Removing Distinction Between CP and Starter Stages

[-Vocal-]

I honestly hope I don't sound like a noob when I say this, and if do then correct me.

After reading through this whole thread (and man it's a long one) I have to say that I've actually been won over to the idea of a larger starter stage list. Originally, it was my belief that some characters are simply going to be better starters and we shouldn't try to change that, but from what I've seen this would actually be an effective way to do it. Players will be able to strike the stages they do badly on (if 7 strikes isn't enough then the character must not be very good/versatile) and then CP after that could just go as it always has.

Speaking of, what's this talk about removing counter-picking to even out the matches? I was under the assumption that the reason that people are allowed to counter pick after losing is to get a stage that they do well on. I see nothing wrong with that, as if they win round 2 then the other player is allowed to do the same. As long as round 1 is somewhat fair, what's the problem of each player being able to play on one of their better stages?

 

[BSP]

If the "better player" is better right fro the start, why even let the opponent CP, given the fact that the winner of the round 1 is "better", and will win the round 3?

Spoiler

I know what you tried to state, but your word selection was just wrong.

Sandwhale pretty much said what I would. A player could be off during game one, or they may accidentally suicide and lose as a result; anything could happen. Sets of 3 are better for ensuring that the better person wins.

 

[Ussi]

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? Because capacity to adapt and mental endurance are what define good players.

Different characters require different levels of adaptation and endurance which dependent on the stage you're playing on

 

[Ukemi]

This is post is just for support by numbers...no arguments here so skip if you'd like.

I agree that the median isn't the most neutral stage for the matchup, but right now it seems that stage-striking is the best way to do things. I'm also for the larger starter list. Also, I'm confused about who is arguing for what...the arguments seem so similar...(if you're going to reply to this with a list of who is arguing for what, please don't state what you think other people are arguing for...likely will lead to misinterpretation arguments and waste time)

 

[PenUmbra]

If you like the idea, encourage your local TOs to incorporate it in their tournaments for a temporary amount of time. I remember reading correctly that the BBR encourages this sort of thing to enhance rules and gameplay. Then, when said tournaments are finished, results, facts, feedback, and data can be used to determine whether the idea works out well or not. I think arguments will be more solid after that.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Such as the MK tempban, right?

As a local TO, I'd REALLY like to implement this. Yet, maybe results wouldn't be the same, since here we use not to use many CPs....
For more useful feedback, this would need to be used in something, at least, relatively big.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Bump. Why'd this thread die?

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 (medianally) most balanced stage for the matchup is chosen for game 1 in the ruleset.

If the median is distant from the "average" then it's still probably not a good matchup.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Maybe was dead because most people just can't be convinced to even try it...

 

[Vyse]

Closing this due to official ruleset discussion being moved into this sub-forum:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230479