENSE psychological battles if it's one stock.

Oh, also, regarding the food idea.

Game starts, I start planking, we're both at 0%. What now?

 

[Tesh]

That's basically how I feel about it, GTZ.

There isn't enough time to learn your opponent, get into a rhythm, or fight any REAL INTENSE psychological battles if it's one stock.

Oh, also, regarding the food idea.

Game starts, I start planking, we're both at 0%. What now?

You can plank at 0% with or without food on, its completely pointless. However, the person on stage can screw up 10 times trying to hit you and it won't matter, if you screw up once, you will have to come on stage and get your lead.

 

[T-block]

Stop thinking about the individual games, when the bigger picture is the set. Consider what's added if we play bo11. Not only do you get just as much time to learn your opponent's playstyle, you also get a chance to learn his STAGE preferences. And I know how much you'll love that idea =P

 

[GTZ]

My character has food already (side B hammer), and bacon of course... Hmm I never considered food, but the planking thing brings up a good point.. it's almost like too much to keep track of to have 9 consecutive rounds... I know the actual time varies, but typically matches are a lot shorter than 8 minutes to begin with.. change the stocks and you have changed the entire outlook on competitive Brawl as a whole.. people like m2k could get knocked out on a "lucky KO"... I mean the whole point of the 3 stock 8 minute setup is match balance.. and we all want to have fun.. one stock just doesn't do it for me... I mean sometimes size and time have to play a factor... nobody plays a shooting game and only puts one kill on... half of the fun is the "chase" if you will.. like I said, you opinion matters and is fair here, but in "my opinion" I feel a lack of substance with a one or even two stock match idea.. 3 is great, it just is a nice amount of stocks.. I wouldn't change it

 

[Raziek]

Ok, I just thought of another practical problem that could arise.

<Had a bunch of stuff here that was me being ******** and assuming the wrong definition for Bo9. X_X>

Oh **** it, nevermind, I'm ********.

 

[Dre89]

I thought that a problem with the food idea is that a player could just keep eating when he knocks his/her opponent offstage, or when their opponent is in the star KO animation.

With this 9 stock idea, I know Lucario's percentage is affected by percentage, but I can't remember if Lucario's strength is affected by stock advantage/disadvantage. If it is, that would affect him a lot. I'm pretty sure stock advantage/disadvantage affects him in doubles though.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dre

It does, but only up to "2 stocks down, 189%"

 

[Tesh]

Healthier metagame> how well lucario can fight. If it was even a relevant issue , we could always tweak the amount of stocks and declare a winner based on who loses the first stock anyway. If Lucario MUST have his power.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11702469&postcount=91

This deserves a good read. It's pretty much the proof for hazards being the same as any stage element or lack thereof.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That isn't proof as much as it is a philosophical view point.

 

[T-block]

Exactly. A proof requires objectively verifiable premises. Your argument is based on ideals.

Plus, you severely overestimate the random factor in Pictochat if you allowed it to be compared to Wario Ware without any objection.

 

[Tesh]

Pictochat isn't quite as bad as Wario Ware, but I would expect competitive players to object to spikes popping up right on top of you and killing you. Or things popping up and blocking your recovery after you have already committed to something.

Its purely luck based rewards. And the safe zone is so small its equivalent to turning items on.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Why so much hating on Pictochat? It isn't that bad.
A drawing happens once and you do not have to worry about it during the rest of the match. When the stage is about to change just avoid the left ledge, until that diagonal thing appears, after that you can normally use it with no issues.
Also, as drawings appears, your Safety Zone increases.

 

[Dre89]

I agree with the Japanese ruleset where they only play on neutrals. I'm anticipating an attack from BPC, but it won't be the first time I've debated him.

I really don't see why any stage where a player can possibly be "stage gayed" should be legal. For example, I once got grabbed on Halberd, and whilst I was in the grab I got hit by that claw thing and died at like 60%.

