Which stage do YOU consider to be the most competitive?

[AvaricePanda]

First off, what Sirlin says is still opinion. You seem to cling to his ideals as if it's 100% fact, and while most people who play fighting games overall agree with him, what he says is still opinion. People are still allowed to disagree. Your overuse of the word "scrub" is also unnecessary and slightly annoying, especially considering that Sirlin's actual definition of the word "scrub" is:

"[a player who] does not play to win . . . someone who labels a wide variety of situations and tactics cheap and binds themselves by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent them from truly competing." An actual scrub, defined by Sirlin, is someone who will refuse to use a tactic—for example, grabbing—because they think it's cheap, or someone who will prioritize being innovative and trying to do long combos rather than playing to win.

You've diluted the word "scrub" to essentially mean, "anybody who doesn't agree with you."

Someone who has different competitive ideals than you—and by extension Sirlin—is not a scrub by his definition if they're still playing to win. I think Luigi's Mansion should be banned because it overcentralizes gameplay. Am I a scrub? No, I still play to win. My opinion that Mansion should be banned is no different (in this sense) than some people's opinions that MK should be banned or certain characters or things in other games should be banned. Unless you think that anyone who bans anything in any competitive game is a scrub—in that case I don't care about the word if me being a scrub can make a better competitive game.

Regardless, you should probably stop using the word since it doesn't seem like you know what it means.

...Except when you step in to stop the abuse by destroying the place and then get a good 21+ seconds of FD-like conditions where said tactic isn't available.

The notion that, "You can destroy the stage and get a bit of time where the stage is fine," is a bad argument in itself. If your main argument is that I have to destroy the stage for it to be a fine legal stage (for brief periods of time at that) then the stage just shouldn't be legal. That's ignoring the fact that the act of actually destroying the stage puts you in a big disadvantageous position where you have to start out being above your opponent when you can't hit him (so your opponent should get free hits).

I think the stage shouldn't be legal because it centralizes to abusing the stage for almost every match-up. It's not that X character is absurdly good on it (although there are characters that are absurdly good on Mansion) but all strategies become, "abuse the stage, prevent your opponent from abusing the stage, or lose." Even ignoring the light circle and cave-of-life qualities, this stage shouldn't be legal.

LOL water camping, wasn't that shown to be bad a while ago? Rudder camping makes the stage banworthy, but WATER CAMPING?

Rudder camping is what I meant to say, sorry (although I don't remember water camping ever proven to be a bad strategy).

Consistency in gameplay, amount of skill required of the player, amount of different skills required by the player... those are the 3 big ones. RC and BF fulfill the first one equally well, but the second and third are taken by RC in a landslide.

It's easy to say that RC requires a larger amount of different skills and a larger amount of skill overall, but in reality this isn't the case. Yes the stage changes and moves, but this doesn't increase overall viable options on the stage. Air dominance is very important on this stage while ground zoning overall takes a back seat, and running away ("stalling") is much easier and more viable on this stage. In a pool of stages RC obviously deserves to be legal and is good because it provides a different facet of gameplay, but as a stage by itself it's not the most competitive nor would I say is it more competitive than BF as certain tactics overpower others quite clearly, and as a result characters/match-ups are more "skewed".

It could be similar with PS2. I haven't played a load of competitive games on this stage but the ones I have played, the air and electric transformations make gameplay focused on the physics changes and there are less viable things you can do. Air, don't jump and try to juggle your opponent. Electric, try to edgeguard your opponent and control the center. I wouldn't say they're over-centralizing, the stage should obviously be legal, and it's fine because there are multiple transformations on the stage, but that still happens.

The differences I see between BF and PS2 are that every characters like BF and every character doesn't mind PS2, while PS2 has more stage layout transformations but more inconsistencies with that.

Another thing I didn't think of until just now about BF was that the skills you use on it are more universal. The skills you use and can learn on BF can be applied to pretty much every stage. If I played like 50 games on BF of any match-up, I'd learn more about the match-up universally than I would if I played 50 games on PS2 of the same match-up. PS2 is the only stage with 3 different physics changes and one of few stages that has a wall on it at any point in time—so on any game on this stage, over half the time may be spent doing things you wouldn't do on any other stage. BF helps your overall skills better and helps you learn match-ups and improve as a player more than any other stage.

 

[-LzR-]

Actually it's the TO's decision and the TO doesn't have to have any reasons for banning a stage. But still this stage is competitive and should be legal and there is no other reason than if TO doesn't want it to ban it.

 

[Raziek]

"someone who labels a wide variety of situations and tactics cheap and binds themselves by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent them from truly competing."

I think Luigi's Mansion should be banned because it overcentralizes gameplay. Am I a scrub?

Just curious, Avarice. How often do you actually play on Luigi's Mansion?

Safely destroying the Mansion is laughably easy for 90% of the cast, and if your opponent tries to stop you, THEY put themselves at a disadvantage, assuming you are using safe moves to do so. (You shouldn't be Warlock Punching the pillars down.)

 

[Akaku94]

If you plan on PS2, the main transformation is just as neutral (maybe even more so) than BF or even SV, so you can use that the same way as far as basic techniques go. The other segments offer a wide variety of situations that force you to think outside the box. So I would say that playing only on PS2 would be quite beneficial, probably better than doing so on BF.

And I think BPC is using the word scrub just fine... and I doubt he'll stop, no matter what you say

 

[AvaricePanda]

Just curious, Avarice. How often do you actually play on Luigi's Mansion?

Safely destroying the Mansion is laughably easy for 90% of the cast, and if your opponent tries to stop you, THEY put themselves at a disadvantage, assuming you are using safe moves to do so. (You shouldn't be Warlock Punching the pillars down.)

I've played on it pretty often as it's pretty fun for Diddy, but I haven't played any serious tournament matches on it since I didn't play this game competitively when it was legal here lol.

