Full Stage List Striking - New name

[John12346]

Red Ryu, don't get me wrong, I advocate a giant starter stage list with lots of choice(I'd prefer 9, but higher is fine too); it's just that I don't feel that this will help the with the obvious MK issue, another point that's brought up in the OP's argument.

I just don't feel like there's any legitimate way to arrange the stagelist in a way that MK won't end up ****** it. And even if there was, we'd be arranging the stagelist because of one character, which is obviously no good. >.>

Also, everything that Jack said, too.

 

[Jebril]

I would want a one character per set ruleset, that would be sweet.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

You JUST DON'T GET IT.

Find me an MK who wouldn't want to start on RC game one against, say, Diddy or Falco. The only ones you'll find are people like Anti or Jumpman-people who are either incredibly bad on those stages, or are massive scrubs.

Now find me an MK who would rather start on BF than Delfino. Find me an MK who, in a stagelist that's something like FD, BF, RC, Brinstar, Norfair would agree to go to BF or FD.

Now look at the 21-starter stage list proposed a while back, and compare it to the typical 5-starter. And then reread Raziek's post. Do you get it NOW?

Again, it has nothing to do with actually starting there (although giving people the option is good). It has everything to do with making sure that your opponent doesn't get one of his best stages. On a 5-stage starter list, Diddy gets approximately his 3rd-best stage in most matchups. Oh, but you support 7! Oh wait, Diddy gets his 4th-best there! It makes a difference, but it's still unfairly pushed in his direction when you're looking for the median fair stage for the matchup.

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.

Wait, what? I don't understand the logic here. They may start there. So? There's a BIG difference between, on a 7-starter list, going to PS1 against Diddy, and going to Halberd, or Frigate. And again, the fact that, in a larger starter list, every stage in the 7-starter list would be stricken in many matchups, points to something else being wrong.

If they strike that way due to personal preference, that's fine. But if players actually want to do well, they will use the system to their advantage.

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.

Slim chances my ***. You're moving from the polar grounded stages to a ****ing median.

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.

Except... THEY AREN'T. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. FD is not a fair stage for Diddy-MK. Neither is SV. Neither is BF. NEITHER ARE YI, PS1, or CS! And yet, Diddy can ALWAYS force to these stages. Never mind that, if we were ACTUALLY looking for the median, the median would be closer to Delfino.

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.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah I think we're done here.

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.

Again. 5-7 does not entail the median of bias as it currently is, and it almost certainly never will. As Jack said, how the **** do you intend to know what the median of bias between the stages are when you can't even determine all of the top tier matchups well?

You just refuse to understand it. Come on man, this is getting sad.

 

[Omni]

so the top characters in the game are top characters because with the current stagelist they get their best stages the most amount of time

it sounds like you're suggesting that we nerf top tiers by expanding the stage list so that they have a smaller chance of playing on those specific stages

is this in an attempt to balance the system?

 

[Raziek]

The current top characters are the current top because they're playing in a Metagame focused around performing well against MK, and they have a stagelist catered to giving them an undeserved advantage in the match-up, on top of that.

This is getting into semantics from a year ago, but we are not suggesting anyone gets NERFED. This is a "BUG FIX" in which a flawed system gave some characters an unwarranted/undeserved advantage.

On average, on most stages, Falco/ICs/Diddy/Snake should not do as well vs. MK as they currently get to do on the starter stage for Game 1, because the list is BIASED and causes an inaccurate Median of Bias to be displayed.

Further, be wary that not ALL top tier characters suffer. Marth benefits, Wario benefits, Pikachu benefits, Olimar (to some extent) benefits, GW gets HUGE benefits. The stage list is currently sculpted around catering to NON-versatile characters, while the truey versatile characters suffer an unfair penalty.

Yes, this means MK is better in this system. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A REALLY GOOD CHARACTER. It is YOU (the 5-starter people) that have gotten away for so long, with nerfing a character unfairly, as a convoluted result of using a system based around a flawed philosophy, and trying to keep this character in the game, by artificially limiting him.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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.

Like I said already, you don't need to be a genius to see SV doesn't heavily influence the roaster's match-ups or warps them. The more random and crazy the stage is the more likely it's going to affect match-ups and become less likely to be a good starter stage for game 1 to start on.

