Full Stage List Striking - New name

[chaosmaster1991]

We MAY end up on the current starters most of the time only because it's what most players are used to. Once players saw that they could gain a neutral stage for Game 1 more people would likely strike with some knowledge of the game and find a stage that does not benefit either character to a large degree.

Of course that's possible, I didn't mean to say otherwise.

Perhaps, but all of that useless fluff we went through to strike. If it isn't played on as a starter, why is it a neutral?

Since when did this game have neutral stages?
If the term "neutral" is defined as "not altering the average match-up", then full list striking would allow for the results that are closest to a neutral state.

 

[Omni]

Yea, I get you're getting at and is why I'm strongly against the BBR. I'm pretty sure you are well aware of that and we can keep it out of this thread.

i actually didnt mean the BBR. i meant whoever the leaders were in the early melee days who helped developed the "smash" game

I want an argument that doesn't use itself to support itself please. You speak as if change is impossible and that things should always remain how they are because that is how we've always done it.

Not sure how much research you've put into communities or peoples who held those beliefs. They tend to not be up to par with the rest of society

i am a realist, Susa. when i say things wont change, im not saying small adjustments cant be made every now and then. however, trying to eliminate or completely change the counterpick system is not happening. going in small increments may work but i doubt that, too.

real talk: you're just another one of the many non-playing tournament scrubs who has an idea to shape a metagame you barely no nothing about

and that's how a large majority of the community will see you EVEN if its not true.

and i've been involved with many video games that do not have patches. i've very aware of this kind of situation and it's not a surprise

A quick look at economics may show you a traditional economy is pretty stable, but little to no improvements are ever made. You just go along doing what you've always done because its the way its always been done. Compare that to a command or market economy. Now name me a traditional economy that is doing better than a command or market economy.

Because I can't think of any.

stop doing this. it's not a good way to make a point. it's actually a horrible way to make a point and a bad habit a lot of debaters get into. i dont need to say why

I never said it was limited to stages. But a stage is a factor of it. You also did not refute my point that "Brawl contains stages. Brawl is competitive. Therefore stages that are in Brawl are competitive."

You only refute it with "The powers that be decided on it" which is just self-supporting argument. Again I bring you to my above point.

i did, you're not listening.

you're trying to compare my analogy of the counterpick system being competitive and use a strawman and apply it to brawl stages in general. what part of strawman arguments dont you get? especially when i've already told you that you cannot compare that which is the counterpick system with something small, minor, or brawl specific such as tripping or brawl stages. id rather not repeat this

This is why I propose the players, you know. STEP IT UP and learn about the game and it's stages to create a more accurate depiction of neutral than any one person's (or group's) opinion of what is "neutral". If every single stage is a starter, and each player strikes off his opponents best stages then you are left with a neutral stage.

what part of "people dont feel like it. they're not gunna" dont you understand? unless your idea is retardedly amazing and people instantly feel the need to WANT to adapt to it then no one is going to "step it up". go to Apex and ask how many people are unsatisfied with the counterpick system. i assure you it wont be enough to make any change.

the reason why your idea will not make a difference because it won't be good enough.

I personally cannot see anyone above... well... Ganon who could possibly not have most every matchup result in a neutral stage given intelligent striking.

It's -impossible- to have a neutral stage that is chosen for a specific portion of the cast.

Please attempt to strike from a full stage list for each possible matchup and tell me the number of biased matchups compared to our current system.

you're attempting to create a stagelist that caters to 30+ characters strengths and weaknesses. that smells like mistake all over to me.

more later. gonna play some brawl

 

[SuSa]

i actually didnt mean the BBR. i meant whoever the leaders were in the early melee days who helped developed the "smash" game

My bad in misunderstanding then, but I do know that an MBR existed. I know the backroom didn't start with Brawl.

However I don't know the history surrounding Smash 64 or if there were any large scale organization for it before Melee.

i am a realist, Susa. when i say things wont change, im not saying small adjustments cant be made every now and then. however, trying to eliminate or completely change the counterpick system is not happening. going in small increments may work but i doubt that, too.

real talk: you're just another one of the many non-playing tournament scrubs who has an idea to shape a metagame you barely no nothing about

and that's how a large majority of the community will see you EVEN if its not true.

I'm not calling for an immediate change. I'm asking the BBR look at it, see the logic in it, and support it because it follows their beliefs and precedents. The BBR is not the say-all but their opinion should at least be consistent with itself.

I'll be sure to tell everyone at the tournament Sunday that I don't attend tournaments. I'll also be certain to tell our PR (and former PR) that I've never beaten them nor taken games off of them because we've never played in tournament before.

@that last part
No, that's apparently just how you see me. I actually do have some representation of me being a tourney-goer as well as a good portion of the communities respect. I just lack that respect from Staff, and a large portion of the BBR, due to my beliefs that are strongly against the status quo. Even though I go along with it because I am unable to create that change doesn't mean I don't want that change - or that I'm not attempting for that change.