Now the argument is that it was counterable, well so is a beam sword. The argument is that a top player would have avoided that situation, but that's missing the point. The point of a match is to determine who the better player is, I don't need to be a top player to deserve a victory over a player of lesser skill than me. Even if all versions of stage gaying on legal stages are avoidable, it doesn't change the fact that getting stage gayed is not a reflection of the opponent being of superior skill to me.

A match is supposed to determine who the better player is. Suppose A beats B on every stage where she can't get stage gayed, but then loses to B on a stage where she gets stage-gayed. Is the match where A loses because she gets stage-gayed an accurate reflection of who the better player is?

Again, imagine two really poor players versing each other. One loses to level 4 CPUs, the other one is still bad, but can go even with level 7 CPUs. Now assuming a lack of stage knowledge, both of those players, being of such poor skill, will be highly susceptible to being stage gayed. So much so, that the level 7er could get stage gayed three times in a match and lose it, despite clearly being the better player.

Saying "well a top player could have avoided that" is flawed, because by that logic, all matches would do is determine who top players are, not who was the better player between the two.

 

[-LzR-]

The better player is not the one who can play better alone, but who can fight on the stages as well.
Remember, this is smash, stages play a vital role in it.

 

[sunshade]

I agree with the Japanese ruleset where they only play on neutrals. I'm anticipating an attack from BPC, but it won't be the first time I've debated him.

I really don't see why any stage where a player can possibly be "stage gayed" should be legal. For example, I once got grabbed on Halberd, and whilst I was in the grab I got hit by that claw thing and died at like 60%.

Why do you reject the nature of stages affecting gameplay but play smash? Complaining about a stage "gaying" someone is the same as a poker player complaining about the game being random.

In this case however, the fate you befell was your own fault. The claw would have been there for at least 20 seconds before it struck you. Anyone can react to something given 20 seconds to do so. If they cant they should stop playing. You got grabbed, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, but were given notice in advance that that would be the wrong time and place. Your blame of the stage is little more than an insult to the skill of your opponent.

Now the argument is that it was counterable, well so is a beam sword. The argument is that a top player would have avoided that situation, but that's missing the point. The point of a match is to determine who the better player is, I don't need to be a top player to deserve a victory over a player of lesser skill than me. Even if all versions of stage gaying on legal stages are avoidable, it doesn't change the fact that getting stage gayed is not a reflection of the opponent being of superior skill to me.

Your comparison of halberd's claw to a beam sword is an inaccurate comparison. Beamswords appear without warning, randomly, at anytime of the game. The claw appears only during a set phase, indicates who it is targeting based on its movements, and recoils for a good 1-2 seconds before it strikes. You can adapt (easily) to the claw and can (easily) work it into a strategy. You -cannot- adapt to a beamsword and you -cannot- work it into a strategy.

This is the case for every stage in the entire game with the exception of wario ware and to a milder extent Pictochat, Green greens, and Norfair. All stages except those four which have hazards are either not random (which means if you get hit by it, it is your fault 100%), or they happen randomly with large amounts of notice (which makes it 100% your fault, again).

A match is supposed to determine who the better player is. Suppose A beats B on every stage where she can't get stage gayed, but then loses to B on a stage where she gets stage-gayed. Is the match where A loses because she gets stage-gayed an accurate reflection of who the better player is?

Yes. It proves the following two things and nothing else.

1. Player A is better on stages A,B,C.
2. Player B is better on the other stages.

Playing smash on stage A is a different game than playing smash on stage B. We just choose to test our players by making them master multiple games with shared elements.

Again, imagine two really poor players versing each other. One loses to level 4 CPUs, the other one is still bad, but can go even with level 7 CPUs. Now assuming a lack of stage knowledge, both of those players, being of such poor skill, will be highly susceptible to being stage gayed. So much so, that the level 7er could get stage gayed three times in a match and lose it, despite clearly being the better player.

So bad players are bad and we are playing a game with randomness in it. Big deal? Championship poker players are able to lose to first time players. The indication of skill is consistent victories not single instances. M2k does not win every match but he wins more consistently and is thus the best.