Doesn't matter what I think, the majority of the community already agrees that they want to start on these kinds of stages, which ultimately is the main thing against a full stage list. You can't force this upon the community if they are against it, you can make claims that Port Town Aero Drive is legit and should be played on, if every region but Iowa/some MW state bans the stage the community has shown they don't want it as a CP stage.

It removes choice to go there or even on a starter list where I don't let people start on Frigate, that's because those stages aren't medians of bias, nor are they "fair" for match-ups like people claim they are. Lucario gains a nice advantage against most of the cast on this stage because his recovery is not hampered on this stage and he can force the opponent to recovery high and come down to the ground, which is exactly what he likes characters doing, I still wouldn't use this stage against characters like MK or King DDD.

Some characters like our current starter stage list, we made it this way because the other stages sway match-up far harder than most of our current starter stages do. We have it so match-ups are already played on the median of least bias and people agree. If people really don't like it, prove them wrong that there are a lot more match-ups that should be played on CP stages.

Red Ryu, don't get me wrong, I advocate a giant starter stage list with lots of choice(I'd prefer 9, but higher is fine too); it's just that I don't feel that this will help the with the obvious MK issue, another point that's brought up in the OP's argument.

I just don't feel like there's any legitimate way to arrange the stagelist in a way that MK won't end up ****** it. And even if there was, we'd be arranging the stagelist because of one character, which is obviously no good. >.>

Also, everything that Jack said, too.

This is part of the reason I am pro ban against MK, even if people disagree they have to admit he does influence the stage list.

You JUST DON'T GET IT.

Find me an MK who wouldn't want to start on RC game one against, say, Diddy or Falco. The only ones you'll find are people like Anti or Jumpman-people who are either incredibly bad on those stages, or are massive scrubs.

Now find me an MK who would rather start on BF than Delfino. Find me an MK who, in a stagelist that's something like FD, BF, RC, Brinstar, Norfair would agree to go to BF or FD.

Now look at the 21-starter stage list proposed a while back, and compare it to the typical 5-starter. And then reread Raziek's post. Do you get it NOW?

You said I missed your point only for you to skew what mine was.

I don't care if someone wants to be an idiot and start on a stage that gives the opponent a clear advantage heavy advantage like on Brinstar. Some character character's get advantages on a starter stage list.

ICs don't get a heavy advantage on BF or SV, FD sure they do very well and is their best stage. IC on battlefield isn't a problem.

Again, it has nothing to do with actually starting there (although giving people the option is good). It has everything to do with making sure that your opponent doesn't get one of his best stages. On a 5-stage starter list, Diddy gets approximately his 3rd-best stage in most matchups. Oh, but you support 7! Oh wait, Diddy gets his 4th-best there! It makes a difference, but it's still unfairly pushed in his direction when you're looking for the median fair stage for the matchup.

I missed the part where Pictochat was on a starter list, pretty sure that was one of his best stages.

You don't make a list to give character their best stage, if it happen,s oh well. You make it so the stage list itself doesn't skew match-ups heavily in someones favor. Clear CP stages do in fact skew match-ups quite heavily because of the stage itself, not the character.

This is why people don't like this idea, not because Diddy or Ice Climbers do better but because the cast as a whole suffers because they won't get a true median of bias stage like people claim.

We don't make a stage list so it will balance match-ups. We do it so stages don't place heavy influence on how a the match-up will be played.

Wait, what? I don't understand the logic here. They may start there. So? There's a BIG difference between, on a 7-starter list, going to PS1 against Diddy, and going to Halberd, or Frigate. And again, the fact that, in a larger starter list, every stage in the 7-starter list would be stricken in many matchups, points to something else being wrong.

If they strike that way due to personal preference, that's fine. But if players actually want to do well, they will use the system to their advantage.

If someone really wants to strike every stage that would be neutral on a 7 stage starter system, I fully welcome it, it lets me control where I want to go so much easier so I can wreck them on a CP stage heavily in my favor.

Slim chances my ***. You're moving from the polar grounded stages to a ****ing median.

Assuming the starter list is nothing but polar ground stages, which it isn't.

