CoRNERIA

[CableCho57]

i like my list. it makes first match more balanced on almost every major mu. can u name a major mu where one character has a big advadtage on 2/3 or 3/3 of the neutrals i listed?

in the pound4 list, marth already has the first match in his favor. removing YS/FoD from neutrals doesnt make it unfair, it makes match 1 BALANCED. the first match should be in nobody's favor. the loser gets an advantage the second match.

boom. perfect stagelist. (sans RC maybe LOL)

Except adding corneria to cp list your stage list is exactly what I had in mind! I completely agree to the neutral stage list though but I like corneria bc of the low ceiling which can be a good cp to floaties.

 

[LumpyCPU...]

stadium and yoshi's aren't enough for low ceilings?

 

[soap]

wayne isn't enough for no ceilings?

 

[Nø Ca$h]

yeah instead of cruise it should be corny area. gives some chars a better chance vs jiggs. (anyone realise there isnt any CPs that gives a decent margin vs puff?corneria fixes that)

neutrals
FD
BF
DL64

counters
YS
FoD
PS
KJ64
Corneria

mbr where u at?

 

[Siglemic]

Corneria is so bad

it's the worst stage in the game

cosmo and i are best bros cause we agree on this

if spacies didn't exist

corneria would still be terrible

 

[Archangel]

i like my list. it makes first match more balanced on almost every major mu. can u name a major mu where one character has a big advadtage on 2/3 or 3/3 of the neutrals i listed?

in the pound4 list, marth already has the first match in his favor. removing YS/FoD from neutrals doesnt make it unfair, it makes match 1 BALANCED. the first match should be in nobody's favor. the loser gets an advantage the second match.

boom. perfect stagelist. (sans RC maybe LOL)

I see where you are coming from but even without YS or FOD still doesn't mean it'll be balanced. I like DL64 but I think it is in favor of characters like Puff, Peach, WeeGee, Characters that need to can live longer do to Dreamland DI and the floatier or character that can DI up and survive the best will probably end up winning match 1. FD isn't exactly fair because of CGing BS. Battlefield Is good mostly but its pretty lame for spacies who have to go straight up into ****/gimp or whatever is waiting for them as well as it is for characters who have trouble sweetspotting as it is.

Basically my point is no matter removing neutrals will still probably lead to someone still getting screwed anyway. IF! however you are going to implement such a rule-set then you'd have to make a chart for stages and depending on who was playing what character the first stage would be already decided. That stage would be the most even stage for those characters. In the event of Dittos all Stages neutrals would be on because....it doesn't matter.

 

[_wzrd]

So, i saw something interesting in a Euro-regional thread...

they were polling each of the controversial (brawl) levels.

Either Banned, or Counterpick

couldn't we do this for mute city, corneria, brinstar, rainbow cruise etc?

 

[Archangel]

That is probably the greatest idea posted in this thread. The only problem is what if all stages are voted out or the ones voted out left an extreme advantage in CPs for some characters.

 

[_wzrd]

this is true.

i don't think everything would be voted out.

well yes, i suppose you are correct about the second point, but that is what this whole argument has been about...people complaining that certain stages are unfair. not much will be solved with arguing, because like this game for every option you have there is at least another option(argument) to cover it.

if this were run somewhat like a democracy and the majority rules I feel like it would be as fair as it could get. i don't really think any individual opinion should outweigh another, no matter how much clout certain smashers may have.

though if it were disputably close, we could hold another discussion, or members of the backroom could discuss it and decide.

we could do this say every 6 months to a year, to ensure that it represents the currently active tournament goers opinions.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

at spam arrows: thats why each player strikes one neutral for match 1. no MU (except for maybe one-sided topish vs bottomish tier MU) has all 2 or 3 of the starters in deep favor of one character. each player strikes one of the 2 stages and is left with the most even stage for the MU.

and in dittos striking should stay due to bias and lack of skill/experience of certain neutrals.

 

[Mokumo]

In exchange for what neutral becoming counter pick or visa versa? Stage striking is a fun what to pick a first stage. We need an odd number of stages for it. Or how else should the first stage be decided?

just hit random.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

and the contriversal stage poll should be done routinely because the metagame changes. diferent chars become "broken".

