What is "standard gameplay"?

[WindMajor]

Mostly, I'm referring to this:

To me, any stage that forces a change in gameplay should not be allowed. Hanenbow is practically a RC that doesn't move, and Norfair is a big Brinstar. Only the simple stages should be legal. (@Japan)

All stages force a change in gameplay.

He referenced that stages force a change in gameplay, but from what? He would have to be implying that there's some sort of standard gameplay that we must be making changes from, but if that's the case, then what IS standard gameplay?

I was always under the impression that there's no such thing because all stages are different from each other, hence, my response.

Brinstar plays differently to Battlefield, which plays differently to Final Destination, which plays differently to Yoshi's Island Brawl, and the list can go on and on forever because Delfino != Smashville != Lylat != Norfair != Frigate != Green Greens, etc.

If, for example, Battlefield represents standard gameplay, does that make everything else a variant of standard gameplay, or is there something I'm overlooking?

What is standard gameplay anyways?

 

[infiniteV115]

There is no standard gameplay. To say that "all stages force a change in gameplay" is basically saying "gameplay changes from one stage to another". There is no default/normal/standard gameplay. You can't say "The game should be played like THIS, and each stage changes the gameplay slightly from THIS". THIS does not exist.

I don't know if I can make it any clearer.

Ok, standard is the Wifi waiting room :D

Edit: I guess you could say standard gameplay occurs on a stage that does not change the matchup from XX:YY to AA:BB, assuming that XX:YY is the "true" matchup. So if MK:Snake is agreed upon as 55:45 and on BF the ratio is 55:45, then BF would provide standard gameplay for that MU, whereas if on Brinstar the MU is 80:20 then Brinstar would not provide standard gameplay for that MU.

Of course that's silly because stages make the MU, and I don't think any MU ratio is universally agreed upon.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I don't think there is a standard gameplay, every stage provides differents heights, distances and ways to optimize or void charaters' actions.
However, 80% of the people will go "duuh, statik is obv standard, durr, evrthin' else is 2 janky", because they somehow think this game is supposed to be played like Street Fighters. Ohwell.

 

[Akaku94]

^Someone else that gets it... thank you

 

[WindMajor]

I'm hoping to get some posts in from the opposition, just to see what they think "standard gameplay" actually is.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I'm hoping to get some posts in from the opposition, just to see what they think "standard gameplay" actually is.

Not really the opposition, but I'm bored, so might as well give this a shot...

I believe it comes down to what approach you're taking... if you look at the game as it is and remove broken things, then there is no such thing as a stage for "standard gameplay" because of the arguments presented.

On the other hand, if you start with nothing, whichever stage you decide to "add" first would define your standard, and everything else has some amount of deviation from that standard. Then you could decide on how much deviation is acceptable and go from there. Obviously, depending on what your defined standard was, the final list might look very differently.
In other words, "standard gameplay" is whatever you define it as.

I hope this made at least a little bit of sense...

 

[WindMajor]

The closest thing that I can imagine being standard gameplay would be to include everything (all stages, all items, all characters, all tactics/techniques, etc.), then from there, removing things would be a deviation to what standard play really is. But even then, the game opens itself up to so many changes in rules that it really gets confusing. Is stock the standard, or is it time? What about coin?

Maybe I'm overthinking it.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

The closest thing that I can imagine being standard gameplay would be to include everything (all stages, all items, all characters, all tactics/techniques, etc.), then from there, removing things would be a deviation to what standard play really is.

This is actually much better formulated than what I meant to say in my first point... basically I think that there is no one correct approach but rather mutliple viable ones and in the end it comes down to what approach the creator of the ruleset wants to choose.

Do you start with everything or with nothing? Maybe something in between like what was unlocked when you played the game for the first time or whatever other standard I can't think of at the moment? As I said, I don't think there is one correct answer to this problem.

But even then, the game opens itself up to so many changes in rules that it really gets confusing. Is stock the standard, or is it time? What about coin?

Maybe I'm overthinking it.

If you go with the out of the box way, it'd be time. Otherwise there is no predefined standard and you'd have to decide on one I'd say.

Even then you also have the possibilites of stock+time and time+stock (they both use the same settings, but differ in philosophy of primary and secondary win condition).

 

[Ghostbone]

Gameplay that isn't on a custom stage.
/such a serious response.

Generally I guess it's gameplay on stages that play more similarly than others, so you play more similar on PS1 and BF than you do on BF compared to RC, so RC is less "standard" because the playstyle you use on it is too different.

Edit: As for timer vs stock vs coin idk, I guess stock is standard because it's the favourite way to play for the majority of people, not just competitive players, who play the game.
But that makes playing with items standard gameplay, which is kinda weird.

 

[Life]

Stock is chosen because timer generally leads to a bunch of camping and then someone scores one kill, while in coin matches there's something of a disconnect between hitting your opponent and winning. Of course, in pure stock, there's not really a reason to ever approach, so we have stock+time.

 

[MEOW1337KITTEH]

Guess my thoughts would be fitting here..

To me, standard gameplay should, maybe not is, but should be, a game where the skill of each player can be evenly contested without strong disadvantages or advantages for either player caused by the stage. If I am simply incorrect here, then I still believe that the stages should at least have a static ruleset that is black and white. Such as: If the stage can kill below a certain percent (on someone average in weight) or if there are walk offs / permanent walls, and other rules like that.

