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!
Your neutrals were FD, SV, BF, and PS1, right?Picking which character to play is solely your decision. If you don't like your character on a certain stage then you either get better on that stage or switch characters.
As stated in my post before, I haven't been up to date on the current smash terminology and such so perhaps neutrals isn't the best word. X character might do better than Y character on say, SV, but X character won't do that much better against Y character on BF. However, X character might do terrible against Y character on Rainbow Cruise. I would consider "neutrals" to be stages that aren't extremely match-up changing.
I have trouble understanding how you support this (which makes perfect sense) yet you are against having many stages legal.If you don't like your character on a certain stage then you either get better on that stage or switch characters.
Not really. FD, SV and BF are fairly similar (relatively speaking of course. FD is far closer to these 2 than it is to say, PS2, Delfino or RC. that's what I'm getting at here), and they are pretty much the best stages for ICs, Falco and Diddy. You could have 2 players of equal skill here, player X using, say, Falco, and player Y using some character that goes even with Falco. All of these stages give the advantage to X, so he could easily 3-0 Y, even though they just played on 3 similar stages and are of roughly equal skill.If you played on 3 similar stages then you can actually get a better idea of who's the better player.
This is not true at all. I'll cut you some slack since you claim not to play Brawl anymore, but I really think your lack of playing has left you with an exaggerated sense of how the gameplay changes on these stages. I assure you, the core skills of this game (timing, spacing, reading, knowledge of when to use what move, etc) exist on every stage that is legal in the Unity Ruleset, as well as some that aren't.You can argue that learning how to deal with certain stages improves skill, sure, but that takes away some of the core skills of the game like spacing, reading, and such because you're playing more the stage, and less the other player.
I'm pretty sure this is how a time limit is utilized by a lot of people in many games not called Brawl - attempt to win, but if victory is not in sight and time is running out, then attempt to not lose.The point is, I think, that it's a viable strategy if the match gets long enough. You have matches where neither player attempts to stall and are both last stock 100%+. The clock is running out and players get added pressure. Isn't it stupid to have a scenario like that and have it end with a person running away for the last 10 seconds instead of waiting for that killing blow?
It isn't a warning that's given. If you pause, accidentally or not, you lose a stock. If your pause causes your opponent to lose their stock, you lose 2. Of course, in some cases you can pause and if your opponent was fine with it, nothing happens. At my last tournament I paused the game because the sound suddenly stopped working on the tv, we fixed it, I made sure my opponent was ready and we continued the match.How exactly does giving a simple warning for intentional disruptive behavior make them less likely to happen?
What Overswarm meant was that putting extreme punishments on things that happen by accident will not prevent people from doing them often.Why wouldn't having harsher rules discourage the behavior?
This isn't very realistic. Look at this hypothetical situation:What about the possible abuse of the rules?
Well, do you have any better suggestions?I understand that, but I don't see why implementing a rule that directly affects the game is the best way to go about it.
I want to bring this up again because it got lost in the whole "what is the definition of a starter" debate.In terms of the stage striking procedure/counterpick system, what are the underlying values that the current system is trying to maintain?
Right now the core value is probably Stage Diversity. But if there's something else that's important let me know.
I'm working on an augmented stage striking/counter pick procedure that will favor:
- stage diversity
- competitive depth in terms of options
- neutrality
- the decentralization of the importance of winning game one and refocusing importance on game 3/5
The difference between hacking and playing the game the way you want (ignoring SD) is?Adressing the last question: Because hacking a game should not be the standard. EVER.
Your putting me down is cool.That's a cute way to miss the point.
"Altering any in-game mechanic (anything non-cosmetic) shoud not be the standard. EVER."
Does that sound any better?
I would be cool with this if this was the reason.From what I understand, SWF can't endorse a policy that endorses hacking of Wii's on an official level.
@Arcansi: changing game settings or win conditions =/= altering mechanics....
and altering mechanics =/= Special Brawl (lol)
Any change that the game itself allows can be considered for a new standard (and I think it was analyzed before, with no new results).
Manually altering mechanics (via coding, re-arranging ISO files, etc) should not.
I would appreciate it if you would answer my original question.The difference between hacking and playing the game the way you want (ignoring SD) is?
Cool.my argument doesn't make sense.
I'm also incredibly upset to see posts like this, where they don't know what either terms mean.Banning/limiting infinites(IDC or infinite grabs) isn't a surgical nerf, it's really a mandatory nerf
Ledge grab limits is probably a global surgical nerf
And MK's purposely lowered LGL is a direct surgical nerf
My take on the matter.