I've been gathering contact information and names for a few weeks now, regarding speaking to major TO's - minor TO's and some active/high placing tournament goers that agree with my beliefs.

you're trying to compare my analogy of the counterpick system being competitive and use a strawman and apply it to brawl stages in general. what part of strawman arguments dont you get? especially when i've already told you that you cannot compare that which is the counterpick system with something small, minor, or brawl specific such as tripping or brawl stages. id rather not repeat this

So because it actually applies to the game and how competition for the game exists it should be disregarded because it's not a part of everything?

Do I really need to explain how that logic is extremely flawed?

what part of "people dont feel like it. they're not gunna" dont you understand? unless your idea is retardedly amazing and people instantly feel the need to WANT to adapt to it then no one is going to "step it up". go to Apex and ask how many people are unsatisfied with the counterpick system. i assure you it wont be enough to make any change.

the reason why your idea will not make a difference because it won't be good enough.

Read above.

you're attempting to create a stagelist that caters to 30+ characters strengths and weaknesses. that smells like mistake all over to me.

Stage list = What was created for the game and it's possible balances regarding characters.

From a design standpoint, I'm pretty sure they took into consideration each character's moveset and data (mobility, which they obviously programmed into the game) to have some balance between characters and stages. Not just characters and characters.

Considering many characters have stages they are good on (regardless if the stage is currently legal or not) and characters have stages they are bad on, and stages they are relatively neutral on, that is pretty evident. Stages obviously have an impact on said characters, and even moreso when you place two different characters into the same stage.

Currently we've created a stagelist that caters to maybe -10 characters strengths and weaknesses. That smells like a mistake and biased nerfing/boosting to me. In fact, just changing the stagelist to the polar opposite of what it is (Let's have the 5 starters be the currently banned stages) you COMPLETELY **** UP THE TIER LIST.


Pure static is no better than pure dynamic/random.

Also realism has very little room in a debate. Whether you believe it or not, major change does and can happen. Will it always happen? No. But that isn't to say it's impossible.

If you say something is impossible and you never give it a proper shot, of course it's going to be impossible.

"Write a 30 page essay on any topic"
"That's impossible therefore I won't do it!"
*never gets done*
"See! It's impossible!"

It's self justification. The lack of effort is proof for the lack of results. Not attempting is what creates the impossibility in the first place.

Now please offer me an argument that does not support itself by using itself.

:leek:

 

[John12346]

i am a realist, Susa. when i say things wont change, im not saying small adjustments cant be made every now and then. however, trying to eliminate or completely change the counterpick system is not happening. going in small increments may work but i doubt that, too.

real talk: you're just another one of the many non-playing tournament scrubs who has an idea to shape a metagame you barely no nothing about

and that's how a large majority of the community will see you EVEN if its not true.

and i've been involved with many video games that do not have patches. i've very aware of this kind of situation and it's not a surprise

This... sounds like ad hominem. I'm not sure, I'm not up to speed on my logical fallacies.

Anyway, Omni, what Susa's been saying up till now is very reasonable. A bunch of tournament attending players, myself included, have been paying attention to this thread, and if Susa was really saying something out of place, I'm pretty sure someone would've stepped in and corrected him.

Change is possible, but it's up to us, the users, to show why it's necessary. Only through discussion and debate if necessary can we come to a general consensus on what we truly need for the development of Brawl.

It's kinda like your old argument, where you said
Brawl is competitive
Also, Brawl uses the counterpick system
Therefore, the counterpick system is competitive

Well, the other side is trying to show
Brawl is competitive
However, Brawl shouldn't use the counterpick system
Because the counterpick system is NOT competitive
.
.
.
.
.
I was gonna answer the rest, but Susa ninja'd me.

I'm not taking sides, but I'm not gonna stand for silly reasoning in a debate.
.
.
.
.
.
Also, my position on this whole situation is pro-MLG 9 stage starter list, with the CP list from the BBR ruleset(not including counter/banned and YI: Melee), with two stage bans, and that MK is a massive problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Sorry Susa I fell behind on your post still want me to respond to it?

Since when did this game have neutral stages?
If the term "neutral" is defined as "not altering the average match-up", then full list striking would allow for the results that are closest to a neutral state.

No it's not actually.

Since there is no true definition, however if you definite as that then we shouldn't even stage strike, we should force people to start on whatever stage is neutral for that match-up.

That's not how we do things though. We strike and form a list based on what as universally as possible even and non polarizing stages.

Some characters do better or worse no matter where people will start on, the stage itself shouldn't always dictate by itself who wins or loses.

 

[SuSa]

we should force people to start on whatever stage is neutral for that match-up.

If you can come up with the criteria and method to prove this with how many different playstyles there are for characters; then yes. This would be the best way.