Except... THEY AREN'T. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. FD is not a fair stage for Diddy-MK. Neither is SV. Neither is BF. NEITHER ARE YI, PS1, or CS! And yet, Diddy can ALWAYS force to these stages. Never mind that, if we were ACTUALLY looking for the median, the median would be closer to Delfino.

FD with Diddy-MK is true, the rest are bull. The match-up is being played without the stage running the show, there is nothing wrong with this.

Also Delfino as a median is laughable. Very few people would let a MK take them there no matter what character they was on a 21 stage list.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah I think we're done here.

MK being unhittable while being able to attack you on Brinstar or Wario being able to hit you once and run away indefinably with no possibly to catch him on Norfair.

Yeah, that comparable to being able to catch Falco when he crosses FD, or messing up Diddy's banana game when he loses control of it. Or being able to outspace and play safe against King DDD.

Again. 5-7 does not entail the median of bias as it currently is, and it almost certainly never will. As Jack said, how the **** do you intend to know what the median of bias between the stages are when you can't even determine all of the top tier matchups well?

You just refuse to understand it. Come on man, this is getting sad.

Top tier match-ups are the easiest to figure out because of how often they are played and how often people play on them.

Also it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know SV doesn't heavily influence match-ups, CP stages are clearly different and do quiet the opposite and skew match-ups to favor specific characters.

Neutrals are meant for the match-up to the played as pure as possible, which is possible on SV, BF, YI, etc. Characters are going to get small advantages no matter how you make a list.

If you don't like this, well then convince the community to adopt this, which many people don't want.

so the top characters in the game are top characters because with the current stagelist they get their best stages the most amount of time

it sounds like you're suggesting that we nerf top tiers by expanding the stage list so that they have a smaller chance of playing on those specific stages

is this in an attempt to balance the system?

It's kinda funny if this is what they are saying because there are top tier character who want CP stages so they can perform much better.

The current top characters are the current top because they're playing in a Metagame focused around performing well against MK, and they have a stagelist catered to giving them an undeserved advantage in the match-up, on top of that.

This is getting into semantics from a year ago, but we are not suggesting anyone gets NERFED. This is a "BUG FIX" in which a flawed system gave some characters an unwarranted/undeserved advantage.

On average, on most stages, Falco/ICs/Diddy/Snake should not do as well vs. MK as they currently get to do on the starter stage for Game 1, because the list is BIASED and causes an inaccurate Median of Bias to be displayed.

Further, be wary that not ALL top tier characters suffer. Marth benefits, Wario benefits, Pikachu benefits, Olimar (to some extent) benefits, GW gets HUGE benefits. The stage list is currently sculpted around catering to NON-versatile characters, while the truey versatile characters suffer an unfair penalty.

Yes, this means MK is better in this system. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A REALLY GOOD CHARACTER. It is YOU (the 5-starter people) that have gotten away for so long, with nerfing a character unfairly, as a convoluted result of using a system based around a flawed philosophy, and trying to keep this character in the game, by artificially limiting him.

That isn't bias though.

If we were purposefully skewing the game so top tiers could beat MK, japes would be a starter with halberd, FD, and many other stages that favor Snake, Falco, Diddy, Marth, IC, Pikachu, etc.

It doesn't matter if the stage gives an advantage or if it's deserved, what matter is does this stage force gameplay or skew match-ups heavily because of certain tactics.

I can see arguments for FD in this case for IC, and possibly Diddy, Falco etc. I don't see how BF, SV, YI, PS1, Lylat, etc. do this for grounded or top tier characters, when these stages don't give huge advantages.

If we were making it to counter MK or some other kinds of characters I would be firmly against it.

 

[Yikarur]

Red Ryu wins this thread <3

 

[Raziek]

No, he doesn't, I'll elaborate when I get back from class.

 

[SuSa]

so the top characters in the game are top characters because with the current stagelist they get their best stages the most amount of time

it sounds like you're suggesting that we nerf top tiers by expanding the stage list so that they have a smaller chance of playing on those specific stages

is this in an attempt to balance the system?

They shouldn't have the buff from the stage list to begin with. The stage list is a change we made to this game.

We don't buff characters. How is nobody understanding that? Especially when it nerfs other characters?

