Official Stage Legality Discussion: Philosophical

[sunshade]

Realistically speaking none of that is an issue thio. No two players are of perfectly equal skill, the advantage those characters have on each other are no where near that of a RPS set up, and I personally dont see why rewarding character choice is a bad thing.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Of course, you have people winning on match-up basis even without gross tier disparity. Most people seem to think Falco is overall better than Pikachu, but if two equal players, one using Falco and one using Pikachu, meet, the Pikachu is going to wreck the Falco on any stage. Sometimes one character just has a real advantage over the other, and the person who picks that character has an easier time. Some match-ups go different ways on different stages, and I'm not sure why we should have a problem with that and limit stages such that most match-ups go the same way on every legal stage (EC stage list minus Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise is pretty close to that, any match-up that goes different ways on the legal stages there was close to even in the first place).

 

[Akaku94]

Character choice affects matchups more than stages do, but neither can be removed... trying to remove the competetive, dynamic element of stages is a lot like trying to reduce character choice to three or four closely ranked characters...

 

[Xona]

Stages should not be banned because of circle camping, circle camping should be banned instead. Circle Camping is stalling and broken, running to get a better position does not involve running in circles because if you were really running to get a better position, then you would have already passed it. Circle Camping can just be banned instead. Under-stage camping is banned, in reality it is just being in a better defensive position (where your opponent can not hit you without SD'ing). The problem is that that position is too good and can be used to just stall the game out and win by clock out. Thus that tactic is broken and that is why it is banned. Under stage camping as it is banned would be used to stall if it were legal. Not to mention that circle camping to stall and get a guaranteed win after one hit is attempting to win via exploiting added rules anyway. Why does % break ties? This provides an artificial advantage to faster characters.

I also do not think infinites should even be considered as a reason to ban stages because infinites are already debatable as banworthy. Dedede's chain-grab screwing over more characters than it already did should not be a reason to ban a stage, because it already creates debatably unwinnable matchups. That tactic unfairly deciding more matchups should not make the difference. And what game is actually better with infinite combos anyway?

The other remaining problem is with already banned stages, there is no way to get "credible" data to prove that they are not banworthy. Why? Because generally people only accept actual tournament results as credible data when it contradicts their own ideas. Not to mention that stages can not get tournament data when there are no tournaments that play those stages.

I just do not think that banning a stage should be the immediate reaction to fix any potential balance issue on that stage because stages are a very large part of the game. Also, stages should never be banned for the top tier character supposedly being broken on them. Just because Meta Knight is broken on a stage does not mean that the stage is banworthy, it just means that Meta Knight players should be prevented from picking that stage and abusing it. Meta Knight is already in the might be broken category. He is at the top of the tier list (I am not advocating his banning, I am stating that banning every stage Meta Knight might be broken on is ridiculous.)

And if character X is broken on Stage Y and only stage Y and if Character X were banned on stage Y then stage Y would be allowable, why must stage Y always be banned? Couldn't the rule be if a player picks Stage Y as his or her counterpick, then he or she can not pick character X on stage Y unless the other player (the one who did not pick Stage Y) picks Character X?

 

[Raziek]

<Stuff on banning circle camping>

You can't ban it, because you can't ban it discretely. You could use TO's discretion, but then it's just an awful rule. Nevermind that a lot of the stages in which it is a problem have a lot of other problems anyway.

I also do not think infinites should even be considered as a reason to ban stages because infinites are already debatable as banworthy. Dedede's chain-grab screwing over more characters than it already did should not be a reason to ban a stage, because it already creates debatably unwinnable matchups. That tactic unfairly deciding more matchups should not make the difference. And what game is actually better with infinite combos anyway?

Same reason as above. Can't ban it discretely without being subjective. Your match-up argument isn't that valid either, because none of these match-ups are as simple as "Pick Dedede and win", since it's actually quite easy to lose, especially if you don't play Dedede well. Also, DK is really the only viable character affected by infnites anyway, so it's really not worth the trouble from a practical standpoint. SO, we accept it as a weakness of the character and move on.

The other remaining problem is with already banned stages, there is no way to get "credible" data to prove that they are not banworthy. Why? Because generally people only accept actual tournament results as credible data when it contradicts their own ideas. Not to mention that stages can not get tournament data when there are no tournaments that play those stages.