Neutrals
FD
BF
DL64

counters
FoD
YS
KJ64
corneria/mute city/brinstar/rainbow cruise (routinely being voted on to prevent one character being broken, and also to start a very healthy metagame)

 

[LumpyCPU...]

don't add corneria. it's a fun stage for a lot of people but with out a lot of the other cps on it's by far the most broken stage on that list.

i wouldn't mind if every first match could be played on battlefield.
lol too bad it's good for marth vs fox. every stage is good for someone.
every first match in a set is prolly slightly in someone's favor.

i say first match you play on battlefield everytime.
so it's not great for fox/falco's recovery. they're amazingly good characters even on battlefield.

my point is there is going to have to be some settling because nothing will ever be perfectly balanced.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

maybe to make the CPelects not too broken it should only be allowd to be played once a set at most..

and BF prolly is the most balanced stage overall, but if each player gets a strike on my neutral list, the most balanced stage for the matchup is left remaining. BF isnt the most balanced stage for EVERY matchup.

 

[victra♥]

for the most part BF seems like the most neutral out of all the other neutrals.

I remember back when we first implemented stage striking, BF ended up showing up a lot. IIRC.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

i changed my mind FoD should be one of my 3 starters instead of DL64. 2 large stages would support camping.

 

[LumpyCPU...]

fod, fd, bf.

that sounds fine to me, but a lot of people hate battlefield and fod. lol

 

[victra♥]

that looks good to me imo.

since DL and YS are kind of polar opposites of each other, and they're both taken out.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

fod, fd, bf.

that sounds fine to me, but a lot of people hate battlefield and fod. lol

then they should learn one of them. people need to realise this isnt about what the player prefer.

 

[john!]

It might be good to just dump the idea of counterpick stages altogether. They put too much emphasis on the first game. Like, if you lose the first game and your opponent has a sufficiently unfair counterpick stage after your ban, then the set is basically over. So you'd start the first game with stage striking (FD, BF, FoD, DL, YS, KJ64, PS), going 122112 or maybe 121221, then the winner bans a stage and the loser picks from the 7 "neutrals" (although now there are simply "legal" and "illegal" stages). You could have 9 legal stages (including RC and BS) but that might be too much.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

the problem with that is if character has the majority of stages in his favor then he gets a favorable stage in the first match. and it would make tournament sets take longer lol.

no character has a significant margin in 2/3 stages i listed.(FD, FoD, BF)

 

[LumpyCPU...]

not to mention the time it takes to strike 9 stages.

a lot of people don't even stage strike with 5 because it takes to long so they just go random.

3 is great. you strike one, they strike one, then you play your match.

i like this idea a lot. i'll try to push it at our next local tourney.

choose between fd, fod, and bf.
then from there on you counter pick from fd, fod, bf, dl, ys, ps, and kj.

this is... good. i like it.

 

[john!]

the problem with that is if character has the majority of stages in his favor then he gets a favorable stage in the first match. and it would make tournament sets take longer lol.

no character has a significant margin in 2/3 stages i listed.(FD, FoD, BF)

In any matchup, one character will always have an advantage on more neutral stages (an odd number), so the stage chosen will benefit them. But the more neutral stages there are, the less of a chance someone can get screwed over by a large disadvantage. 3 neutrals means that you're screwed if two of them happen to put you at a disadvantage. 7 neutrals means that the one finally agreed upon will be at least decent for both characters, and as close to fair as you can get.

Also, without counterpicks, people won't have to ask what the counterpick stages are, and they will be more familiar with the stages that are allowed, so it will actually take less time. Maybe strike one or two each out of the 7, then hit random... it would still be more fair than only having 3 stages for the first game, the most pivotal one.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

between FD, FoD, and BF the advantages/disadvantages are small. no character gets totally screwed over. no matter what one character will have a stage advantage. the thing is that these 3 stages usually give a very small advantage. when they do give a big advantage, that stage is striked. no MU has 2/3 of those stages at a big advantage/disadvantage.

it will also help reduce stage bias, promoting a healthier metagame.

just think about it. this can contribute to an amazing idea.

 

[john!]

a 3 stage strike can never produce a fairer stage than a 7 stage strike. the only reason to do 3 is time constraints... but doing 7 only takes about a minute per set. also i think it's presumptuous to assume that no matchup in the game has a noticeable advantage for one character on 2 of the 3 stages. if one stage is your opponent's best, and another stage is your worst, then you're screwed because you only have one ban. furthermore, the player to strike first will be at a disadvantage, if each person only gets one strike. a 3 stage strike just isn't viable imo.

