Full Stage List Striking - New name

[SuSa]

EDIT:

IGNORE THIS OP, READ PAST FEW CURRENT PAGES OF DISCUSSION INSTEAD


Until I can get a summary from each side of the argument (which seems to change every 5-10 pages) there won't be a relevant OP.

Read the OP if you wish, but please note it has little to do with current discussion.

Currently, this is how a full stage striking system would work:

Full stage list, no currently banned stages + Pipes is banned. (It's a tough choice for the 1 stage to remove for a 21 stage list and this is where some discrepancies could occur... but I find pipes the least liked by the community as far as the current legal stages go)

That said, I don't believe Pipes is banworthy - it's just what I'd ban to have a 21 stage list... ban whatever stage you like. Alternatively you can "unban" 1 stage as well.

Stages:
Game 1 will have both characters strike down until a single stage has been chosen. Each player get's 10 strikes.

Currently, since I'm bad with striking logic, I don't know the most efficient (but fairest) way to strike would be... so I'd go with:

Player with lower port strikes 5 stages first.
Opponent strikes 5 stages.
Player with lower port strikes 3 stages.
Opponent strikes 3 stages.
Player with lower port strikes 1 stage.
Opponent strikes 1 stage.
Player with lower port strikes 1 stage.
Opponent strikes 1 stage.

So 5-3-1-1. I know there is a better way, but I'm to stupid to figure it out. =P

It's done this way for efficiency, although I'm also deciding on if It should be 3-3-2-1-1.... little slower but how your opponent strikes will effect your strikes (so optimally 1 by 1 would be the best IMO... but that's just... time consuming)

So once only 1 stage remains, that's the stage for Game 1.

Characters are decided before the stage and of course can be double-blind picked if requested.

So there's game 1.

3. The first game is played, using the stage chosen during step 2.

4. Each player may announce three stages to be banned for counterpicks of the set.

5. The winner of the previous match chooses their character.

6. The loser of the previous match chooses their character. **

7. The loser of the previous match announces the next match's stage from the Stage List *

8. Repeat steps 5-7 for all proceeding matches.


OPTIONAL:
*May not be a banned stage, is chosen AFTER characters due to the optional rule of Step 6.

**If the loser switches characters, the winner is allowed to switch which 3 stages are banned. This is to ensure that the loser does not start off as a character to try and trick you into not banning stages easily abusable by another. EG: Losing as Yoshi only to switch to MK and play Brinstar

So the only real modification is the stage list, game 1, and the # of bans (due to such a large stage list)

Again 3 bans is the number that me and a few people I spoke to deemed to be fair to avoid any "sure win" stages. The goal of the full stage list is to not break characters and allow Wario to ALWAYS get a CP he's practically guaranteed a win at if he plays correctly.

The stage list (Striking the way you do + # of bans) does it's best to avoid degenerative gameplay.

** is optional, seeing as the goal of a full stage list is to NOT heavily favor any 1 character starting Game 1, and to NOT give any character a "sure win" on a STRONG counterpick.

The counterpick system is in place to give you an advantage, not to give you a free win.

Characters are chosen before the stage, just like Game 1. This allows you to CP your opponent based on matchup - but since they have more bans and can change their 3 bans if you swap characters, you cannot easily abuse this system.

:leek:

END EDIT

If you are currently staff, read this next bit - as it concerns you.

Spoiler

After speaking with forum support I was told my last thread was closed because of a specific paragraph. I asked if I removed said paragraph, if I could post the thread. I was given the OK. Just to be on the safer side however, I removed further parts and even changed how one part was worded just to be safe. If this thread is closed due to the content in the original post - I was lied to by an admin. That wouldn't look good, now would it?

Now on with the debate!

The Counterpick System is NOT competitive​

____________________________________________

Part 1 - Stages​

Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

Why does this matter?

The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the weakening of an opponent competitive?

___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters​

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's essentially because we are living a double standard.

Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to further changes taking place.

With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent, is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.

With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the better player.

_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems​

When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.

In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.

Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.

The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our competitive rules need to be relooked at.

Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.

Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.

We are to keep the system, or fix the system? Are we competitive? Or do we care about balance?

_____________________________________________________
The TL;DR​

This is about the counterpick system, and how it's not competitive. Read it.

 

[Luxor]

The current system is kind of like Rock/Paper/Scissors would be if Rock beat Paper- why wouldn't you go Rock?

I'm not really persuaded about the stage CP system being anticompetitive. In an ideal world, we would probably play every game on a totally neutral stage, i.e. one that had no impact on the MATCH-UP itself. The stage might have ELEMENTS that impact the gameplay, but the stage itself would favor neither character. (Short digression before someone says we should play every game on FD.)