We're willing to buff 5+ characters and nerf 15+ characters with our current starter list, but we refuse to ban DDD's infinites or small step CG's to nerf 1 character and buff 5-6?

We refuse to ban IC's infinites, nerfing them (harshly, at that) and buffing the entire cast?

But we'll "ban stages" from Game 1 to buff MK, Snake, Falco, Diddy, Marth, and others - and nerf Sheik, DK, G&W, Wario, and others?

How does anyone fail to see the double standard in this?

I mean.. holy ****..... no wonder why I think the general populace is full of ****ing idiots.

EDIT:
Had a few full-stage-striking money matches yesterday.
They were ****ing wonderful

We upped the bans to 3 (we figured 1/7 was a fair number of bans. So 3/21) - which removes any chance of a "sure-win" on your counterpick. (Wario/MK on Brinstar....) but you can still get counterpicked pretty harshly (nowhere near as bad as current...)

One of my first matches was on Rainbow Cruise... but it could have easily been on Pirate Ship if my enemy felt more comfortable with that stage.

:leek:

 

[Juushichi]

+1 Post, but I'm subscribing to this thread.

 

[Omni]

so i guess japan must really be doing it wrong.

my point is that the initial stage list was not made in an attempt to shape the tier list. the tier list shaped itself based off the given rules for selecting stages.

trying to go back and change the stagelist is an attempt to bring balance to the game. if for whatever reason Brawl were more balanced with our current stagelist nobody would be complaining. so the premise of trying to expand the stagelist is based off our current tier list which means people are directly trying to manipulate the tier list as opposed to letting it shape itself

the same theory applies to Melee. if more stages were left open or left closed there COULD be a best character in that game.

i didn't say anything about buffing a character. but nerfing a specific character indirectly buffers the rest of the cast. ic's infinite was banned for stalling purposes. that's a silly example. the banning of stages is purposely used to gain an advantage. it's been this way since Melee. in both Melee and Brawl the characters that are the most versatile on the most amount of stages tend to be the best

jiggs would be an absolute #1 pick if Melee opened up more of their stages

im not sure who you're calling stupid but if your idea was so ingenious we'd be running full steam ahead with it. think about that for a second before you start thinking you're intellectually superior

 

[SuSa]

Yes. They are. But we're not Japan? Are we? Many people scoff at the fact that many Japanese-held tournaments have such a small amount of stages. When I'm able to speak Japanese fluently enough to share with them my argument - I will. But until then, 私は日本語を学んでいる。

It was not an attempt to shape the tier list. But that is precisely what it has done. It was our influence on the tier list.

Yes, having a full-stage-strike would influence the current tier list. It would remove the bias we placed into it.

Omni, can you list me 3 reasons why static stages are "more neutral and fair" to start on than dynamic stages? Or how about why our current 5 stage starter list are "the most fair and neutral" in the entire game?

How about even 1 reason?

Did the BBR take into consideration the 14,000~ possibilities before creating our stage list? Are they basing it off non-existent data and bias? I mean.. if they took into consideration 14,000~ possibilities and managed to dwindle it down to the most-used 5 stages... then sure.. I might agree to that.

EDIT:

nerfing a specific character indirectly buffers the rest of the cast

As does removing a specific stage indirectly buffs and nerfs the rest of the cast. =|

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No, he doesn't, I'll elaborate when I get back from class.

He's right I didn't win the thread.

They shouldn't have the buff from the stage list to begin with. The stage list is a change we made to this game.

We don't buff characters. How is nobody understanding that? Especially when it nerfs other characters?

We're willing to buff 5+ characters and nerf 15+ characters with our current starter list, but we refuse to ban DDD's infinites or small step CG's to nerf 1 character and buff 5-6?

We refuse to ban IC's infinites, nerfing them (harshly, at that) and buffing the entire cast?

But we'll "ban stages" from Game 1 to buff MK, Snake, Falco, Diddy, Marth, and others - and nerf Sheik, DK, G&W, Wario, and others?

How does anyone fail to see the double standard in this?

I mean.. holy ****..... no wonder why I think the general populace is full of ****ing idiots.

EDIT:
Had a few full-stage-striking money matches yesterday.
They were ****ing wonderful

We upped the bans to 3 (we figured 1/7 was a fair number of bans. So 3/21) - which removes any chance of a "sure-win" on your counterpick. (Wario/MK on Brinstar....) but you can still get counterpicked pretty harshly (nowhere near as bad as current...)