Some of the BBR members ran a "Banned Stages Only" tourney, just to check. There's really only one or two that are borderline, like Onett or Mario Circuit. Test them in money matches or something.

I just do not think that banning a stage should be the immediate reaction to fix any potential balance issue on that stage because stages are a very large part of the game. Also, stages should never be banned for the top tier character supposedly being broken on them. Just because Meta Knight is broken on a stage does not mean that the stage is banworthy, it just means that Meta Knight players should be prevented from picking that stage and abusing it. Meta Knight is already in the might be broken category. He is at the top of the tier list (I am not advocating his banning, I am stating that banning every stage Meta Knight might be broken on is ridiculous.)

I agree on this point, though my personal ideals extend to banning a stage if there is a generate tactic exclusive to a small sub-set of characters. This means that I ban Shadow Moses because you either have to pick Dedede and CG, or pick a character who can't be chain-grabbed.

And if character X is broken on Stage Y and only stage Y and if Character X were banned on stage Y then stage Y would be allowable, why must stage Y always be banned? Couldn't the rule be if a player picks Stage Y as his or her counterpick, then he or she can not pick character X on stage Y unless the other player (the one who did not pick Stage Y) picks Character X?

Because that's really unfair, and still doesn't solve the problem, because if you pick that stage, your OPPONENT can pick the broken character. If you make them NOT allowed to pick that character, you can now pick that stage as a means to force your opponent from playing their character, which is just completely wrong.

 

[sunshade]

I cant think of a single legitimate reason to ban the tactic of *staying in a safe area for 8 minutes* as opposed to banning hyrule temple.

Spoiler

*circle camping

When it comes to the "artificial advantage [given] to faster characters" that is very easily the lesser of two evils in regards to the use of a timer or not. A timer is used to force conflict because in the event that stocks are tied then there is no incentive for players to approach due to the major advantage given to defending players. Brawl's out of shield options and punishment options vastly out number and out shine the advantages of approaches. If the timer was not instituted then the game would become a contest of who is willing to wait longer for the other to attack.

I agree with what you said in regards to infinites provided that the enhancement of infinites does not result in the stage being overcentralized around a single tactic.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

WARIO WARE INC. IS THE ONLY STAGE NOT FIT FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY:

The winner is decided almost entirely by chance, which prevents players from competing, thus: Uncompetitive. Every other stage in the game can be played on and will provide consistent results. NO exceptions.

This means that the only real justification we have for banning stages (other than Wario Ware Inc.) is "They make the game boring", which by extension pretty much means "I don't like it".

The problems with this should be apparent to everyone.

Interpret this how you want.

I'm willing to debate if you disagree.

 

[T-block]

Is Wario Ware competitive if each set was best-of-21?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Is Wario Ware competitive if each set was best-of-21?

Not sure, would require testing.
You up for a best of 21 tourney this weekend?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

WARIO WARE INC. IS THE ONLY STAGE NOT FIT FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY:

The winner is decided almost entirely by chance, which prevents players from competing, thus: Uncompetitive. Every other stage in the game can be played on and will provide consistent results. NO exceptions.

This means that the only real justification we have for banning stages (other than Wario Ware Inc.) is "They make the game boring", which by extension pretty much means "I don't like it".

The problems with this should be apparent to everyone.

Interpret this how you want.

I'm willing to debate if you disagree.

I'm not willing to compete in a game of "first one to do a perfectly trivial and simple task wins". See also: competitive thread.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not willing to compete in a game of "first one to do a perfectly trivial and simple task wins". See also: competitive thread.

I'm not willing to compete in a game of "run away and spam tornado".
Lets ban Meta Knight.

Please link me to this "competitive thread".

 

[T-block]

Not sure, would require testing.
You up for a best of 21 tourney this weekend?

I'm so down.

What do you think? Just how big is the randomness in this stage? How many games would have to be in a set before we see consistency in the results?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm so down.

What do you think? Just how big is the randomness in this stage? How many games would have to be in a set before we see consistency in the results?

Hmm.
Well, how many micro games are there in a 5 minute game?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm not willing to compete in a game of "run away and spam tornado".
Lets ban Meta Knight.

Please link me to this "competitive thread".

Yeah, see, that's you. You can leave. Replace you with "every other smasher" and you have legal circle camping stages.

The difference between a "bad" player and a "good" player becomes almost completely negligible, making competition in the game trivial. This is why we ban stages with overcentralizing tactics like circle camping and walkoff camping.

