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

[PK-ow!]

IN the best case scenario, every match would start on the stage where matchup being played was most even. Obviously, this is really hard to set up because we're all morons when it comes to matchup and character evaluation.

I'd say:

IN the best case scenario, we would have both players able to make the match be played where and how it is most even. We would put power in their hands to affect how they play, but because that same power is in the other guy's hand, *assuming both players have equal and high knowledge/understanding of the game*, the effect cancels out and the match 'rests' (reaches equilibrium) at a 50-50 setup.


However,

(1) The stage list isn't a continuum of perfectly fair rigs for every character. Other than the plain ones, they're vastly different and obviously some are quite polarising, with little mid-ground. It is at least non-obvious how, mathematically, to design the choice system to even approximately reach the ideal outlined above. (This is a problem with mine not yours; but yours, without a given mechanization of this "play it even" process, has the problem you pointed out: Who picks what stage is an even MU? The local SBR liaison on call to go "Falco Diddy? Yeah, play that on [stage], it'll be legit." ? )

(2) Some characters just suck, and we aren't going to say that the player's skill and knowledge/understanding wasn't being tested from the point of the double-blind. (I believe this is BPC's point. He's quite right. I don't think one Ganon main from character boards wants to actually be handed 50-50 mus now in the stage system. I'm not one of them anymore, but they take their 20-80s and they take them like men.)

(3) This does contradict the standing tradition of using set CP to actually MU counterpick the opponent, in Smash Bros. And I gotta say, it seems to me like that kind of is part of Smash Bros. You can either play all the games to an even mu for the set... or you can test each choice of character and stage as it is, in its entirety, and reward the ability to spot, pick, and use resilient options to the CP-abilities of your opponent.

Is one better for competition? My answer is I don't know.

 

[Luxor]

Guys, you're all missing ADHD's main point since he didn't express it that well.

Why shouldn't we take an active role in balancing the game?

He does have a point. A game with 39 characters with 50-50's across the board would be an amazing game. If the real game has one best chaacter, why not weaken him by buffing others like Diddy/ICs/Falco, grounded characters with legitimate matchups vs. MK?
It's a philosophical issue and a rather compelling one- see AA with BBrawl lol.

@chaos I never thought you supported 5-starter, you came across as a liberal to me.

 

[Raziek]

I'm baffled that you guys all think that game 1 should be a 50/50. Your character shouldn't be getting a free ticket to a 50/50 just because they have a bad matchup. That's why it's a bad match-up. I hate to keep using the Ganon hyperbole here, but why would you suggest that we be attempting to balance all these characters for game 1? NO OTHER FIGHTER ANYWHERE DOES THIS.

If your character has a disadvantage, you DEAL WITH IT. I don't understand where all this "baby the bads" business is coming from. If you want things to be a true test of skill, the matchups should remain approximately at their ratios, and if the disadvantaged character is TRULY the more skilled player, he'll overcome it.

How are you guys even remotely close to fine with removing the aspect of MATCHUPS from Game 1?

 

[DMG]

Yeah I don't entirely agree with that either. I think the goal of Game 1 should be simply to give people a fair stage (not talking about matchup wise or air:ground wise. Talking about "Hey this stage doesn't do anything to affect the match, to actively benefit or hurt me/the opponent.") and move on. It's extremely hard, if not impossible, to try and do that for every matchup in the game. All you can realistically do is give people a list of stages that will mess with them or the opponent as little as possible and let them pick from it.

Like I said before, if characters do bad on stages that do nothing, so be it.

 

[ADHD]

If this argument was brought up in melee you'd be squashed in a heartbeat. Sigh, brawl sucks.

 

[Raziek]

Well, I'm glad to hear that DMG, because that just means we stand from different philosophies. You wish for lack of interference, I wish for stage balance. We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I'm tired of fighting this argument, to be honest.

 

[CR4SH]

If this argument was brought up in melee you'd be squashed in a heartbeat. Sigh, brawl sucks.

If this argument was brought up in melee it would be squashed because it would be irrelevant. Because its melee, and they have completely different issues.

Sigh, adhd is dumb.

 

[DMG]

Look at most Melee stage lists though. The starter lists tend to encompass the stages that do the least, don't they? FD, BF, Dream Land, YI, PS/FoD. It's not the most balanced if you were talking about being fair to both air and ground characters. But it's the fairest you can come up with relating to stages that don't interfere with gameplay that much.

 

[ADHD]

If this argument was brought up in melee it would be squashed because it would be irrelevant. Because its melee, and they have completely different issues.

Sigh, adhd is dumb.

Yer a fat dirty ******. They were saying things were wrong with the melee stagelist before.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

^^^ Melee is a different game:
1. There is no such thing as Metaknight in melee
2. In melee, character are actually able to approach instead of it being a camp-fest like in brawl.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm baffled that you guys all think that game 1 should be a 50/50. Your character shouldn't be getting a free ticket to a 50/50 just because they have a bad matchup. That's why it's a bad match-up. I hate to keep using the Ganon hyperbole here, but why would you suggest that we be attempting to balance all these characters for game 1? NO OTHER FIGHTER ANYWHERE DOES THIS.