One of my first matches was on Rainbow Cruise... but it could have easily been on Pirate Ship if my enemy felt more comfortable with that stage.

:leek:

It's not a double standard when it's not one of the true goals of a stage list. We don't make it to buff or nerf anyone, but so the stages themselves are the least influential to buff or nerf characters of the roaster in match-ups.

Also if 15+ character suck against certain character, well sounds more like those characters sucks and it's a bad MU.

 

[SuSa]

The stages themselves are not the least influential to buff or nerf characters in of the roster in match-ups currently. Also it doesn't matter what the "true goal" is - it's the result.

In fact, up to an 11 stage starter the only one I'd argue that's extremely fair for the cast is Smashville.

Also those 15+ characters actually do much better against certain characters when we remove our bias from the stage list.

EDIT:
My character is better than yours overall, my character is good on 15+ stages.
But I still lose the set because your character is better on 3 of the current starter stages and you only need 2 to win.
So I lose. Still.
Because your character is better on our artificial creation.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The stages themselves are not the least influential to buff or nerf characters in of the roster in match-ups currently. Also it doesn't matter what the "true goal" is - it's the result.

In fact, up to an 11 stage starter the only one I'd argue that's extremely fair for the cast is Smashville.

Also those 15+ characters actually do much better against certain characters when we remove our bias from the stage list.

EDIT:
My character is better than yours overall, my character is good on 15+ stages.
But I still lose the set because your character is better on 3 of the current starter stages and you only need 2 to win.
So I lose. Still.
Because your character is better on our artificial creation.

:leek:

The goal matters when we don't care about the few characters that get a buff from from the list we have now.

The stages we have do not influence match-ups to high levels or degrees, except for the possible FD. But it doesn't matter, these stages are the least influential of match-up changing stages out there.

Wanna know why Ice Climbers aren't higher on the tier list? It's because people already know they have some issues with CP stages and some character even don't care if they do take them to starter stages.

People want the characters to be the most influential part of match-ups not the stages, the stages are where we face each other on a medium. It's a part of the game, but in no way should it be so influential to the point where 6:4's turn into 2:8's because of the stage layout.

This is what a starter list, CP, and banning stages tries to accomplish.

Bias means we're trying to forcefully make certain characters better, which we never were from the beginning. If someone gets better from this, it's a by product but not something that is making a bunch of characters complete trash because we have more static stages legal. If anything it's because those character already had problems they couldn't cover, and it's something I don't want the stage list to become.

I'm not going to make a list that is,

FD
Norfair
BF
Brinstar
Halberd

Just so Link can get better by a starter list.

 

[Blacknight99923]

susa your enemy is an idiot for not using his main against you and for taking you to RC

 

[Raziek]

Like I said already, you don't need to be a genius to see SV doesn't heavily influence the roaster's match-ups or warps them. The more random and crazy the stage is the more likely it's going to affect match-ups and become less likely to be a good starter stage for game 1 to start on.

CP stages don't WARP matchups, either, in most cases. Frigate doesn't warp match-ups, PS2 doesn't warp match-ups, DISTANT PLANET doesn't even warp matchups.

Know what happens to stages that "warp" matchups? They're stricken! This is what you don't understand, is that even though they MAY not get selected, their presence is still a powerful tool that causes the median of bias to be displayed more accurately.

This is quite simple when you look at how a character performs in comparison to the big picture (all the stages)

MK's performance in a 5-starter list is SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE than his performance in a full-list.

IC's performance in a 5-starter list is SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than their performance in a full-list.

THIS is where the bias comes in, by restricting Game 1 to stages that are static and "Don't skew the match-up", when a character's performance in Game 1 should be representative of their PERFORMANCE AS A WHOLE. MK should be performing BETTER on Game 1 than he does, but we have stacked the stagelist against him!

Doesn't matter what I think, the majority of the community already agrees that they want to start on these kinds of stages, which ultimately is the main thing against a full stage list. You can't force this upon the community if they are against it, you can make claims that Port Town Aero Drive is legit and should be played on, if every region but Iowa/some MW state bans the stage the community has shown they don't want it as a CP stage.

