Alternate stage list discussion

[SheerMadness]

I don't think Japan only plays on dreamland for the reasons you guys think.

The Japanese melee community pretty much only played on final destination for years and years. They mixed in dreamland a TINY bit, but it's always been like 95% final destination.

That stage is clearly nowhere near the most balanced stage in the game. They just enjoy playing there the most for whatever reason.

 

[Cobrevolution]

kefit, don't present your opinion on a stage as fact, plznthx. you think it's a mediocre stage because you can't play it like DL and because there's less movement. it is objectively designed differently from DL, but it is not objectively worse. some people like the fact that you can't ride the platform ladder or that it's a slightly slower paced game.

what you think is "interesting gameplay" might be terribly boring to others and vice versa.

DL does not have "more" stage tactics than congo, it has "different" stage tactics. you can't play congo like you would DL because it's a different stage with different tactics.

DL also has no walls - and i think the tent is one of the most interesting sections of stage in the entire game, because everyone can be baller down there, and **** looks really cool. THUS, something so fundamental and effective as wall combos would be erased without hyrule.

but i am not using my enjoyment factor as a reason to keep hyrule around.

All the good competitive players want this. The tournament rulemakers just need to grow some balls and stop listening to the whiny scrubs when it comes to designing competitive rule sets.

although tourney rules are at the discretion of the TO, that does not mean the community's opinion should be ignored. this is an issue that was discussed at great length regarding keyboards; it is brought up at every tourney of chain ace's i go to wherein some people prefer a gentleman's on the first stage as opposed to starting on DL; and there are good competitive players who do not want "this".

and that last sentence of yours -- i'll keep it civil, so i won't address it as i normally would, but watch out for how pretentious you can sound. it severely damages your argument.

 

[clubbadubba]

yea cobr pretty much summed that up. You are being very subjective about it kefit

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

and that last sentence of yours -- i'll keep it civil, so i won't address it as i normally would, but watch out for how pretentious you can sound. it severely damages your argument.

More people should follow this

 

[Han Solo]

There's a conception that recovery is a lost cause for non-Pika characters, leading to easy DL throw -> edge guard gimps, but this simply isn't true. Pika's recovery can be read - he has a limited number of meaningful destination options, and is stunned for a short moment that seems like an eternity when he lands. Plus Pika dies a lot more quickly on DL simply due to the size of the stage and his small weight. Most other characters have options when recovering as well, giving them a chance to regain their footing by out playing the opponent. Go rewatch Isai vs Kikoushi for some brilliant examples of this.

Kefit trying to convince us Pika's recovery is bad lol

 

[Battlecow]

I don't think there is a difference between "stage tactics" and "gameplay tactics." Every stage has its own set of viable tactics. Using only one stage wouldn't eliminate stage influence, it would merely be us choosing which set of viable tactics we like the best. Preference is something that doesn't have a place in a competitive ruleset imo.

stage tactics: they vary stage by stage, the more stages the more of them you have to know

gameplay tactics: constant, matchup dependent. Fewer stage tactics, more of these.

 

[Kefit]

Of course there's elements of subjectivity in my assessment of stage quality. That's unavoidable when assessing the quality of anything. But my subjective opinion is based on an evaluation that rests on well accepted criteria - that is, that people enjoy watching and playing fast paced games with lots of movement, complex zoning, and active neutral gameplay. Crowd reactions to Kikoushi vs Isai back this up; compare these reactions to the general reactions towards me vs Sensei at Apex 2012 to see the opposite side of this spectrum. Player reactions matched those of the crowds in both instances. Similarly, we can conclude that people involved with SSB don't like stalled game states, and thus Hyrule is losing favor with most established players. These criteria, backed up by demonstrated community reactions, lend objective weight to my opinions.

But there may indeed be other compelling ways to play the game. Obviously, I don't see any of this come out of Congo in a way that demonstrably garners favor from those in the community who love this game. Apparently some of you do. Great. Now the burden is on you to tell me why Congo is a great stage. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Don't just tell me that Congo is "different." Tell me about the strategies that the stage enables. Tell me about how the platforms alter the gameflow and create interesting game states. Tell me how the layout of the stage creates different zoning issues. And most importantly, tell me how these aspects of Congo reflect on whatever objective gameplay merits that you've gleaned from your own play and observation of the community.

