2 bans

[EPsilon933]

In the Melee: Rebanning Stages thread, several players have mentioned the idea of being able to ban 2 stages instead of only 1 during your ban. This could easily allow for bringing back Mute City and Corneria to the legal stage list. One common argument against Mute City is that it gives Peach/Jigglypuff 2 really good stages to counter pick (Mute City and Brinstar). With 2 bans, both stages are of course banned so there's no need to worry about her having an over powered counterpick. On all the other stages, she'll have to chose among heavier trade offs. Same goes for Fox having too good of a stage to counter pick (Corneria, but his second best stage is rarely ever mentioned, I guess it's Pokemon Stadium) and having to choose between tradeoffs.

But look at the other 23 characters in the game. They might be able to benefit from Mute City and Corneria being legal. I've heard that Ice Climbers play pretty well on Corneria, even against Fox (even better for Ice Climbers in PAL). I don't know too much about the other 22, but I'm sure an expert on their character could shed some light on why Mute City and Corneria as legal counter picks could benefit them.

2 bans can also improve the counter pick game. For most characters, there always seems to be a set best 2 stages to counter pick. Like Perhaps if those set 2 are gone, the next best stages could be in a near tie for 3rd? And the 3rd best stage to counter pick could vary among different opposing characters.

Just my views on double bans and bringing back Mute City and Corneria. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[t3h Icy]

I think it should be tested at a fairly large tournament (maybe a regional), and see how it goes.

I'd be for it, and maybe Brawl players could even pick it up.

 

[pockyD]

used it before, it was rather popular

however, it requires a certain number of unbroken stages

are the borderline stages 'broken'? it's still the same discussion

just because a user can ban it doesn't mean a 'broken' stage should be allowed

 

[-Ran]

Brawl would be a better candidate for a system with two bans, since there are more questionable stages. With the inclusion of multiple bans, you'd be able to add stages that are interesting counter-picks, but hard counters to certain characters which is why they aren't allowed. Or, because of the stage's inclusion, it allows a high tier character to get their best legitimate stage, rather than their best broken stage every time.

 

[Bones0]

pocky makes a good point. Should we make Hyrule Temple legal, and anyone who complains we can just say "you have two bans, quit whining"? Hell, we might as well make all the stages legal and give each player 14 bans.

 

[EPsilon933]

just because a user can ban it doesn't mean a 'broken' stage should be allowed

The stage itself isn't broken. Fox just happens to benefit heavily from Corneria. Same for Peach/Jigglypuff on Mute City.

pocky makes a good point. Should we make Hyrule Temple legal, and anyone who complains we can just say "you have two bans, quit whining"? Hell, we might as well make all the stages legal and give each player 14 bans.

I think you're just taking my idea to the extreme.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I don't know man, in the end, it'll end up the same way, you won't play on the ridiculous counterpick, your opponent also has 2 stages to ban against YOU and in the end only a select few gain from this.

It's just adding bans to make borderline stages legal.

Also, with 4 bans, there will be little left to play on... Especially on fairly conservative tourneys with the 5 neutrals, Yoshi's Island and maybe Kongo Jungle. BTW, if you want to add Corneria and Mute City, there's definitly some other candidates for becoming a CP.

 

[mastermoo420]

I don't know man, in the end, it'll end up the same way, you won't play on the ridiculous counterpick, your opponent also has 2 stages to ban against YOU and in the end only a select few gain from this.

That's only in theory, though. Personally, I hear that PokeFloats is mad good for Fox because of the campy nature. However, even if that option was open to me, I probably wouldn't play on it. Why? Personal preference and lack of experience. I know the latter can be fixed, but people will always have personal preference. Some people may prefer to play on the "ridiculous counterpick" because they're used to the stage.

 

[EPsilon933]

I don't know man, in the end, it'll end up the same way, you won't play on the ridiculous counterpick

Ice Climbers on Corneria, as I've mentioned before.

It's just adding bans to make borderline stages legal.

But I really disagree that Mute City and Corneria are borderline legal/illegal.

Also, with 4 bans, there will be little left to play on... Especially on fairly conservative tourneys with the 5 neutrals, Yoshi's Island and maybe Kongo Jungle. BTW, if you want to add Corneria and Mute City, there's definitly some other candidates for becoming a CP.

4 bans is a bit extreme.

Why would Yoshi's Island and Kongo Jungle be legal anyways?

In my opinion, this is what the stage list should look like

Neutral
FD
BF
DL
YS
FoD

Counter
PS
Corneria
Brinstar
MC
KJ64

I really disagree with Rainbow Cruise. It's less of a stage to fight on as it is a moving playground to play tag on, but this is more of an imo than anything else. I don't care if it's added to my list (under counter) or not.

PokeFloats is the same story but playing on it is simply stupid.

Jungle Japes has those side platforms which make camping on them broken. Who are the candidates you're thinking of?

 

[S l o X]

I liked this.


Until you took off RC.

 

[EPsilon933]

I liked this.


Until you took off RC.

You can add it back, I really don't care if it's legal or not.

 

[G.L.]

cruise and pokefloats should be CPS or atleast one of them but either way its still a good idea, i like being able to pick alot of different stages for different situations

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

My only issue with it is when people get 2 bans on neutral stages. How is an IC or Marth player going to compete at all when people get to ban their two best stages which happen to be the most match-up-fair stages overall? And what happens in a Bo5 when it comes down to a 2nd CP and there is only one non-banned neutral?

 

[Vyse]

I've always thought 2 bans is a good idea at least for Brawl and I would adopt it straight away.

Under the premise of "2 bans, each ban must occur after each match, before character selection"

Pros:
Whilst you may lose beneficial stages, you opponent in turn loses stages with which to hard counter your character. You win some and you lose some.

More stages could be played.

Cons:
Might actually skew some matchups a lot. Limits choice in stages, and might even force a character switch, which isn't something we should really design a stage list for.





You could also try 2 bans that are limited to 1 neutral/starter and one counterpick or you could also try any combination of the previous ideas and removing DSR.

 

[JPOBS]

If a stage is so bad that it basically gets autobanned in most matchups under the 2 ban system, then it probably should just outright be banned from tourny.

Saying "lets bring back mute city and have 2 bans, that way, you can always ban it anyway" to me is just proof that said stage need not be legal at all

 

[ChRed2AKrisp]

That's not the point at all. Sure you autoban it against...2 characters. But are you going to autoban it if peach or jiggs aren't your opponent? Maybe because you don't like it personally, but you do that with currently legal stages anyways. Mute city isn't a broken stage. Just two characters are broken on it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to counter pick against marth to it with fox or something if I so choose.

 

[Masterchef1123]

this could definitely take away good options that people have in mind
however i don't think we should add stages that are in the gray
which could go either way based on an opinion either broken or nonbroken.

 

[JPOBS]

That's not the point at all. Sure you autoban it against...2 characters. But are you going to autoban it if peach or jiggs aren't your opponent? Maybe because you don't like it personally, but you do that with currently legal stages anyways. Mute city isn't a broken stage. Just two characters are broken on it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to counter pick against marth to it with fox or something if I so choose.

the problem is i cant always know for sure which characters my opponent plays.

so he goes marth first round and i go fox close game but I win, and I ban yoshis and FD. He counterpicks MUTE CITY and switches to peach. Great, now im boned.

So i auto lose game 2 because theres no way i could possibly know which characters everyone in the community plays.

If a stage is an autowin for any char it should be banned imo. there are still 9 perfectly fine stages for you to choose from when you're NOT fighting peach/jiggs. No need to add 2 more for certain exclusive matchups.

 

[Mahone]

You guys are forgetting a very common situation that makes this a bad idea. Lets say you think peach on mute city is broken, you would obv. ban it against a peach, but what if you don't know the person you are playing plays peach.