The majority of the community is GARBAGE at theory, and this is why we have the BBR, as a representative group of people who AREN'T garbage (for the most part) at theory. There's a good chance that most of the community wouldn't mind playing only on FD. DOESN'T MAKE THEM RIGHT.

Also, stage selection is not even CLOSE to an issue that people will stop going to tournaments over. Nobody is quitting the game because Port Town is a CP.

It removes choice to go there or even on a starter list where I don't let people start on Frigate, that's because those stages aren't medians of bias, nor are they "fair" for match-ups like people claim they are. Lucario gains a nice advantage against most of the cast on this stage because his recovery is not hampered on this stage and he can force the opponent to recovery high and come down to the ground, which is exactly what he likes characters doing, I still wouldn't use this stage against characters like MK or King DDD.

You really don't understand this "median of bias" thing. The median of bias is NOT the stage that both players want to go to, it's NOT the stage where the match-up is 50/50, and it's NOT ALWAYS a static stage.

Frigate DOES get picked, even in a 7-starter list! I ran that list for two weeks, and it GOT picked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JqYt2VbUkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9V1sIidkg

Just because you don't THINK these stages will get used doesn't mean they won't! I'd be COMPLETELY happy to play Game 1 on Brinstar, Norfair, Japes, Distant Planet, etc. This gives me an advantage, because it means MY OPPONENT HAS TO STRIKE THEM. Bringing preference into play means players are REWARDED for stage knowledge, and playing viable characters.

AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Some characters like our current starter stage list, we made it this way because the other stages sway match-up far harder than most of our current starter stages do. We have it so match-ups are already played on the median of least bias and people agree. If people really don't like it, prove them wrong that there are a lot more match-ups that should be played on CP stages.

The current stage list is the way it is because people still think we're playing melee, and that static is good. Everything in this paragraph is wrong, and we ARE proving it, by displaying plenty of hypotheticals, and even ACTUAL results.

This is part of the reason I am pro ban against MK, even if people disagree they have to admit he does influence the stage list.

Nothing to argue here, that's why I banned him.

You said I missed your point only for you to skew what mine was.

I don't care if someone wants to be an idiot and start on a stage that gives the opponent a clear advantage heavy advantage like on Brinstar. Some character character's get advantages on a starter stage list.

ICs don't get a heavy advantage on BF or SV, FD sure they do very well and is their best stage. IC on battlefield isn't a problem.

Again, people contionue to make the confusion that balance = objective treatment. ICs are not gamebreaking on Battlefield, this is correct. HOWEVER, they perform FAR better there than they do on 80% of the stagelist, which is WHY THIS IS NOT THE MEDIAN OF BIAS.

I missed the part where Pictochat was on a starter list, pretty sure that was one of his best stages.

You don't make a list to give character their best stage, if it happen,s oh well. You make it so the stage list itself doesn't skew match-ups heavily in someones favor. Clear CP stages do in fact skew match-ups quite heavily because of the stage itself, not the character.

This is why people don't like this idea, not because Diddy or Ice Climbers do better but because the cast as a whole suffers because they won't get a true median of bias stage like people claim.

We don't make a stage list so it will balance match-ups. We do it so stages don't place heavy influence on how a the match-up will be played.

First of all, referencing Picto is a strawman, because Diddy still gets BF, FD, SV and YI, which are all AMAZING stages for him, when he happens to perform pretty bad on the rest of the stagelist, which uis why this is a problem.

Only the BAD, NON-versatile characters suffer, not the whole cast. Marth, Snake, MK, Wario, GW, Pika, all the VERSATILE characters, LOVE the bigger lists, because they're GOOD CHARACTERS being handicapped by a BAD STRIKING PROCESS.

This is not designed to balance match-ups, which is what the 5-starer does. (Read: Let's improve our chances vs. MK) Stages can and SHOULD place a heavy influence on the match-up, because EVERY stage does this. FD, BF, Norfair, Picto, RC, YI, Lylat, they ALL heavily influence things.

If someone really wants to strike every stage that would be neutral on a 7 stage starter system, I fully welcome it, it lets me control where I want to go so much easier so I can wreck them on a CP stage heavily in my favor.