How is it easy? Many characters have some form of attack that can hit above the stage so being grounded while attacking this isn't an option, and besides that you still put yourself above your opponent and often have to land so they have an opportunity to hit you on landing (and being above your opponent is never a good position).

You're above your opponent where they can hit you and tossing out a move that's not being used for spacing purposes or to hit your opponent (and less importantly you're staling a move). How is it advantageous for you? And why is, "You can destroy the stage to get 20 seconds of near FD," a legitimate argument for the stage being legal?

If you plan on PS2, the main transformation is just as neutral (maybe even more so) than BF or even SV, so you can use that the same way as far as basic techniques go. The other segments offer a wide variety of situations that force you to think outside the box. So I would say that playing only on PS2 would be quite beneficial, probably better than doing so on BF.

And I think BPC is using the word scrub just fine... and I doubt he'll stop, no matter what you say

I wouldn't say the main transformation is just as neutral as BF just because there's not as much to the platforms as BF's, but regardless it's hard to say which is most neutral (I don't know why you put SV over BF though simply considering scrooging).

More time "thinking outside of the box" doesn't equate to more match-up and overall experience. Say I'm playing Diddy vs. Falco on PS2 vs. Diddy vs. Falco on BF. With the former, a good portion of the time is spent fighting with less gravity (something that changes the match-up considerably for that period of time but I won't have to deal with on any other stage), spent fighting with less traction (something that changes the match-up that I won't have to deal with on any other stage), and spent fighting with treadmills going to the edges (something that changes my options that I won't have to deal with on any other stage). Arguably, I'm not going to deal with a rock in the middle of the stage on most other stages either, but at least for the most part I can apply standard fighting things on that transformation universally since there are no physics changes.

I would much rather play 20 games of that match-up on BF, where I'm consistently getting more experience dealing with things that are going to be on most stages, rather than PS2, where while I'll need different sets of knowledge to do well with all of the physics changes, they won't help me as much because they're unique to that stage.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@Avarice
I fail to see why you can't destroy the mansion from ground level. Also you can just abuse the stage in the ways you described when your opponent tries to stop you destroying it.

@BPC
I'm curious. Why is Mario Bros. banned?

 

[Tesh]

Luigi's Mansion looks about as troublesome as rainbow cruise. Some characters just won't have the tools to defeat the characters that are best there.

@ Avarice, are you saying having unique features makes a stage ban-worthy? Just because you have to deal with something that isn't present on any other legal stage? 90% of the stages that are legal have some trait that won't help you anywhere else. Its the same with matchups. Learning how to beat MKs tornado won't help you in any other matchup. So what?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

First off, what Sirlin says is still opinion. You seem to cling to his ideals as if it's 100% fact, and while most people who play fighting games overall agree with him, what he says is still opinion. People are still allowed to disagree. Your overuse of the word "scrub" is also unnecessary and slightly annoying, especially considering that Sirlin's actual definition of the word "scrub" is:

"[a player who] does not play to win . . . someone who labels a wide variety of situations and tactics cheap and binds themselves by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent them from truly competing." An actual scrub, defined by Sirlin, is someone who will refuse to use a tactic—for example, grabbing—because they think it's cheap, or someone who will prioritize being innovative and trying to do long combos rather than playing to win.

You've diluted the word "scrub" to essentially mean, "anybody who doesn't agree with you."

I had good reasoning for that. Don't know what happened to it, because I clearly do not have it any more. Phooey. So I'll skip over this for now, and come back to it when I remember what that argument is. However, I will say this-your opinion that luigi's mansion should be banned is, in fact, no different than the opinion that MK should be banned, or that snake should be banned, or that FD should be banned. It's backed up by nothing except personal preference and bad theorycraft.

The notion that, "You can destroy the stage and get a bit of time where the stage is fine," is a bad argument in itself. If your main argument is that I have to destroy the stage for it to be a fine legal stage (for brief periods of time at that) then the stage just shouldn't be legal.

Why not? Let's get one thing straight here. The broken tactic we would ban the stage for is a stalling tactic. If you are able to make this tactic impossible for various times during the match, it makes it no longer broken. See also: PS1, PS2, CS, Delfino, etc. In this case, the only difference is that instead of the broken tactic being removed by the stage itself, the stage hands off the work to you. This does not make the stage broken! Why in god's name would a stalling tactic that can, and will, be consistently interrupted be broken? It's like johning about being able to walkoff camp for 40 seconds on Castle Siege.

That's ignoring the fact that the act of actually destroying the stage puts you in a big disadvantageous position where you have to start out being above your opponent when you can't hit him (so your opponent should get free hits).

Or, you know, you can abuse pretty much the exact same tactic you are calling broken to hit and run. Or hit it from above, or put that cave of life between you and your opponent, or... Come on, man. Basically, exactly what you're calling broken can defeat itself. I have played several matches on this stage. I've TRIED abusing the mansion. It started working when my opponent started picking chars like Ganon and Zelda against my Wario and Jiggs. Have you tried actually stopping your opponents from abusing it? It's not exactly that hard.

I think the stage shouldn't be legal because it centralizes to abusing the stage for almost every match-up. It's not that X character is absurdly good on it (although there are characters that are absurdly good on Mansion) but all strategies become, "abuse the stage, prevent your opponent from abusing the stage, or lose." Even ignoring the light circle and cave-of-life qualities, this stage shouldn't be legal.

Except... GASP this isn't overcentralizing. Circle camping? Nope, not overcentralizing. If every match boils down to abuse the stage, why does this warrant a ban if it doesn't fulfill the truly vital criteria every other stage banned for this does (severely removes matchup depth)? The fact is, you can and should reduce the stage to rubble and get an FD clone for quite a lot of the match; why aren't you?

Rudder camping is what I meant to say, sorry (although I don't remember water camping ever proven to be a bad strategy).

'kay. Yeah, rudder camping really kills the stage. Pity.

It's easy to say that RC requires a larger amount of different skills and a larger amount of skill overall, but in reality this isn't the case. Yes the stage changes and moves, but this doesn't increase overall viable options on the stage. Air dominance is very important on this stage while ground zoning overall takes a back seat, and running away ("stalling") is much easier and more viable on this stage. In a pool of stages RC obviously deserves to be legal and is good because it provides a different facet of gameplay, but as a stage by itself it's not the most competitive nor would I say is it more competitive than BF as certain tactics overpower others quite clearly, and as a result characters/match-ups are more "skewed".

"Air dominance" only applies when one character is wildly better in the air than the other. If you're a smart player, you won't let this happen. You can change your character after your opponent declares his counterpick, you know. Go MK, Wario, G&W... there's a fairly long list of chars who don't get dominated on RC that hard. It's only if you stupidly stick to just one main, and that main happens to be a severely ground-based character, that you're going to get *****.

Furthermore, you do still need the old skills, even if it becomes harder to use them. Emphasis is placed slightly on other skills, but you still need to be just as good at the basics to win on RC.

It could be similar with PS2. I haven't played a load of competitive games on this stage but the ones I have played, the air and electric transformations make gameplay focused on the physics changes and there are less viable things you can do. Air, don't jump and try to juggle your opponent. Electric, try to edgeguard your opponent and control the center. I wouldn't say they're over-centralizing, the stage should obviously be legal, and it's fine because there are multiple transformations on the stage, but that still happens.

The differences I see between BF and PS2 are that every characters like BF and every character doesn't mind PS2, while PS2 has more stage layout transformations but more inconsistencies with that.

Inconsistencies? Hardly. Why is it inconsistent with that much warning and that few possible outcomes, added to the fact that none of the transformations give a large offensive advantage?

I'm just not convinced in this argument that because the stage reduces the more typical skills and either forces or strongly encourages certain other tactics, however easy they are to master for only a short time in the match, that it is a worse competitive stage. It probably would be a worse competitive stage if it wasn't for the neutral transformation, but as is...

Another thing I didn't think of until just now about BF was that the skills you use on it are more universal. The skills you use and can learn on BF can be applied to pretty much every stage. If I played like 50 games on BF of any match-up, I'd learn more about the match-up universally than I would if I played 50 games on PS2 of the same match-up. PS2 is the only stage with 3 different physics changes and one of few stages that has a wall on it at any point in time—so on any game on this stage, over half the time may be spent doing things you wouldn't do on any other stage. BF helps your overall skills better and helps you learn match-ups and improve as a player more than any other stage.

Well yeah, this much I know. This is part of why I don't like the stage, and I really hate it when people use that kind of argument (you haven't) to advocate the stage as a "better competitive stage" because it literally makes the game easier. Yeah guys, sure, it's easier to get a lock on your opponent's habits on FD than on PTAD. Does that make FD the better stage? No, it just means it's easier to get a lock on your opponents with it. In fact, I'd argue that that makes it a worse stage, as it requires less player skill, but meh.

I've played on it pretty often as it's pretty fun for Diddy, but I haven't played any serious tournament matches on it since I didn't play this game competitively when it was legal here lol.

How is it easy? Many characters have some form of attack that can hit above the stage so being grounded while attacking this isn't an option, and besides that you still put yourself above your opponent and often have to land so they have an opportunity to hit you on landing (and being above your opponent is never a good position).

Pretty simple. You don't do something like zelda's usmash, you do something like MK's uair, or chucking **** at it. You do non-committing moves, preferably aerial, and at best from across the stage. You set it up so that either your opponent does nothing and loses his camping spot, or your opponent intervenes and puts himself in a bad position. Not being stupid also helps.

You're above your opponent where they can hit you and tossing out a move that's not being used for spacing purposes or to hit your opponent (and less importantly you're staling a move). How is it advantageous for you?

Well... First of all, you are doing it safely, and not like an idiot if you're doing it right. If you're doing it right, your opponent probably will not hit you. And even then, how many times will it be more than a glancing blow? Putting that big fat wall between you and your opponent works wonders. It's a more extreme disadvantage for losing the lead than normal, but hardly gamebreaking.

And why is, "You can destroy the stage to get 20 seconds of near FD," a legitimate argument for the stage being legal?

Because it means that the main arguments, "you can circle camp" and "it has a cave of life" are no longer reasons to ban the stage, and therefore you need new reasons. The stage no longer has a broken tactic, and therefore does not need to be banned.

I wouldn't say the main transformation is just as neutral as BF just because there's not as much to the platforms as BF's, but regardless it's hard to say which is most neutral (I don't know why you put SV over BF though simply considering scrooging).

Good question.

More time "thinking outside of the box" doesn't equate to more match-up and overall experience. Say I'm playing Diddy vs. Falco on PS2 vs. Diddy vs. Falco on BF. With the former, a good portion of the time is spent fighting with less gravity (something that changes the match-up considerably for that period of time but I won't have to deal with on any other stage), spent fighting with less traction (something that changes the match-up that I won't have to deal with on any other stage), and spent fighting with treadmills going to the edges (something that changes my options that I won't have to deal with on any other stage). Arguably, I'm not going to deal with a rock in the middle of the stage on most other stages either, but at least for the most part I can apply standard fighting things on that transformation universally since there are no physics changes.

I would much rather play 20 games of that match-up on BF, where I'm consistently getting more experience dealing with things that are going to be on most stages, rather than PS2, where while I'll need different sets of knowledge to do well with all of the physics changes, they won't help me as much because they're unique to that stage.

OH **** HE DID IT! HE ****ING WENT THERE! GOD DAMMIT MAN!

