Full Stage List Striking - New name

[SaveMeJebus]

I don't see how stages like SV or BF give any characters a huge advantage. Examples?

 

[Ripple]

I don't see how stages like SV or BF give any characters a huge advantage. Examples?

ICs, falco, D3, diddy, snake,..... want more?

 

[SuSa]

It doesn't even have to be huge, just biased.

IMO SV is by far one of the most neutral stages in the game. I don't have much beef with it tbh, and can't think of any match where it gives a huge advantage to one side.

That being said, not every match should be starting on it for Game1... when there are other, better alternatives. (While it's neutral, it's not the most neutral)

BF however is pretty **** airbased... and Snake nearly falls under the MK argument.

Snake is good on every stage - it's just other characters gain a significant advantage over him on certain stages.
MK is good on every stage - it's debatable if any character gains a significant advantage over him due to the stage... it's so hard to tell considering he has no even or disadvantaged matchups..

:leek:

 

[Tesh]

I think what they are trying to say is.
Awesome character on good stage(MK on RC) = good character on good stage(Diddy kong/IC on FD)= bad character on good stage (Ganon on Norfair) as far as stage bias goes.

Just because characters like Diddy aren't broken on their best stage doesn't mean they aren't getting a large stage specific advantage by being there.

 

[fkacyan]

Thread is correct. Look for a thread proposing a new system from me within a week or two.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Uh oh, Thio is on the case! I thought you weren't active with Brawl anymore? Or did I just misunderstand?

 

[ADHD]

Uh oh, Thio is on the case! I thought you weren't active with Brawl anymore? Or did I just misunderstand?

He doesn't play brawl anyway.

 

[fkacyan]

Uh oh, Thio is on the case! I thought you weren't active with Brawl anymore? Or did I just misunderstand?

I haven't been active in over a year, and I doubt I'm going to get Saturdays off anytime soon at work, but I'm going to be at least showing up to tourneys in the near future if not entering them again.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, cool! Yeah, I know how you feel with the work thing. Between personal stuff, new apartment costs, and having 2 jobs, I'm having a LOT of trouble finding time to do IRL Brawl stuff. Here's hoping, though. I'm glad you'll at least be able to go back to tournaments again. ^_^

 

[SuSa]

He doesn't play brawl anyway.

Because that has everything to do with anything. Right?

It's amazing how shortsighted the community is. Unless you have a purple name or are otherwise known nationally, your logic doesn't matter.

Does the community really not see what makes ad hominem a fallacy? The only time you can attack credibility is when they use their credibility as evidence.

"You should listen to me because I've won over 60 tournaments."

"I shouldn't listen to you because those 60 tournaments were $1 entry fees of 7 friends, and does not add significantly to your credibility."

I'm attacking the credibility of your evidence, not your credibility.

The above example IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

Now what makes ad hominem what it is?

"I'm a well respected player, known for winning tournaments with other respected players in attendance. Therefore people listen to my arguments and support my logic."

Above player has actually never attended a single tournament, but has somehow managed to manipulate results and have the other players agree to say he has beaten them. The reasons for this are unknown, but he's just some random scrub.

Would that debunk any of his arguments? I mean.. you did believe his arguments before you found out the truth. Why should it make his logic any different?

It doesn't. That's what makes it ad hominem. His credibility is not relevant to his argument.

:leek:

 

[SaveMeJebus]

ICs, falco, D3, diddy, snake,..... want more?

against who(characters that they already don't have an advantage against)?

 

[SuSa]

Going from an advantage to a strong advantage... is still gaining a noticeable advantage.

:leek:

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Going from an advantage to a strong advantage... is still gaining a noticeable advantage.

:leek:

Then how does one get accurate MUs ratios without taking into account the stage list(in other words the general character vs character MU)?

 

[ADHD]

Umm.. but he really doesn't play brawl..

 

[SuSa]

Then how does one get accurate MUs ratios without taking into account the stage list(in other words the general character vs character MU)?

There is no such thing as an accurate matchup ratio.

This game isn't so clear cut as to have those. It's a dictation of matchups based on each character's total amount of options at given points compared to their opponent.

In the neutral state
In the offensive state
in the defensive state

Each of these 3 states are also stage dependent.

Why is MK good?

He owns at all 3 of those states... and every stage.

Why is every top tier good?

They own in at least two of those straights, and possibly are good in a third.
^ same for high tier

Why is low tier bad?

They suck in all 3 of those states.

Also matchups change based on the stage - which is a factor people don't use because of how **** time consuming it would be.

Umm.. but he really doesn't play brawl..