If we can't even ban ridiculously overcentralizing tactics, ones that remove all skill from the game... Well, then we're ****ed. There's your difference-circle camping stages make the game, regardless of conditions, boil down to "who runs faster'.

 

[UberMario]

Hmm.
Well, how many micro games are there in a 5 minute game?

About 12 games, the timer is random, but after each mini-game it can range from about 5 seconds to 30 seconds before the next minigame (with it on average being around 10-15 seconds of "idle time"), making it slightly more frequent than Pictochat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6wVEizLh-I (Proof)

 

[Raziek]

Sometimes you guys run a little too far with theory, I think.

Bo21 on WarioWare? REALLY?

I guess that makes me the guy with PRACTICAL solutions. xD

 

[AvaricePanda]

I'm not willing to compete in a game of "run away and spam tornado".
Lets ban Meta Knight.

Please link me to this "competitive thread".

lol except for the fact that this doesn't actually happen nor does gameplay realistically or on paper deteriorate into this.

Other stages heavily marginize skill and reduce competitive depth. Stages like Spear Pillar? A match will turn into which character can circle camp the best, and that character wins with no exceptions. That's what gameplay WILL boil down to and if it doesn't one of the players isn't playing to win. There is no depth to this gameplay, and it doesn't matter who I face—I could be playing against M2K or Tyrant or ADHD or anyone and I can win because my character circle camps better.

If you think those aren't valid (on-paper) reasons to ban a stage, then I quite frankly don't care about what people theorize on paper. If I had to choose between a game where you remove completely obviously banworthy stages because they make the game uncompetitive vs. a game where you don't do these things because, "Sirlin tells me not to!" then I'd along with lots of people would easily choose the first.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

lol except for the fact that this doesn't actually happen nor does gameplay realistically or on paper deteriorate into this.

Other stages heavily marginize skill and reduce competitive depth. Stages like Spear Pillar? A match will turn into which character can circle camp the best, and that character wins with no exceptions. That's what gameplay WILL boil down to and if it doesn't one of the players isn't playing to win. There is no depth to this gameplay, and it doesn't matter who I face—I could be playing against M2K or Tyrant or ADHD or anyone and I can win because my character circle camps better.

If you think those aren't valid (on-paper) reasons to ban a stage, then I quite frankly don't care about what people theorize on paper. If I had to choose between a game where you remove completely obviously banworthy stages because they make the game uncompetitive vs. a game where you don't do these things because, "Sirlin tells me not to!" then I'd along with lots of people would easily choose the first.

I.
Am.
Not.
Trying.
To.
Legalize.
Every.
Stage.

Just pointing out that the reason for banning stages is completely up to opinion, which is why there are all these debates about it. Who gets to decide when a stage is "over-centralizing"?

My personal stance on stages is that every stage be legal and players strike from the entire list.

I really wish we as a community just soft-banned ******** tactics like chain-grabs and circle camping. Unfortunately, we are too hungry for money.

 

[Life]

Circle camping would be fine if we turned on food... just sayin'.

How many otherwise legal stages are ruined by CCing? Temple and NPC and 75m are probably way too big. Cresselia (and randomness of legendaries in general) is problematic for Spear Pillar. Hanenbow would be legit. Summit would be legit. Mario Bros would be Mario Bros. And Big Blue would still have the track issue.

Just thinking aloud.

 

[T-block]

Sometimes you guys run a little too far with theory, I think.

Bo21 on WarioWare? REALLY?

I guess that makes me the guy with PRACTICAL solutions. xD

It's the Philosophical discussion... I don't think we're interested in practicality here =P

No one's suggesting that we implement it... I'm just asking if a bo21 on WW would yield consistent results.

 

[Tesh]

I've been saying it for ages. We need 1 stock matches with food on to eliminate stalling. No one is gonna circle camp or ledge camp if there is food spawning in the middle of the stage, eating away at your lead. It also won't interfere with legit on stage camping, because stage control negates the recovery of food.

Everyone opposed to this idea is just a scrub trying to ledge camp.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Circle camping would be fine if we turned on food... just sayin'.

How many otherwise legal stages are ruined by CCing? Temple and NPC and 75m are probably way too big. Cresselia (and randomness of legendaries in general) is problematic for Spear Pillar. Hanenbow would be legit. Summit would be legit. Mario Bros would be Mario Bros. And Big Blue would still have the track issue.