It's fair enough to lower the bar for friendlies and training, but for a serious tournament environment, you're arguing that we should do what is easier. This is exactly what I mentioned hating above. It's terrible reasoning, and incredibly biased in favor of those who don't know stages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@BPC
I'm curious. Why is Mario Bros. banned?

Good question. I'm honestly not sure about Mario Bros.

I suppose part of the issue is that complete removal of most "normal" skills needed in smash. It's playing an entirely different game, but not in the same way that most other stages are, but in a way that they aren't temporarily worth less, but permanently worth nothing. You can probably circle camp fairly effectively there... The problem is just simply that it removes too much from competition (skills we normally need everywhere else are simply worthless there in comparison to "take a shell, chuck it"), and of course general distaste. I honestly don't know... Arguing for it is completely pointless and will only make me look even worse than I already do. From an ideological standpoint... maybe. Otherwise, no ****ing way.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Mario bros is banned because you're not playing brawl; you're playing Mario Bros. (and it has walkoffs, impossible to destroy roofs, and extremely powerful hazards.

 

[UberMario]

Pretty much what Dark Horse said, it's basically just Mario Bros. Battle, but with OHKO-esque knockback (rather than falling forward into an abyss/water). It's definitely a great idea and showed the Brawl stage designer's creativity, but it's useless competitively . . . . . .

 

[AvaricePanda]

@ Avarice, are you saying having unique features makes a stage ban-worthy? Just because you have to deal with something that isn't present on any other legal stage? 90% of the stages that are legal have some trait that won't help you anywhere else. Its the same with matchups. Learning how to beat MKs tornado won't help you in any other matchup. So what?

no I'm not saying that makes a stage banworthy. I HAVE NEVER ONCE SAID PS2 SHOULD BE BANWORTHY QUITE THE OPPOSITE I'VE SAID THAT IT'S A FINE COMPETITIVE STAGE AND SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY BE LEGAL.

I've said that playing matches on PS2 won't help you learn the match-up more for most if not all match-ups as compared to Battlefield, as most of the traits present on PS2 aren't present anywhere else. It's still a fine competitive stage and still should be legal.

And the reason why I think Mansion should be banned isn't because it has unique stage features.

@Grim Tuesday, you can't destroy the stage at ground level first (you have played this stage, right?) If you were able to do that then you could have a second story building with no base and that would be lol. Also, the main methods of abusing the stage are from the bottom level, so I don't really get how I can use the stage in "the way I described" when my opponent tries to stop me from destroying it.

@BPC as a preface some of the things you said were kind of confusing, so sorry if my responses don't make perfect sense lol.

Why not? Let's get one thing straight here. The broken tactic we would ban the stage for is a stalling tactic. If you are able to make this tactic impossible for various times during the match, it makes it no longer broken. See also: PS1, PS2, CS, Delfino, etc. In this case, the only difference is that instead of the broken tactic being removed by the stage itself, the stage hands off the work to you. This does not make the stage broken! Why in god's name would a stalling tactic that can, and will, be consistently interrupted be broken? It's like johning about being able to walkoff camp for 40 seconds on Castle Siege.

Are you saying the only broken tactic you should ban a stage for is a stalling tactic, or that the tactic on Mansion is a stalling tactic? If it's the former I don't agree, and if it's the latter it's not the case. I get what you're saying though.

Or, you know, you can abuse pretty much the exact same tactic you are calling broken to hit and run. Or hit it from above, or put that cave of life between you and your opponent, or... Come on, man. Basically, exactly what you're calling broken can defeat itself. I have played several matches on this stage. I've TRIED abusing the mansion. It started working when my opponent started picking chars like Ganon and Zelda against my Wario and Jiggs. Have you tried actually stopping your opponents from abusing it? It's not exactly that hard.

I guess it's not hard per-se, but it's still disadvantageous for most characters. Yes some characters can hit and run with it (although if you can circle camp on this stage in the first place I'm not sure why you'd want to destroy the mansion). At some point you still have to land. I don't get what you mean by "exactly what you're calling broken can defeat itself," though.

Except... GASP this isn't overcentralizing. Circle camping? Nope, not overcentralizing. If every match boils down to abuse the stage, why does this warrant a ban if it doesn't fulfill the truly vital criteria every other stage banned for this does (severely removes matchup depth)? The fact is, you can and should reduce the stage to rubble and get an FD clone for quite a lot of the match; why aren't you?

But I'm arguing that this stage does severely remove match-up depth. Options are severely limited until you can destroy the stage and have it gone for those 20 seconds. For the majority of the stage length you are either abusing the stage and not focusing nearly as much on character vs. character or player vs. player things, or you're trying to destroy the stage and not focusing on those things, because those things become easy with the stage. It's very easy to predict what my opponent can do if their approach options are limited, or their safe options, or OoS options, or just intelligent options are limited.

Every game I've played on this map has boiled down to me either abusing the stage or trying to destroy it while avoiding some gimmick that works on the stage, then having 20 seconds of standard match, then having the majority of the time again focusing more on the stage. It's okay if you don't have a problem with it and you think it's fine (obviously this is still all opinion lol)—I just don't.

"Air dominance" only applies when one character is wildly better in the air than the other. If you're a smart player, you won't let this happen. You can change your character after your opponent declares his counterpick, you know. Go MK, Wario, G&W... there's a fairly long list of chars who don't get dominated on RC that hard. It's only if you stupidly stick to just one main, and that main happens to be a severely ground-based character, that you're going to get *****.

Furthermore, you do still need the old skills, even if it becomes harder to use them. Emphasis is placed slightly on other skills, but you still need to be just as good at the basics to win on RC.