As it is though, no totally neutral stage exists for Brawl. How do we reach the point where the stages have minimized impact on the set?
For Game 1, we use the starters, a list of stages that are seen as balanced, not far removed from the ideal 50:50 stage impact on the game. The matchup itself may not be 50:50- in MK vs. Ganon, Norfair is a fairly neutral stage, giving them both big advantages, but MK will still win 80:20- but the stage will favor neither one (Norfair isn't on MK's side, MK is on MK's side). For Game 1 we choose a set of stages that, in most matchups, are around the even mark. Stage striking strikes off the extremeties (which are different in every character vs. character AND player vs. player matchup) so Game 1, theoretically, ideally, approaches a stage with little to no impact on the matchup. Usually this is Battlefield or Lylat or something.

But what about Game 2? This is where it gets tricky. We could, of course, use the stage Game 1 was played on as a precedent for the most "neutral" stage for that matchup and play every game there. However, it's still not exactly 50:50 impact-wise, no stage is. Clearly, to bring the average stage bias in a set down to 50:50, we need a stage slightly in the disadvantaged character's favor. How do we know which character is disadvantaged? We don't. Instead, we go by the disadvantaged player + character combination, the loser. You could also just call it a handicap for the inferior player.

I'm going to make a few quick assumptions here.
1. Every character benefits from CPs equally/has equally strong CPs. Not really true, will address.
2. Let's call the first stage 55:45 in Player 1's favor, his opponent's CP as 30:70, and his as 70:30, influence-wise, not overall matchup-wise.

Now, if the Player 2 the G1 loser loses G2 as well, P1 won despite an overall stage disadvantage and clearly deserves to win the set. The "average" for the set was 42.5:57.5 in his opponent's favor, and he still won. No ambiguities here, he's better.
What if the set goes to Game 3? Well, the two CPs of equal strength, one for each player, essentially offset each other, leaving the 'neutral' as the most important match. However, simply having more chances to win evens out the impact of stages. The 'average' for the set in this case is 51.7:48.3- better than the 55:45 you get playing 3 games on only the one stage closest to neutral. Having a larger sample size of stages evens out "wiggles" by cancelling them out with wigglse in the opposite direction. What if a player lost on a neutral, barely won on his CP, and managed to solidly win on their opponent's CP? If all 3 games were played on a 'neutral,' he would lose 1 and 2 (assuming he played at the same skill level each game) and only win Game 3. Rather philosophical which one is better, I suppose, and I'm not sure if you're supporting playing every match on a starter or what, so I'm sure I'm misrepresenting your argument but whatever.

Notes:
1. Even in theory, there is no such thing as a "neutral" stage, much less in practice. "Neutral" is a subjective, relative term. I could say Brinstar is neutral and everything more grounded than that, like BF/SV/FD and everything, is simply a very polarized stage and strong CP and Sakurai happened to make a lot of those stages. Perhaps MK/G&W/Wario are simply better characters for performing well on a neutral stage like Brinstar, shame on Diddy and Co. for only doing well on ridiculous, grounded stages. I could say Brinstar has no effect on Diddy vs. MK and I'd be correct. Where you want to draw the line as to where a stage helps/hurts both characters evenly is 1000% subjective. In Brawl we have to take a somewhat constructivist mindset to actively balance the game by drawing the line at X (around Battlefieldish/Lylatish) rather than at Y (Brinstar lol). This game has no absolutes other than those we thrust upon it.
2. Not every character has equally strong CPs. Does this break the counterpick system? I don't believe so. First off, a stage ban goes a long way to alleviating this- bringing both sides' counterpicks "one step back" and closer to the median helps erase crazy outliers like DK on Japes where the stage just helps him immensely more than anywhere else. Let's say that after bans, Game 1 between two characters is on a 50:50 stage, G2 is on a 30:70 stage, and G3 is on a 60:40 stage. One character has a significantly stronger CP than the other. 46.7:53.3 stage impact on average, one character definitely helped. The argument for why it's OK to help out one group of strong-CP-having characters like this while abandoning chars with weak CPs is that having strong CPs is an inherent aspect of character design. DK deserves to do well on ridiculously large stages, he's built that way. MK was built to abuse CPs, therefore he should be allowed to abuse strong CPs on his CPs. If he's too strong, ban him/ban the stage as overcentralizing. I'm not taking a stand on MK here, I should have inserted Wario on Brinstar here or something. Should Wario be prevented from going to Brinstar just because, as part of his character design, he does ridiculously there?
3. There is a fine line between strong CP and overcentralizing, unwinnable CP, and this line is blurry and subjective.
4. No character should be "good" on starters, or be positively impacted by starters. Starters are approximations of neutrals after stage striking. Therefore, after stage striking eliminates the stronger options for both sides, one character should not be significantly better on the resulting stage than the other. Kind of conflicts with (1), but think of this as after you draw the line. If we decide BF is a relatively strong ICs stage, they should not go there as a starter since the very idea of a starter is to benefit both sides equally, and it (in this example) favors ICs.
5. This stuff is all philosophical and rational arguments fail.