 

[LumpyCPU...]

it's never going to be 50/50.
tourney sets are almost never won by stage advantage alone.

you say it only takes a minute per set.
well i'd rather just play random than take a full minute to choose the first stage.

3 stage with striking is a viable system, imo.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

thats why you have to learn how to play the stage to your characters potential. if its personally your worst stage/personally your opponents best stage than its your fault for being ill prepared/his fault for being well prepared. character to character speaking the stage picked will be fair. learn to play the stage and the problem is solved.

 

[john!]

lumpy, i'm just saying it's the best choice in the interest of fairness, not time. you can't deny that 7 stages to select from is more fair than 3.

lunar, you're just telling me basically "suck it up and deal with unfair stages". that's not really a solution lol. we're trying to make it as fair as possible here.

 

[Vro]

I actually agree with a 3 stage strike system. However, I believe FD and FoD are too polar and least neutral of the normal neutrals we play on. I was thinking of something along the lines of DL, BF, and YS/PS. Call me crazy but I think the triple plats are pretty fair, with the exception of Yoshi's being incredibly small and similar to BF.

Seriously FD is sometimes too one sided with chaingrabs being so easy. If only we could move the **** shy guys from YS to FD...

 

[Mokumo]

i like that striking system too. each player chooses which neutral stage they definitely dont want to play on, and then just hit random and play your match. after the first game, the winner bans any legal stage and then the loser counterpicks.

its like, this is how its always been. its totally reasonable.

 

[EPsilon933]

Random idea I just thought of that people probably have already thought of:

You know how Mute City and Brinstar are too good for Jilggypuff and Peach? What if the winner of the previous game gets to strike two stages? Would that legalize Mute City?

 

[LumpyCPU...]

lumpy, i'm just saying it's the best choice in the interest of fairness, not time. you can't deny that 7 stages to select from is more fair than 3.

it has potential to be "more fair" in some scenarios.

consider a match up where one character has 5 stages that would be good for them and the other character has only 3 (fox vs dk or some crap. lol). the first character gets to strike all the bad stages for himself leaving only good stages left for himself. still not fair. takes way longer. your average player would prolly just go random and skip the process.

going random with 1 random reset is great already. if you want to change it, it should be more balanced AND just as convenient. imo.

I actually agree with a 3 stage strike system. However, I believe FD and FoD are too polar and least neutral of the normal neutrals we play on. I was thinking of something along the lines of DL, BF, and YS/PS. Call me crazy but I think the triple plats are pretty fair, with the exception of Yoshi's being incredibly small and similar to BF.

Seriously FD is sometimes too one sided with chaingrabs being so easy. If only we could move the **** shy guys from YS to FD...

yeah. we could do a big vote. lol

LUNAR, make a pole thread for your idea so you're not stuck in teh corneria thread.

(actually, i didn't check if you already had a thread made lol)

Random idea I just thought of that people probably have already thought of:

You know how Mute City and Brinstar are too good for Jilggypuff and Peach? What if the winner of the previous game gets to strike two stages? Would that legalize Mute City?

i think it's cool, but i don't like having 14 stages legalized.

personally, i'm not a huge fan of enough stages being legal to utilize two stage bans.

 

[SpiderBubble]

If the average player just goes random, then it doesn't matter how many neutral stages there are, since they clearly don't care enough about which stage they play on.

I really wish more stages came back though: Brinstar, Corneria, and Mute City come to mind. So what if they're good for Peach/Jiggs/Fox? Just means it's a better counterpick. It also forces people to learn the matchup on those stages, so it's not like they can't adapt.

And there's always stage banning...

 

[LumpyCPU...]

the thing with mute and corn is that they become auto bans.
i don't like that.

the concept of counter picking annoys me.
it's a shame there isn't a super balanced/fair stage for all characters so we could just play on that stage in tournament and the rest for friendlies. lol

 

[Nø Ca$h]

i dont feel like making a poll atm.. maybe tommorow. summer school sucks do your work kids.

john: im not saying deal with an unfair stage. im saying these stages arent unfair. name a MU that 2 of the stages are unfair for one of the characters. if FD is too one sided for camping then strike it. fod and battle field are too small to give a camping advantage.