I haven't been active in over a year, and I doubt I'm going to get Saturdays off anytime soon at work, but I'm going to be at least showing up to tourneys in the near future if not entering them again.

I must have misunderstood "haven't been active in over a year" and "if not entering them again"


:leek:

 

[fkacyan]

Umm.. but he really doesn't play brawl..

Hello, Wyatt. Not sure why you're trying to imply that I don't know anything about Brawl because I don't play.

And for not playing ever, as you imply, I sure do pretty decently against ranked NJ / NY players.

 

[ADHD]

Hello, Wyatt. Not sure why you're trying to imply that I don't know anything about Brawl because I don't play.

And for not playing ever, as you imply, I sure do pretty decently against ranked NJ / NY players.

Cyanide is SO MAD.

 

[JayBee]

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.

But this is the easy way to do it; and no one wants to do things the easy way...

 

[FRiSKruns]

There is no such thing as an accurate matchup ratio.
This game isn't so clear cut as to have those.It's a dictation of matchups based on each character's total amount of options at given points compared to their opponent.
In the neutral state
In the offensive state
in the defensive state
Why is MK good?
He owns in all 3 states ... and every stage.
Why is every top tier good?
They own in at least two, and possibly a third.
^ same for high tier
Why is low tier bad?
They suck in all 3 of those states.
Also matchups change based on the stage - which is a factor people don't use because of how **** time consuming it would be.

^ This.

But this is the easy way to do it; and no one wants to do things the easy way...

lo@ Kojin's sig, agreed, although naturally for the sake of those who genuinely want to use MK because of the character rather than because he wins, I would think those who are given the option would much rather just find a way to balance him.

 

[fkacyan]

Cyanide is SO MAD.

But... I wasn't mad?

You're not a very good troll. 8|

 

[ぱみゅ]

Metaknight is very good, better than any character in the game actually. But he is not THAT outstanding.
Most of his matchups are 55:45 or 60:40. That means that in character vs character, he's very beatable. He depends a lot on the stage control, and that's why stages that allows more options are better for him.

 

[SuSa]

Most of his 55:45 matchups he still doesn't lose anywhere near that "just under halfway" mark.

I don't trust those numbers at all. And numbers are pointless.

He has an advantage over the entire cast. The difference between 55:45 and 60:40 is almost non-existant. He may not have a solid advantage over the cast, but he easily can with his stage selection.

MK? Stage control? Not really. If the stage has a ledge, he's good there. That's all he needs. More options actually restrict him far more than they help him.

People say MK is good on RC, I highly disagree with this. I actually think it's one of his WORST STAGES. Why do I say this?

Count how many ledges RC has and how often they are around.

MK is good on Brinstar, what do I see?
Two ledges that also allow attacking from underneath the stage. Attacking from UNDERNEATH THE STAGE is not offered on a lot of stages.

Can I attack you through Smashville? Nope.
Battlefield? Just near the edge.
FD? Just near the edge.

You're looking at the wrong aspects.

What make's a good MK stage:
A stage with abusable invincibility frames. The more ledges, the better. Norfair is awesome.
A stage that allows him an easy method to avoid his opponent. Platforms benefit this, Battlefield is pretty awesome.
A stage that allows him to attack through the stage from safety, due to his amazing recovery. Brinstar is awesome.

What make's a bad Mk stage:
One where is constantly having to go face to face with his opponent.
One where he has no invincibility frames to abuse, it also makes his recovery unsafe!

:leek:

 

[ADHD]

But... I wasn't mad?

You're not a very good troll. 8|

You are clearly getting flustered.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Most of his 55:45 matchups he still doesn't lose anywhere near that "just under halfway" mark.

I don't trust those numbers at all. And numbers are pointless.

He has an advantage over the entire cast. The difference between 55:45 and 60:40 is almost non-existant. He may not have a solid advantage over the cast, but he easily can with his stage selection.

MK? Stage control? Not really. If the stage has a ledge, he's good there. That's all he needs. More options actually restrict him far more than they help him.

Now, we're talking about MK=Plank.
Game design allows that, but having it in-game is a problem with people and the ruleset itself, not stages.
Problem is, that... there's really a way to solve it?

People say MK is good on RC, I highly disagree with this. I actually think it's one of his WORST STAGES. Why do I say this?

Count how many ledges RC has and how often they are around.

MK is good on Brinstar, what do I see?
Two ledges that also allow attacking from underneath the stage. Attacking from UNDERNEATH THE STAGE is not offered on a lot of stages.

Can I attack you through Smashville? Nope.
Battlefield? Just near the edge.
FD? Just near the edge.

You're looking at the wrong aspects.