Brawl being a fighter with prominent random elements simply means you need to play more sets to find out who the consistently superior player is. When an outlier match occurs you simply disregard it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I agree with the Japanese ruleset where they only play on neutrals. I'm anticipating an attack from BPC, but it won't be the first time I've debated him.

I really don't see why any stage where a player can possibly be "stage gayed" should be legal. For example, I once got grabbed on Halberd, and whilst I was in the grab I got hit by that claw thing and died at like 60%.

Let's look into how you got gayed.

Step zero: you had a lower port priority.
Step one: the claw started flailing around. It does this for upwards of 10 seconds.
Step two: you got grabbed shortly before the claw aimed at you, even though you knew that the claw was going to come.
Step three: you failed to mash out in time to get away from your opponent's grab.
Step four: your DI and momentum canceling sucked so hard that you died at 60 (seriously, that thing doesn't kill CLOSE to 60).

Now the argument is that it was counterable, well so is a beam sword. The argument is that a top player would have avoided that situation, but that's missing the point. The point of a match is to determine who the better player is, I don't need to be a top player to deserve a victory over a player of lesser skill than me. Even if all versions of stage gaying on legal stages are avoidable, it doesn't change the fact that getting stage gayed is not a reflection of the opponent being of superior skill to me.

Well, he didn't get gayed. There's a start. Think about the four (or five) things you did wrong above. How was it not your fault? You knew the claw was coming, then you got grabbed and ***** because of it. I suppose the claw is a bad example, but let me ask you something... which of the following do you consider "gaying":
-Transformations on Delfino
-Lava on Brinstar
-Klaptrap on Japes
-Smashville's Balloon
-RC's movement

Just out of curiousity.

A match is supposed to determine who the better player is. Suppose A beats B on every stage where she can't get stage gayed, but then loses to B on a stage where she gets stage-gayed. Is the match where A loses because she gets stage-gayed an accurate reflection of who the better player is?

Probably. Because every stage hazard is avoidable. You could make a case for randomness, but if you wanted to be consistent and consequent about dealing with every stage that is random, you would be left with 4 legal stages (BF, FD, RC, JJ), and they wouldn't be the four you're aiming for. AND you'd have to ban:
-MK (Dtilt)
-DK (Dtilt, maybe ftilt)
-Luigi (sideB)
-Peach (downB)
-DDD (sideB)
-G&W (sideB
...and probably a few more characters that I'm forgetting; basically anyone with a random effect.

Again, imagine two really poor players versing each other. One loses to level 4 CPUs, the other one is still bad, but can go even with level 7 CPUs. Now assuming a lack of stage knowledge, both of those players, being of such poor skill, will be highly susceptible to being stage gayed. So much so, that the level 7er could get stage gayed three times in a match and lose it, despite clearly being the better player.

What? Why does this matter? They both suck. If they're both horrid at avoiding stage hazards, and one just happens to be more lucky than the other, oh well. It doesn't matter in high-level player where that kind of thing doesn't happen.

Saying "well a top player could have avoided that" is flawed, because by that logic, all matches would do is determine who top players are, not who was the better player between the two.

O.o

This is a serious jump in logic. We cannot craft our ruleset around the worst players. We create a ruleset so that it is the ideal competitive environment for good players. If it ldeas to inconsistencies among awful players, why do we care?

Furthermore, you should define what constitutes "stage gaying". It's necessary to get anywhere in this argument.

 

[Dre89]

All you guys did was show the mistakes I made. I'm not denying I made mistakes, but what you haven't proved is how the opponent deserved that KO.

And it isn't the opponent using the stage better, they just got lucky.

Again the opponent has gained a lucky advantage, not reflective of the skill disadvantage they have.

 

[Ripple]

All you guys did was show the mistakes I made. I'm not denying I made mistakes, but what you haven't proved is how the opponent deserved that KO.

And it isn't the opponent using the stage better, they just got lucky.

Again the opponent has gained a lucky advantage, not reflective of the skill disadvantage they have.

that first sentence is probably the stupidest thing I've heard.

they deserved it by taking advantage of your mistakes.