For example, game one is you as marth vs a fox on fd and you barely win, so you decide to ban corneria obviously and cruise because those stages are awful in this matchup. Then your opponent says mute city and goes peach, i mean i think its unreasonble for everyone to have a secondary that is good on mute and corneria just so you can avoid this.

With the current rules you have more freedom to play one character but idk thats just me.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I posted in the other thread I didnt like the idea of them taking away 2 of the 5 neutrals. Combine that with any form of DSR.

grand finals just got hella gay!

gets worse if the other player bans two neutrals.

You are looking at 1 neutral, and winner of first round HAS to select a CP stage no matter what.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

No matter what people think, peach on mute city isn't broken. The elements may help her, but its never an instant win.

In my opinion, there are too many bans now. I have always agreed with MLG's rules that you can't ban a neutral stage. Why? Because its neutral! Bans should be for CP stages. But now we have so few CP stages where people simply say "well i don't even have to worry about a strong CP stage, i'll just remove a neutral that favors them".

I'd rather have more stages on CP just to make people stop banning FD or FoD or DL every set because they dont want to learn the stage.

 

[ranmaru]

I'd rather have more stages on CP just to make people stop banning FD or FoD or DL every set because they dont want to learn the stage.

Wow, I haven't thought of that. I will keep that in mind. (Not that I'd want to play marth on ys in tourny, but I remember the last time I played on.... was in spoc, lol. First time alternate striking, forgot about ys. lol)

 

[Smasher89]

Zant- IC against fox on corneria isn´t considered a better stage for ICs (yet, I´m working on the stage as it´s my next goal to take over that ship lol, likes to counterpick foxes there, seems harder in NTSC though from my only match on it against Eggz, but I guess that it´s just bit of lack of experience against NTSCfox's upsmash). Leaving it on is a good thing.

Mahone-That gives advantage top players playing more then opne character, which means diversity and probably more interesting sets. And more strategic play when it comes to picking your CP.

 

[Bones0]

Mahone-That gives advantage top players playing more then opne character, which means diversity and probably more interesting sets. And more strategic play when it comes to picking your CP.

It's not really diversity as much as it is encouraging people to use a gimmicky secondary. A huge amount of people would pick up Jiggs/Peach exclusively for their CP. I know I would. I pretty much only use Jiggs in teams, but instead of having my secondary be Marth, I'd probably just start using Jiggs if I am guaranteed to play on Mute City or Brinstar.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The stage list should be:
BF
DL
FD
FoD
KJ64
PS
YS

Players stage strike to a single stage for the first match.
Winner bans 2 stages, and loser gets to CP out of the remaining 5 (4 if you don't count the salty stage).
If it goes to a game 3, the player who won the second match bans 2 stages and the player who won the first match chooses from the remaining 4 stages (b/c of 2 bans + DSR; it's out of 3 stages if you don't count the salty stage). The kicker is that stage bans don't last for the entire set. That way if it is something like your Fox vs. their Peach and you ban Dream Land after you win game 1 then you lose game 2, you could switch to Jiggs and still CP DL. (The order still goes winner bans, loser picks stage, winner picks character, loser picks character.) This is a much more fair way of promoting secondary usage and diversity without screwing over the other player for not knowing who they would pick.

If a Peach just beat the Fox in game 2 on KJ64 (b/c he banned DL) and then notices the Fox CPed the stage he banned the game before, he has to decide whether he will change characters (if he goes Fox to prepare for the opponent's Jiggs or Peach, maybe the Fox will stay Fox and just ditto on DL) or whether he will pick a character with the stage advantage (stick with Peach because she has a great recovery and DL is so large, even though the opponent might go CF which is one of his bad matchups and DL is a great stage for CF).

If anyone sees anything that might be dumb about this, let me know. I've written down a bunch of different character matchup scenarios and can't think of any ways players can get screwed at all. Even with bo5 it seems to work out great.

 

[DJRome]

lol @ peach going to kj64. get camped more

 

[Bones0]

Sorry, I don't play Peach. lol

But for the record...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNaAUJZz5k

 

[DJRome]

but it's not FAWKS