All that being said, I'd legitimately like to here how you'd like to reform the system. I kind of defended the current one, but I'd love to hear your ideas.
/walloftextandmassiverambling

 

[SuSa]

I'll say this right now.

I was not expecting a single wall of text as a reply to my wall of text. SIGHHHH

*gets reading; decides after your first point that I will use my pre-made counter claim*

I also think the first match should be decided like this - and the loser is decided by flipping a coin. [I find port so unfair, as that goes into RPS and for the below, you actually WANT TO LOSE]

List of Legal Stages --> Strike System in which the Loser strikes 1/2 the stages --> Winner strikes 1/4th of remaining stages --> Loser Strikes 1/4th of remaining stages --> Winner strikes all but 3 stages --> Loser picks stage from one of said 3 stages.

Of course the amount of strikes would need to be worked out to best fit stage lists, so the 1/2 1/4th stuff was made up as an example.

Why is this more fair?
The winner has an oppurtunity to remove any very serious counterpicks against them. They can remove the largest threats (EG: Taking IC's to Rainbow Cruise) while leaving some others. The loser then gets to remove any serious counterpicks that the winner had left in hopes to play on. This should leave a small amount for the winner to then remove for the loser to choose from.

This means each can remove the other's strongest stages, and possibly even any counterpick stages. This also allows a stage to be chosen fairly, seeing as both of them want as fair of a fight as possible - but this still allows the loser to gain some advantage. However it's far less than if they had chosen with our current system.

Our current system let's characters like Snake choose from two of their OMFG AMAZING stages, and if you ban one - they just go the other. It's that easy. Either way you are screwed. The above method makes the matches more competitive, by leveling out the playing field.

 

[Veel]

Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

It's a moot point but... they are both the same factor... describing a glass of milk as half full and then half empty doesn't give you two separate glasses of milk.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

You cannot look at the aspects of the counter picking system separate and then just merge them; it gives an inaccurate picture of reality. For example: this would be a valid and significant point IF the stage was chosen after both players chose their characters. Why do I say this? One can merely choose a character that is good for a stage and doesn't have any hard counters; when you take this into account this rule allows the loser to set the pace of the next match but doesn't give them an overwhelming advantage.

Yet the loser is given an advantage: is this uncompetitive? If this all the rule accomplishes, then yes, it would be. However the rule does more than this. It creates another aspect of the game in that it rewards players for knowing multiple characters and taking risks in predicting what characters the opponent can and is willing to use.

I would argue that any rule that adds depth to general tournament play without actually altering the literal game play is a a useful rule, a safe rule, and a competitive rule.

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight?

Following my line of thoughts the argument is still the same. It doesn't intrude into the game and gimp characters nor does it exist expressly to make some characters more viable (but this is a consequence.) It adds a deeper level of strategy and allows more options in character choice without actually going in changing the game to make the character better: The point being your skill at the game remains the chief determinant in this system while the limited viability of certain characters exists as a bi-product.

The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system

I do not remember the BBR ever announcing this and I immediately doubt the accuracy of this statement; however I am somewhat of a dumb *** and human so I could be wrong.

Could I bother you to link your source(s)?

EVERYTHING ELSE

The rest of your argument that MK supersedes the counter pick system and thus breaks it appears to be a valid argument and not something I really considered til I read this thread (Thank you.) Yet if the system provides value in non-MK match-ups and does not effect MK dittos I don't see the problem with the system.

Also I would like to question your notion that any unnecessary part of the rule set is inherently bad. Take For example the time out clause. We don't need it, we could use sudden death and tournaments would technically still exist. The point being that rules can have uses aside from creating the absolute minimum requirements for a competitive tournament.

 

[SuSa]

It's a moot point but... they are both the same factor... describing a glass of milk as half full and then half empty doesn't give you two separate glasses of milk.

Least someone noticed that.

You cannot look at the aspects of the counter picking system separate and then just merge them; it gives an inaccurate picture of reality. For example: this would be a valid and significant point IF the stage was chosen after both players chose their characters. Why do I say this? One can merely choose a character that is good for a stage and doesn't have any hard counters; when you take this into account this rule allows the loser to set the pace of the next match but doesn't give them an overwhelming advantage.

Uhm. Restate your example please, I don't think I'm reading it properly.

Yet the loser is given an advantage: is this uncompetitive? If this all the rule accomplishes, then yes, it would be. However the rule does more than this. It creates another aspect of the game in that it rewards players for knowing multiple characters and taking risks in predicting what characters the opponent can and is willing to use[/u.

Please note the underlined, and explain to me in any way how that is any more competitive than picking something at random.

Following my line of thoughts the argument is still the same. It doesn't intrude into the game and gimp characters nor does it exist expressly to make some characters more viable (but this is a consequence.) It adds a deeper level of strategy and allows more options in character choice without actually going in changing the game to make the character better: The point being your skill at the game remains the chief determinant in this system while the limited viability of certain characters exists as a bi-product.