"luck" implies the word random also. when the claw strikes is not random. they did not get lucky. you got outplayed

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

All you guys did was show the mistakes I made. I'm not denying I made mistakes, but what you haven't proved is how the opponent deserved that KO.

And it isn't the opponent using the stage better, they just got lucky.

Again the opponent has gained a lucky advantage, not reflective of the skill disadvantage they have.

what do you personally mean a lucky disadvantage? Also, what specific things do you define as luck?

If someone let's say gets a 9 hammer and wins because of this, does the match not count since you ran into a 9 hammer which is "luck?"

Or how about with me, I am a Luigi user. How about I get a misfire and stage spike you for trying to go off stage even though you know I can 9 hammer but it is oh so "random." Does this match count? Am I showing skill since you ran into a move or should someone stay back since it is possible to happen? Who is the "lesser" skilled person here.

Also, playing the Japanese Ruleset. You do realize that Japan has recently played Delfino among other stages in tournaments. It isn't like all of their matches are FD, SV, or BF.

I have also seen matches on YI. If the ghost platform somehow comes up and you don't die and other person eventually loses, should the match restart? Same issue.


What is the distinction between luck and the other person simply playing "dumb?"

 

[Dre89]

If I'm beating someone up then they get a b throw KO at a walk off, are you saying they're the better player because they landed their first move at a hugely convenient time?

If I'm recovering on FO and the stage flips and I fall to death, how is that the opponent outplaying me?

The problem with demanding stage knowledge is that A could beat B on every stage except one, so B winning on that stage wrongly suggests she is the better player.

 

[Ghostbone]

If I'm beating someone up then they get a b throw KO at a walk off, are you saying they're the better player because they landed their first move at a hugely convenient time?

If I'm recovering on FO and the stage flips and I fall to death, how is that the opponent outplaying me?

The problem with demanding stage knowledge is that A could beat B on every stage except one, so B winning on that stage wrongly suggests she is the better player.

Then why not only play on one stage? you obviously think that the skills required on one stage are superior to others for some reason.

And if you're recovering on FO and die to the flip, that's a combination of your opponent outplaying you and you being an idiot.
You had years of warning that it would happen, it's your fault you were off the stage at that time, and were in the wrong position to recover after the flip. (seriously I've recovered during the flip before....)

And stage knowledge is a part of this game, saying we shouldn't ask players to know how to deal with it is dumb. Maybe you should ban diddy's bananas because people shouldn't be forced to deal with it? Maybe player A can beat player B with any character against any of Player B's characters except Diddy.

 

[UberMario]

If I'm beating someone up then they get a b throw KO at a walk off, are you saying they're the better player because they landed their first move at a hugely convenient time?

Yes, because they SOMEHOW convinced you to go from the safe, visible portion of the stage, offscreen to where they are at, rather than playing it right against them and either use a projectile or just waiting for them to return, you know, because you are winning. >_> If they are on a walkoff and you are winning, who gets the victory should it time out? You, so why bother putting out an unnecessary risk if the opponent is all but forfeiting?

If I'm recovering on FO and the stage flips and I fall to death, how is that the opponent outplaying me?

There are at least TWO (closer to three) seconds of warning before the flip even occurs, that is plenty of time to make it back to the stage, and personally, it's never been a factor in any of the matches I've played on it.

The problem with demanding stage knowledge is that A could beat B on every stage except one, so B winning on that stage wrongly suggests she is the better player.

Well, what would this one stage be, just out of curiosity? And, ironically, this statement could be used against you if you only play on perfectly flat, stagnant stages (such as one of the Japanese rulesets, which only has Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville).

 

[Dre89]

Again, all you've done is show the mistakes I've made.

You act as if that if I get stage gayed, the opponent knows the stage better than me and they never get gayed. That's rubbish, in low level matches people get SGd all the time, it'd only be luck that it was me this time.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Again, all you've done is show the mistakes I've made.