 

[The Star King]

That's not how stagelists work. The burden is not on us to show that Congo is a good stage (how would one go about doing that for any stage?), but for you to show that it breaks tournament gameplay.

 

[Battlecow]

Well, let's not get hasty here. I don't agree that we should ban things because they're not enjoyable, but I also don't believe that a stage should be legal just because it's not broken--Kefit and I have been arguing for some time that a one-stage list is the way to go regardless of the competitive merit of other stages.

 

[mixa]

wat. is "crowd reaction" still an argument?​

 

[Battlecow]

I really, really hope not

Although it's also the argument being put forward by certain members of the (ever-dwindling) pro-hyrule camp

 

[Yobolight]

Big fan of the Chain-Ace ruleset, just sayin.

 

[Kefit]

Let's read what Kefit actually wrote:

Everything Congo does, Dreamland does better. So why bother? I guess it's not unreasonable as a counter pick choice, but ugh.

Huh. Looks like I can't come up with any significant competitive problems with Congo and that I can't justify banning it from a non-DL only rule set. Nor was I ever arguing that it should be banned purely on its own competitive merits.

But that doesn't change the fact that I think it's a bad stage that no one likes and that it does nothing interesting for gameplay. People seem to have a problem with this assessment of mine, and I invite them to tell me what they themselves enjoy about the stage in a manner similar to how I succinctly described a number of Dreamland's strengths. I'm honestly curious to learn about what I'm missing.

 

[Cobrevolution]

Of course there's elements of subjectivity in my assessment of stage quality. That's unavoidable when assessing the quality of anything. But my subjective opinion is based on an evaluation that rests on well accepted criteria - that is, that people enjoy watching and playing fast paced games with lots of movement, complex zoning, and active neutral gameplay. Crowd reactions to Kikoushi vs Isai back this up; compare these reactions to the general reactions towards me vs Sensei at Apex 2012 to see the opposite side of this spectrum. Player reactions matched those of the crowds in both instances. Similarly, we can conclude that people involved with SSB don't like stalled game states, and thus Hyrule is losing favor with most established players. These criteria, backed up by demonstrated community reactions, lend objective weight to my opinions.

all of this is irrelevant.

i don't give a **** how people react to my playstyle and it should not, nor will it ever, influence the way i play this game. that should be true for everyone.

if you're playing this game to show off for the crowd, you will attempt some absurd **** - and risk losing the match because you weren't careful with your spacing or you misjudged something, etc.

you are out of your mind if you believe crowd reaction should influence whether or not a gamestyle/stage is played. the ways in which people enjoy a game do NOT add "objective weight" to your opinions. you're quoting enjoyment, which is subjective for each and every player. as i said before, some may like slower games. is their opinion void because it does not match your idea of what "competitive smash" is?

and as i have stated - it is the players' choice(s) to stall. you want the crowd involved? let them call players on their stalling. that is much more important than whether or not there are gasps and cheers. i'd much rather someone say "hey buddy stop camping" (because it is against the rules) as opposed to "hey buddy nice combo", ya dig?

tl;dr: pleasing spectators should never be an issue in tournament


also, with regard to the second part of your statement, kefit, star king said it best:

The burden is not on us to show that Congo is a good stage (how would one go about doing that for any stage?), but for you to show that it breaks tournament gameplay.

ugh i'm done

But that doesn't change the fact that I think it's a bad stage that no one likes and that it does nothing interesting for gameplay.

i'm not arguing this angle anymore. i like congo because it encourages a different playstyle that you cannot execute on DL or hyrule. limit yourself to one stage and you limit yourself in many more ways than one.

i'm concluding my input on this.

 

[Kefit]

You're clearly not reading a damn word I write, since you still seem to think I'm arguing for Congo's competitive failure. I'm not. Is this so ****ing difficult to understand?

I do not like Congo. I think it's an objectively bad stage.
Congo is a competitively healthy stage.

These are not contradictory statements. I do support the idea of a Dreamland only stage list, but that's because I think Dreamland is an overwhelmingly superior stage and that I think Dreamland only would enhance the tournament experience for almost all parties involved.

i like congo because it encourages a different playstyle that you cannot execute on DL or hyrule..

What different playstyles does it enable? Why do you have such a difficult time articulating this?

The burden is not on us to show that Congo is a good stage (how would one go about doing that for any stage?)

The same way I argued for Dreamland's strengths, perhaps? This isn't rocket science.

