9 Stage Starter System: a way to prevent stagnancy in brawl

[KoRoBeNiKi]

As people know, these 9 stages are included for the upcoming MLG brawl neutrality list.

Battlefield
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Pokémon Stadium
Smashville
Yoshi’s Island

My Proposal​

Change a 5 tier neutral list to a 7 or 9 tier neutral list

The Main Issue​

There is a large problem with stagnancy in brawl with character selection. With the stage right now, an Ice Climbers can force an opponent to play on Battlefield by banning PS1(or Lylat) and Yoshi's. After winning the round on the better neutral for them, they counterpick smashville or FD (whatever isn't banned) and they move in to the next round. Quite simply, the stages lead to victory. There are countless other examples with many other characters as well. Falco can be thought as another one and many characters as well vs MK or Snake.
In other words, the main problem is not the counterpick stages, it is the neutrals

But why is this an issue?​

This 5 stage list prevents many characters from excelling in singles. The game is kept stagnant as the neutrals work better for these top tier characters. By adding just 4 more stages that are considered neutral enough by MLG and others allows many other characters to excel in singles.

Why is a neutral change more important than a counterpick change?​

The main issue with adding counterpick stages is that the basic 5 or so characters that win major tournaments will still win regardless of adding more stages due to being better on these set neutrals.

Will be edited to add posts, Q/A's, other similar things.

 

[Raziek]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=268086

Yo.

I'll also note that in addition to that, I did testing with both 7 and 9, and 9 proved to be definitively better.

 

[T-block]

Don't use the term neutrals. They are starter stages.

So uhh...what's the point of this thread again? 7/9 starters is much more accepted now that MLG has adopted 9. It might also be a bit of a stretch to say that 5 starters is causing Brawl to stagnate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's a large stretch to consider accepting a 5-stage list at this point. Anything less than 7 is flat-out stupid.

I, as usual, support the concept of striking from the entire stagelist. It gives us all the benefits of this system, but actually does it to the extent that is generally reasonable.

 

[Raziek]

I'd support it if not for two glaring problems with it, BPC.

1) Clunky and Time-consuming.
2) MK

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

MK hardly breaks that system.

 

[T-block]

Raziek, I thought you agree with not shaping the stage list to deal with MK?

Striking from all legal stages is very fair. If that means MK tends to get an advantage on first game, that'd be part of what makes him a good character.

 

[Raziek]

I agree with the premise and theory, but as a practical solution it solves very little, due to our community's incredible reluctance to ban MK. I may try it out at a biweekly at some point. Unfortunately however, this would likely make him beyond dominant. This could go one of two ways:

1) Either it pushes the breaking point and MK FINALLY gets banned.
2) We're worse off than when we started.

Don't get me wrong, I agree very much with the theory, but its practicality is sorely limited due to the mindset of the community.

Edit: I suppose I should further clarify. I don't think the community would ever adopt this ruleset because it would probably lead to his ban. They'd rather keep him in the game than adopt a fair means of doing things.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I don't think striking from the whole list has to take a lot of time. Just follow the same basic formula MLG uses to minimize time used:

Player one strikes ((N/2) - 1.5) stages
Player two strikes ((N/2) - 0.5) stages
Player one decides between the remaining two stages

N obviously represents the number of stages you are striking from and is assumed to be an odd number.

As per Meta Knight, he would benefit in some ways and be hurt in others. I don't think it's totally obvious how it would go, but it would definitely hurt a few characters generally considered among the best (Ice Climbers, Diddy Kong, Falco) quite a bit.

Given how many stages even the most liberal person wants to ban and how the banned stages definitely favor some characters way more than others, we may want to point out that finding the game's true "natural balance" is somewhat of a silly concept. No tournament I know of has any rule that helps characters who are good on a lot of banned stages, and I don't think there's any way there could be one.

The opinion on 9 stage striking is definitely not a minor opinion. I think the very positive results of MLG with 9 stages striking has convinced a lot of people it's a good idea.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The trick with the full stage starter list is that it has no chance of going to a character's counterpick. Let's take the MLG ruleset as an example. It has 15 stages. You strike all stages.

Will you be going to your opponent's best stage? Second best? Third best? Nope, You'll be going to your opponent's 8th-best stage.
Will you be going to your best stage? Second best? Third best? Nope, 8th-best.
Same deal with worst. It basically ensures that the most balanced stage for the matchup is chosen for game 1 in the ruleset.

The 9-stage is obviously inferior.

 

[T-block]

Careful what you're saying. You'll go to the 8th best stage within the matchup-specific stage spectrum, assuming ideal striking and negligible player preference factors. Diddy vs. Ice Climbers could go to FD.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well you still go to your 8th-favorite stage for that matchup then. Or the like. The point is, you can force that if you want to. If you don't, then that's fine too. But your opponent might.

