I love dynamic stages, but saying that Smashville, Battlefield, and Final Destination aren't competitive is nearly as bad as saying that 75m is tourney viable.
Nonononono. Not "aren't competitive". "Are less competitive". Imagine it like a scale if you will. At the very bottom is Wario Ware, then a big jump, then the circle camping stages, and then a
massive jump, and then the walkoff stages, then a small jump, and then we get stages like Pirate Ship and Corneria, with strong/overpowering tactics that make the game far easier to play for most characters in a defensive position. And then you have the static/semi-static stages like FD, BF, SV, and LC. And above that (not far at all, mind you) you have the other stages.
75m, Temple, and co (basically, every stage except for Wario Ware) are competitive, but they're simply not competitive to the level that we demand of a stage.
Also, the lack of ledges isn't really that bad, the locations where you get ko'd off the bottom of the screen are relatively in-frequent and can be stalled out by many of the characters [especially Fox] until they can fall onto the road to bounce upwards. If there was no road, I'd say this was an issue.
This is what I keep on saying, but nobody listens, and I stopped getting the feeling it was right. Seriously guys-bounce off the bottom, then recover. NOT THAT HARD.
Because RC makes characters with great air games overpowered to oblivion? Especially those that have glides or multiple jumps?
And this makes the gameplay on it less competitive how? Sure, if one player makes a big fat mistake at the CSS, their opponent gets an easy win... But they could do this anyways by picking Ganon or Zelda or some other ****ty character. Obviously if you're attached to character viability, it matters. For the purposes of competition (let's ignore metaknight for a moment here, eh?), RC is an incredibly good stage.
Ground based characters, like Ganon
Off topic: LOL, RC is, in almost every matchup, better for ganon than, say, BF or SV. It actually forces people out of their semi-unbeatable camping positions. It's not a good stage for him by any means; if his options weren't as ****ty as they are, he'd hate it... As is, Ganon needs hazards like ICs need solid, unmoving, undamaging ground below their feet.
Donkey Kong, and several others, are just flippin' murdered there . . . . . . and using the "character balance" excuse actually works against you, since when you ignore "character balance", it cements the starters in terms of competitiveness, since there is no direct stage influence . . . . .
I have no idea how this works against me. If you ignore the idea of character balance on stages, all stages are equally good as starters, but not all are equally competitive. Why would that make it this way?
In fact, character balance is the
sole thing that keeps RC from being, outside of this thought experience, possibly the most competitive stage in smash.
BPC, you have to play the game competitively to say and argue about which stage is most competitive.
Also, stop using a logical fallacy to attack BPC.
And no, no I don't. I can get that without competitive play, thank you very much. Logic works reardless of the user's personal effects. My arguments would only be effected by who I am if I based them on it. As I clearly don't, this is just a simple ad hominem, which is
still a logical fallacy.