Just thinking aloud.

Food can be eaten by both players. So it can actually aid the circle camper as well. Also, what if they have a stock lead?

I've been saying it for ages. We need 1 stock matches with food on to eliminate stalling. No one is gonna circle camp or ledge camp if there is food spawning in the middle of the stage, eating away at your lead. It also won't interfere with legit on stage camping, because stage control negates the recovery of food.

Everyone opposed to this idea is just a scrub trying to ledge camp.

Yeah, a 1 stock match would be required.

Why can't we just ban circle camping the same way we've banned stalling? A loose, yet inforceable rule. It's not like circle camping is particularly hard to spot.

Quite frankly, not just food should be turned on. There are lots of items which are fair and only serve to add depth to the game.

 

[Life]

Food can be eaten by both players. So it can actually aid the circle camper as well. Also, what if they have a stock lead?

Stock leads can be eliminated by playing 1-stock games. (Hey look, it's BPC ruleset!)

Why can't we just ban circle camping the same way we've banned stalling? A loose, yet inforceable rule. It's not like circle camping is particularly hard to spot.

Problem is, you can't _consistently_ enforce circle camping. Pray tell, what if I run away for only four of the minutes? Two of them? Thirty seconds? Ten seconds? How far could be run away? The only answer is "it's up to the TO" which is a terrible idea as the TO can only watch so many games at one time.

Quite frankly, not just food should be turned on. There are lots of items which are fair and only serve to add depth to the game.

I would agree, but I'm wary of adding too many random factors to the game. With food only, what you get (more legal stages, circle camping is much less broken, planking is no longer broken, IDC is no longer broken...) is much better than what you lose (occasionally ill-timed food spawns can interrupt combos). With other items, you don't really get that, and while I'm sure the game is more balanced with a set of semi-uniform attacks (beam sword/star rod stuff) they're not available on a consistent basis.

Besides that, the community, for the most part, refuses to play with items. There are many rules (ISP, BPC ruleset, striking from the whole list instead of the counterpick system) that could _potentially_ work better than the BBR set, but the community is too used to what we have now to accept them. All it would take is one or two tournaments to possibly change the face of Brawl...

...
...
...

Lemme go check the OTL section.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I.
Am.
Not.
Trying.
To.
Legalize.
Every.
Stage.

....


My personal stance on stages is that every stage be legal and players strike from the entire list.

————————


Just pointing out that the reason for banning stages is completely up to opinion, which is why there are all these debates about it. Who gets to decide when a stage is "over-centralizing"?

.....

I really wish we as a community just soft-banned ******** tactics like chain-grabs and circle camping. Unfortunately, we are too hungry for money.

You contradicted yourself twice?

Besides that, chain grabs aren't worth a ban because not only is it not enforcable, it's not even degenerate. It's an opinion that chain-grabs are "********," but it's as close to a fact as possible that on Spear Pillar if you aren't circle camping then you're losing.

One of the reasons those stages are banned instead of saying, "Circle camping is banned" is because it's hard to enforce the latter. It's not comparable to how we have stalling banned as there's only like 4 tactics that actually count as stalling in this game. Good luck trying to enforce the rule and punish every act of chain-grabs or circle camping.

 

[Akaku94]

It is almost impossible to ban certain tactics effectively, for reasons already stated. But it is possible to ban stages that tend to degenerate gameplay into these tactics. To an extent, which tactics we choose to ban through stage choice is arbitrary, but as a community it is held that stages that degenerate, to circle and/or walkoff camping, among other tactics, sould be banned because those tactics signifigantly lower the required level of skill to win. I honestly think that on temple, even I could beat the best MKs in the world by using Fox, spamming blaster, and running for 8 minutes.

With that said, I think that more stages is definitely better, but that allowing stages that are effectively broken is just like allowing broken tactics or characters, something that has been proven to make the game worse.

 

[Raziek]

To those suggesting 1-stock with food:

You're now arbitrarily weakening play based on the ledges, which is completely legitimate unless you're MK's PPlanking.

Ledge play is every bit as legitimate as stage play.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Arbitrarily weakening, sure. But we're not exactly changing anything out-of-game to do so. It's like complaining that 3-stocks, 8 minutes makes it better.