 

[Nick Schovitz]

For competition I think about mostly all of the stages are suitable. Almost all the stages that have hazards give you a clear warning of them, the only two that I believe are exceptions to this are Corneria and Spear Pillar. In Spear Pillar sure the beams light the stage before attacking, but also have BS like the pokemon in the back who randomly comes out and attack, you also have the randomness of the stage going in slow mode or switching in reverse, which isn't fun if you're trying to get back in the ring when that happens.

I just don't plain like the Mario Bros. and DK stage so I would X those two out and Hanenbow is boring as **** so I would X that one out as well. All the others are ok.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

For competition I think about mostly all of the stages are suitable. Almost all the stages that have hazards give you a clear warning of them, the only two that I believe are exceptions to this are Corneria and Spear Pillar. In Spear Pillar sure the beams light the stage before attacking, but also have BS like the pokemon in the back who randomly comes out and attack, you also have the randomness of the stage going in slow mode or switching in reverse, which isn't fun if you're trying to get back in the ring when that happens.

I just don't plain like the Mario Bros. and DK stage so I would X those two out and Hanenbow is boring as **** so I would X that one out as well. All the others are ok.

Rather than replying directly to you here about this, I'm going to encourage you to repost in the general stage legality thread. Discussion on this could easily drive this topic off-topic from discussing the merits (or flaws) of 9-stage starter striking.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

Some of MLG's stage selections are questionable. But however I do agree with at least 7 stage starter system. Mainly because here in Michigan (I'm sure this is everywhere) 90% of our first matches end up on Smashville. Don't get me wrong its solid as a "neutral" stage, however its boring. I see WAY too many people stick to the same old stages as counterpicks when they could be doing better. No one wants to explore. And at a time where we are beginning to get a new wave of players into our scene, I don't want them to get the wrong impression about how you should choose a stage. I ran into at least 5 people at my last tournament that were completely new to the stage selection and counterpick system.

Tl;dr version: Encouarge variety in stage selection. If it starts with starters then so be it.

 

[ADHD]

This 5 stage list prevents many characters from excelling in singles.

No it doesn't, explain to me why. We've seen lots of variety occasionally poke up to the top 8 with this 5-starter stagelist being repeatedly used. No character is hindered by it upon game 1.

It's a large stretch to consider accepting a 5-stage list at this point. Anything less than 7 is flat-out stupid.

You're stupid. I hold as much validation as you saying that.

I'd support it if not for two glaring problems with it, BPC.

1) Clunky and Time-consuming.
2) MK

Agree.

MK hardly breaks that system.

Metaknight gets a substantial boost, and you continually deny it. When you're not denying it, you claim it's only one character.

Metaknight is a ****ing large part of this metagame.

 

[DMG]

5 stage list is quite fine. 7 can be too. Going higher than that is where it gets silly because you start adding on stages that favor MK over everyone else. Going from 5 to 7, and certainly going to 9, gives him stages he is good on, and not stages he is bad on.

15 stage starter list:
FD
SV
BF
YI/Lylat/PS1 (5 stages)
^^^
Castle Siege/Delfino/Halberd (7 Stages)
^^^
All of the above (9 Stages)

Frigate
PS2
4 other stages that people think are starter worthy but probably aren't, like Distant Planet, Pirate Ship, etc


What do you notice about the list once it goes past 7 stages? You add more stages that favor MK than those that do not.

With a 5 starter list for example, MK has to worry about FD, BF, PS1/SV/etc whatever the matchup is about. Usually he has 2-3 stages he would like to strike. In the end, he either gets a pretty good stage, or his opponent gets a pretty even one. So with 5 stages, he can strike 2 of them. Now bump it up to 15 stages. He gets 7 strikes. Which would be fine, but the problem is name 7 stages he would actually NEED to strike. The stages added aren't "Tit for tat" balanced when it comes to him. Giving him Frigate and Delfino and Halberd and Castle Siege and Distant Planet/whatever would be fine if you gave X Character more FD, BF, SV, etc stages in return. This just isn't possible to do. Past that point, you dive into stages that all REALLY clearly favor MK. RC, Brinstar, Norfair, etc. Sure, you might have 1-2 in there that are questionable for him, but he gets like 5-7 for him.

 

[Raziek]

DMG, you completely seem to miss the fact that the fact that the stagelist favors MK is irrelevant. Please see the official legality thread for clarification, but the main point is that we're not balancing the stagelist around a character. We make a balanced stage list, and if one character is too good in it, guess what should happen?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't changing the stagelist.