What make's a good MK stage:
A stage with abusable invincibility frames. The more ledges, the better. Norfair is awesome.
A stage that allows him an easy method to avoid his opponent. Platforms benefit this, Battlefield is pretty awesome.
A stage that allows him to attack through the stage from safety, due to his amazing recovery. Brinstar is awesome.

What make's a bad Mk stage:
One where is constantly having to go face to face with his opponent.
One where he has no invincibility frames to abuse, it also makes his recovery unsafe!

:leek:

RC is a very good stage for him because of his recovery. He can gimp with absurd facility and keep himself safe. He does not need to plank at all.

And that's pretty much it: Most of his MUs are even-ish, so facing his opponent is a risk.
He depends on attacking from any site of the stage and because of his amazing recovery most characters can't beat him offstage.

He can't do that, he'll have trouble.

 

[SuSa]

RC is a very good stage for him because of his recovery. He can gimp with absurd facility and keep himself safe. He does not need to plank at all.

And that's pretty much it: Most of his MUs are even-ish, so facing his opponent is a risk.
He depends on attacking from any site of the stage and because of his amazing recovery most characters can't beat him offstage.

He can't do that, he'll have trouble.

RC largely benefits many recoveries, including Snake's. Do you know how impossible it is to gimp Snake on RC compared to many other stages? Same goes for most of the cast.

If you get gimped on RC, just let me add it must ONLY be during the pendulum part, and even then I'm questioning you as a player because it's hard to be getting gimped during that part of the stage as well.


He can't do what or he'll have trouble?

:leek:

 

[ぱみゅ]

RC largely benefits many recoveries, including Snake's. Do you know how impossible it is to gimp Snake on RC compared to many other stages? Same goes for most of the cast.

He can gimp with absurd facility and keep himself safe

Snake's and most characters' recoveries are still unsafe. MK's is not.
Ganondorf can go through the whole loop, but he'll struggle in his attempt of climbing.

If you get gimped on RC, just let me add it must ONLY be during the pendulum part, and even then I'm questioning you as a player because it's hard to be getting gimped during that part of the stage as well.

If your recovery is not safe enough, you'll be punished trying getting on a platform, and you'll be launched to the air again.
It is just a part of the stage, but it's the main aerial part, and probably the most important in it.

He can't do what or he'll have trouble?

:leek:

Please, ignore that last sentence of mine, language is a problem for me when I'm trying debate...

 

[SuSa]

I again bring up:

MK cannot be used to prove anything about any stage. He breaks anything he fights against, this includes stages.

2. Platform canceling benefits those with good jumps, or good aerial mobility. It's almost not even worth it for MK given his shuttle loop and number of jumps. I suggest you look into it.

It's fine, i can understand.

:leek:

 

[John12346]

What I'm worried about is, will MK actually be nerfed in some way through whatever the most fair way of selecting stages is?

The way I see it...
More bans gives MK more of an ability to avoid the few stages he doesn't like(think, FD, Smashville and Pictochat?).
More stages that aren't flat/have platforms/allow sharking are going to give MK more CP options.

Mind you, I'm fine with a lot of stages on the stagelist, but considering how prominent MK is in the current metagame, we might have to take him into account as we think of new ways to advance the game.

 

[Yikarur]

SuSa stop blabbering this kind of bull**** "MK breaks everything"

"
What make's a bad Mk stage:
One where is constantly having to go face to face with his opponent.
One where he has no invincibility frames to abuse, it also makes his recovery unsafe! "

MK isn't the best because he can abused invincibility, not even close to it.
"makes his recovery unsafe" isn't true at all.

 

[John12346]

Susa was talking in terms of relativity. MK is still outstanding on his 'bad stages,' but there are obvious better stages he could be playing on.

Obviously MK wins almost every close-range battle he's in, given his range, speed, and priority, but given his offstage, ledge, aerial, and running away games, fighting MK in close combat is usually your best chance.

And these are the main reasons why MK's so good(YES, I'm aware everyone probably knows this, but I'm just stating them for reference sake)
- Planking and Perfect Planking, as well as the ability to time players out even WITH an LGL
- Sharking(where available)
- Too many frame safe moves in the air or on the ground
- Recovery and momentum cancel in Uair
- Offstage gimp game

 

[DMG]

The best stages for him are those that help him evade the opponent. Cause MK running away tends to be too good lol.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

As promised.

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

How does SV allows more than half the cast to screw match-ups on this stage?

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.

I don't count outliers when they are a very very small minority.

Your CP stages aren't weird either Rainbow cruise is just fine for Snake.

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.

I don't really question why people main who they main since it's their choice, competitive or non competitive. If they are happy playing who they are then I think it's what should matter.