It does intrude on the game, and it gimps the top tier characters. Without the counterpick system, many characters would simply be unviable. Why? Because of their matchups with _________ from the top/high tiers. By allowing counterpicks - you are nerfing the top tier by making certain ones of them have to deal with low-tier-but-even/disadvantage matchups. Is this neccessarily bad? That's something you have to look into our community for. It's a standard in the community to allow counterpicks - so many people would see this as a "good nerf"; but that doesn't change that it is, in fact, a nerf.

With a counterpick system, the number of viable characters rises. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but we don't just add rules to make characters more viable. If we did that, there would be a few more rules in place.

I do not remember the BBR ever announcing this and I immediately doubt the accuracy of this statement; however I am somewhat of a dumb *** and human so I could be wrong.

Could I bother you to link your source(s)?

I should restate (and fix that) sentence to say many BBR members state he breaks the counterpick system (although it isn't honestly anything any one of the could deny... it's a widely accepted fact that having no counterpicks breaks a counterpick system...) and if I have some freetime I'll go find links, although they are scattered around all over the place. Would be easier to just ask a few BBR members yourself.

The rest of your argument that MK supersedes the counter pick system and thus breaks it appears to be a valid argument and not something I really considered til I read this thread (Thank you.) Yet if the system provides value in non-MK match-ups and does not effect MK dittos I don't see the problem with the system.

Also I would like to question your notion that any unnecessary part of the rule set is inherently bad. Take For example the time out clause. We don't need it, we could use sudden death and tournaments would technically still exist. The point being that rules can have uses aside from creating the absolute minimum requirements for a competitive tournament.

It doesnt effect MK dittos, because how do you effect a ditto with counterpicks? Although if competitive play wants to avoid overcentralization - you don't want the only good/fair/even matchup you can always get; be Meta Knight.

Also - the time out clause is to ensure tournaments run on time. I do not agree with how they are done (1 stock, 3 minutes) seeing as Lucario get's a nerf from this (compared to his 3 stocks) due to how his Aura works. However timeouts don't happen that often and I've yet to see a Lucario get timed out.

Sudden Death is not competitive due to the random Bob-omb factor. Nobody should lose a set because a Bob-omb decided it wanted to spawn right on top of their character.

Having a time out clause is existant because we have a timer. A timer is needed to make sure tournaments run in a course of allotted time. Without this, some tournaments may not finish on time and lose their venue. No venue = no tournament = no winners = no competition = needed for competition = timer = timer clause.

Follow that train of thought?

 

[DanGR]

Hmmmmmm...

Define "competitive."

 

[SuSa]

well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition

10000chars.

 

[Teh Future]

go away susa

 

[napZzz]

i'm really disappointed that you would type this

 

[DanGR]

10000chars.

As far as I'm concerned, Brawl is already pretty "competitive" by that definition.
Perhaps you're looking for a different word?

Also, I fail to see how counterpicking stages and characters are any more "uncompetitive" than picking options your opponent isn't familiar with.

 

[SuSa]

As far as I'm concerned, Brawl is already pretty "competitive" by that definition.
Perhaps you're looking for a different word?

Also, I fail to see how counterpicking stages and characters are any more "uncompetitive" than picking options your opponent isn't familiar with.

I can be totally familiar with Rainbow Cruise and Meta Knight, but if I'm a character who can't handle Rainbow Cruise that's not going to make a difference at all. Now is it?

 

[DanGR]

I can be totally familiar with Rainbow Cruise and Meta Knight, but if I'm a character who can't handle Rainbow Cruise that's not going to make a difference at all. Now is it?

So stop picking bad characters and just pick Metaknight.

Problem solved.

 

[SuSa]

And that's one of the problems with our counterpick system.

 

[DanGR]

And that's one of the problems with Metaknight.

Fixed.

ANYWAYS...

 

[saviorslegacy]

Wall of text! 0_0

 

[Luxor]

Extra stage bans would work, or removing all the strong CPs in the name of balance. Or having an extra conservative ruleset.
Man, I wish we had win % data for MK on SV and on RC/Brinstar. It really is hard to qualitatively say "MK + RX = 2gud, ban." Best character + strong but not OP CP = OP character + stage combo? Does RC help MK more or less than FD helps Falco, taking into account that MK is better to begin with? I'd love to balance the game by stage choice, but without data it's kind of hopeless IMO. Easier to ban MK than collect all the data needed to see how to balance him.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BTW, removing all the strong CPs in the game includes FD, SV, and potentially BF. The problem with the idea of "removing strong CPs" is that every stage is a strong CP for someone.

 

[Luxor]

PS2 lol, but otherwise yep. Extra ban(s) would work the best out of those options.