 

[cmu6eh]

I did not say "Japan does Dreamland only so that's what we should do." I said "Japan uses Dreamland only, Japan has a more developed Smash scene than us, perhaps we should seriously examine DL-only and determine the advantages of that scheme."

Where is their smashboards?

 

[Battlecow]

tl;dr: pleasing spectators should never be an issue in tournament

Yup

and as i have stated - it is the players' choice(s) to stall. you want the crowd involved? let them call players on their stalling. that is much more important than whether or not there are gasps and cheers. i'd much rather someone say "hey buddy stop camping" (because it is against the rules)

Nope

Camping's legal, stalling's not; the guy who's behind is the one stalling. This is why you get matches like me vs sensei at SWEET. We stalled until it was clear that it was stalling, and then I, as the behind one, had to approach and get ****ed up. It might seem like a simpler solution to simply "ban camping," but then you need a referee for every match and really really strict definition of camping, and then the players would play around that definition to whatever extent such playing-around was possible and the game would become very, very stupid. What you're proposing is that matches be judged by the loudest, dumbest, and worst spectators available; I'd rather nail my left nut to a coffee table than participate in a tourney where hyrule's legality was upheld by spectator-issued DQ's for arbitrarily ungentlemanly playstyle

I deleted a longer and meaner version of this but basically you and a few other proudly ignorant anti-camping people need to learn the rules. If some asshole tries to yell at me in the middle of a tourney match about how I'm breaking the rules by camping I'm going to be a very unhappy person.

 

[Olikus]

We should just get that guy from the documentary "king kong a fistfull of quarters" who is a gaming referee. Then he can tell if someone breaks the rules. Spectators yelling you camp is not valid referees.

 

[Kefit]

Yup

Maybe, though competition loses a lot of its value if the players aren't enjoying it and no one is around to get hype over it. Believe it or not, everyone involved with SSB64 is involved because they love the game and what it creates, not because they have a sworn duty to uphold SSB64 gameplay no matter what state it falls to. Obviously competitive shortfalls need to be examined first, but overall tournament design also needs to consider "What will make for the healthiest, most successful tournament? What's will make for a tournament that people go out of their way to come back to next year?"

Perhaps to clarify my position a bit more I'll state that I think Hyrule is an objectively good stage (not too large, lots of different areas of the stage that promote different zoning and comboing techniques for different characters, well designed platform ladder in the middle, generally enjoyed by players and spectators when stalled game states don't occur). However, it's a competitively poor stage because the solid walls adjacent to vertical height changes (juxtaposed with very deadly punishment zones) eliminate options to the extent that stalled game states very frequently occur when both players are playing to their competitive wit's end. Because of this, it's imperative that Hyrule be eliminated from high level competitive tournaments.

Is it imperative that Congo be eliminated? No, it's a competitively healthy stage. Does it add anything compelling to the game? I'm not sure, but so far nothing that anyone seems capable of properly articulating in detail. Do I think a high level tournament will be more successful if Congo was not an available stage? Yes (though it honestly wouldn't make much of a difference since Congo comes up maybe once in five matches). You all are free to disagree, but this discussion would be a lot more constructive if you focused less on crucifying me for having the audacity to articulate my arguments and focused more on why a given stage should - or should not - be available for healthy and competitive tournament play. In other words, be more like t3h Icy because he's a demonstrated cool guy.

 

[Battlecow]

No one's crucifying you for having the audacity to articulate anything (although if I were in charge of these things there'd be at least a mild scourging as punishment for that sentence). We're just disagreeing (and I'm not even disagreeing with your overall point, just with one of your arguments).

 

[Kefit]

Proposal: scourging as a punishment for stalling.

 

[SheerMadness]

A dreamland only tourney format should never come to fruition IMO.

I love dreamland, in fact I ask all my tourney opponents if they're cool with going all dreamland. It's the most enjoyable stage in the game for me.

But subjecting a Link main to a dreamland only tournament, for example, would be completely unfair. Link on dreamland is a perfect example as to why counter pick stages do and will continue to exist in competitive smash (64, melee, brawl, and project m).

 

[Kefit]

That's a fairly compelling argument (if we consider character balance as an important goal), but I have to ask: does Link fare any better on Peach's Castle or Congo? Does he have a chance at all in a non-Hyrule world?