 

[MegaRobMan]

Standard gameplay is 2 minute KO fest with items and 2-4 players, ever stage legal.

I mean, if you turn the game on without changing any settings, fresh out of the box and all that.

I suppose not having any of the stages/characters would be standard by my own wording, but obviously standard would involve every character and stage unlocked.

 

[holyv]

Depending on the character, he has different projectiles, different kill moves,different tools and etc
If he has a nice projectile like falco, he'll go to a stage that he can camp.
If he has a vertical KO'ing move he'll go to a stage that he can KO you vertically at low %'s
If he has a very nice aerial game and can make great use of platforms, he'll bring you to a stage that he can work on those platforms.
Even neutral stages have change in gameplay, that's a lot of bull**** there. That's why sometimes people actually change the stage they're going to play on next round.
If it was a standard thing they were just going to stick for one stage until the end.
For example FD, people can camp you really easily there.
Lylat cruise, BF, can give you DAT platforms and the low KO'ing verticals or horizontals.
Smashville some characters can make great use of the platform and the ledges.

So EVERY stage will change your gameplay no matter freaking what.

 

[Conviction]

@rob: that's not standard that's called default. Standards are something accepted widespread.

 

[Dre89]

There's no standard gameplay if you have an American stagelist where you basically have to fight the stage as well.

A more Japanese stagelist with just things like SV, FD and BF has standard gameplay in that gameplay is almost purely about fighting, or more specifically what the characters can do.

Other, more interfering stages are like fights with weapons. There's no standard gameplay because the weapons on every stage are different.

 

[Akaku94]

But what makes those three stages more "standard" than the other 38?

 

[MEOW1337KITTEH]

Because stages like Warioware and Spear Pillar exist.

 

[Life]

Warioware and Spear Pillar are the standard.

Prove. Me. Wrong. (yes, I know that's not how it works, shaddup)

 

[Dre89]

But what makes those three stages more "standard" than the other 38?

Because on those stages the opponent can't get an unnaturally high reward because of the stage that their char isn't normally capable of.

Eg. I once got grabbed on Halberd and got KO'd by the claw at like 60% The stage gave my opponent an unnaturally high reward his char wasn't normally capable of due to the stage.

It's the equivalent of a pro fight with trapdoors and a tiger chained to one corner.

 

[MegaRobMan]

@rob: that's not standard that's called default. Standards are something accepted widespread.

Actually, default would be minus the stages and characters.

Standard is with everything unlocked. I mean, how often do you say "Hey, lets play this fighting game with half the cast and stages locked?" NO, you say "Hey, lets go unlock everything!" or "Hey, screw this game, lets go online and see if theirs a cheat to unlock everything right away."

Though I will admit I wasn't really answering the question

I know most non-tourney going, yet good player (by casual standards) plays brawl (or melee or 64) with 3 or 4 (or 5 in the case of melee/64) stocks, the majority of the stages on, items (sometimes) on but usually some items are turned on or off, no timer. Team attack is usually put on. Mixing up FFA's and Teams and 1v1's if less than 4 people.

 

[Akaku94]

Because on those stages the opponent can't get an unnaturally high reward because of the stage that their char isn't normally capable of.

Eg. I once got grabbed on Halberd and got KO'd by the claw at like 60% The stage gave my opponent an unnaturally high reward his char wasn't normally capable of due to the stage.

It's the equivalent of a pro fight with trapdoors and a tiger chained to one corner.

So you're saying that the other 38 stages all give unnaturally high rewards? If there are only two stages that don't give rewards, then those two are too mistake-friendly. If you got grabbed and KO'd at 60%, that's your fault.

And no, it's not the equivalent of a pro fight with all that stuff. Brawl isn't like other fighting games, like it or not. Pro fights are designed with a single, specific stage in mind; every fight takes place on the same "stage." Most fighting games, even if they have multiple stages, are essentially played on the same stage. Brawl is designed with 40 unique stages, and no two stages are the same. As such, how can you say that only two stages truly represent "fair" fights? Brawl is designed to be PvPvS, not PvP with no stage interaction whatsoever. If you want that, go play Street Fighter.

 

[Dre89]

Brawl wasn't designed for fair competitive fights, look at tripping. That's why so many stages are illegal.

Even if getting grabbed and getting ko'd by the claw was negligent, it doesn't change the fact that he got an unnaturally high reward of one grab, and that I was the better player than him.

That's like if I'm dominating someone in a martial arts fight, then someone throws in a flamethrower and he grabs it first and uses it on me to win. Does that make him a better martial artists?

Technically the weapon was accessible to both of us, but he got an unnaturally high reward of grabbing something, or controlling a certain part of the ring, a reward he isn't normally capable of as a fighter.

So if I get grabbed by an ICs once and lose a stock, I don't suck. But if I get grabbed on Halberd and KO'd by the claw, even if I got grabbed at the same time on the clock as I did against ICs, I suck.


The current stage system isn't structured so that it's most likely the better play will win.

 

[Akaku94]

Dre, I replied to that exact thing in the social thread, then linked here... see the latest post of mine.