 

[Dark Sonic]

BTW, removing all the strong CPs in the game includes FD, SV, and potentially BF. The problem with the idea of "removing strong CPs" is that every stage is a strong CP for someone.

Well, that could be handled by having a more liberal stage list to begin with (with a good variety of stages, rather than multiples of a similar stage type) and just allowing the PLAYERS to whittle down the stages.


Characters that do better on more stages are typically better characters.


But I'm sure you know this since you made a thread about it. This post is mostly just for randoms to read and to hopefully incite some serious thought on the matter.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

There... really is no such thing as a "neutral", per se, stage, and there never will be, so long as characters remain, well, different.

If, say, every character on the character select screen was Metaknight, then we could very, very easily have "neutral" stages. However, even given the fact that there may be one -profitable- playstyle for a character, this still wouldn't create "neutral" stages, as the players themselves might have their own little quirks in the character's playstyle. So, obviously, you must see what I'm getting at: there will never be such thing as a "neutral" stage, every stage is, in essence, a counterpick.

So, elaborating on that, what exactly makes us, as players, make distinctions between "neutral" and counterpick stages? Well, for one, we generally consider a "neutral", or starter stage, as a stage that has no additional impediments or elements that will tip the balance in either players' favor. But again, that's impossible, because of the simple fact that different characters have different playstyles that function best on different types of terrain. Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville are not, in any way, elegible to be considered as "neutral" in this sense.

So again, why do we consider them as such? As far as I can see, it because they're flat. Yep, pretty much. We associate "plainness" with "balance". We assume that no character will have the upper hand assisted by the stage, or at the very least, that both characters will have a near equal amount of advantages from the stage.

But is it really that way? Of course not. Let's take two characters that are at the moment at the top of the tier list, Falco and Metaknight, and two stages where they generally do well, Final Destination and Rainbow Cruise. We know that on Rainbow Cruise, Metaknight will have the advantage, because he has a heavily aerial game, which this stage encourages and centralizes. Even though Falco has the best first jump in the cast, his aerials are not spectacular, and he has very low manoeuverability. Metaknight, on the other hand, may have an average jump, but he has multiple jumps. He also has better control over his direction in the air, and has very quick, useful aerials and specials. I don't think I need to elaborate more, I was just making a point. Metaknight has a very large advantage on this stage, and on top of that, the stage scrolls around, which instantly made it a counterpick.

Now, let's examine Final Destination. Not much to say here. A basic, flat playing field, with no platforms, no formations, the standard two ledges, etc. This is a stage that supports camping and chaingrabbing, both of which Falco excels at already. There is nothing to interrupt a chaingrab, it does not favor aerial gameplay, and lets his lasers move across the length of the field uninhibited. We can safely assume that Falco gets advantages on this stage. But, then, why is it considered a "neutral" stage by the vast majority of the community? Why does the Brawl Back Room consider it a starter stage? Why not a counterpick? Aside from Falco, other characters whose metagames rely heavily on either chaingrabbing or camping excel here. Furthermore, Metaknight still has a decent chance of outplaying Falco on Final Destination. Falco may do better, but the stage does not tip the scale all the way over in his favor. Metaknight still has a considerable advantage. Again, why is this considered a "neutral" or starter then, if Metaknight can play just as well here and can outplay other characters here?

I have a vague idea of what some people might be thinking now. "This doesn't relate to the thread." Hold on, I'm getting there. "You used a counterpick in your first example, you rendered your whole elaborantation moot."

Well, let's take a look at Battlefield. Basically a smaller Final Destination, except is has three platforms, one on either extremity and one high above the center. Does this seem a tad familiar to you? If you think about it, it somewhat resembles the first stage of Rainbow Cruise, the boat. There is once difference though, that being that the boat has a wall. Anyhow, we can safely say that Battlefield is a sort of frozen Rainbow Cruise. It still promotes aerial playstyles because of the platforms. It does not favor chaingrabbing, camping, or grounded playstyles as much. Again, I'd say it's not too far of a stretch to say Battlefield is a locked version of Rainbow Cruise. All it lacks is a constant generation and destruction of platforms, and alternating blastlines. Metaknight still has a great advantage over Falco here. So, why is Battlefield not a counterpick?

What I'm getting at: sure, the counterpick system might not be competitive, but it's here to stay, and it will never, by your definition, be competitive. I see adding extra strikes as a possible solution to this problem, without having to make a mess of changing stages into starters or counterpicks, but that's about it. Right now, it seems that what stages go into what category is decided on in an arbitrary, ineffective manner. /beginhate



And, uh, I had more thoughts on the subject and they were better organized and clearer, but that sort of went away after I ate and showered. Lol. >__>

Edit: Now that I think about it, having blind character picks and then selecting a stage could be another fix. It could end up screwing you over, sure, but it would do a good job of having the stage selected without "bias".

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

BTW, removing all the strong CPs in the game includes FD, SV, and potentially BF. The problem with the idea of "removing strong CPs" is that every stage is a strong CP for someone.

