BLVolition
Smash Rookie
Chaper 1: "Starters" vs. "Counter-picks"
A Conundrum Explained
There are fruitful discussions going on about tournament viable stages in Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. These conversations have led me to the conclusion that the idea of “starters” and “counter-picks” is a social construct. This ideology seems to be gaining popularity but a concern of mine is people missing what is at the core of this school of thought. This text aims to hone in on that point.
Symmetry is inherently neutral. One cannot gain or lose anything as an effect of interfacing with identical aspects on any axis of something that is symmetrical. For example, any two points on the circumference of a perfect circle are equidistant from the center thus neither is at an advantage or disadvantage for their distance from it. There are many symmetrical stages in the Super Smash Brothers (SSB) series where for a time the prior-described analogy can be recreated. That is to say, symmetrical SSB stages have the theoretical capacity to be neutral. Nevertheless...
What causes a symmetrical SSB stage to lose its neutrality is the addition of an animate-asymmetrical-dichotomy. In other words, a “matchup.” Seeing as both a player and character matchup are needed to play a game of SSB we are definitively without a way to compete in true neutrality. Note, this is no fault of the stages themselves. Stages are merely vessels in which matchups can exist. That being said…
What is a “starter?”... Typically, a “starter” is a symmetrical stage that is perceived to be “more neutral than not.” Unironically, this is more or less a sound logical proposition. But…
What is a “counter-pick?”... The term undoubtedly implies strategic disparity. Colloquially, it is the term used to refer to “polarizing stages.” A stage that is asymmetrical is not inherently neutral***.*** Given that, there is merit to the idea of classifying stages with asymmetrical characteristics as a “counter-pick.” However, given the aforementioned, we know that even symmetrical stages pose a gain or loss of advantage. The significance of this is twofold. For one, the polarity of stages as a means of classification is baseless because each and every stage is indistinguishable in the existence of poles. Two, the hypothetical validity of said classification is still weakened by the fact that the amount of polarization that stages impose is not empirically measurable and/or is largely conjecture because of the necessary addition of matchups.
The only clear threshold is symmetry versus asymmetry. Even so, when a system ensures each combatant is given equal opportunity to play on a stage that is as neutral as possible the idea of a “counter-pick” is rendered moot. This holds true even if the selection pool contains both symmetrical and asymmetrical candidates. Therefore, divisions of any kind in the stage list cannot be wholly objective and are unnecessary. In addition, a decision to diverge from an equalizing system is abstract and likely out of sync with competitive integrity.
“What do you propose?”
Twitter: BLVolition
Reddit: BLVolition
Discord: BLVolition#7448
Stage Election
A new voting based method for picking stages in competitive Super Smash Brothers.
Process:
Advantages Over Traditional Striking:
A Conundrum Explained
There are fruitful discussions going on about tournament viable stages in Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. These conversations have led me to the conclusion that the idea of “starters” and “counter-picks” is a social construct. This ideology seems to be gaining popularity but a concern of mine is people missing what is at the core of this school of thought. This text aims to hone in on that point.
Symmetry is inherently neutral. One cannot gain or lose anything as an effect of interfacing with identical aspects on any axis of something that is symmetrical. For example, any two points on the circumference of a perfect circle are equidistant from the center thus neither is at an advantage or disadvantage for their distance from it. There are many symmetrical stages in the Super Smash Brothers (SSB) series where for a time the prior-described analogy can be recreated. That is to say, symmetrical SSB stages have the theoretical capacity to be neutral. Nevertheless...
What causes a symmetrical SSB stage to lose its neutrality is the addition of an animate-asymmetrical-dichotomy. In other words, a “matchup.” Seeing as both a player and character matchup are needed to play a game of SSB we are definitively without a way to compete in true neutrality. Note, this is no fault of the stages themselves. Stages are merely vessels in which matchups can exist. That being said…
What is a “starter?”... Typically, a “starter” is a symmetrical stage that is perceived to be “more neutral than not.” Unironically, this is more or less a sound logical proposition. But…
What is a “counter-pick?”... The term undoubtedly implies strategic disparity. Colloquially, it is the term used to refer to “polarizing stages.” A stage that is asymmetrical is not inherently neutral***.*** Given that, there is merit to the idea of classifying stages with asymmetrical characteristics as a “counter-pick.” However, given the aforementioned, we know that even symmetrical stages pose a gain or loss of advantage. The significance of this is twofold. For one, the polarity of stages as a means of classification is baseless because each and every stage is indistinguishable in the existence of poles. Two, the hypothetical validity of said classification is still weakened by the fact that the amount of polarization that stages impose is not empirically measurable and/or is largely conjecture because of the necessary addition of matchups.
The only clear threshold is symmetry versus asymmetry. Even so, when a system ensures each combatant is given equal opportunity to play on a stage that is as neutral as possible the idea of a “counter-pick” is rendered moot. This holds true even if the selection pool contains both symmetrical and asymmetrical candidates. Therefore, divisions of any kind in the stage list cannot be wholly objective and are unnecessary. In addition, a decision to diverge from an equalizing system is abstract and likely out of sync with competitive integrity.
“What do you propose?”
- A single odd numbered list with no distinctions between “starters” and “counter-picks.”
- Stage Election
Twitter: BLVolition
Reddit: BLVolition
Discord: BLVolition#7448
Stage Election
A new voting based method for picking stages in competitive Super Smash Brothers.
Process:
- Rock, Paper, Scissors.
- Winner votes for a stage they want to play on.
- Loser agrees or denies. If the loser denies the stage is struck. Go to step 4.
- Loser votes for a stage they want to play on.
- Winner agrees or denies. If the winner denies the stage is struck.
- Repeat steps 2-5 until there is one stage left. Play on the leftover stage
Advantages Over Traditional Striking:
- Functionality only requires the stage list to be odd numbered.
- Speeds up stage selection with larger lists by virtue of functioning on agreements.
- Provides structure for lists void of the “starter” vs. “counter-pick” dynamic.
Last edited: