Anyone who is relying on MLG results to say anything probably shouldn't. Lots of things need to be taken into account (the fact that it was 3 years ago for starters lol, and that a lot of the results come from mid and low level players, rather than the few top level players who attended) - just because they are the only records we have, doesn't make them usable.
Incorrect. The data was read with both only top games and all games considered, and hten restructured AGAIN to have only "top players" and not counting actual placement in bracket. The results were consistent across all three groups. There was no significant change at the top level.
The "it came from 3 years ago" doesn't really matter and I'm not sure why you think it does. Do you have a different selection of Norfair data when arguing for or against Norfair? Because if you do I'd love to see it.
Because people said Norfair should be banned
before MLG. Before. Then MLG had Norfair and it produced no issues whatsoever except a couple of angry people for getting timed out. Norfair was then banned in most places, and it has had absolutely not additional information ever brought up.
So what you're essentially saying is "okay, the data on Norfair that you have says it shouldn't be banned, but that was three years ago! Things could be different now. You have to use the data from RECENT times to determine if it should be banned. Also, there is no data because it is banned and we aren't going to unban it."
If there is a way to objectively prove that stages should be innocent until proven guilty that no one can dispute, this would be worthy to note, and a guideline to follow.
In another thread, we have been attempting to create a standardized ruleset development idea, a set of standards that MUST be followed when making a ruleset, maybe we should give that a go?
The condensed version:
Banning a stage:
1.
Test every stage. No stage will be considered unfit for competitive play on face value. Stages such as Hyrule Temple, New Pork City, and other 'obvious' ones will still have to be tested, albeit outside of tournaments.
2.
Consider all bans permanent. Any stage that is banned will be considered a perma banned stage by the community. As such, any and all bans should be heavily considered.
3.
There are no "global bans". Walk-off edges, slopes, multiple ledges, lack of ledges, multiple platforms, no platforms, or any other consistent feature does not automatically constitute a ban. While these stages will share similar features that will make testing easier, all stages deserve testing.
4.
All stage bans must fit into one of four categories. These categories all derive from "random results" and "over centralization", the only two reasons that ultimately matter.
a. Unwanted features (over centralization). A walk-off edge may result in the game being "shield by the edge and hope for a 0% b-throw kill", which is extreme overcentralization. A large stage like Hyrule Castle may have a circle where fast characters can permanently outrun slow characters. These unwanted features typically are universal, and apply to a large set of characters if not all of them. Evidence must be provided for these features to be over centralizing on a permanent basis, and not a temporary one.
b. Random features (random results). Any random features not on any specific cue or timer, such as Wario Ware's rewards, the Pokemon present on Spear Pillar, etc., can create random results. These are difficult to test for, but it is very possible.
c. Extreme buff/nerf to natural talents (over centralization). Any stage that is so remarkably different that it creates an extreme buff or nerf to a character's natural talents should be looked at closely. FD is a good example of this. Characters such as Ice Climbers have their strengths intensified by a lot, making FD their #1 CP in all matchups. These are much harder to ban and require more time than the prior two, and should only be banned via results. These buff/nerfs to natural talents typically are specific, applying only to a small subset of characters or even a single character.
d. Glitches. (random results). This is actually the #1 most difficult thing to ban on. Did you know you can fall through the stage on Castle Siege or PS1? Did you know that you can auto-cancel attacks on PS1 as the platforms appear, thus allowing certain characters to get a guaranteed shield poke or put you in shield stun and then grab? Did you know you can fall through Seel on Pokefloats? Did you know you can fall through Mute City when invincible at the wrong times? Having a glitch does not constitute a ban, but it should be looked at. Focus on random results and
player control. If a player knows "oh, just jump and you can't fall through CS or PS1", the onus is on him. If a player knows "I can fall through Seel", it's his own dumb fault for being there. It's no longer a glitch, it is a feature. If players do NOT have control and this results in a random effect that drastically affects results, the stage can be banned.
Testing and Banning a stage using "Unwanted Features" as a reason:
Any stage with an unwanted feature that simply "changes the game" can be up for review, but it doesn't atuoban it. If it turns out you can chaingrab people up a slope 0-death, that doesn't mean it's bad. ICs can do that on any stage, do we ban ICs? What we're looking for is "over centralization". If everyone was forced to pick ICs because their 0-death grab was so good, then yeah, we'd ban ICs (hopefully). So if a stage has a slope and Dedede, Falco, and a few others are CGing off the stage... test it and view the results! Do people flat out
lose if they don't pick one of those characters or one that can't be CG'd, or do they just not like dealing with the problem? Dedede and Falco are allowed to have good CP stages, even strong ones. If it's a problem for Snake and ROB but not a problem for Olimar and Meta Knight then it isn't a problem at all.
So how do you test it?