However that is simply impossible and even I recognize this.

:leek:

 

[Nexus]

My brain hurts...

But, Red Ryu's solution would be the best, even if it's impractical.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If you can come up with the criteria and method to prove this with how many different playstyles there are for characters; then yes. This would be the best way.

However that is simply impossible and even I recognize this.

:leek:

Alright.

So what do we do at this point?

 

[SuSa]

Alright.

So what do we do at this point?

Accept what we can create and have the players determine the most neutral match for their first game, rather than telling them what it is.

Since we are unable to determine what it is using objective data. The next best thing is having competitive players (you know - like the ones who make "da rulez") decide on what is the best stage for their match.

This solves it by letting it be subjective (for better or for worse, you only have yourself to blame if you strike poorly... just like you have only yourself to blame if you pick Ganon as your character)

Saying my ability to choose a proper stage is false, while saying my ability to choose a proper character is OK is yet another issue I have. Not sure if that would fall under a double standard.

But if we dictate what stages people should play... we should be dictating what characters as well. But that just takes it to an extreme that nobody would follow.

Why?

It removes a good portion of competition, depth of the game, and player choices.

Oh wait

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Accept what we can create and have the players determine the most neutral match for their first game, rather than telling them what it is.

Since we are unable to determine what it is using objective data. The next best thing is having competitive players (you know - like the ones who make "da rulez") decide on what is the best stage for their match.

This solves it by letting it be subjective (for better or for worse, you only have yourself to blame if you strike poorly... just like you have only yourself to blame if you pick Ganon as your character)

Saying my ability to choose a proper stage is false, while saying my ability to choose a proper character is OK is yet another issue I have. Not sure if that would fall under a double standard.

But if we dictate what stages people should play... we should be dictating what characters as well. But that just takes it to an extreme that nobody would follow.

Why?

It removes a good portion of competition, depth of the game, and player choices.

Oh wait

:leek:

So if the players want to stick to the old striking system, because lets just say they are like myself and don't want to change it since we don't want to start on CP stages game 1.

Would you say it's perfectly acceptable if the players in my area want to auto strike those stages and leave them CP?

This is of course assuming a majority agrees that it's what the players in my area want.

 

[SuSa]

So if the players want to stick to the old striking system, because lets just say they are like myself and don't want to change it since we don't want to start on CP stages game 1.

Would you say it's perfectly acceptable if the players in my area want to auto strike those stages and leave them cp?

Totally, but if this becomes accepted and you travel OoS and find yourselves playing your CP stages for Round1 it's only hurting you.

No idea is ever forced upon a community (Oh, except the MK ban for the most part) as it's always at the discretion of the T.O's.

But there comes two points:

1) Where players refuse to play with your ruleset because it's too uncompetitive or strays "too far from the norm" (EG: Items on FD using only Ganon and Falcon. Good luck getting attendance for that)

2) When something is detrimental to a community in the "larger picture". If the entire West Coast decided to ban MK, and we go attend nationals and east coast/midwest tournaments where MK is legal; it is detrimental to us. Therefore we would not ban MK. (WHOBO - Xyro, can you shed some light on why you allow Mk in your tourney's? I'm like 99% sure this is the reason you allow him.... because your attendance was actually doing better with him gone, but it was detrimental to your community outside of Texas. Would be nice if I can actually have some proof for my statement. Also because if this isn't the reason I'm pretty interested anyways so PM me if it's not, and just say it's not the reason in the thread to show that I am wrong.)


My main beef is just the double standard and blatant disregard for their own precedents and ideals. They try to come up with a competitive standard using logic to support changes which sets precedents which may be looked towards for other changes. To selectively choose to ignore a precedent in one scenario, but follow it in another is just a double standard and should be avoided. The issue with this is the large majority of players don't see it.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Ok I'll leave this at that.

Stages are stages, but I hope the community can work on making something more agreeable in the future.

For the 3.1 stage list I approved of all the recommended until they had the tier 3 set of CPs, otherwise I whole heartedly agreed with it.

If people want to do full stage strikes in the future and is proven to be the better method, sure why not.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Ok I'll leave this at that.

Stages are stages, but I hope the community can work on making something more agreeable in the future.

For the 3.1 stage list I approved of all the recommended until they had the tier 3 set of CPs, otherwise I whole heartedly agreed with it.

If people want to do full stage strikes in the future and is proven to be the better method, sure why not.

So... you sould basically agree with a given standard?
Don't get me wrong, but it is silly if you say it like that...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So... you sould basically agree with a given standard?
Don't get me wrong, but it is silly if you say it like that...

More or less.

I like how we do things currently, because I don't like starting on Brinstar and such or even having the option to.

I don't have any problems with it so...yeah.

 

[Veel]

I believe Omni asked for a condensed history of this thread a while back? If it is still wanted, I would not mind going through and summarizing the general sections of this thread via post number.