Not necessarily @ the first paragraph. Air dominance (or I guess stage dominance with the moving stage or w.e) can just take place based on position. Yeah if you're MK this is easy but even if it's like Diddy vs. Falco, it's important that you're the one who doesn't have to run forward into the other and that you have room to move around so you don't get edgeguarded and whatnot. This isn't bad by any means, but you said it as if RC requires more skills, and I just see it as RC requiring different skills than BF. Obviously being able to be ahead of your opponent in a moving stage and take control of non-ledge platforms isn't as important on BF, just as being able to zone on a flat static stage or edgeguard using ledge platforms is important on RC.

Inconsistencies? Hardly. Why is it inconsistent with that much warning and that few possible outcomes, added to the fact that none of the transformations give a large offensive advantage?

Again, I honestly think all the legal stages are close in competitiveness—honestly I realize that a dancing blade glitch and transformations not coming in the same order are minuscule things in comparison to what the stage brings, but the competitiveness of a stage is really hard to measure, so I'm bringing these things out. this is like a 1 point differential out of 100 and I'm kind of arguing just to argue (the only thing I really care about is Mansion not being legal lol).

but tl;dr, yes they're hardly inconsistencies but I'm still considering them.

I'm just not convinced in this argument that because the stage reduces the more typical skills and either forces or strongly encourages certain other tactics, however easy they are to master for only a short time in the match, that it is a worse competitive stage. It probably would be a worse competitive stage if it wasn't for the neutral transformation, but as is...

Can you tell me how the air and electric transformations add depth to the stage? I get how they add different things, but at the current time of both of them they reduce options and make one strategy so obviously valid. It's not like ice where, as far as I can tell, there are no overbearing strategies yet there are still different aspects about gameplay.

Well yeah, this much I know. This is part of why I don't like the stage, and I really hate it when people use that kind of argument (you haven't) to advocate the stage as a "better competitive stage" because it literally makes the game easier. Yeah guys, sure, it's easier to get a lock on your opponent's habits on FD than on PTAD. Does that make FD the better stage? No, it just means it's easier to get a lock on your opponents with it. In fact, I'd argue that that makes it a worse stage, as it requires less player skill, but meh.

——————————

OH **** HE DID IT! HE ****ING WENT THERE! GOD DAMMIT MAN!

It's fair enough to lower the bar for friendlies and training, but for a serious tournament environment, you're arguing that we should do what is easier. This is exactly what I mentioned hating above. It's terrible reasoning, and incredibly biased in favor of those who don't know stages.

This I disagree with because you're implying that BF has a base layer of knowledge and stages with extra things added to them (such as PS2) require extra layers to that knowledge.

It's not really the case. BF has a base layer of knowledge (universal to almost every stage). PS2 has other layers in the different physics changes but they don't just stack on top of them. How important is juggling my opponent in a standard environment when the environment in PS2 has less gravity, giving me more time to react and giving him less smart options?

Or take FD and PTAD. One, you're assuming that it's easier to read your opponent on FD because less things are going on, which isn't really the case because it's not like me bouncing off the track is going to make it harder for me to read my opponent. But two, you're assuming that it's just as important to read your opponent on FD as it is PTAD in all situations. On PTAD a lot of the damage I deal is going to be from edgeguarding when they bounce off the track (which is easy because the lack of ledge limits options getting back so you may only have to account for a couple of situations at a time which many characters can cover at once), so why do I need to be able to read as well on that stage as compared to FD where nothing on the stage helps me deal damage?

I'd definitely argue that PTAD makes the game easier than FD because there's less I have to focus on on PTAD.

Not that BF is necessarily a better competitive stage for those reasons, but it's certainly more useful.

sorry for being wordy—I hate being wordy lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

God dammit stop doing that
your posts aren't stupid bull**** I can refute without much thought
it's actually hard to debate with you and it takes like forever
gah
why are you so much better at this than almost any pro I have ever met

I'll reply to that tomorrow, it's getting late.

 

[UberMario]

On Port Town, you're not going to edgeguard as easy as you think, unless you're at 0%, the knockback is sufficient for pretty much any character to return THROUGH the platform, in fact, if you want to be bold in a match, you can use the knockback to your advantage to nail your opponent while they're unaware, and I've never had a PTAD battle degrade to being a match of who could keep the other on the track the most, heck, nearly all of them were as legit and unaffected by the stage as pretty much any match I've had on Lylat, Frigate, or Halberd, at least against those that knew the stage . . . . .

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Good question. I'm honestly not sure about Mario Bros.

I suppose part of the issue is that complete removal of most "normal" skills needed in smash. It's playing an entirely different game, but not in the same way that most other stages are, but in a way that they aren't temporarily worth less, but permanently worth nothing. You can probably circle camp fairly effectively there... The problem is just simply that it removes too much from competition (skills we normally need everywhere else are simply worthless there in comparison to "take a shell, chuck it"), and of course general distaste. I honestly don't know... Arguing for it is completely pointless and will only make me look even worse than I already do. From an ideological standpoint... maybe. Otherwise, no ****ing way.

Mario bros is banned because you're not playing brawl; you're playing Mario Bros. (and it has walkoffs, impossible to destroy roofs, and extremely powerful hazards.

Pretty much what Dark Horse said, it's basically just Mario Bros. Battle, but with OHKO-esque knockback (rather than falling forward into an abyss/water). It's definitely a great idea and showed the Brawl stage designer's creativity, but it's useless competitively . . . . . .

It IS Brawl, however. As BPC explained in an earlier post, it is a stage in the game that was designed to be played on. It is simply a subjective double standard to legalize stages like PS2 when you don't legalize Mario Bros.

Walk-Offs are also a part of the game, and the super-powerful turtles are simply a part of the stage that can be used and avoided. A bad player is NOT going to beat a good player on Mario Bros. (as opposed to say, Wario Ware Inc.)

The problem I find with banning stages based on things like "run-away camping" and "walk-off camping" is there is NO reason to do so other than "make the game more interesting". Why is it that we draw the line here? Why is it that we draw a line at all? Banning stages because they "make the game less interesting" (Read: "Because I don't like them") is just scrubby behavior.