 

[Raziek]

I suppose you have a point in that regard, but it's still subjectively altering the metagame because you don't like the defensive nature of Brawl. >_>

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Every ruleset is subjectively altering the metagame for some reason or other. We originally chose 3 stocks, 8 minutes because... well, no real reason. Now we have an actual reason to say, "this is how the settings are" in order to make the game more competitively legit.

 

[Tesh]

Having 3 stocks with food off is arbitrarily buffing ledge play. 1 stock with food on would have no effect on characters camping on stage as it is very easy to punish an obvious attempt to secure food.

The developers obviously didn't like ledge camping anyway. Look at the limits placed on tethers/aether ledge grabbing. The developers obviously thought they were too safe where they were.

With 1 stock only, you would also be able to play more games in a set with more stages/counterpicking. Which would mean having 1 great stage would help you less than 4 good ones.

In street fighter you only get 1 life per game.
In call of duty, health refills outside of combat, so you can't really just fire one shot and run away.

 

[T-block]

To those suggesting 1-stock with food:

You're now arbitrarily weakening play based on the ledges, which is completely legitimate unless you're MK's PPlanking.

Ledge play is every bit as legitimate as stage play.

Being the standard doesn't make it "correct". We should only look at what is "better", not what has worked in the past.

If 1-stock with food had been the standard, would you be for or against moving to 3-stock without food? Moving to 3-stock without food would then arbitrarily buff play based on ledges. Stage play is every bit as legitimate as ledge play.

 

[Raziek]

@Tesh: Developer intent means nothing.

@T-Block: I do agree that a lot of it has to do with being an ingrained standard, but Smash has always been a game of momentum. One stock doesn't seem like enough to me, I tend to do my best when third stock hits and it's game time. :X

I do agree that it's a bit of a double standard, but here's how I see it.

With 3 stocks, no food, ledge play and stage play are equally encouraged. Ledge play might be TACTICALLY SUPERIOR, but we're not ENCOURAGING it any more than the other.

When you change things to 1 stock, with food, you're DELIBERATELY discouraging ledge play, and saying, "Stage play is 'more fair', get off the ledge, or we're going to remove some of the lead you've earned, be it ON stage or off-stage."

What's more, is you also skew balance towards characters with good edge-guarding games. If you can hold your opponent on the ledge long enough to build up some food, you can take off a good 16% or so while STILL racking up damage.

Also, this all stems from the notion of being unbeatable on the ledge, so food is a counter-measure for that because it lands on stage.

Why wouldn't you skip the modifications and just remove the main source of the problem? MK.

This kind of idea doesn't seem sufficiently convincing to me, considering how much it would change the metagame, all in the name of dealing with a more specific problem.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Raziek, we're changing an in-game setting to turn the game from a ****tily-balanced hack into a game where you need to ban almost nothing. Planking is not an issue. IDC is not an issue. Homing attack stall is not an issue. Rudder camping is not an issue. So what if our motive is "make stalling tactics worse"? The change itself is still legitimate! It's not an outside rule, it's simply a change in settings. The point being, you don't have to ban MK like this. He takes a hit from it. If, by messing with the internal settings, you can create an environment that doesn't require something to be banned, then that something might not need to be banned after all.

 

[Raziek]

You're still not considering the impact on game balance this has though.

ICs now become completely ridiculous, since you only have one stock. One grab = GG. On TOP of that, if you try to use tactics formerly plausible to avoid getting grabbed (like, say playing on the ledge), they get to take advantage of the food as much as they please.

Furthermore, you now have a large issue in "How many games should it be now?" If it's only one stock per game, you would think we convert things from Bo3 to Bo9, one game for each stock we WOULD have had. Counterpicking now becomes DRASTICALLY more powerful, and with the amount of stages available, you might not have enough stage bans.

And if you say, "Ok, less games", you're once again drastically skewing the balance and nature of the game.

If you want this to work, you've got a LOT of practical issues to eat through before this appears legitimate.

 

[Tesh]

@Tesh: Developer intent means nothing.

@T-Block: I do agree that a lot of it has to do with being an ingrained standard, but Smash has always been a game of momentum. One stock doesn't seem like enough to me, I tend to do my best when third stock hits and it's game time. :X

I do agree that it's a bit of a double standard, but here's how I see it.

With 3 stocks, no food, ledge play and stage play are equally encouraged. Ledge play might be TACTICALLY SUPERIOR, but we're not ENCOURAGING it any more than the other.

