Grim's Views on Stage Legality - The "Competitive" Criteria

[SaveMeJebus]

Yeah but you always have more than enough stage strikes to strike those stages if your character is really bad on them. If you main a character that's good on those stages, then there's no reason to strike them

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Like I said guys, don't respond to Jebus...

I'd rather people comment on the theory behind my post than this ******** argument that doesn't matter either way.

 

[MegaRobMan]

On top level play ledges matter more BECAUSE THERE IS MORE PRESSURE TO GET THEM OFF STAGE! You play IC's and Jiggs, so neither of these things bother you.

Also Jebus is completely right on everything.

-30 respect points for Grim

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You can theorycraft about this all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen.

Watch videos of pro players on PS1/CS/etc... and tell me how often they get caught under the ledges.

 

[MegaRobMan]

Lylat is the biggest offender but as I have said, there are bigger issues than the ledge on CS/PS1. And I have seen LIVE ACTION instances of top players from my region get ****ed by the stages. I'm sure I could find videos too.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I can find a video of Ally's Snake losing to a Ganondorf, thats not what I'm asking for.

Demonstrate to me that this is a problem that actually affects how competitive these stages are. Its going to make more than a couple of videos and second-hand testimonials, mind you.

 

[Arcansi]

How about this?

A better way to make stages legal? Sure.

FLSS. Ban any stage that is a large amount uncompetitive in a large amount (65%+, by a likely not fully calculated formula) of matchups, and don't overcentralize with one character. Make sure your left with an odd number of stages.

Gives a very fair advantage to those who feel they can play on other stages, while allowing for a lot of fun interactions during the FLSS'ing process.

For those who feel time is a problem, add a time limit for how long you have to strike a stage, or that strike goes to your opponent (so they get 2 in a row).

There might be some other kinks I've yet to notice in writing this, but it seems overall much more competitive then your way.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As a method of stage selection, FLSSing is definitely superior.

This thread shows a way of choosing the stages to use for the standard stage selection method.

My method is for weeding out stages the TO doesn't want, FLSSing weeds out stages the players don't want.

Two sides of the same coin, basically.

 

[Arcansi]

As a method of stage selection, FLSSing is definitely superior.

This thread shows a way of choosing the stages to use for the standard stage selection method.

My method is for weeding out stages the TO doesn't want, FLSSing weeds out stages the players don't want.

Two sides of the same coin, basically.

The TO can still weed out stages they don't like, even using your scale if they would like too.

Also, you asked for something superior, you can stop baiting now.

Your welcome.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I dun geddit o_O

FLSSing is a way of choosing stages to play on during sets, this is a way of deciding which stages are legal or banned.

If you read further down the OP, I actually specifically mentioned FLSSing and recommended it.

 

[Arcansi]

I dun geddit o_O

FLSSing is a way of choosing stages to play on during sets, this is a way of deciding which stages are legal or banned.

If you read further down the OP, I actually specifically mentioned FLSSing and recommended it.

Because FLSSing essentially removes the need to legalize or ban stages, except the common sense obvious ones.

So we don't need your strategies or formulas, silly.

We just need to FLSS.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Waste of time striking through broken stages :/

And no one uses FLSSing aha

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Wouldn't actual FLSSing result in someone maybe deciding to be a troll, and use all his strikes to get rid of all the legit stages? More stages means more strike opportunities (about 20), which leaves the other player to just weed through stupidass stages trying to find the least broken one. Might end up playing Grand Finals on Big Blue or some dumb ****. Sound like reliable tourney results?

Sounds to me like Banning the obviously broken stages, and letting the players weed through questionable ones themselves is a much better idea.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yeah, FLSSing works a lot better in theory than in practice for reasons like that ^

 

[Arcansi]

Sounds to me like Banning the obviously broken stages, and letting the players weed through questionable ones themselves is a much better idea.

Which is why, if you read my post, that's exactly what I advise.

I noted that I may have kinks that were missed. But really?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Its also exactly what I advised in the very first post.

Full List Stage Striking
FLSSing is really a misnomer, as striking from the entire stage list is strictly uncompetitive (due to the chance of both players striking to WarioWare Inc.)