I thought you better than this, herr Heimerdinger.

 

[DMG]

It's not irrelevant when you see the context of the situation and see that MK likely isn't going to be banned regardless. If he is here to stay, I would rather not help him be a bigger monster than he is already.

I would feel differently about it if it were more realistic that he could/would be banned.

 

[Raziek]

It's not irrelevant when you see the context of the situation and see that MK likely isn't going to be banned regardless. If he is here to stay, I would rather not help him be a bigger monster than he is already.

I would feel differently about it if it were more realistic that he could/would be banned.

So, let him run free, then people will see why he needs to be banned.

Simple solution, all these silly restrictions get us nowhere.

 

[DMG]

That's the problem: even in that situation I don't think he would be banned. Like I said, something truly ridiculous would have to happen IMO.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Even then, removing him surgically from the system (say, making him unable to counterpick, or giving him less strikes) would be better than making the system worse for the sake of making him not dominate.

 

[-Mr. T-]

houston already does this.

 

[T-block]

Final Destination
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 1
Battlefield
Castle Siege
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2
Frigate Orpheon
Rainbow Cruise

I think it's pretty cool.

Seems balanced, AND it has no damaging hazards and minimal randomness, for those who care about that.

 

[fkacyan]

we're not balancing the stagelist around a character.

Wait, really? Because last I checked one of the main sources of whining was that Diddy, Falco, and ICs did too well on a five-stage starter list and thus we should have a seven-stage starter list to balance them.

ETA: I'm MK on T-block's list.

Final Destination - Strike
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 1 - Strike
Battlefield
Castle Siege - Strike
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2 - Strike
Frigate Orpheon
Rainbow Cruise

Now, you're obviously going to strike RC and Frigate (Well, maybe afew characters won't here, but the right side vs MK is awful for most characters) Which leaves us with Lylat, BF, and SV.

So how does this change from the 7 starter list? What characters will actually not strike some of the off-kilter stages when they don't have a gross advantage?

Let's look at another example, shall we?

I'm ICs.

Final Destination
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 1
Battlefield - Strike
Castle Siege
Lylat Cruise - Strike
Pokemon Stadium 2
Frigate Orpheon - Strike
Rainbow Cruise - Strike

Now your best options are PS1 and 2 because of transformations and the small platforms, but those are still amazingly subpar avoidance options against the ICs because they don't actually give you a consistent method of getting away from their stage control.

I still have yet to see anything that proves that a seven stage starter list is superior to a five stage one, let alone nine stages. Heck, I have yet to see data that concludes that people even start outside of the usual five when more are available.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

MLG made a 9 stage starter system to try something new. A lot of people like it. I'm not a big fan of it. These five stages are the most tourney viable imo.

FD
Battlefield.
Smashville
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise.

With the acception of the shy guys getting in the way of projectiles minimally, and the Lylat tilting a bit, there's no gimmicks with any of these stages. Here's my argument vs the 9 stage system (I'm basing it off of T block's ideal stage list).

PS1.

Wall CG's up the anus, and that freakin windmill getting in the way of great KO's is not something I love...

Castle Siege.

In the first transformation, there's no big issue, aside the weird ledge on the right side. The second one is broken. The statues suck for projectiles. Walk of CG's are a huge no no. And the third transformation isn't bad, just don't like the EXTREME tilting of the stage (in comparison to Lylat)

PS2.

Even more of a problem than PS1. The WTFOMG air stage F's up all normality. I HATE the treadmills, and, even though it's not a huge problem for me, the ice stage's slipperyness (if thats how you spell it) gets annoying.

Frigate.

Not too much of a problem, but what makes me think it's not starter viable is that in the first transformation, there are NO ledges, killing ivysaur, oli, and ZSS. And if you just so happen to be under the stage, Frigate has a way of transforming right when you don't want it to. And you were able to easily recover, but now you're caught under the stage.

Rainbow Cruise.

MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK. That's what the stage screams. Plus, I don't really like scrolling stages, because you need to keep up with the stage, sometimes deterring you from the fight.

Oh, and T block, did you purposely leave out Yoshi's Island, or just forgot?

 

[StealthyGunnar]

MK will always be God Tier on any stage unless some new ground-breaking technique is found.

 

[T-block]

I never claimed my list was "ideal" in any way. It's just something I'm throwing out there.

I left out Yoshi's Island because it has a random factor in the Support Ghost that can heavily influence the outcome of the match.