 

[Battlecow]

You're operating under the mistaken notion that there's some sort of value that link has as a character separate from the stage list. Some characters (low-tier and high-tier) get worse on DL only, and some get better. Link doesn't have a "right" to stages just because they make him better and because he's a bad character so he "needs" that. If he's bad he's bad, and rulesets shouldn't be created in order to artificially make him better

And if you think he's bad on DL you haven't seen him on PC lol. Oh lord.

 

[SheerMadness]

Actually I think you're mistakenly operating under the notion that character balance or match ups shouldn't factor into legal stage lists. And I can't fathom why you'd think that. The biggest and most successful smash scenes in the world make use of counter pick stages for exactly that reason.

You'll almost never see a Link counter pick a Pika to dreamland in ssb64. It's just a god awful match up. Just like you'll almost never see a Ganon counterpick a Sheik to FD in melee.

Should a character be punished in tourney play due to a lack of legal stages? No. Ganon would be almost unplayable in melee if FD was the only legal stage. Everyone could just pick Sheik and chaingrab him to death.

Also I agree with SK. A lot of low tiers are actually better on PC's than DL.

 

[B Link]

Link's DL metagame could improve, it's not at its highest level with most players. Isai and boom can pwn almost everyone with Link on DL, sometimes even 4 stocking them. We might even see Link's DL/PC/C metagame improve if we cross out Hyrule, forcing players to get better on that stage.

 

[Kefit]

While I generally agree with Battlecow's stance, I recognize that the availability of meaningful counterpicks has some benefit for a healthy and competitive tournament environment. However, I'm not convinced that Congo and PC operate as meaningful counterpicks. Sheer, can you articulate ways in which some low tiers are improved on PC?

 

[Battlecow]

Actually I think you're mistakenly operating under the notion that character balance or match ups shouldn't factor into legal stage lists. And I can't fathom why you'd think that. The biggest and most successful smash scenes in the world make use of counter pick stages for exactly that reason.

They shouldn't. The cool melee people know that BF only is the way to go, and while that discussion is still ongoing, no one serious is saying that counterpick stages are necessary for the "balancing" of the game.

You'll almost never see a Link counter pick a Pika to dreamland in ssb64. It's just a god awful match up. Just like you'll almost never see a Ganon counterpick a Sheik to FD in melee.

No one's saying that link's good on DL. I don't see what the melee comparison adds to anything. Obviously some characters are worse on some stages than others.

Should a character be punished in tourney play due to a lack of legal stages? No. Ganon would be almost unplayable in melee if FD was the only legal stage. Everyone could just pick Sheik and chaingrab him to death.

Yes, stage lists do affect how good characters are. You are correct. Have a cookie. Every stage list you make is "punishing" certain characters--the core of your argument, which you're almost bizarrely incapable of clearly relating, is that low tiers "deserve" to be made better artificially and that stage lists should be designed around balancing the game. I've already responded to this claim, and repeating your claim about link in melee terms is weird and unhelpful.

 

[SheerMadness]

My point was apparently crystal clear to Kefit. Sounds like you need to work on that reading comprehension battlecattle.

Counter picks diversify the metagame. It's really as simple as that. I don't care what smash game it is, if only one stage is legal the best characters on that stage are going to dominate. Counter picks exist to avoid a stagnate metagame.

There is no question that a dreamland only tourney format would stagnate the metagame even further. A lot of characters would become even less viable and certain characters like Pikachu would become even more dominant.

Sheer, can you articulate ways in which some low tiers are improved on PC?

The top portion of PC is fairly anti-gimp compared to DL or Congo. The triangle blockades do a great job of impeding horizontal knockback.

Also the bottom portion is dynamic, not static. You can't camp the bottom side platforms hoping to gimp someone, because they'll disappear eventually. Thus characters like Link and Ness can chillax on the top portion until the bottom portion they're camping disappears. At that point they're forced to move back to the top and middle portion of the stage which gives the other char the advantage.

 

[Battlecow]

They diversify it in a shallow and artificial way. Yeah, you have more stages, but you're channeling effort into improving your knowledge of those rather than improving your knowledge of matchups.