Instead, I would suggest striking from a stage list of every stage barring the ones I listed as uncompetitive above.

 

[Akaku94]

Fail. I was thinking FLSSing was Full Legal Stage Striking... regardless, I think the best way to go would be to ban the obivously broken/overcentralizing ones (temple, warioware, hanenbow, etc.) and strike from everything that's left. Essentially, removing the CP/Starter distinction and striking from the full legal list.

 

[WindMajor]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=14092681&postcount=2584

Just sayin'.

 

[Arcansi]

Its also exactly what I advised in the very first post.

You asked for a more competitive solution as compared to the one in this thread.

Because of this, I assumed there was, well, one solution in this thread.

And provided a more competitive one.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

So in this system, all stage selections are made by striking from the stagelist. No more counterpicking, yes?

 

[Arcansi]

So in this system, all stage selections are made by striking from the stagelist. No more counterpicking, yes?

Yeah. Assuming testing was done, we could find the best way to give losing player a big enough advantage.

E.G. stages that have already been played on are already striked automatically, and you strike again.

You play on the 3 stages that're the last 3 when FLSSing, and the loser chooses the second stage (the first stage played would be the final one left.)

 

[popsofctown]

Large List Stage Striking (not full list if you ban the obvious one) runs into heavy popularity issues. You have to practice all the stages because you might get struck to it somehow. Jiggs might be playing Sonic on Wario Ware, and that might be a very unskewed neutral stage for them, but the players will both have less experience with the stage and differences in experience with the stage. You're fostering uncompetitive behavior. You don't want to make things less competitive.

The ultimate conclusion of this thread seems to be to freeze the stagelist, something I agree with. It's nice to see Grim Tuesday have a pragmatic epiphany, that was always the thing missing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yeah, I've found a viewpoint that just seems to make sense for everything, to me at least xD

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I don't really see Wario Ware being an issue, I don't think anyone thinks it should be legal. However, since we're always striking stages anyway, I don't see why stages like Jungle Japes, Norfair, Distant Planet, Luigi's Mansion, etc. can't be included. Stages that are banned largely due to unpopularity can just be struck, but it still leaves the option to play on them. As long as there aren't TONS of extra stages included, there would always be the option of someone who only likes the current stagelist to strike the extra ones. Thoughts?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

As a method of stage selection, FLSSing is definitely superior.

That isn't necessarily true though.

 

[popsofctown]

I don't really see Wario Ware being an issue, I don't think anyone thinks it should be legal. However, since we're always striking stages anyway, I don't see why stages like Jungle Japes, Norfair, Distant Planet, Luigi's Mansion, etc. can't be included. Stages that are banned largely due to unpopularity can just be struck, but it still leaves the option to play on them. As long as there aren't TONS of extra stages included, there would always be the option of someone who only likes the current stagelist to strike the extra ones. Thoughts?

You can't just use your strikes to fix an uncompetitive playlist. There will often be situations where it's in the best interest of a player to strike down to a stage both players have little experience with. If you use all your strike's to remove Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Pirate Ship, and Onett, even though your character is good on some of those stages, then you opponent has extra strikes he can use to skew which popular stage you'll be playing on. Optimal strategy will often mandate that you aim for a less competitive stage. It's the difference between choosing to play chess without your rook or shogi (japanese chess), a game neither of you have played.

 

[DMG]

I don't really see Wario Ware being an issue, I don't think anyone thinks it should be legal. However, since we're always striking stages anyway, I don't see why stages like Jungle Japes, Norfair, Distant Planet, Luigi's Mansion, etc. can't be included. Stages that are banned largely due to unpopularity can just be struck, but it still leaves the option to play on them. As long as there aren't TONS of extra stages included, there would always be the option of someone who only likes the current stagelist to strike the extra ones. Thoughts?

Most of those stages are banned for more than "I DON'T LIKE IT". Mansion isn't banned because we gave up and said **** it, it's banned because we played on it a lot and it was bulllllllllllllllllllllllpoppy. The only stages imo you could possibly say we disregarded are DP and PS2. EVERYTHING else has a good reason for being banned and tends to boil down to someone not understanding those flaws or downplaying them. Japes GG Bridge Mario Circuit (I kinda like this stage but it's way too big) Corneria Japes Mansion etc have pretty good reasons for being banned other than "It's a stinker". There's no way around it unless again, you're missing the flaws or downplaying them.