So what's the problem then? I frequently make my strikes (9-starers) FD, PS1 (preference), and then two matchup strikes. This system allows for flexibility in reaching the median of bioas, which is the whole **** point of avoiding "I strike FD. You strike BF. SV IT IS, HURR DURR"

Assuming the starter list is nothing but polar ground stages, which it isn't.

Except it pretty much is? FD, SV, YI all HEAVILY favor grounded characters, and BF is pretty bad too. PS1 is only marginally better due to transitions, and Lylat is the only one that's really "ok".

FD with Diddy-MK is true, the rest are bull. The match-up is being played without the stage running the show, there is nothing wrong with this.

Also Delfino as a median is laughable. Very few people would let a MK take them there no matter what character they was on a 21 stage list.

That's the whole **** point! MK is a really good character on EVERY STAGE, so he GETS TO TAKE YOU WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO GO. This is how it SHOULD be, because that accurately relfects the fact that MK is really versatile!

MK being unhittable while being able to attack you on Brinstar or Wario being able to hit you once and run away indefinably with no possibly to catch him on Norfair.

Yeah, that comparable to being able to catch Falco when he crosses FD, or messing up Diddy's banana game when he loses control of it. Or being able to outspace and play safe against King DDD.

The stagelist heavily favors the playstyle. It's exactly the same **** thing.

Top tier match-ups are the easiest to figure out because of how often they are played and how often people play on them.

Also it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know SV doesn't heavily influence match-ups, CP stages are clearly different and do quiet the opposite and skew match-ups to favor specific characters.

Neutrals are meant for the match-up to the played as pure as possible, which is possible on SV, BF, YI, etc. Characters are going to get small advantages no matter how you make a list.

If you don't like this, well then convince the community to adopt this, which many people don't want.

I've covered this already. "Pure" is wrong. SV DOES influence match-ups, and the community is usually wrong.

It's kinda funny if this is what they are saying because there are top tier character who want CP stages so they can perform much better.

Not what we're saying. See Section 2: Accurate Reflection of Median of Bias.

That isn't bias though.

If we were purposefully skewing the game so top tiers could beat MK, japes would be a starter with halberd, FD, and many other stages that favor Snake, Falco, Diddy, Marth, IC, Pikachu, etc.

It doesn't matter if the stage gives an advantage or if it's deserved, what matter is does this stage force gameplay or skew match-ups heavily because of certain tactics.

I can see arguments for FD in this case for IC, and possibly Diddy, Falco etc. I don't see how BF, SV, YI, PS1, Lylat, etc. do this for grounded or top tier characters, when these stages don't give huge advantages.

If we were making it to counter MK or some other kinds of characters I would be firmly against it.

Still wrong.

Japes would never be a starter because "That ****'s janky" (See: The community is ********) Otherwise, people WOULD do that to keep MK in check.

You're wrong again, static is not standard. This needs to be a slogan for this movement. STATIC IS NOT STANDARD.

It's not that these stages give huge advantages (most of them do anyway), it's that they're COMPENSATING for the fact that most of these characters suck EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Does Falco lose to MK in a big list? Yes.
Does Diddy? Yes.
Does ICs? **** YEAH.
Does Snake? Only slightly, Snake is versatile.

These characters are being ARTIFICIALLY boosted by the stagelist, to combat MK.

YOUR MOVE, SLICK.

 

[Omni]

Yes, having a full-stage-strike would influence the current tier list. It would remove the bias we placed into it.

that bias you talk of was removing stages that contained elements that were the least competitive. if you recall when brawl first started stages like hanenbow and new pork city were on. the BBR didn't just say, "turn this **** off. it's lame." the community spoke out against it and the TO's were ultimately the most influential when it came to turning certain stages on or off. stop putting the blame on the BBR

Omni, can you list me 3 reasons why static stages are "more neutral and fair" to start on than dynamic stages? Or how about why our current 5 stage starter list are "the most fair and neutral" in the entire game?