On a more related note, some characters have some issues with "Dynamic" stages, we know this.

More reasons I support 7 stage list over 5.

*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.

TKD says he hates some of the CP stages and that they shouldn't be legal so he goes MK on them.

Either way I'm not going to talk much about this.

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.

Ok but regardless FD doesn't let Diddy break the stage in his favor, platforms help as I said, but the size of the stage is also very important for his stage control.

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.

Yay! First use of the word Scrub!

I must have missed the part where I said starter = counter pick. I'm talking about game 1, not game 2 and so forth.

I don't care what someones preference is, if a stage is proven to skew match-ups it skews match-ups.

I think the current starter list could be fixed, do I think it's broken? no. Just that we can improve on it.

FD isn't the best stage to always start on, either is Brinstar, Cruise, Deflino, Frigate, Lylat, etc.

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.

Well sort of, if the stage favors characters to large degrees, Norfair, then the stage is quite polar, DDD cs Wario turns a 6:4 in one characters favor into a 2:8 in the other characters favor.

I don't consider FD on my first stage to strike against DDD, and in some cases Falco where they sometimes take a liking to BF and other stages.

If I'm Lucario, if they know my character they are going to ban Frigate or Yoshi's against me for CPs usually, MK will ban FD as some exceptions.

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.

This is generally what I mean when I say neutral, but I'm not going to say median of bias, sorry.

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:

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or a pro at this game to know SV doesn't warp match-ups.

You just need to figure out where most match-up will occur by asking players.

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.

Again, I don't care if someone wants to do Link vs King DDD on FD, like me, I care if people keep striking certain stages and they virtually never get played on.

It's a waste of space to include them on a starter list and makes tournament striking take a bit longer in some cases, I said earlier 2-3 minutes on average as a guess.

 

[Raziek]

It's not a waste of space, because they force strikes, which in turn more accurately shows the MoB. (median of bias, from here on)

Is there something I need to clarify there? I thought I've made it clear enough why they SHOULD be included, even though a small list "sort of" does the job.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It's not a waste of space, because they force strikes, which in turn more accurately shows the MoB. (median of bias, from here on)

Is there something I need to clarify there? I thought I've made it clear enough why they SHOULD be included, even though a small list "sort of" does the job.

It's forced because I don't want to face pocket MKs on Brinstar game 1, even more so when I have no clue who my opponent will pick, Cheese, since striking comes before character selection.

And it is a waste if it's striked no matter who play who.

 

[Raziek]

First, character selection is double blind PRIOR to the stage.

Second, NO, IT ISN'T A WASTE.

I don't even know how you don't understand this.

Very simple example for you, we'll look at this in terms of a "How many stages are FORCED strikes" scenario. As in, is this stage bad enough that almost any character will strike it against you.

Let's look at ICs and MK, for simplicity.

Against ICs, MK is basically forced to strike FD, SV, and probably Picto. (if we're looking at full-list)

Against MK, ICs are forced to strike Brinstar, RC, Norfair, Delfino, and at least 2 or 3 other GREAT stages for MK.

ICs are looking at having maybe 2-3 "preference" strikes, and 7-8 "match-up strikes".

MK is looking at 2-3 "match-up" strikes, and 7-8 "preference strikes"

When you remove all the extra stages, this CORRECTLY DISPLAYED BALANCE evaporates, as you just removed MK's ability to force about 6-8 strikes, since those stages are no longer there.

The MoB is now SKEWED, and UNFAIRLY SO. These stages, while often struck, serve EXACTLY THAT PURPOSE, which is....


Forcing a strike to make the MoB MORE ACCURATE

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

First, character selection is double blind PRIOR to the stage.

Woops, my mistake about the character selection. Always thought it was the other way around.

Second, NO, IT ISN'T A WASTE.

I don't even know how you don't understand this.

Very simple example for you, we'll look at this in terms of a "How many stages are FORCED strikes" scenario. As in, is this stage bad enough that almost any character will strike it against you.

Let's look at ICs and MK, for simplicity.

Against ICs, MK is basically forced to strike FD, SV, and probably Picto. (if we're looking at full-list)

Against MK, ICs are forced to strike Brinstar, RC, Norfair, Delfino, and at least 2 or 3 other GREAT stages for MK.

ICs are looking at having maybe 2-3 "preference" strikes, and 7-8 "match-up strikes".

MK is looking at 2-3 "match-up" strikes, and 7-8 "preference strikes"

When you remove all the extra stages, this CORRECTLY DISPLAYED BALANCE evaporates, as you just removed MK's ability to force about 6-8 strikes, since those stages are no longer there.