As far as stages being banned for not being popular, THAT will start to happen when people mass adopt a Japan-like ruleset or go more conservative in general. Once stages like Delfino CS Lylat etc get banned, THAT'S the time for the unpopular argument. Not on stages like holy balls in the toilet Mansion.

You can't just use your strikes to fix an uncompetitive playlist. There will often be situations where it's in the best interest of a player to strike down to a stage both players have little experience with. If you use all your strike's to remove Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Pirate Ship, and Onett, even though your character is good on some of those stages, then you opponent has extra strikes he can use to skew which popular stage you'll be playing on. Optimal strategy will often mandate that you aim for a less competitive stage. It's the difference between choosing to play chess without your rook or shogi (japanese chess), a game neither of you have played.

I already brought this up, but it was more geared towards if banned stages were added to this list which is completely unacceptable and there's no way to twist it into being acceptable lol.

If you're striking from Starter and CP list, you definitely can strike one spectrum over the other. If I start mass striking starters, my opponent WILL have to strike CP stages. There's no way around it. If he strikes CP stages, I will have to strike starters. I

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If we take that into account, then FLSSing is only legitimate if we have every questionable stage banned, basically.

Though of course it varies from location to location. PS2 might be considered questionable in one state but legitimate in another.

 

[Arcansi]

You can't just use your strikes to fix an uncompetitive playlist. There will often be situations where it's in the best interest of a player to strike down to a stage both players have little experience with. If you use all your strike's to remove Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Pirate Ship, and Onett, even though your character is good on some of those stages, then you opponent has extra strikes he can use to skew which popular stage you'll be playing on. Optimal strategy will often mandate that you aim for a less competitive stage. It's the difference between choosing to play chess without your rook or shogi (japanese chess), a game neither of you have played.

Your still reading FLSS as full list stage striking, aren't you?

Despite how many times I've said and explained in this thread that severly uncompetitive stages would be removed.

You won't have to strike LM. The others are iffy, although I'm pretty sure Norfair has solid arguments for being banned, Onett needs more testing and Pirate Ship is legit.

And then, you won't strike stages you have a good matchup on.

Learning how to play on a stage isn't hard, and moving slightly more emphasis onto this isn't a bad thing.

If it is, tell me how.

That isn't necessarily true though.

How? Are you aware when you say things like this it's essentially 100% off topic unless you provide proof? Might as well go into a blog thread and post 'this is a blog'. No Offence

Large List Stage Striking (not full list if you ban the obvious one) runs into heavy popularity issues. You have to practice all the stages because you might get struck to it somehow. Jiggs might be playing Sonic on Wario Ware, and that might be a very unskewed neutral stage for them, but the players will both have less experience with the stage and differences in experience with the stage. You're fostering uncompetitive behavior. You don't want to make things less competitive.

See Above, popularity isn't an issue FLOSSing deals with, it's essentially in the TO's hands, where it should be.

It just allows for a lot of stages to be legal, even if they're borderline, as long as they can be argued to be competitive in a decent percent of scenarios.

The ultimate conclusion of this thread seems to be to freeze the stagelist, something I agree with. It's nice to see Grim Tuesday have a pragmatic epiphany, that was always the thing missing.

This only works if you currently have no qualms with the legal stage list. With no proof, this is just an arbitrary and bad claim.

 

[Arcansi]

Most of those stages are banned for more than "I DON'T LIKE IT". Mansion isn't banned because we gave up and said **** it, it's banned because we played on it a lot and it was bulllllllllllllllllllllllpoppy. The only stages imo you could possibly say we disregarded are DP and PS2. EVERYTHING else has a good reason for being banned and tends to boil down to someone not understanding those flaws or downplaying them. Japes GG Bridge Mario Circuit (I kinda like this stage but it's way too big) Corneria Japes Mansion etc have pretty good reasons for being banned other than "It's a stinker". There's no way around it unless again, you're missing the flaws or downplaying them.

Wait. Okay, explain the arbitrary, bad-for-competition, tested flaws for...

