Currently there is a move towards a more conservative ruleset in Super Smash Bros. Melee. To those who represent this faction, elements that they perceive to be random or unknown skew gameplay in such a way that is undesirable and thus deserve to be banned. Only stages that are “fair” enough to be classified as a starter stage should be kept in play, with some stages like Stadium being on that threshold.
However, we respectfully disagree. We believe counterpicks offer an added level of strategy, depth, and fun to our beloved game, for several reasons.
In order to ban a stage, one must set clear criteria as to what constitutes the crossing the threshold of brokenness that is applied evenly across the board. Here is what we present;
a. Bans should be applied when one single strategy or character dominates the game: example would be running away on Hyrule, or Fox on Termina.
b. Glitches or obstacles that impede gameplay: falling through Brinstar Depths, for example.
c. Decreasing randomness that highly impacts the game: example being the tools on Flat Zone.
Some randomness is acceptable; we don’t ban DreamLand because Whispy blows, or ban Peach or Game & Watch because of their respective attacks. KishPrime calls this the “Turnip Threshold” and it is a great standard for determining what extent of randomness competitive players will allow.
The stages that are currently classified as “counterpicks” such as Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise (as well as some of those that are widely classified as banned) do not meet any of these criteria. The reasons for their being banned are largely born out of animus, fear, and a lack of familiarity with these stages; if people played on them half as much as they do on Stadium, which is technically a counterpick, they’d be more inclined to understand the tricks and patterns of these stages. With this framework, there is no logical reason to ban these stages, people just didn’t like them or the Falcon players complained that their character didn’t benefit from counterpicks, so no one should. However, just because they shouldn’t be banned does not mean they should be the all-important first match of a set, because they do skew matchups slightly more than we desire.
Additionally, counterpicks serve as a buffer between what constitutes a banned stage and a starter stage. It encourages players to think outside of the 5 or so starter stages, promoting creativity and growth. Some counterpicks are rather simple, yes, but sometimes you have the instances like MLG Anaheim, where Ken counterpicked PC to Mute City; ingenuity and creativity should be rewarded. One of the reasons we have stuck with Melee is the depth and options it offers; banning stages you don’t like is just further stripping the carcass from what we were given without a warrant. Having counterpicks also offers and additional level of strategy in regards to the stage ban; where to use it, what style does my opponent benefit from, etc.
Finally, removing the concept of counterpicks – and therefore striking from all legal stages – would be a waste of time in our opinion. Stage striking already benefits those characters who work well on a variety of stages. Adding more stages into the starter mix basically ensures that those characters never have to play on the current starters that they are weak on, as generally both players will strike the “counterpick” stages in their strikings. This not only adds more time to tournaments, but would not result in a significant change in the stages being played first round. Lastly, in removing the distinguishment between counterpick and starter, you are forced to then have an odd number of legal stages for stage striking to be fair. This seems counterintuitive to the goal of achieving the absolute best ruleset possible. The best ruleset could have 6, 8, or 10 stages legal. Limiting the possibility of the number of legal stages to an odd number just to remove counterpicks is arbitrary at best. Status quo is not broken, there’s no need to fix it; the current system offers a variety of stages that allow for a relatively neutral battleground for deciding match one, with plenty of options to compensate for playstyle and player preferences.
TL;DR
a. Counterpicks offer a unique opportunity for player inventiveness while not harming the skill-based tests that tournaments offer
b. Removing the concept of counterpicks is pointless when considering the tendency of players as well as forcing an arbitrary stage number
c. Status quo is good, no reason to change