When you change things to 1 stock, with food, you're DELIBERATELY discouraging ledge play, and saying, "Stage play is 'more fair', get off the ledge, or we're going to remove some of the lead you've earned, be it ON stage or off-stage."

What's more, is you also skew balance towards characters with good edge-guarding games. If you can hold your opponent on the ledge long enough to build up some food, you can take off a good 16% or so while STILL racking up damage.

Also, this all stems from the notion of being unbeatable on the ledge, so food is a counter-measure for that because it lands on stage.

Why wouldn't you skip the modifications and just remove the main source of the problem? MK.

This kind of idea doesn't seem sufficiently convincing to me, considering how much it would change the metagame, all in the name of dealing with a more specific problem.

Play every stock like its your last. In my scenario, your first stock is your last. As far as momentum, thats just irrelevant and subjective. You get a short 5 second break if you choose after each KO. If momentum was so important, then separating a set into nine 1 stock matches if "horrible", three 3 stock matches is "bad" and one 9 stock match would be "best".

Developer intent matters about as much as our "standard" because its how the game was before we change anything. I personally don't care too much about it, but I know some do.

Obviously changing any relevant setting is going to "nerf" or "buff" things. Its not like anyone ever suggests we adjust the colors or aspect ratio. Any relevant change is going to have its effect on the metagame. Ever consider that maybe putting 3 stocks instead of 1 was an arbitrary buff to characters with good ledge camping?

The ledge is obviously a very fortified position that makes bad characters more manageable (jigglypuff), mediocre characters good (pit) and the best character too broken (MK). Putting a "reward" on stage definitely helps balance out the camping zones on a stage. The middle of the stage is the hardest to defend as you are vulnerable from all sides, but it gives you the best chance of controlling the "reward". BTW the tactically superior option IS what is encouraged. Food isn't going to rapidly eat away at a massive lead, but it does put a dent in any kind of excessive stalling.

Sure I can see some obvious metagame changes for characters:
-Snake's stage control would be more impressive
-Lucario would lose some helpful aura effects
-Wario would probably only get 1 or 2 farts per game (though he only needs 1 now)
-Pokemon Trainer would be alot better, as you can completely avoid using the worst pokemon for the job
-Pit would probably be the best ledge camper because he can still punish you from across the stage.

I wouldn't say counterpicking becomes drastically more powerful. Considering you only get your best stage for 1/9 of the set as opposed to 1/3 of the set. The fact that you had to endure mk/rc, sonic/YI or diddy/fd becomes far less powerful overall.

I'd personally love to see a solution to out problems that doesn't change ANYTHING about the metagame. I challenge anyone to make a ruleset with less problems than the current one. BUT, the tier list should remain the same, gameplay should be exactly as it is now. No character should become better or worse because of the ruleset.

I'm not seeing why any of this is "bad" as opposed to "different".

 

[Raziek]

Well, honestly, this just doesn't seem practical to me. You're pretty much COMPLETELY overhauling the system.

In theory, yeah, maybe this could work, but I don't see enough benefit coming from a complete over-haul.

The TO/Pragmatist in me dislikes this idea.

Yeah, it's a bit hypocritical, but that's all I really can say on this issue.

 

[DunnoBro]

Omg omg omg i love the idea of one stock shenanigans.
Only problem i have with it is that it seems like some gay stuff would suddenly become game winning.

 

[AvaricePanda]

1 stock food matches?

LOL SDs.

have fun losing an entire game from the set because you accidentally pushed the wrong button. (you can't instantly die from an incorrect button input in any other game).

There are many other reasons why I'm against the stage, but this is one I thought of that wasn't mentioned.

 

[UberMario]

One-stock tournament matches? Does anyone else realize how insanely defensive that would get? It would pretty much be "get a hit and run", because if you get ko'd while trying to gimp, then you automatically lose [obviously]. It would be extremely detrimental to the meta-game because no one would take any risks in a one-stock tournament.

 

[sunshade]

One-stock tournament matches? Does anyone else realize how insanely defensive that would get? It would pretty much be "get a hit and run", because if you get ko'd while trying to gimp, then you automatically lose [obviously]. It would be extremely detrimental to the meta-game because no one would take any risks in a one-stock tournament.

Dont you just hate it when you are playing someone in three stock match and then you both get down to your last stock and suddenly the metagame of brawl is ruined?