While they are CP options for some character none are strong cps to the point where they are broken for the character.

 

[Raziek]

I'm pretty much gonna have to echo what Luxor said on the matter.

My opinion is that the CP system adds a lot of competitive depth. However, MK breaks it...

So MK is banned in our region.

We use 9 starters, and everyone gets 2 stage bans instead of 1. I think it works a lot better that way.

Just my two cents. (I wonder how many times I've made a post like this? Must be getting pretty high by now.)

 

[John12346]

My opinion is that the CP system adds a lot of competitive depth. However, MK breaks it...

So MK is banned in our region.

We use 9 starters, and everyone gets 2 stage bans instead of 1. I think it works a lot better that way.

You actually did it? Great work.

Hopefully we'll get some useful information out of this.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

While they are CP options for some character none are strong cps to the point where they are broken for the character.

They push a very mediocre character into top tier (ICs). That's a pretty ****ing strong counterpick!

Seriously though, don't wanna push this off-topic, but I've been over this several times. Even if MK wasn't there, RC would still be a hardcore counterpick. It has very little to do with how good, overall, a character is there. It has to do with how good they are compared to their overall performance across all other stages.

 

[DMG]

Calm down everyone

All you have to do is pick up Olimar and Diddy Kong and beat MK's on Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise

 

[∫unk]

I agree with the OP, but it doesn't take a wall of text or a genius to figure this out. If you think MK is healthy for the metagame or doesn't cause overcentralization, then you are severely lacking in data.

That said, whether it's too late to do anything about it remains to be seen.

 

[Savon]

I guess I will put in my two cents on this matter.

First of all I feel that the CP system as a whole adds an entirely new level of depth and skill when it comes to character knowledge and play-style. I cannot begin to explain how many tricks with Snake I came up with playing on more non traditional CP stages such as Frigate and Halberd.

We need to recognize that neutrality is indeed very relative, however the reason we consider stages such as BF, Smashville, and FD to be neutral is because generally these stages do not give significant advantages or disadvantages to characters. Characters that get extreme benefits from these stages are usually outliers in comparison to the rest of the cast. Falco may do particularly well on FD, but most characters do not have a disadvantage here, which is why we consider it to be neutral. The stage is static and does not result in any major changes in gameplay for most characters.

I will use the CP stages from ruleset posted in the Louisiana Social Thread to prove my point.

Brinstar
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Frigate Orpheon
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Rainbow Cruise

Brinstar has a major stage hazard that will significantly affect gameplay to the point where it will affect a MU heavily.

Castle siege and delfino both force the players to deal with walkoff portions which can lead to VERY easy gimps/CGs

Frigate flips throughout the fight and has ungrabble "ledges" at points.

I think my point is clear. Neutrality is relative, but I think the current line we have drawn is fine, although I do think PS1 should be CP.


The next point is in reference to HOW the CP system is carried out. I personally feel that some aspects of the CP system are fine, but changes must be made indeed.

The main change that must be made is on the final fight of a set (assuming it is best out of 3)

The first fight is going to be on a stage that is more or less even for both fighters. Generally speaking the better brawler is going to emerge as winner.
The loser may be then choose a CP stage to give him/herself a slight "advantage" in the next fight. (After the winner bans one stage of course).

The change however should be made in the 3rd fight. Rather than have the last fight which is for all the marbles be a Cp stage, it should be a neutral stage again.
This is my philosophy and why it should be this way.
Lets pretend that Bob and Bill are playing a 3 match set. Bob wins the first fight against Bill.
In the next fight Bill is given a chance at redemption by being able choose a CP stage. CP stages are almost like a way to ensure that person who won fight 1 did not win by a fluke. It is to prove they have consistency to do it again but at a potential disadvantage. If Bob wins then fine he is better, however if he loses then the final fight should be neutral as a final test of who is truly better out of the two.

The problem with our CP system unfortunately is MK.

He breaks the entire system. Every other character in the game has a stage/character that has a noticeable advantage against them.

Like SuSa mentioned already, MK forces the metagame to revolve around him when it is all said and done.

In conclusion the CP system is competitive, however changes are still needed. The Cp system adds a huge amount of depth to the game in terms of encouraging players to pick up more characters, having unique techs for characters that must be kept in mind when fighting them, and just being freaking cool. (Everybody knows they love fighting on Delfino)


The only real solution is to use a certain blunt object of the exile variety on a particular cape wearing swordsman. (And no it is not Ike)

 

[Ripple]

The only real solution is to use a certain blunt object of the exile variety on a particular cape wearing swordsman. (And no it is not Ike)

I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!

Ganondorf

 

[DMG]

Hey, when you are in your own tier, you're probably broken

 

[Indigo Jeans]

I agree with the OP, but it doesn't take a wall of text or a genius to figure this out. If you think MK is healthy for the metagame or doesn't cause overcentralization, then you are severely lacking in data.

That said, whether it's too late to do anything about it remains to be seen.

The metagame is too young to ban MK. We'll see how it plays out

Two years have elapsed.

MK is far too ingrained into the metagame to ban him now. Doing so would cause too much disorder.

I applaud Raziek's region for how they've handled this, especially their giving two stage strikes. However, the US has some kind of aversion to change, and I don't think we'll be seeing any significant amount of that within the next year.

 

[Raziek]

I really need to get off my *** and make a big thread on the whole "My Region Banned MK, everyone listen to what I have to say" thing.

Of course, I'd have to approach that from the angle of "This is how it affected the tournament scene in my area", not, "You guys should ban MK", or the topic would get ker-locked.

 

[BSP]

Get some good data to back it up first. You'll need it.

 

[SuSa]

I really need to get off my *** and make a big thread on the whole "My Region Banned MK, everyone listen to what I have to say" thing.

Of course, I'd have to approach that from the angle of "This is how it affected the tournament scene in my area", not, "You guys should ban MK", or the topic would get ker-locked.

If you so much as say "Region. Banned. MK" Or any variation of those 3 words in any part of your thread.

It'll get locked.

Now back on topic of counterpicks please, so far I haven't seen anyone bring up points I haven't addressed or someone else hadn't addressed.

:leek:

 

[Steeler]

iduno if someone mentioned this or not because there are brick walls of text all over this mother****in **** right here but i think a setup where, game 1, the players pick their characters (double blind if necessary) and then strike 1 by 1 from a sizable stage list until there are 3 (or 5 in case of grand finals) stages would be the cool to try out.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I guess I will put in my two cents on this matter.

First of all I feel that the CP system as a whole adds an entirely new level of depth and skill when it comes to character knowledge and play-style. I cannot begin to explain how many tricks with Snake I came up with playing on more non traditional CP stages such as Frigate and Halberd.

We need to recognize that neutrality is indeed very relative, however the reason we consider stages such as BF, Smashville, and FD to be neutral is because generally these stages do not give significant advantages or disadvantages to characters. Characters that get extreme benefits from these stages are usually outliers in comparison to the rest of the cast. Falco may do particularly well on FD, but most characters do not have a disadvantage here, which is why we consider it to be neutral. The stage is static and does not result in any major changes in gameplay for most characters.

This is horrible reasoning, and I'm gonna say it again and again. FD is not neutral. SV is not neutral. BF, PS1, and PS2 may come close. There are no "truly" neutral stages; there's only more or less the median you can go for. And FD does give an extreme advantage to various characters-compare how ICs do on FD to how they do on every other stage in the game. You'll see that it's a pretty big difference. Perhaps not as big as when you compare, say, G&W on Norfair or RC to G&W on most other stages, but it's pretty **** big. For details:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=288588

I will use the CP stages from ruleset posted in the Louisiana Social Thread to prove my point.

Brinstar
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Frigate Orpheon
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Rainbow Cruise

Brinstar has a major stage hazard that will significantly affect gameplay to the point where it will affect a MU heavily.

Castle siege and delfino both force the players to deal with walkoff portions which can lead to VERY easy gimps/CGs

Frigate flips throughout the fight and has ungrabble "ledges" at points.

I think my point is clear. Neutrality is relative, but I think the current line we have drawn is fine, although I do think PS1 should be CP.

PS1, Castle Siege, and Frigate are all far more neutral than SV and FD. Get @ me.

The next point is in reference to HOW the CP system is carried out. I personally feel that some aspects of the CP system are fine, but changes must be made indeed.

The main change that must be made is on the final fight of a set (assuming it is best out of 3)

The first fight is going to be on a stage that is more or less even for both fighters. Generally speaking the better brawler is going to emerge as winner.
The loser may be then choose a CP stage to give him/herself a slight "advantage" in the next fight. (After the winner bans one stage of course).

The change however should be made in the 3rd fight. Rather than have the last fight which is for all the marbles be a Cp stage, it should be a neutral stage again.
This is my philosophy and why it should be this way.
Lets pretend that Bob and Bill are playing a 3 match set. Bob wins the first fight against Bill.
In the next fight Bill is given a chance at redemption by being able choose a CP stage. CP stages are almost like a way to ensure that person who won fight 1 did not win by a fluke. It is to prove they have consistency to do it again but at a potential disadvantage. If Bob wins then fine he is better, however if he loses then the final fight should be neutral as a final test of who is truly better out of the two.

This is really bad for one reason: You're rewarding someone for losing. If me and my opponent are about evenly matched, and I win game one, then I have to beat him on his counterpick (very hard), or a "neutral" (more often than not, also one of his counterpicks due to certain very dumb stagelists >.>) (neutral to very hard). Or, I can throw game one and have to beat my opponent once on my counterpick (easy), and once on a neutral (neutral). See the problem? We're, in fact, seriously rewarding losing game one. And how would this work in Bo5/7/etc?

The reason the current CP system is fair is because unless you beat your opponent on his counterpick, you also get a counterpick to put your opponent at a disadvantage. Sure, this puts a lot of weight on game one, but at least it isn't blatantly unfair, unlike the system you have proposed.

The problem with our CP system unfortunately is MK.

He breaks the entire system. Every other character in the game has a stage/character that has a noticeable advantage against them.

Like SuSa mentioned already, MK forces the metagame to revolve around him when it is all said and done.

In conclusion the CP system is competitive, however changes are still needed. The Cp system adds a huge amount of depth to the game in terms of encouraging players to pick up more characters, having unique techs for characters that must be kept in mind when fighting them, and just being freaking cool. (Everybody knows they love fighting on Delfino)


The only real solution is to use a certain blunt object of the exile variety on a particular cape wearing swordsman. (And no it is not Ike)

This is the good part of the post. :V


Now. Unless I've very seriously misread the OP, the point is that the counterpick system is not competitive because MK breaks it. Correct? At this point, I think it's very fair to say that if either the counterpick system or MK has to go, then going with the counterpick system is absolutely ********. The system adds a ridiculous amount of competitive depth to the game that would not be present otherwise (striking the whole list and always going to SV or PS2 or BF might be "fair", but I'll be ****ed if it has 1/10th of the depth that the counterpick system gives the game); Funk has gone over this.

However, is it really necessary to remove MK from the system? Sure, he breaks it, but virtually every facet of it that makes it a positive force, competitively, is still very present. Forcing players to adapt to more than the most popular stages? Check. Forcing players to deal with different characters? Check. Forcing players to actually know the game, unlike, say, the Japanese or the Germans who know a ridiculously narrow facet of the game? Check (**** the German and Japanese rulesets).

 

[SuSa]

iduno if someone mentioned this or not because there are brick walls of text all over this mother****in **** right here but i think a setup where, game 1, the players pick their characters (double blind if necessary) and then strike 1 by 1 from a sizable stage list until there are 3 (or 5 in case of grand finals) stages would be the cool to try out.

Mentioned by me, but not 1by1 but in groups of 2-3 to speed up the proccess... seeing as each person would likely be striking 3-5 stages anyways.

:leek:

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Mentioned by me, but not 1by1 but in groups of 2-3 to speed up the proccess... seeing as each person would likely be striking 3-5 stages anyways.

:leek:

As said, it's a bad idea because of the massive, MASSIVE beneficial influence the counterpick system has on brawl. This reduces the number of stages you have to learn to, at the very most, half of the legal stagelist (the half that you like).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

They push a very mediocre character into top tier (ICs). That's a pretty ****ing strong counterpick!

Seriously though, don't wanna push this off-topic, but I've been over this several times. Even if MK wasn't there, RC would still be a hardcore counterpick. It has very little to do with how good, overall, a character is there. It has to do with how good they are compared to their overall performance across all other stages.

Unless your not stupid and ban it/can play on the stage, which some characters can play them here it's just easier to just not go here + take them to Brinstar and other fun stages.

 

[SuSa]

Not true, because it's the half that you and your opponent like.

Because they could very well strike everything you like.

You end up with a small selection of stages that, if the player was any smart with their striking, keeps the matchups at a relatively fair level of play. No one-sided matchups.

If your character can't handle a selection of 3 stages from a list you+your opponent striked from, stop playing such a ****ty character.

:leek:

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not true, because it's the half that you and your opponent like.

Because they could very well strike everything you like.

You end up with a small selection of stages that, if the player was any smart with their striking, keeps the matchups at a relatively fair level of play. No one-sided matchups.

If your character can't handle a selection of 3 stages from a list you+your opponent striked from, stop playing such a ****ty character.

:leek:

First of all, it essentially reduces it to 2-3 stages which are agreeable to both players. This is even worse. In total, however, your opponent can strike wrong, and you could want to take them to a stage of your advantage.

Second of all, this has nothing to do with being fair to characters. I'm aware that the CP system isn't entirely fair to characters. Which is why I chose a char who can abuse it well. But the reason you shouldn't get rid of it is because it's the competitive equivalent of banning about 10 stages, regardless of stagelist. You reduce gameplay to a ridiculously small selection of stages, making you, effectively, no better than the ****. This is REALLY bad and reduces the competitive depth of the game severely. I don't have to learn how RC or Brinstar works. I don't need to learn how to deal with a falco on FD (actually, knowing this tardtastic community, I probably will...). I don't have to know how snake works on Halberd. I don't need to figure out how to deal with wario's runaway camping on Luigi's, even if it is legal. I don't have to learn how to deal with norfair's lava, or how to fight a campy char on Battlefield. Essentially, you can remove half the legal stagelist. Then your opponent will probably remove the other half, the half which is good for you.