The MoB is now SKEWED, and UNFAIRLY SO. These stages, while often struck, serve EXACTLY THAT PURPOSE, which is....


Forcing a strike to make the MoB MORE ACCURATE

It is a waste when people are going to strike the stage regardless of the match-up. How many people are going to start on Rainbow Cruise game one? And I mean the average player, not Susa, not RainbowCruisefan12345, not someone who wants to do Ganon vs Wario here, the normal smart player. Every single person is going to strike this stage because of how it affects the cast, I can reasonably see FD happening Game 1 far more than Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar, or many other CP stages. Because outside of Ice Climbers, Diddy, no one truly does infinitely better here.

This is completely opposite of Cruise and the like, those stages do deter and change match-ups way more heavily than most starter stages do.

Also IC's don't need to strike that many stages for the match-up, they suck on CP stages, they aren't so static that going to Halberd is going to screw them over. Then again you also picked MK in this example so I'm not surprised they might have to strike that many stages against a character that only has 1 true stage to worry about universally, FD and possibly picto.

The stages force strikes, so? Game 1 is still going to start on a stage that is either on the 5 stage starter list or 7, because those stages don't heavily affect match-ups to the degree that the more extreme CP stages would.

If things end up right where they where they were before then a full strike was pointless only to add more fluff and give characters the slim chance of getting larger advantages if people let them end up on these stages.

Median of bias doesn't mean anything comparing the two when the starter stages should already contain what should the the stages that are generally the best median of bias stages as is, if not it should be fixed, if it already is, we don't need this system.

At least on FD Falco and Diddy need to work and play the match-up to properly win rather than letting the stage list or stage run the show for them.

This does help character like MK, G&W, Wario, Jigglypuff possibly, but I can't see a grand advantage for the cast when if we make a 5/7 Stage starter list correctly, the game eill end up on the median of bias and it keeps hardcore CP stages from either running the show or wasting time on a strike list.

 

[John12346]

Which brings us back to my initial worries.

A larger starter list gives MK more advantageous stages to start on, and considering he has arguably 3 "bad" stages, any starter list with 7+ stages not including said 3 stages will always put him on a good stage round 1.

An increased starter list would probably show some increased stage diversity and tactical thinking before the match starts, considering all of the different matchups available in the game. I'd be down for this whole idea, if not for MK probably destroying it beyond comprehension.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm fine and advocate a 7 stage starter list because I can kinda see how the 5 starter one favors some characters and how we could go to 7 to give what people want in terms of more stage diversity while keeping the stages more tame.

I could even see a 9 stage starter working, past that though and we're adding stages that are counter pick.

 

[WillzTJ]

I think there's one simple solution to all of this...I saw this idea in another thread, basically for tourneys instead of all the unfair SSBB stages, people should simply make so-called netrual or more fairer stages on stage builder! That will end this whole problem of unfair stage obstacles and stuff dont you think?

 

[Jack Kieser]

If that's the case, Red Ryu, then you have royally missed the point. The ENTIRE POINT about this is that we claim, as a community, that the game has so many matchups and so many details to gameplay that we cannot even accurately conclude what the matchup ratios are, yet somehow we know FOR A FACT that these 5 stages are universally the most "neutral" stages, so much so that we are 100% confident that removing even the choice of playing on other stages is the best course of action for everyone.

That is a contradiction. We are contradicting ourselves, because we cannot claim that we know enough to know which stages are universally neutral, and NOT claim that we know enough to even figure out the high-tier matchups correctly.

Even worse is that when we're given a REASON as to why these 5 stages are the "most neutral", the reason we're given is a contradiction in and of itself! You can't claim that flat + plat static stages are the most neutral when ANYONE can list multiple characters that favor flat + plat static stages to varying degrees without even needing time to think (for instance, D3, ICs, Diddy, Falco; thought of that in 3 seconds, less than the amount of time it took to type their names out)!

What you think about whether "anyone would go to that stage" for round 1 is irrelevant, because our job, as arbiters of the game, is to present the most competitive field of play we can, and when you look at the facts of what we currently know, we do not objectively know what makes a "neutral" stage for everyone, because that quality might not even exist. And if we CAN'T objectively say that Quality A, B, or C makes a stage globally neutral, then we have no right to claim ANY stage is globally neutral. Even if we are reasonably sure that no one would go to Stage X, Y, or Z for round 1, we cannot rule out the possibility that one of those stages might be the MoB for SOME matchup, even if its not a top tier matchup.

And in that case, as arbiters of the game, we cannot, in good conscience, take that choice away from the player. Just because you, Red Ryu, will not make a choice, does not mean that someone else won't, as well.