Forum:Banned Stages

Line 77:

Well, there is one thing short characters can do. They can short hop and then hit the opponent with an aerial. This will gain them enough height to camp under a platform while avoiding enemy attacks all at the same time. Basically, I don't think Battlefield favors or disfavors anybody. In my opinion, it's the fairest stage in the game. Battlefield should definitely not be banned, along with Final Destination. I'm in favor of the agreement rule: any stage can be played on as long as both competitors agree on it. - [[User:GalaxiaD|GalaxiaD]] 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:While I do like the idea of the agreement rule in principal, as a tournament organizer it can be a nightmare. I recently ran a doubles tournament with a mutual veto rule when picking random stages (if both teams agree, the stage is re-picked). This created some situations where one team would move to veto, and the other team would not veto simply because they knew their opponents hated the stage. Then I had to deal with the other team whining to me for the rest of the tournament about the stage and the veto rule. I've found that limiting stages (and banning items) ultimately makes the most people happy because it removes any complaints about "random" things killing people (even if it wasn't random). Trust me, I love ridiculous games as much as the next person, but when I'm hosting a tournament I don't want to listen to people complain (and trust, me they do). Finally, when people are playing for money, as is often the case in tournaments, I want it to be a test of skill, not a luck of the draw type event. At all of my tournaments we keep at least one system going for free play with whatever people want in the games. Lots of people come just to play there. But in the serious matches, we need some way to prevent random outcomes.

Forum:Banned Stages: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Participate

Tools

Revision as of 16:49, May 13, 2008 (edit) smashwikia>GalaxiaD No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:41, May 13, 2008 (edit) (undo) Clarinet Hawk (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 77:		Line 77:

	Well, there is one thing short characters can do. They can short hop and then hit the opponent with an aerial. This will gain them enough height to camp under a platform while avoiding enemy attacks all at the same time. Basically, I don't think Battlefield favors or disfavors anybody. In my opinion, it's the fairest stage in the game. Battlefield should definitely not be banned, along with Final Destination. I'm in favor of the agreement rule: any stage can be played on as long as both competitors agree on it. - [[User:GalaxiaD\|GalaxiaD]] 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)		Well, there is one thing short characters can do. They can short hop and then hit the opponent with an aerial. This will gain them enough height to camp under a platform while avoiding enemy attacks all at the same time. Basically, I don't think Battlefield favors or disfavors anybody. In my opinion, it's the fairest stage in the game. Battlefield should definitely not be banned, along with Final Destination. I'm in favor of the agreement rule: any stage can be played on as long as both competitors agree on it. - [[User:GalaxiaD\|GalaxiaD]] 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

			:While I do like the idea of the agreement rule in principal, as a tournament organizer it can be a nightmare. I recently ran a doubles tournament with a mutual veto rule when picking random stages (if both teams agree, the stage is re-picked). This created some situations where one team would move to veto, and the other team would not veto simply because they knew their opponents hated the stage. Then I had to deal with the other team whining to me for the rest of the tournament about the stage and the veto rule. I've found that limiting stages (and banning items) ultimately makes the most people happy because it removes any complaints about "random" things killing people (even if it wasn't random). Trust me, I love ridiculous games as much as the next person, but when I'm hosting a tournament I don't want to listen to people complain (and trust, me they do). Finally, when people are playing for money, as is often the case in tournaments, I want it to be a test of skill, not a luck of the draw type event. At all of my tournaments we keep at least one system going for free play with whatever people want in the games. Lots of people come just to play there. But in the serious matches, we need some way to prevent random outcomes.