You and I know that a DL-only ruleset wouldn't be stagnant-after all, we've played hundreds of matches, with maybe 3 of them being anywhere other than DL. It doesn't get old even with just one matchup because you're continually adapting to your opponent and he to you, and you're continually improving.

a one-character game would probably be a bad thing. That said, there's no proof that DL leads to fewer characters--link, who isn't exactly super viable on congo or PC either, becomes marginally less so. DK, for example, becomes more viable. A detailed breakdown might reveal that in today's metagame, overall, low-tiers are somewhat elevated or somewhat harmed by DL-only, but honestly as playstyles change so will that. Any ham-handed attempts to enforce diversity are undesirable in my opinion.

 

[clubbadubba]

holy **** so much thread!

Kefit I think the reason people were disagreeing with you (not crucifying c'mon now this was 100% civil) was because most people would think that "objectively bad" and "competitively unhealthy" are synonymous. I know they are in my mind. If its my opinion, I refer to it as "subjectively bad". People aren't going to go into details about strategies that congo allows for because it doesn't matter. Besides, the description of DL tactics you wrote didn't do anything for me in terms of demonstrating it is a better stage than congo.

If a stage is not competively unhealthy, then it is "objectively" on par with other stages. After that it all comes down to preference. Do we like more combo's or less? More recoveries or less? For that same reason choosing a single stage ruleset is wack IMO because then we actually have to choose one stage over another which I think cannot be objectively done.

Also bcow, I still don't get how gameplay tactics are separable at all from stage tactics. You have your general gameplay tactics like "be above kirby in the air," but the ways to go about doing that are different on each stage. Correct me if I'm wrong but your saying that neither set of stage tactics is inherently better than the other (legal stages only obvi), but you just think we should use one stage so that the stage layout is consistent? If that's the case then I just disagree. I think people should have to learn the tactics on any non-bannable stage.

Basically, more stages just means more matchups, because X v Y on DL is really a different matchup than X v Y on congo. No reason to reduce the number of matchups IMO.

Also, I really wish people wouldn't start off posts with "lol you can't read apparently". Its so obnoxious and just makes you look like a ****. Which is sad because no one here is a ****.

 

[SheerMadness]

Also, I really wish people wouldn't start off posts with "lol you can't read apparently". Its so obnoxious and just makes you look like a ****. Which is sad because no one here is a ****.

Agree in most cases, but battlecattle being an exception. He can't seem to avoid being demeaning and condescending while discussing/arguing something.

 

[Battlecow]

Also bcow, I still don't get how gameplay tactics are separable at all from stage tactics. You have your general gameplay tactics like "be above kirby in the air," but the ways to go about doing that are different on each stage. Correct me if I'm wrong but your saying that neither set of stage tactics is inherently better than the other (legal stages only obvi), but you just think we should use one stage so that the stage layout is consistent? If that's the case then I just disagree. I think people should have to learn the tactics on any non-bannable stage.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying (I think DL is a little better than Congo still because the barrel's wack and effectively luck based given that you can't exactly choose when to get knocked offstage). Gameplay tactics aren't separable from stage tactics, you have to learn a new set of them on each stage, which leads to shallower but broader game knowledge. I think that being good at one thing is more desirable than being mediocre at four.

Basically, more stages just means more matchups, because X v Y on DL is really a different matchup than X v Y on congo. No reason to reduce the number of matchups IMO.

First sentence does not prove the second. Playstyles also make for diverse matchups; there are as many matchups as there are players, and more still because players change and improve.

 

[Kefit]

If a stage is not competively unhealthy, then it is "objectively" on par with other stages. After that it all comes down to preference. Do we like more combo's or less? More recoveries or less? For that same reason choosing a single stage ruleset is wack IMO because then we actually have to choose one stage over another which I think cannot be objectively done.

Careful here. This may be your idea of an objectively strong stage, but realize that preferences are not completely extricable from a purely competitive evaluation. You can say that the only objective criteria we'll use are the rule set itself, but realize that this contains subjective elements as well (e.g. excessive stalling, good sportsmanship, etc). This same kind of paradigm can be found when making evaluations of other aspects of stage value (or anything, really). While I think competitive concerns are important when determining the overall value of a stage, I also think a holistic approach is required when making this kind of high level assessment. Preferences are unavoidable, but that doesn't prevent us from making relatively objective evaluations based on what we believe to be a reasonable set of criteria.

Regardless, my support for a single stage ruleset has nothing do with my dislike of Congo. Remember that I quite like Peach's Castle, especially if it's a meaningful counterpick, yet it too would go away in a single stage ruleset.

 

[clubbadubba]

I think that being good at one thing is more desirable than being mediocre at four.