1) Leave it legal in tournaments. This is the best option. It's a learning process. It starts off with "Whoa, that character's good on that stage" to "HOW DO I BEAT THIS" to "Oh, that's how". People are allowed to struggle and a responsible TO doesn't ban a stage simply because people want the game to consist of only things they've learned so far. This will give you most of your information. Write down when people lose and why. Are the players focusing on this feature (like Dedede on the slope) winning the tournament? Are they doing better than they were before? Or are they just beating a few people who aren't well prepared to combat a new strategy and technique?
2) Run small side tournaments. This is the most fun way to do it and should be done in conjunction with #1. Run a small side tournament and say "This will be Yoshi's Island Brawl only!" and see how the tournament goes. You can then compare placements in this tournament directly to placements in the real tournament and see the difference AND see multiple games firsthand. Is it REALLY one grab = death? Do ALL players lose to this, or have some figured it out and the rest are catching up? Blizzard Devs did this with Warcraft 3 and "undead only" tournaments and the like. They'd watch the games, realize that Lich was like 95% of the top player's hero choices, and balance accordingly. We can do the same.
3) Run side pots. "Hey, I heard this stage is broken. Free entry to whoever wins the most on this stage this tournament! You have to keep track on these slips of paper I've printed off for you". People will try to abuse it, most will realize it's way, way harder than they thought.
Testing and Banning a stage using "Random Features" as a reason:
1, 2, and 3 above are all great things to do with stages under review for Random Features as well! But random features luckily allow us to test it outside of the tournament and it's much faster to test; if something will actually produce random results, its features will be random too (otherwise they aren't random results). Someone complains about the Klap Trap "randomly" killing them? Launch up JJapes, prop your feet up, and start writing down times for the klap trap. Turns out it's not random! Dismiss their complaints and educate them. If it IS random? Well now you've got to pay closer attention. Random itself
isn't bad. The klap trap, for example, only appears randomly in two spots. Not a bannable offense, it's still in the player's control. What you have to do now is check very carefully to see if the results of these stages are random in tournament. Do they actually affect results?
To clarify: If something isn't random, ignore their complaints and look at the other reasons. If it IS random, see if it's totally random or still within player control. If player control has nothing to do with it, the stage should likely be banned. Wario Ware is a good example of this; while the player has control as to whether he RECEIVES a reward, the reward itself is random. Even if it wasn't (say, star goes to whoever did it the fastest) it would likely be an over centralizing agent.
Testing Extreme Buff/Nerf to Natural Talents:
1 2 and 3 and a whole lotta research. This one should take a long time. How would you guys feel if FD was banned due to Ice Climbers, or Smashville was banned because we just happened to have a huge amount of Ness mains who hated that damn balloon?
It's important to weather the storm on these. People will lose on a stage they aren't familiar with and blame the stage. It's just how people work. Ignore them and look at the results. If it turns out that it's severely affecting results or a super common CP, look closer. What characters do well on that stage? Do they have other CPs, and if so why aren't they using those? Why aren't people banning that stage? Etc., etc.
At the end of the day you need tournament results. People can complain all day, but if it turns out that MK has a 55% win rate on Rainbow Cruise against non-MKs, their argument is bunk. I don't care if Olimar has a 0% win rate on Rainbow Cruise if every other character in the game is doing fine. We don't alter the stagelist to cater to individual characters.
Speaking of 0% win rates, if a character ends up doing suuuuuuuper poorly on a specific stage the official response would be "ban this stage or look into a CP character". Marth is a fun character and he's great on flat/plat stages, but he outright sucks when it comes to CPs. It's in his character design. Just because people like Marth and he WOULD be good if all those other stages were banned
doesn't mean we should ban them. The stage list isn't for Marth. Marth is ALLOWED to suck.
As an inverse, Ganon and G&W do great on Norfair. We don't ban non-norfair stages because Ganon would be a more viable character on those stages. The stagelist determines how often and how well a character's strengths and weaknesses are shown. Some win, some lose. Just how the cookie crumbles.
Testing Glitches:
See if you can replicate it. If you can, great. It's player controlled and tell people "don't do this". As long as it's not something simple like "shielding" that causes it, anyway.
If you can't replicate it, try to get it on video as much as possible. Record matches on the stage, record replays, watch the games, crowdsource it and ask people to record the glitch if they can. Figure out how you can survive.
I wouldn't ban a stage because of a glitch right away unless you constantly see it or can replicate it. The "fall through the stage" glitch in Castle Siege and PS1 sucks, but doesn't merit a ban on either stage. It simply doesn't effect enough matches and is within player control.
That should be a good starting guide, I guess.
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
News flash: debate is about pointing out tiny inconsistencies in your partner's argument, then seeing if they can fix them. Something you two obviously don't do. Don't worry, I'll deal with both of you later; I have LoL to play right now.