 

[Akaku94]

All of you who keep arguing that by full striking you will start on a CP stage, but what you're not realizing is that YOU ARE ALREADY STARTING ON A CP STAGE. FD is a starter, but it's as polar as RC. SV and BF are solid CPs for Ice Climbers and others. A neutral stage would be one that nobody ever counterpicks, because it does not strengthen one character. The very fact that characters CP a stage means it is not neutral. Since players strike what they don't want to be counterpicked, whatever stage is not striked is the one that is farthest from being counterpicked, logically.

So, the argument for a starter list isn't starter vs. CP, because every stage is a CP in some matchup (unless there's a stage that no character CPs), but rather a debate over which CP's should be treated as fair. Of course, this dances around the issue. The best way to avodi the most polar stages in any matchup is to allow players to remove the ones they don't want from the whole stage list!

 

[Raziek]

Pretty much.

The whole idea behind full-list striking is ending up on a stage that neither character really wants, but neither character really hates.

If that happens, you're either bad at striking, or you're playing a character who is bad on a lot of stages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, basically, the whole misunderstanding comes from the definition.
You guys arbitrarily define "neutral" as "with very little movement or hazards, no walkoffs, no water, no walls, no sharking, no items, fox only, Final Destination". We define it as "the stage which, through stage striking, is determined the median stage for the matchup, both on the side of characters as on the side of players, from all legal stages". I hope you realize how stupid that sounds-we're going with the median; you guys are going with a ridiculously arbitarily chosen subgroup of stages, based on an inherently flawed principle, and guaranteeing that large numbers of chars do not get neutral stages, but rather "static" stages.

 

[SuSa]

All of you who keep arguing that by full striking you will start on a CP stage, but what you're not realizing is that YOU ARE ALREADY STARTING ON A CP STAGE. FD is a starter, but it's as polar as RC. SV and BF are solid CPs for Ice Climbers and others. A neutral stage would be one that nobody ever counterpicks, because it does not strengthen one character. The very fact that characters CP a stage means it is not neutral. Since players strike what they don't want to be counterpicked, whatever stage is not striked is the one that is farthest from being counterpicked, logically.

So, the argument for a starter list isn't starter vs. CP, because every stage is a CP in some matchup (unless there's a stage that no character CPs), but rather a debate over which CP's should be treated as fair. Of course, this dances around the issue. The best way to avodi the most polar stages in any matchup is to allow players to remove the ones they don't want from the whole stage list!

This is like... a 2 paragraph summary of the past 400 replies.

Congratulations.

Also what BPC said.
:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I define it as a stage that doesn't drastically change multiple match-ups and keeps game play more basic.

Honestly I don't see the point of putting some stages on a starter list if they don't get picked. Match-ups should start already on level playing ground in our current list, the idea is that the ones that are CP aren't fair for most match-ups.

I am not however, saying out current starter list does this perfectly since well it's debatable what the list should have.

Also RC is as polar as FD?...not really, we have one character it absolutely affects match-ups, Icies, and a few it helps out, King DDD, Falco, etc. compared to the four to five RC makes infinitely better because of how it is.

I think people blow Falco and King DDD, when they don't get infinited, out of proportion on FD.

 

[SuSa]

The thing is, you are modifying the word "neutral" to try and fit the status quo.

What is "neutral" is dependant on the characters, and to some degree even the players! How can you objectively define what is "neutral" when there are so many variables, some not measurable, to consider?

You can't really... this is why our tier list changes so often, it's really just a subjective observation of data that can't be measured down to a science.

Just because a stage won't be played every single time does not mean it will never be picked.

Again, I want you to do the math I told Omni to do... but this time I'll specifically state why.

[Just so you know the math for that, that's 666 matchups, 21 possible stages to be chosen, resulting in 13,986 possibilities. Compare that to a current system of 5 stage default and you get 3330 possibilities.

If you can find the stages used most often in 13,986 possibilities. Those are the most neutral stages for the majority of the cast. That would be the fairest conservative stage list possible. So if you want to not have such a liberal stage list, at least do the math.

Have fun finding out 14,000~ possibilities and then arguing if your result is considered "right" or not. Because I honestly don't know the fairest stage for Yoshi vs IC's... but a Yoshi main and an IC main could probably figure it out.

$10 says it's not our current 5 stages.

EDIT:
Until that math is done, there is NO BASIS for our current starter system other than pure bias.
:leek:

 

[Raziek]

I define it as a stage that doesn't drastically change multiple match-ups and keeps game play more basic.

Why? What makes this "neutral"? Smash is a game of stage interaction, and many interactive stages DON'T heavily affect match-ups.

Honestly I don't see the point of putting some stages on a starter list if they don't get picked. Match-ups should start already on level playing ground in our current list, the idea is that the ones that are CP aren't fair for most match-ups.

Ummm, no? The point of putting them on the list is to force a strike, which indicates the actual versatility and flexibility of the character, which is a quality that SHOULD BE REFLECTED, since Game 1 is supposed to be an OVERALL representation of the match-up. Ice Climbers are bad on the majority of the stagelist, so why does the typical 5-starter list have 3 of their best stages? That doesn't accurately reflect the match-up.

If your character on average, does POORLY on more than half the stagelist, this should be reflected by a slight disadvantage Game 1.

I'm going to reference Luxor's stage-list continuum here:

Grounded
Final Destination
Smashville
Pictochat
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Yoshi's Island
Castle Siege
Luigi's Mansion
Frigate Orpheon
Pokémon Stadium 1
Pokémon Stadium 2
Lylat Cruise
Battlefield
Halberd
Port Town Aero Dive
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Pirate Ship
Delfino Plaza
Norfair
Rainbow Cruise
Brinstar
Aerial

Now, for the sake of argument, let's consider a hypothetical that assumes the two characters strike in order of the continuum, as a pure aerial vs. pure ground character.

Since there are 22 stages, we'll assume 10 strikes, and that means they'll go to PS2 or Lylat (Which incidentally, are both pretty balanced).

If you consider a standard 5-starter, they'd be going to Yoshi's Island, which is heavy into grounded.

I'm aware the continuum is not exact, but the point is, the more you limit the size of the stagelist, the less likely you are to reach the MEDIAN OF BIAS, which accounts for both player preference, and the swing of the matchup.

More stages will always be better for reflecting a character's true capabilities for Game 1.

I am not however, saying out current starter list does this perfectly since well it's debatable what the list should have.

Also RC is as polar as FD?...not really, we have one character it absolutely affects match-ups, Icies, and a few it helps out, King DDD, Falco, etc. compared to the four to five RC makes infinitely better because of how it is.

I think people blow Falco and King DDD, when they don't get infinited, out of proportion on FD.

The issue is not HOW Polar it is, but whether or not it is polar enough to force a strike. This can be illustrated quite simply.

FD
SV
BF
YI
Lylat

The two on either end are struck, and game 1 goes to BF.

Now, let's look at a similar situation, with more polar stages.

FD
FD
FD
BF
Brinstar
Brinstar
Brinstar

Still goes to BF. The point is that it FORCES A STRIKE. It doesn't matter if one stage is 100-0 for a character, if it's always struck. In this respect, FD and RC/Brinstar are EXACTLY as powerful when placed on a starter stage list.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Neutral is dependent on characters but it plays more so what stages least polarize match-ups. FD doesn't polarize to the degrees of which the others stages do in most match-ups.

And Susa we may not have absolute data, but the character boards in ways help fill in the gaps. They give out descriptions of what stages you want to go to and which ones you don't want to go to. At the very least we have theoretical ideas on stages even if we don't have recorded ones, which as is, isn't easy.

Find Fox vs Wolf, surprisingly that isn't a very common match-up, I recall a one time instance of Kain vs Zeton...and that's it. So it's something we have atm.

The point remains while people have different tastes, likes and dislikes, when playing competitively people are still going to reach close repeatable ideas. What's good and what's bad may be disagreeable to points, but when it comes down to it people are not going to prefer it when characters truly abuse their advantages there.

A Falco can say they like Brinstar, but when you look at many match-ups on this stage, it's going to do the exact opposite and actually hinder him.

Sometimes a characters advantages aren't obvious, some people from my state and region told me why Snake actually does well on Rainbow Cruise more than people think. Most people don't play the stage right, and they told me how you should play on it and sure enough Ally and other snakes here we doing just that.

Your guide on how to play the stage isn't far off what I was told there by them.

~

Now about FD, I'm still curious what this stage polarizes exactly, ICs polarize it because they love more flat stages, even on some CPs they don't suck it's only when we talk about Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise is when the small children cry for there mommy. Even on stages like BF or SV the fact the stages are flatter than others is irrelevant, because these stages have a single platform to abuse easily.

Falco doesn't break it in half, it's a good stage but it doesn't change anything that didn't already help in on most stages. it's a good stage for him of course but there are some instances where other stages actually help him more for certain MU's unlike.

Diddy is one I've heard talk about even among BBR member. Stage control is a main component of his game, so lets do a comparison, A = Diddy, B = Opponent

FD: _____D___!________________A____!

Diddy when he's holding a banana and has one on the ground has that much stage control, now SV

SV: __!O_____________A______!

Things change because of the size of the stage, even with a platform your going to pass right over him, even on a platform being above your opponent in this game is still seen as a no no, for the most part. Diddy has far more control over this stage.

Smaller stages help Diddy, lacking platforms also helps make his job easier, but eh size of the stage is very very important.

PS1 is CP'd against Diddy for some characters because of the size and the layout of the transformations, and it works because Diddy has a harder time maintaining stage control. The transformation do help but the length is defiantly a big big help.

DDD: Unless your one of the unlucky characters that suffer from standing regrab or side step syndrome, this isn't that bad of a stage, if bad. Actually if he can even CG this stage is good because you can stage advantage of how he can't really on gimps from CGing you to the ledge anymore and needs his Bthrow to help him out.

FD doesn't force huge match-up swing for the cast to the degrees of which some CP stages do for more match-ups. The stage's layout or what it does affects the match much harder. Even with non air based characters these stages can really scew match-ups to be more unbalanced than on static stages.

Characters do show their power on stages, but is that the character or is that the stage?

 

[SuSa]

Neutral is dependent on characters but it plays more so what stages least polarize match-ups. FD doesn't polarize to the degrees of which the others stages do in most match-ups.

Let me start this off right now.

Not a single stage is neutral for the entire cast in this entire game. Arguably, neither are any 5 stages, 10 is getting closer, 15 is closer still, 20 is **** close, every stage is the closest possible.

A Falco can say they like Brinstar, get taken there, get their *** kicked, and that is their ****ing fault. It's competition, you should KNOW details. If you're wrong, that is YOUR INCOMPETENCE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO BE BLAMED FOR THAT.

"I like Ganon, so I'm going to play Ganon in tournament"

When I lose, who's fault is that? Do you think we should ban Ganon because he's just so god**** bad against the entire cast?

"He shouldn't be picked and is rarely picked, therefore we should ban him."

Picking your character is very similar to picking your stage. When I pick my character - I pick it based off my opponents character.
When I choose my stage, I pick it based off my opponents character.
See the semblance?

PS:
PS1 isn't just large. IT HAS PLATFORMS which greatly hinder Diddy's stage control.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Let me start this off right now.

Not a single stage is neutral for the entire cast in this entire game. Arguably, neither are any 5 stages, 10 is getting closer, 15 is closer still, 20 is **** close, every stage is the closest possible.

No, but you can use stages that are more neutral for the cast than others.

A Falco can say they like Brinstar, get taken there, get their *** kicked, and that is their ****ing fault. It's competition, you should KNOW details. If you're wrong, that is YOUR INCOMPETENCE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO BE BLAMED FOR THAT.

They should know the details, which is why I'm saying people being outliers like this shouldn't be heavily considered in discussing what stages are good and bad for them.

"I like Ganon, so I'm going to play Ganon in tournament"

When I lose, who's fault is that? Do you think we should ban Ganon because he's just so god**** bad against the entire cast?

"He shouldn't be picked and is rarely picked, therefore we should ban him."

Picking your character is very similar to picking your stage. When I pick my character - I pick it based off my opponents character.
When I choose my stage, I pick it based off my opponents character.
See the semblance?

You don't main a stage, you main a character. Then based off who you pick to play in the game and pick stages based on what stages you know are good for that character. I like Norfair personally, if it was legal I wouldn't have Lucario take people here, I would for Link though =D.

It's not comparable because you don't main characters based on the fact they **** on certain stages, this applies to secondaries since TKD does go MK on CP stages but for main...not really.

PS:
PS1 isn't just large. IT HAS PLATFORMS which greatly hinder Diddy's stage control.

The platforms are very small and don't give much space, of course though they are helpful but I acknowledged earlier but the size of the stage is still a very important factor.

 

[SuSa]

No, but you can use stages that are more neutral for the cast than others.

When this amount isn't even 1/2 the cast, why do this when there is a superior alternative?

They should know the details, which is why I'm saying people being outliers like this shouldn't be heavily considered in discussing what stages are good and bad for them.

Okay... so what's the problem? Outliers SHOULD be heavily considered, because nearly everyone has a personal playstyle and stages that that playstyle works on differs.

This is exactly why I get 3 stocked every ****ing time I go to Halberd. Regardless of it being "Snake's best stage". I always ban it, and I haven't played it more than 1 time in tournament. (AKA: When I first CP'd it thinking it'd be good....)

I've yet to win a friendly on Halberd.

You don't main a stage, you main a character. Then based off who you pick to play in the game and pick stages based on what stages you know are good for that character. I like Norfair personally, if it was legal I wouldn't have Lucario take people here, I would for Link though =D.

Exactly. Stage is based off character, so is your viability against opponents.

This is why people don't main Jigglypuff and Ganon. (If they want to win)

Also I'd argue pretty **** strongly that I "main" Rainbow Cruise. It's my best stage for all my characters. Regardless of my opponents character, I almost 100% CP Rainbow Cruise.

It's not comparable because you don't main characters based on the fact they **** on certain stages, this applies to secondaries since TKD does go MK on CP stages but for main...not really.

*coughs* Having a secondary is a null point IMO, especially if you're almost always switching to once in a two game set, possibly twice in three game set.

The platforms are very small and don't give much space, of course though they are helpful but I acknowledged earlier but the size of the stage is still a very important factor.

Especially when you mix size with platforms. This is why FD > PS1. There are too many variables to even consider comparing the two regardless. PS1 has transformations that differ and platforms. FD is FD.

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

Red Ryu, polarity can be answered by one VERY simple question.

Is it struck quickly?

The sooner a stage is struck, the more polar it is, if either party has any brains.

 

[Omni]

completely forgot about this thread.

susa, is this thread an attempt to persuade red ryu that you're right, or an attempt to push your idea out to the community? id just like to know that you have a game plan to actually getting this idea established and not just putting it out there so it can be argued.

how do u plan to move forward

 

[rPSIvysaur]

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.

Too bad you're trying to convince the wrong audience.

 

[rathy Aro]

completely forgot about this thread.

susa, is this thread an attempt to persuade red ryu that you're right, or an attempt to push your idea out to the community? id just like to know that you have a game plan to actually getting this idea established and not just putting it out there so it can be argued.

how do u plan to move forward

Game plan:
1) Be right
2) ???
3) Profit

I think you underestimate how strong being right is. If you are right and able to convince others, you should be able to convince the bbr, which will then bring the idea to the rest of the community and possibly change the official ruleset. Once that happens, maybe things won't change instantly, but they certainly will with time.... if Susa's right.

 

[Omni]

i'm not saying he's wrong. i'm trying to steer him into the right direction of getting his idea out there and influencing the right people.

right now it's just sitting here with no one really caring except for like a small handful of people

so basically expand

but i do think he's wrong

 

[SaveMeJebus]

maybe we should gather information from all the character boards. Any stages that give a character more than 60-40 advantage against the majority of the cast (Because of the stage and not the match up) should not be considered a neutral. This is why I don't think FD should be a neutral.

 

[Ripple]

i'm not saying he's wrong. i'm trying to steer him into the right direction of getting his idea out there and influencing the right people.

right now it's just sitting here with no one really caring except for like a small handful of people

so basically expand

but i do think he's wrong

this is why I think we should have a section that is called "threrads of the week"

what do you think omni? most people don't visit the stage forum and won't read it because of that

 

[Akaku94]

It is a pity people don't visit the stage forum. It's got some of the best discussions on Smashboards imo.

Anyway,

No, but you can use stages that are more neutral for the cast than others.

That's the flaw in your reasoning. "More Neutral" still relies on criteria for what "neutral" is. You say it's non-dynamic with 3 or fewer platforms, while I say it's something like PS2. Neither of us are right!

Also, you can't decide what the best stage is for every matchup; you might say RC should not be allowed in the snake-MK mu, but SuSa has CP'd it against M2K!!! I'm a Kirby main, and I like Picto; by no means one of his best CP's.

And FD is never the best stage in a mu; yet we have it as a starter! I hope you agree that at the very least the current starter list is broken. Basically everyone should see that pretty clearly. The debate, as best I can tell, is between choosing a different starter list (PS2, Lylat, SV or something similar) or full stage striking. Full striking seems more effective to me, but anyone who argues that the status quo is sufficient is either trolling or a scrub.

Yay! First use of the word Scrub!

 

[SuSa]

completely forgot about this thread.

susa, is this thread an attempt to persuade red ryu that you're right, or an attempt to push your idea out to the community? id just like to know that you have a game plan to actually getting this idea established and not just putting it out there so it can be argued.

how do u plan to move forward

Both. If I can't convince one member of the community (which I seem to be slowly doing, if you read how his posts change) how do I expect to persuade the entire community (or at least the majority?)

This entire thread was originally meant for the BBR to take notice of. I was told to post it to the public, and if it was deemed important enough Pierce may bring it to the BBR. Just knowing this it's already an attempt to shut it down. I know fully well that the BBR doesn't expect any of it's community to actually change. It's a killing blow to any new ideas. "Get it past the community, then you can bring it to us." They know it won't get past the community. For what reasons this is? Not entirely sure, but I'm working on it.

[
Too bad you're trying to convince the wrong audience.

It's the audience I was forced to start with. This is kind of why I'm no longer allowed in the staffer shack (along a few other reasons and my own stubbornness)

Oh, you don't go with the status quo? GTFO.

Game plan:
1) Be right
2) ???
3) Profit

I think you underestimate how strong being right is. If you are right and able to convince others, you should be able to convince the bbr, which will then bring the idea to the rest of the community and possibly change the official ruleset. Once that happens, maybe things won't change instantly, but they certainly will with time.... if Susa's right.

Your second sentence is spot on, especially on the convincing others part.

i'm not saying he's wrong. i'm trying to steer him into the right direction of getting his idea out there and influencing the right people.

right now it's just sitting here with no one really caring except for like a small handful of people

so basically expand

but i do think he's wrong

Please tell me what you think is wrong about the argument, or at least what it has progressed to.

My argument is that the counterpick system is not competitive because it's broken. There a few ways to go around this to fix the system.

1) Remove Meta Knight, it's been proven, stated, and agreed upon that he breaks the system. Yet the argument to keep him is that "Why is it important to fix the system? "

2) Find a way to better balance the counterpick system. Currently the argument is to change how the stage is decided for Game 1 which is what the entire counterpick system is based off of. Fixing what happens in Game 1 will effect the entire counterpick system. Are we sure it'd fix it completely? No, but it's an improvement.

Reason to fix it:
It would be the competitive thing to do. At the very least it would remove a HUGE double standard that many people fail to see (and that's why I'm bringing it to the light)

Arguing that you follow your precedents and don't just make new changes based off nothing is totally justifiable. Until you aren't following your precedents. Then it becomes a hypocrisy worthy of laughing about.

maybe we should gather information from all the character boards. Any stages that give a character more than 60-40 advantage against the majority of the cast (Because of the stage and not the match up) should not be considered a neutral. This is why I don't think FD should be a neutral.

Not possible. There is not any single stage (or even 5 for that matter) that does not in some way, shape, or form give a character an advantage over a decent portion of the cast.

The answer is to not narrow it down, but to broaden the horizon.

this is why I think we should have a section that is called "threrads of the week"

what do you think omni? most people don't visit the stage forum and won't read it because of that

Who would vote on these "threads of the week"? The BBR?

Nobody reads the stage forum. This is exactly why this was moved here. Just because the current conversation pertains to stages (due to it being the less-extreme way of fixing the counterpick system) doesn't mean others can't bring up the other points at any time.

Frankly they ideally want it in the MK forum [Locked, might I add] or a place where very few will see it.

I'm not an idiot, I know how politics (and dictatorships, which is what SWF has turned into since I joined in 2008) work. Squash or hide away what you don't want the public to know.

It is a pity people don't visit the stage forum. It's got some of the best discussions on Smashboards imo.

Anyway,

That's the flaw in your reasoning. "More Neutral" still relies on criteria for what "neutral" is. You say it's non-dynamic with 3 or fewer platforms, while I say it's something like PS2. Neither of us are right!

Also, you can't decide what the best stage is for every matchup; you might say RC should not be allowed in the snake-MK mu, but SuSa has CP'd it against M2K!!! I'm a Kirby main, and I like Picto; by no means one of his best CP's.

And FD is never the best stage in a mu; yet we have it as a starter! I hope you agree that at the very least the current starter list is broken. Basically everyone should see that pretty clearly. The debate, as best I can tell, is between choosing a different starter list (PS2, Lylat, SV or something similar) or full stage striking. Full striking seems more effective to me, but anyone who argues that the status quo is sufficient is either trolling or a scrub.

The problem is people trying to define neutral as anything other than it's definition. Static is not neutral, dynamic is not neutral. They might sometimes be neutral but they aren't neutral.

Precisely why it should be left in the hands of the players playing the game and not some group on the outside projecting their ideas of "proper starter stages" with absolutely no backing other than their own ideals. There is no data, and for the very purpose of their reasoning, it's flawed and a double standard.

FD is sometimes the best stage for a matchup, but it's really...really...really rare.



Current starter list should just be:
Battlefield
Smashville



Because I rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely see the first match outside of those two stages. It's hilarious how we feel we are more liberal than Japan when in reality our current stage list pretty much forces the battle to take place on one of two or three stages.... sounds a lot like Japan's stage list.

This applies perfectly to our current situation:

FD
SV
BF
YI
Lylat

The two on either end are struck, and game 1 goes to BF.

Now, let's look at a similar situation, with more polar stages.

FD
Pictochat
BF
Brinstar
Rainbow Cruise

You still end up on BF

ps: I modified it a little bit.

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

Neutrality is not the word we should be using here.

The first game should be played on a stage that is the MEDIAN OF BIAS between the two players.

 

[SuSa]

You have a good point only because true neutrality cannot be found for the cast. (lol Ganon and some other characters... and Ice Climbers)



:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yeah, I don't hate this idea, it's just I think the current system can cover this without needing to fluff up the list and such, but that's my take on it.

I have a tournament in the morning so I'll try and give a more proper response to you guys when I get back tomorrow.

 

[SuSa]

In theory it can... if you want to work out nearly 14,000 possible matchups and derive the 5 most common stages from that, assuming your stage choice was properly done for each matchup.

Meaning take a full list, get the top players of each character to strike for the match against eachother, and take that stage as the most neutral stage for the matchup. Do so 14,000 times..... profit?

But good luck getting anyone to spend the time doing that..

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

And good luck factoring in player preference beforehand.

Anything less than a full strike is half-assing it, but it's a matter of how practical such a system is in tourney.