 

[UberMario]

It IS Brawl, however. As BPC explained in an earlier post, it is a stage in the game that was designed to be played on. It is simply a subjective double standard to legalize stages like PS2 when you don't legalize Mario Bros.

Uhhh no it isn't a double standard, that's like saying it's a double-standard to keep Final Destination legal because 75m has ladders . . . . . .

PS2 is one of the most balanced counterpicks in the ENTIRE game, it and Frigate should both be starters due to their fair transformations. Comparing it to Mario Bros is akin to . . . . well I already said it. The only reason that Pokemon Stadium 1 is so high up on the stage list is because people have had 9 years to get used to it, if Pokemon Stadium 2 came out before Pokemon Stadium 1 (yes I know that doesn't make sense, but just roll with it) PS1 would be in Cat. 2 Counterpicks, the stalling is that bad, but people have gotten used to it, they let that slide. On PS2, the only useful way to stall is during the air section, and even then you're disadvantaged when you [eventually] have to come down. Camping in the platform tower of PS1's rock level or under the cliff during that same transformation has no such repercussions, in fact somthing similar occurs in 75% of PS1's elemental transformations:

PS1:
Grass: Balanced
Water: the Windmill allows stalling you could see the ROB could have stalled it out, however he decided at 150% that it would be a good idea to go aggressive on a 11% Dedede (lol) after nearly getting KO'd already
Rock: the "Platform Tower" and the Cliff, here's an example, ROB is unapproachable
Fire: the Tree is a camping haven, here's an example if you disagree, the ROB once again can't be safely approached

(I'm not going to do videos for this . . . but) :

Ground: One short wall, perfectly balanced otherwise
Ice: Aerial characters are unaffected, the ice allows for sliding smashes, jabs, and even some normally unviable chaingrabs
Flying: Stalling, but not entirely advantageous, because you still have to come down, where your opponent will be waiting with no obstruction.
Electric: The ledges don't move and the treadmills aren't that fast, if you don't want to fight on the treamills, take the fight to the platforms or the center, again sliding smashes and other techs that would normally be easily DI'able can be used here

If PS1 [and Siege] can be a starter, so should PS2.

 

[Akaku94]

^ this

Also, @ GrimTuesday, I'm pretty sure BPC was being sarcastic in that comment about Mario Bros...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Uhhh no it isn't a double standard, that's like saying it's a double-standard to keep Final Destination legal because 75m has ladders . . . . . .

PS2 is one of the most balanced counterpicks in the ENTIRE game, it and Frigate should both be starters due to their fair transformations. Comparing it to Mario Bros is akin to . . . . well I already said it. The only reason that Pokemon Stadium 1 is so high up on the stage list is because people have had 9 years to get used to it, if Pokemon Stadium 2 came out before Pokemon Stadium 1 (yes I know that doesn't make sense, but just roll with it) PS1 would be in Cat. 2 Counterpicks, the stalling is that bad, but people have gotten used to it, they let that slide. On PS2, the only useful way to stall is during the air section, and even then you're disadvantaged when you [eventually] have to come down. Camping in the platform tower of PS1's rock level or under the cliff during that same transformation has no such repercussions, in fact somthing similar occurs in 75% of PS1's elemental transformations:

PS1:
Grass: Balanced
Water: the Windmill allows stalling you could see the ROB could have stalled it out, however he decided at 150% that it would be a good idea to go aggressive on a 11% Dedede (lol) after nearly getting KO'd already
Rock: the "Platform Tower" and the Cliff, here's an example, ROB is unapproachable
Fire: the Tree is a camping haven, here's an example if you disagree, the ROB once again can't be safely approached

(I'm not going to do videos for this . . . but) :

Ground: One short wall, perfectly balanced otherwise
Ice: Aerial characters are unaffected, the ice allows for sliding smashes, jabs, and even some normally unviable chaingrabs
Flying: Stalling, but not entirely advantageous, because you still have to come down, where your opponent will be waiting with no obstruction.
Electric: The ledges don't move and the treadmills aren't that fast, if you don't want to fight on the treamills, take the fight to the platforms or the center, again sliding smashes and other techs that would normally be easily DI'able can be used here

If PS1 [and Siege] can be a starter, so should PS2.

Dude.
Lol.

Have you had your eyes shut for the last 10 pages? I fully support Pokemon Stadium 2 as a starter and have been arguing IN IT'S FAVOUR.

I was pointing out that the ONLY legitimate reason for banning Mario Bros. is "it is different to what I am used to". If we can't ban PS2 for that reason, why can we ban Mario Bros. for it?

 

[UberMario]

Sorry, it just seems more like you're implying that if Mario Bros is banned, then so should PS2, rather than the opposite . . . . . .

By the way, you're not serious about the "every stage but Warioware should be legal" thing are you?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sorry, it just seems more like you're implying that if Mario Bros is banned, then so should PS2, rather than the opposite . . . . . .

By the way, you're not serious about the "every stage but Warioware should be legal" thing are you?

From a philosophical stand point, yes, I am serious.

Realistically however, I am merely pointing out how the whole reason for us banning stages (aside from WW) is entirely subjective. The same reasoning could be used to ban nearly anything. I don't actually want to play on stupid stages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It IS Brawl, however. As BPC explained in an earlier post, it is a stage in the game that was designed to be played on. It is simply a subjective double standard to legalize stages like PS2 when you don't legalize Mario Bros.

Walk-Offs are also a part of the game, and the super-powerful turtles are simply a part of the stage that can be used and avoided. A bad player is NOT going to beat a good player on Mario Bros. (as opposed to say, Wario Ware Inc.)