Picto, Norfair, & Japes.

(NOTE: If it's already acceptable in our ruleset, it can't be a flaw in this criteria, as we're asking for flaws that would make for it to be banned, not just bad CP properties like PS2's randomness.)

As far as stages being banned for not being popular, THAT will start to happen when people mass adopt a Japan-like ruleset or go more conservative in general. Once stages like Delfino CS Lylat etc get banned, THAT'S the time for the unpopular argument. Not on stages like holy balls in the toilet Mansion.

In your opinion. You should prove this or not say it.

If you're striking from Starter and CP list, you definitely can strike one spectrum over the other. If I start mass striking starters, my opponent WILL have to strike CP stages. There's no way around it. If he strikes CP stages, I will have to strike starters. I

This isn't a bad thing, though.

If we take that into account, then FLSSing is only legitimate if we have every questionable stage banned, basically.

You can have them legal as long as they are arguable. This also allows for more testing to be done for them.

Also, most questionable stages are only questionable due to lack of good testing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This isn't a bad thing, though.

We aren't talking about theory here. From a practicality stand-point, how much do you think players would like having practice on stages they don't like or consider legitimate just because they are worried about being taken there? Hell, how much do you think players would like actually being taken there in a tournament, with or without practice?

I would be much more likely to enter a tournament with Luigi's Mansion banned then legal, as unfair as that stigma may be, it exists; and we have to account for it.

 

[Arcansi]

We aren't talking about theory here. From a practicality stand-point, how much do you think players would like having practice on stages they don't like or consider legitimate just because they are worried about being taken there? Hell, how much do you think players would like actually being taken there in a tournament, with or without practice?

I would be much more likely to enter a tournament with Luigi's Mansion banned then legal, as unfair as that stigma may be, it exists; and we have to account for it.

Well, we have two possibilities.

A scrub-like person(or a scrub), who dislikes the stage being used, doesn't want to practice on it, and is less likely to enter.

Someone who isn't like the above, likely argues/states their opinion on the legal stage(s) they don't like, accepts things like 'even though my character does bad here, it's good for the game', practices on the stage (using the theorycraft often found in debate comes in handy here), and may or may not go to the tournament, but is much more likely to do so, espicially due to the availability of bans & practice.

Now, it's obvious that you should be #2. What isn't so obvious is that we've been expecting everyone to be #2 for quite some time, and as such why is it unreasonable we still expect them to be as such?

Proof?

"(Standing) infinites should be banned for X reason" "Don't get grabbed"

"X character is too overcentralizing on X stage" "Ban it against them"

etc.

Understand? I do not see why this rule change should be any different? Just learn to play on X stage, or convince your TO otherwise.

It's not like that rule already exists today, except if a stage is legal you get 1 chance to ban it, and not multiple.

 

[DMG]

Wait. Okay, explain the arbitrary, bad-for-competition, tested flaws for...

Picto, Norfair, & Japes.

(NOTE: If it's already acceptable in our ruleset, it can't be a flaw in this criteria, as we're asking for flaws that would make for it to be banned, not just bad CP properties like PS2's randomness.)




In your opinion. You should prove this or not say it.



This isn't a bad thing, though.



You can have them legal as long as they are arguable. This also allows for more testing to be done for them.

Also, most questionable stages are only questionable due to lack of good testing.

If you are hung up on competitive criteria for a stage being arbitrary, then there's no way I can convince you in the first place lol. I can tell you the flaws of the stage and how they differ from what we want/what the competitive line is drawn at, but then you can simply disagree with where the line is drawn and I can't convince you that it should be this way besides using the popularity argument frankly.

 

[Arcansi]

If you are hung up on competitive criteria for a stage being arbitrary, then there's no way I can convince you in the first place lol. I can tell you the flaws of the stage and how they differ from what we want/what the competitive line is drawn at, but then you can simply disagree with where the line is drawn and I can't convince you that it should be this way besides using the popularity argument frankly.

That's what I was asking for.

But what I'm saying is, if you say something like "Pictochat is bad because the transformations have a chance to gimp you without you knowing", because they don't if you play to minimize this fact, and playing like this is also a good way to play.

Stuff like that.