9 is an arbitrary, but ultimately prob pretty solid, number. Game 1 has to meet community standards of 'fairness', and that pretty much means 'stages we've already seen be neutrals in the past'. Keep in mind too, stage is picked
before character now.
So, and I fully acknowledge that I'm getting ahead of myself since we don't know exactly how stages are going to operate with hazards off (though we got a hellva clue in the direct today), I anticipate we start with something like:
-Battlefield
-Final Destination
-Yoshi’s Island
-Lylat Cruise
-Smashville
-Town and City
-Pokemon Stadium 1/2
There's 8 that are pretty much locks as is. This does assume a completely frozen Pokemon Stadium though. Could argue for several others, such as Dream Land or even Frigate but those run the issue of redundant stages and being perceived as 'less neutral' respectively.
Interestingly enough, we're also now free from another old restriction; neutral lists must be an odd number. Since we don't need to strike down to a single stage, we could easily do even numbers as well.
I don't see stage morphing working in the long run. We've already seen that players want the same stage layout throughout a match, and transformation stages have already been frowned upon.
Plus, even with using an agreed upon list of legal stages, morphing mid match could result in the next layout completely changing the favor from one fighter to another, which would make such a match unfair.
There has never been something like this before, we can't compare it to something like a transforming stage. Beyond that, the ones that have transformed have often times been legal and only cut because of a few problematic moments, such as a low blast zone during a transition or a temporary walkoff that got abused. Here, we solve both of those issues and are switching between two very fair stages on a predictable time table. It's about as sweet of a deal as we could hope for!
------
Second point that I've wanted to get out there, and just kinda touched on here some, is that we're going to have to keep with the previous neutral mentality. I'm also in full support of as large of a stage list as humanly possible, but let me outline why I maintain the former of these points a little more here.
Assume we do go ahead and make every single stage possible for game 1. There's one very, very key component to game 1 in particular that cannot be ignored, it has to
feel 'fair'. Pulling a random sample from a stage roster as bonkers large as we're likely to actually see be feasible here is going to lead to deviation from set to set, and that's going to lead to one player being more favored by the stages offered.
But, of course, you'll be quick to point out (and correct to do so), the current Neutral list does that already. But here's the key difference, people
feel that it's fair. You can make arguments as compelling as you'd like, with statistics and examples and damning evidence in your favor, but at the end of the day most players are going to want the 8 or so I've laid out above. Giving them something else might be better for them, sure, but forcing it upon them is not the way to get those horizons to broaden.
In particular here, Game 1 carries a ludicrous amount of weight. If two players of equal skill are in opposition, the deciding factor should boil down to the terrain. Game 2 is won by whoever counterpicked there, and Game 3 is won by the loser of Game 2. I won't act like that's how EVERY set goes, but I hope you can see how important making Game 1 as balanced as possible becomes when there are many sets that DO boil down to that exact exchange.
It is far from perfect, but it's what's going to make people excited to play this game.