Then why is it undesirable to only allow pikachu in competitive play? Everyone would be much better at pika dittos. Eliminating diversity for the sake of improving the metagame is not necessarily a good thing.

First sentence does not prove the second. Playstyles also make for diverse matchups; there are as many matchups as there are players, and more still because players change and improve.

Second sentence had a big IMO, no intent or need to prove. I don't agree with your reason that one stage is better because everyone would be really good at that one stage (see above, I guess that's my "proof", but its really just my reasoning).

Playstyle is a way you play a match-up, its not a new match-up. Though if you insist, I'll just troll you and never let you talk about any match-up ever again without clarifying which 2 players you are specifically talking about Lets stay with generally accepted definitions of terms within the community so we don't get sidetracked.

@Kefit: My biggest issue with a 1 stage ruleset is that we have to CHOOSE the stage. I have read nothing in this thread that has even come close to convincing me that dreamland is "better" than congo or peaches for that purpose, nor do I see any line of reasoning that would convince me other than proving that one of the stages is broken (which none are I think we agree). I don't think anyone should make subjective choices like that.

 

[Battlecow]

Then why is it undesirable to only allow pikachu in competitive play? Everyone would be much better at pika dittos. Eliminating diversity for the sake of improving the metagame is not necessarily a good thing.

Characters interact in an incredibly complex variety of ways. Stages only ever sit there and do one thing. Dittos aren't great for a lot of reasons, but learning matchups is something that goes on and on and on, and you're continually challenged rather than annoyed. I don't like multiple stages for the same reason I don't like super complicated janky stages like MK--playing against players is more fun than playing against stages. That said, one of the reasons that I like 64 is that there are so few matchups to learn--no one coming in with a ****load of gimmicks tacked onto a bad character that no one knows how to play against. I definitely think that a game with 200 viable characters would be a cluster**** with uber-simple strategies and lots of variability.

Playstyle is a way you play a match-up, its not a new match-up. Though if you insist, I'll just troll you and never let you talk about any match-up ever again without clarifying which 2 players you are specifically talking about Lets stay with generally accepted definitions of terms within the community so we don't get sidetracked.

I wasn't trying to redefine matchup, I was making a point about why playing the same matchup a million times can still be fun.

@Kefit: My biggest issue with a 1 stage ruleset is that we have to CHOOSE the stage. I have read nothing in this thread that has even come close to convincing me that dreamland is "better" than congo or peaches for that purpose, nor do I see any line of reasoning that would convince me other than proving that one of the stages is broken (which none are I think we agree). I don't think anyone should make subjective choices like that.

Reasons why DL would be a good stage to choose:

-we can play fairly against the japanese
-everyone plays it more/likes it more
-less interacting with the stage, more interacting with the other player (no complicated worries about hitting people into bumpers or walls or barrels or weirdly moving platforms)

basically the same reasons I plan on having it be the starter stage in any tourneys I run a la Double Dair

That said, Congo is less gimp-happy, which people apparently like. Something to be said for it. I could theoretically be convinced that it would be a better stage for us to use than DL. Either would be better than both IMO.

 

[Olikus]

tl;dr: pleasing spectators should never be an issue in tournament

Well, without spectators there isnt really a great tourney. (I get your point I just though never was a strong word). Ofc if an unpopular and boring tactic works for you, sure use it in a tourney. Many people play to win in a tourney and its nothing wrong with that. But if we focus on minimalize diversity and different options in the game, we might and up with pika dittos DL only in every match. And then there might not be many spectators left.

If we have two equal solutions, which we have imo. I think DL only is just as good as DL neutral and PC and Congo as counterpicks, we should go by popular demand of the spectators and use 3 stages which open for more Counterpicks, more caractheruseage, and more variety in general, which is my biggest believe in keeping the community alive.

 

[rjgbadger]

im still trying to wrap my head around having a ruleset where i cant tent combo

 

[SheerMadness]

Since it somewhat applies to this thread, I proposed all dreamland sets to all of my Apex opponents.

Valoem, I LOVE SMASH, banze, and JaimeHR all agreed. Sensei declined and counterpicked me to hyrule.

So if you want all dreamland just propose it to your opponent. A lot of them will probably agree. But I'm betting most of them don't wanna give up their option to counterpick if need be (like me).

 

[clubbadubba]

banze was just happy to not be counterpicked to sector z by a fox like they do in brazil.