The problem I find with banning stages based on things like "run-away camping" and "walk-off camping" is there is NO reason to do so other than "make the game more interesting". Why is it that we draw the line here? Why is it that we draw a line at all? Banning stages because they "make the game less interesting" (Read: "Because I don't like them") is just scrubby behavior.

Not "make the game more interesting". "Make the game worth competing in". Sure, competition is still possible on Hyrule or NPC, but it's completely uninteresting and requires no skill. I could beat M2K's MK on temple hyrule without much thought at all. The problem is not that a bad player will not beat a good player on temple hyrule, but to illustrate what I'm talking about, consider the learning curves comparative to a 3-foot stepladder and Mount Everest. 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.

Mario bros is, in fact, a questionable stage. It really could be looked into for legality, because I really think it might have a chance (everything broken about it is balanced out by a different broken thing, hilariously) from a philosophical standpoint, but it's not a battle we can win-nobody would ever run a tournament with that stage legal, even to test it.

^ this

Also, @ GrimTuesday, I'm pretty sure BPC was being sarcastic in that comment about Mario Bros...

I wasn't.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Not "make the game more interesting". "Make the game worth competing in". Sure, competition is still possible on Hyrule or NPC, but it's completely uninteresting and requires no skill. I could beat M2K's MK on temple hyrule without much thought at all. The problem is not that a bad player will not beat a good player on temple hyrule, but to illustrate what I'm talking about, consider the learning curves comparative to a 3-foot stepladder and Mount Everest. 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.

Mario bros is, in fact, a questionable stage. It really could be looked into for legality, because I really think it might have a chance (everything broken about it is balanced out by a different broken thing, hilariously) from a philosophical standpoint, but it's not a battle we can win-nobody would ever run a tournament with that stage legal, even to test it.

I wasn't.

I can use the exact same argument of "make the game worth competing in" against Meta Knight, chain grabs, and any number of things.

I'm not trying to suggest we just go around legalizing ******** stages, but if that is the logic we are using, I'm just pointing out the double standard in place.

 

[Akaku94]

Ok BPC, I take it back! Your earlier comment sounded like sarcasm, and while I do think Mario Bros overcentralizes a little because of the creatures, it would be a good CP for characters with reflectors and/or horizontal knockback moves, even floaty characters who would have an easier time hitting the ceiling to tech.

While it is a legit stage (I would think), it totally changes the way the game is played and requires a different set of skills than any other stage in the game, something that I think has kept it banned.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@BPC as a preface some of the things you said were kind of confusing, so sorry if my responses don't make perfect sense lol.

Sorry...

Are you saying the only broken tactic you should ban a stage for is a stalling tactic, or that the tactic on Mansion is a stalling tactic? If it's the former I don't agree, and if it's the latter it's not the case. I get what you're saying though.

I'm claiming the latter, and saying that if a stalling tactic is often interrupted, it's not a stalling tactic any more. But if it isn't a stalling tactic, what's the issue with Luigi's Mansion then?

I guess it's not hard per-se, but it's still disadvantageous for most characters. Yes some characters can hit and run with it (although if you can circle camp on this stage in the first place I'm not sure why you'd want to destroy the mansion).

If you've lost the lead and your opponent is running from you/abusing the cave of life. Maybe there are better options...

At some point you still have to land. I don't get what you mean by "exactly what you're calling broken can defeat itself," though.

The elements that contribute to the circle camping/etc. which you claim makes the stage broken (don't you? If you don't, then I'm confused...) make it possible to safely wreck the mansion due to the protection from the floor.

But I'm arguing that this stage does severely remove match-up depth. Options are severely limited until you can destroy the stage and have it gone for those 20 seconds. For the majority of the stage length you are either abusing the stage and not focusing nearly as much on character vs. character or player vs. player things, or you're trying to destroy the stage and not focusing on those things, because those things become easy with the stage. It's very easy to predict what my opponent can do if their approach options are limited, or their safe options, or OoS options, or just intelligent options are limited.

Every game I've played on this map has boiled down to me either abusing the stage or trying to destroy it while avoiding some gimmick that works on the stage, then having 20 seconds of standard match, then having the majority of the time again focusing more on the stage. It's okay if you don't have a problem with it and you think it's fine (obviously this is still all opinion lol)—I just don't.

I realize there is a slight issue with this, but I don't think it's enough to ban the stage (see also: Onett, Distant planet?). My view on it is that while the stage does put PvP in the background slightly, the ability to deal with the stage is pretty important, and even then, in the whole set, how many games are you likely to have where you play on stages like this? It doesn't exactly mitigate skill on its own.

Not necessarily @ the first paragraph. Air dominance (or I guess stage dominance with the moving stage or w.e) can just take place based on position. Yeah if you're MK this is easy but even if it's like Diddy vs. Falco, it's important that you're the one who doesn't have to run forward into the other and that you have room to move around so you don't get edgeguarded and whatnot. This isn't bad by any means, but you said it as if RC requires more skills, and I just see it as RC requiring different skills than BF. Obviously being able to be ahead of your opponent in a moving stage and take control of non-ledge platforms isn't as important on BF, just as being able to zone on a flat static stage or edgeguard using ledge platforms is important on RC.

I just see it like this-almost every skill you would ever need on BF comes into play on RC, if only temporarily. I may be wrong, I dunno.

Again, I honestly think all the legal stages are close in competitiveness—honestly I realize that a dancing blade glitch and transformations not coming in the same order are minuscule things in comparison to what the stage brings, but the competitiveness of a stage is really hard to measure, so I'm bringing these things out. this is like a 1 point differential out of 100 and I'm kind of arguing just to argue (the only thing I really care about is Mansion not being legal lol).

but tl;dr, yes they're hardly inconsistencies but I'm still considering them.

I suppose.

Can you tell me how the air and electric transformations add depth to the stage? I get how they add different things, but at the current time of both of them they reduce options and make one strategy so obviously valid. It's not like ice where, as far as I can tell, there are no overbearing strategies yet there are still different aspects about gameplay.