Anyways, your attitude towards stages is very close-minded. If you start viewing stages as a part of the game instead of as something that interferes with play, you'll see there's nothing wrong with these stages, as taking advantage of a stage's features is an ability that should be rewarded. We're looking to make the game competitive - nobody cares if you don't like a stage, or if you think it's annoying.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

But ultimately, no matter what way you see it, stage influences play so much. You can no longer short hop, and what do you thank for that? The PS2 air stage. You go from 0 to 200 off a wall CG, and what do you thank for that? The huge wall on the left side of the PS1 fire stage. You're being d tilted by MK from 0 to xxx, and what do you thank for that? The little corner on the boat of Rainbow Cruise.

The Support Ghost doesn't do too much to influence the game. If your opponent is relying on that to recover, than he's close to being KO'd anyway, and it'll just be easy to finish him off.

I'm not trying to be closed minded towards stages. I'm trying to say that stages with minimal interferences should be starters. I don't mind any of those stages being counters, as they're all very viable for counters. But we have to be realistic. Did melee need a 9 stage starter system? No. Then why do we?

And please don't attack me with NOBODY CARES ABOUT MELEE BLAH BLAH BLAH. It's a good example.

 

[T-block]

You can no longer short hop. What's wrong with that? It's not like the stage picks one player and gives him low gravity. Both players are equally affected. So what's wrong with low gravity?

The Support Ghost certainly does influence the game. It's giving a player back a stock that he should have lost. We play brawl with 3 stocks - how is that not significant?

Melee didn't need 9 starters. Brawl doesn't need 9 starters either, but why wouldn't we change if it's better? You don't need your computer to live, but some would say it makes your life better.

 

[fkacyan]

You can no longer short hop. What's wrong with that? It's not like the stage picks one player and gives him low gravity. Both players are equally affected. So what's wrong with low gravity?

The Support Ghost certainly does influence the game. It's giving a player back a stock that he should have lost. We play brawl with 3 stocks - how is that not significant?

Melee didn't need 9 starters. Brawl doesn't need 9 starters either, but why wouldn't we change if it's better? You don't need your computer to live, but some would say it makes your life better.

There is no evidence to support that a nine-stage starter list would be superior to seven.

In fact, matchup experience suggests it would be worse.

 

[T-block]

...if it's better

I answered his question. I made no claims in that post as to whether it actually was better.

But to address your concern, 9 starter is inherently better, without looking at the specific characters we have, if you support the idea that versatility should be rewarded.

 

[BBQTV]

rainbow cruise i lean on, banning brinstar? i dont care i still got 3 dawg



anyway i had a tournament at my snashfest and everyone just picked final destination even though i had counter picks, dont most people play on final D?

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Most of the people at the smashfest just picked final D cuz its what they're custom to picking. I, for one, picked it cuz I play as Falco. And people like Pure (the Fox player) picked it cuz it's his favorite stage to fight on. It's all about preference.

@T block

It doesn't necessarily save you a stock. It delays the inevitable. If you REALLY rely on the Support Ghost, chances are you're losing the stock, soon.

 

[BBQTV]

well im not talking about the one you went to, im talking about another before that one. what do you think is worse ps1 or ps2? to me ps2 since all ps1 has is the windmill while ps2 has many things

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Of course it's PS2. PS1 doesn't have interferences that f up ur whole mechanics, while PS2 has super jumping, treadmills and slipping.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Support ghost can also kill your stock though. I've spike'd opponents onto the platform before just as it was falling. Instead of making it back to due to say, multiple jumps, they have hit the platform without teching, been forced to roll or get up on the platform while it's still falling, and thus killed them.

I still think it should be a starter stage, but it doesn't always save people.

 

[T-block]

@T block

It doesn't necessarily save you a stock. It delays the inevitable. If you REALLY rely on the Support Ghost, chances are you're losing the stock, soon.

Then Pictochat's hazards aren't a big deal either. If the mine cart spawns and you're right on top of it and it kills you, you were obviously at a high percent anyways, or you would have lived. It takes your stock, but since you're at high percent, it's just speeding up the inevitable, right?

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Actually, I support Pictochat being a CP. All of its changes negate the whole FD argument, and aside from the missles, the changes don't do much against regular gameplay.

And the cart doesn't have a lot of knockback, anyways, so technically it does speed up the inevitable.

In every game, there's a luck factor. In Backgammon, whoever wins or loses is almost completely determined by the roll or the die. And the Support Ghost isn't even that far from the stage, anyway.

 

[fkacyan]

Diddy Kong is absolutely broken on Pictochat. He can control the safezone extremely easily and as odds are a killhazard will show up within the 8-minute period (Actually, odds are three will), he can combo out of a banana combo into those with a throw fairly easily.

And no, T-block. That's a terrible way to look at it. I usually survive upwards of 200% against Falcos if they even manage to land a kill move on me at all. If a hazard appeared and killed me I would probably smash the TV.