If your character has a disadvantage, you DEAL WITH IT. I don't understand where all this "baby the bads" business is coming from. If you want things to be a true test of skill, the matchups should remain approximately at their ratios, and if the disadvantaged character is TRULY the more skilled player, he'll overcome it.

How are you guys even remotely close to fine with removing the aspect of MATCHUPS from Game 1?

So we should be arbitrarily awarding the lucky guy in a double blind who picks the character who wins the matchup?

No other fighter has the ability to use stages to balance matchups, so obviously they don't do that.

I find it ironic that you're so eager to compare Smash to other fighters in this regard but for some reason don't like using it for other comparisons.

 

[Raziek]

So we should be arbitrarily awarding the lucky guy in a double blind who picks the character who wins the matchup?

No other fighter has the ability to use stages to balance matchups, so obviously they don't do that.

I find it ironic that you're so eager to compare Smash to other fighters in this regard but for some reason don't like using it for other comparisons.

Is it luck to win a double blind? If your character has bad match-ups, that's a risk you have to be willing to take on the double blind. Furthermore, most people don't even play multiple characters at a high level, so the point is largely moot, so we're again, back to the fact that you're intentionally attempting to balance the game by babying weaker characters, which is heavy favoritism.

 

[fkacyan]

Is it luck to win a double blind? If your character has bad match-ups, that's a risk you have to be willing to take on the double blind. Furthermore, most people don't even play multiple characters at a high level, so the point is largely moot, so we're again, back to the fact that you're intentionally attempting to balance the game by babying weaker characters, which is heavy favoritism.

I see nothing wrong with balancing the game through stage selection.

 

[Luxor]

I see nothing wrong with balancing the game through stage selection.

I still haven't heard a real reply to this. It's not all like the Ganon hyperbole- some characters just need the starter list slightly altered to be fully competitive vs. MK.

 

[Orion*]

Well if you guys know so much about the game and still can't formulate a convincing argument to stop people who are starting new scenes in their regions from adopting liberal stagelists, what does that say about you?

it shows that i dont spend all day making long *** posts for scrubs to read because it gets me off. sorry thats what *****es are for LOL

I hate when you assume I've put no work into learning this game. I've written three stage guides, I'm anywhere between #1 and #3 on the regional PRs, (Currently LISTED as 3, but it depends on who you talk to) and I DO infact, practice a lot. I frequently drive around to other player's houses to practice, and I co-host biweekly tournaments every two weeks, USING THIS RULESET, I MIGHT ADD.

So don't assume that I don't know this game, Orion. You're probably only in here because I name-dropped you, anyway. That was a compliment for christ's sakes. xD

I don't mean to use you as an example, but I'm not like BPC in that I actually frequent tournaments QUITE often. In fact, whenever I get the chance. Unfortunately, due to my geographical location, making it to tournaments with 30-35 people is about as much as I can hope for. I would have LOVED to come to Apex, but we had other circumstances interfere with things.

congratulations you can **** your region LOL. all that meant to me is that you are a big fish in a small pond niggz. theres a completely different competitive atmosphere when you have much tougher regions all coming together willing to do anything to win. plank, scrooge, gay, gimp, camp, time out, scream, ect.

let me ask you this.
1) have you ever entered a tournament with a top player
2) have you ever played a top player
3) have you ever beaten a top player
4) have you ever been planked and lost a tournament set with money on the line over it
5) have you ever been scrooged and lost a tournament set w/ money on the line
6) have you ever been timed out in tournament
7) have you ever timed someone out in tournament
8) have you ever planked or scrooged someone in tournament
9) have you ever played a metaknight that is actually good with these rule sets
10) have you ever thought that the fact that you actually want to buff characters that are already toogood completely ****ing stupid LOL

edit: im not trying to say i know what your potential is, ect. however, what i am saying is that, i do believe that you dont have the proper experience to be really arguing with adhd about this when hes not trolling LOL

No, I'm saying that if a new region looks to this forum to decide how to set up their stagelist, they are 99% sure to go with the MLG list, if not even more liberal.

what NEW region n!gga wtf. this isnt like pokemon where you just walk and new places ****ing appear on the god **** map. eat a ****.

explain to me why you think you know more about brawl than people that actually play the game

"Here's something to chew on: If 90% of the BR favors these ideas, and the BR is a place for respected, knowledgeable players of the game, something tells me that YOUR opinion is the one that is wrong, not theirs. These people are the ones hosting MLG tournaments, which have been QUITE successful, I might add. And yes, I am mad, because you're so stubborn that you refuse to concede your points even when cornered by logic. Even I am willing to change my view when confronted by logic, but nothing you've said has enough grounding in competitive logic to change my mind. Especially not this, "Bad characters should get to have even matchup ratios for Game 1" hilariousness."

nobody good actually respects the backroom. so many people in there either

A. suck at brawl
B. are biased against mk
C. talk about useless TOing garbage and arbitrary matchups like pikachu vs marth. nobody cares about that crap