You act as if that if I get stage gayed, the opponent knows the stage better than me and they never get gayed. That's rubbish, in low level matches people get SGd all the time, it'd only be luck that it was me this time.

You actually think that low level matches matter when it comes to choosing a stage list?

If we made rules to satisfy every single random player from scrub to pro, this game would never have a ruleset that satisfies.

The stage list is made for a competitive format, not some random people/low level play.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Again, all you've done is show the mistakes I've made.

In a debate, you should try find the best arguments. If they are flawled or somewhat wrong, oppositors will counterpoint them.
You should try the same as well.

You act as if that if I get stage gayed, the opponent knows the stage better than me and they never get gayed. That's rubbish, in low level matches people get SGd all the time, it'd only be luck that it was me this time.

There's no way a ruleset can be made for either low or high level matches. All they play with the same rules, the difference is the performance of the match.

 

[Ghostbone]

If you get stage gayed, but your opponent doesn't, that is a form of them outplaying you with the stage choice.

 

[sunshade]

Again, all you've done is show the mistakes I've made.

You act as if that if I get stage gayed, the opponent knows the stage better than me and they never get gayed. That's rubbish, in low level matches people get SGd all the time, it'd only be luck that it was me this time.

Getting stage "gayed" is a choice.

There is not a single stage not banned by the BBR that can "gay" you without you making a mistake or your opponent outplaying you. Every stage gives warning of when their hazards will be active, or they run on a set schedule and thus don't need a warning.

The only stages where this is not are 75m, mario bros, and wario ware. Some people feel green greens, norfair, and pictochat are too random aswell but thats a matter of opinion. Funny enough those are all banned or put into the counterpick section of the BBR: Recommended Rule Set.

If you are using the stages suggested by the BBR other than the 3 arguable stages you cannot get "gayed" by a stage. You can only make a mistake and hurt yourself or simply be outplayed by your opponent and have them use the stage to their advantage.

If you make a mistake and get hurt or killed by the stage that is fine because its the players fault not the stages, much like burning your hand on the stove is your fault not the stoves. It is also fine if your opponent outplays you and causes you to be damaged by the stage because it is rewarding superior play and stressing the importance of higher skill level.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The only stages where this is not are 75m, mario bros, and wario ware.

The rest of your post was fine, but I'd just like to point this out: The hazards on Mario Bros. are VERY predictable. The only reason it is banned (well, the only argument against it that has any merit. I'm not sure if this is actually why it is banned) is because the BBR believe it doesn't test the same skill-set as every other stage.

EDIT: 75m is banned because of circle camping, not randomness xD

Do you even play this game?

 

[Tesh]

Can we all just admit sometimes pictochat has drastic effects that have nothing to do with skill. Because they happen before either player could skillfully react to it?

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree that the stage should be banned. But you can't honestly look at how small the safe zone is, how lacking there is of a timed schedule of events and how fast the hazards draw in and say that everything that happens is always skill based.

Once again I ask you, how is that more skill based than items popping up in random places or the minigame rewards on warioware. I can outplay you there for extremely random rewards too.

 

[sunshade]

The rest of your post was fine, but I'd just like to point this out: The hazards on Mario Bros. are VERY predictable. The only reason it is banned (well, the only argument against it that has any merit. I'm not sure if this is actually why it is banned) is because the BBR believe it doesn't test the same skill-set as every other stage.

EDIT: 75m is banned because of circle camping, not randomness xD

Do you even play this game?

I am aware of it not being horribly random, I read your thread, and I have played the stage before. I used Mario Bros. as an example because it better illustrates what getting "stage gayed" is than halberd does. It was to contrast Dre's examples of inadequate understanding of stages.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Right, that's fine. It just seemed like you were saying "These stages are unacceptably random".

 

[Dre89]

Yes I admit to get gayed you need to make a mistake, but the opponent could make 50 mistakes and you happen to make one and lose a stock because of the stage.

It seems that if you're not a top player you don't deserve a victory, or it doesn't matter who wins.