Even if they force very centralizing gameplay for short periods of time, you have to know how to deal with this. It's a mild/very small thing to know, but it's still something extra, which does not otherwise detract from the match. As stated before with RC, you still have all the other skills you'd need on a stage like BF, just that for small parts of the match, they become less important, and you need other skillsets. It's not a huge difference, but it's there.

This I disagree with because you're implying that BF has a base layer of knowledge and stages with extra things added to them (such as PS2) require extra layers to that knowledge.

Yep, that's what I'm claiming and defending. :V

It's not really the case. BF has a base layer of knowledge (universal to almost every stage). PS2 has other layers in the different physics changes but they don't just stack on top of them. How important is juggling my opponent in a standard environment when the environment in PS2 has less gravity, giving me more time to react and giving him less smart options?

The thing is, playing on PS2 is like playing on BF, AND playing on X/Y/Z/A other stage. You have to know how to deal with the neutral part (i.e. Plat+flat clone) and the other parts.

Or take FD and PTAD. One, you're assuming that it's easier to read your opponent on FD because less things are going on, which isn't really the case because it's not like me bouncing off the track is going to make it harder for me to read my opponent.

This claim has far more to do with the fact that players play very differently when stage hazards come into play, and that when a player has to play around cars, or dangerous walls, or lava, they do very different things. I dunno though. This one I'm not 100% sure about...

But two, you're assuming that it's just as important to read your opponent on FD as it is PTAD in all situations. On PTAD a lot of the damage I deal is going to be from edgeguarding when they bounce off the track (which is easy because the lack of ledge limits options getting back so you may only have to account for a couple of situations at a time which many characters can cover at once), so why do I need to be able to read as well on that stage as compared to FD where nothing on the stage helps me deal damage?

Actually, this is a really good argument. Gotta give you this one. Reads are far less common, and therefore debatably more important (especially because smart players will play extremely carefully/won't be open to reading near the dangerous hazards). However, your conclusion...

I'd definitely argue that PTAD makes the game easier than FD because there's less I have to focus on on PTAD.

This I don't believe for a second. You have to focus on where the cars are on the track, if you're near the wall, and of course your opponent is still there. The argument is great, but this conclusion doesn't make sense.

Not that BF is necessarily a better competitive stage for those reasons, but it's certainly more useful.

Oh, it's more useful for PvP training, but that doesn't necessarily make it better, or more useful for other play.

 

[GTZ]

I would think luigi's mansion would be a suitable and fun stage to use in tourneys

 

[ADHD]

I would think luigi's mansion would be a suitable and fun stage to use in tourneys

No, no.

10char

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey ADHD, did you make the thread? Scroll back to page 19 for the list...

 

[UberMario]

While I disagree with your strict stance on stages ADHD, I must use your words in the following:

I do think Mario Bros overcentralizes a little because of the creatures, it would be a good CP for characters with reflectors and/or horizontal knockback moves, even floaty characters who would have an easier time hitting the ceiling to tech.

While it is a legit stage (I would think), it totally changes the way the game is played and requires a different set of skills than any other stage in the game.

No, no.

 

[stingers]

BPC, how would you plan on beating M2Ks MK on temple
i'm curious

keep in mind you need a percent lead to time someone out and win

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

My strategy to beat m2k's Meta Knight on Temple would be my knowledge that I care more about beating him than he cares about beating me. I'll pick Sonic and run forever when we are both at 0% 3 stock and also run forever during Sudden Death if need be (I can evade bombs). I'll run forever in any rematches we do. Eventually I win because I'm more patient and he doesn't want to keep playing for 10 hours while no one ever hits anyone.

The only counter to my strategy for m2k would be to care more and be willing to invest more time. At a "high level", that metagame degenerates into who is better prepared for the match (who will be able to go longer without needing to eat or sleep). It's really dumb; being willing to force an indefinite draw is kinda like having a forced win except a lot more dumb in practice because it ends up testing some "skills" just really bad ones whereas the forced wins are just tests of who did a better job on the character select screen and finished in relatively quick order.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC, how would you plan on beating M2Ks MK on temple
i'm curious

keep in mind you need a percent lead to time someone out and win

Fox.
10lazor

 

[UberMario]

and also run forever during Sudden Death if need be (I can evade bombs).

Running everywhere on Temple will just get yourself killed by a bob-omb anyway, everyone knows to abuse the upper tunnel, which lets you survive to 500%+ from bob-omb impacts.

Spoiler

That's totally serious by the way, there's a point where it gets steeper that you will always hit the ledge WIHOUT bouncing off, all the MK would have to do is sit there and wait for when you inevitably misjudge a bob-omb spawn point.

 

[EggFlip]

Anyone got a link to the top 5 competitive stages?

 

[EggFlip]

dw, found it

 

[thecalmone]

Pokemon Stadium 2.
I feel it offers a wide range of possible situations that forces players to adjust their play styles throughout the match.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Anyone got a link to the top 5 competitive stages?

Um, I dont think there is...

dw, found it

0_0 Can I see the list?

 

[UberMario]

Um, I dont think there is...



0_0 Can I see the list?

He's talking about BPC's list, though there isn't any actual "top 5 stages" as that is going to vary from person-to-person. For example, many players consider it to be [I'll use 6 stages per group in this case]:

-Smashville
-Final Destination
-Battlefield
-Halberd
-Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
-Pokemon Stadium 1

While BPC considers it to be

-Pokemon Stadium 2
-Rainbow Cruise
-Halberd
-Norfair
-Frigate Orpheon
-Port Town Aero Dive

And I consider it to be:

-Smashville
-Pokemon Stadium 2
-Final Destination
-Norfair
-Port Town Aero Dive
-Frigate Orpheon

It's all subject to opinion.