How about even 1 reason?

you're missing something very obvious here, Susa

the way Brawl is played and how it was shaped was influenced by the players themselves. it's been like this since the beginning. why? because Melee/Brawl were not created to be competitive fighting games. so in order to lean towards making it more competitive the community leaned with removing stages that were "dynamic" and keeping stages that were static in order create the most competitive environment.

this is why i dont think you can ever implement your idea. your idea is based on the fact that Brawl was already a competitive fighting game with all the elements that it contained coming out of the package. but it wasn't. it's a party game so biasness had to come into place in order to shape it.

you disagree with that biasness and thus you disagree that Brawl should have been altered the way it has been today. your theory then directly conflicts with the concepts of stocks, items, timers, and basically everything if u wanna view it from that perspective

As does removing a specific stage indirectly buffs and nerfs the rest of the cast. =|

again, the whole point is that the premise of the creation of the stage list was not influenced by the tier list. by aiming for a stage list that was more static the tier list created itself based on the character's ability to play on a static environment

is your entire issue with the counterpick system is that static stages are favored to be starters over dynamic stages?

 

[SuSa]

that bias you talk of was removing stages that contained elements that were the least competitive. if you recall when brawl first started stages like hanenbow and new pork city were on. the BBR didn't just say, "turn this **** off. it's lame." the community spoke out against it and the TO's were ultimately the most influential when it came to turning certain stages on or off. stop putting the blame on the BBR

Least competitive?

I argue that RC and Delfino are far more competitive than any of our current 5 starters. It requires knowledge of the stage, what to make use of, what to avoid.

So we should keep decisions the community made shortly after our transition from Melee? Yea, that's not going to cause any bias at all. We should just keep things how they were right when this game came out - it's not like the metagame (or community mindset) has changed at all in 2 years.

I agree both the stages you listed should be banned. Why? Hanenbow promotes circle camping and New Pork City has a cave-of-life effect as well as being easy to circle camp. I see a connection between these two stages, and these two stages make a lot of sense to rid of. They're anti-competitive and promote degenerative play.

the way Brawl is played and how it was shaped was influenced by the players themselves. it's been like this since the beginning. why? because Melee/Brawl were not created to be competitive fighting games. so in order to lean towards making it more competitive the community leaned with removing stages that were "dynamic" and keeping stages that were static in order create the most competitive environment.

Except that they were wrong, and they chose "static stages" in a group scrub mentality without fully thinking through the effects.

Why don't we play on dynamic stages?

"Because they interefere with gameplay because I'm too much of a scrub to avoid the Croc on Japes or know when platforms appear/dissapear on Rainbow Cruise."

this is why i dont think you can ever implement your idea. your idea is based on the fact that Brawl was already a competitive fighting game with all the elements that it contained coming out of the package. but it wasn't. it's a party game so biasness had to come into place in order to shape it.

No, it doesn't. Now you're trying to find an excuse as to why we have our stage list the way it is.

Why?

Because I'm not promoting we add any more stages to our current legal stages. Our morphing is still there, and these legal stages are still being played on.

The only difference is we are playing them on Game 1 instead of only as counterpicks. How is this any less competitive?

you disagree with that biasness and thus you disagree that Brawl should have been altered the way it has been today. your theory then directly conflicts with the concepts of stocks, items, timers, and basically everything if u wanna view it from that perspective

I disagree with the large biasness that has absolutely no reasoning.

Items:
Spawn Randomly
Many are over-centralizing/broken. Ganon gains several 0-deaths on much of the cast if he just gets lucky enough to get a certain item.

Stocks:
Timer would mean we play for "who can get the most KO's and SD the least" or "who can get 1 KO than plank"
Coins can be easily abused, IC's would never drop a game if they could get a grab.
Stamina - I actually don't have anything against this personally, other than it'd be near the same as playing 1 stock matches. If you SD you lose in Stamina mode, but I wouldn't say this isn't competitive. However... stocks isn't "not competitive" either and it's what our community decided to be better. Why? Probably because they are against 1 stock matches to begin with.

Timers - Added only to keep the tournaments running on time. Tournaments running is pretty vital to a competitive scene. Tournaments not running = no competitive scene. Moot point.

How you can't even see the difference between the stage list and the above changes is beyond me. The stage list is not warranted at all.

again, the whole point is that the premise of the creation of the stage list was not influenced by the tier list. by aiming for a stage list that was more static the tier list created itself based on the character's ability to play on a static environment

And the creation of the stage list should not be influenced by the tier list. We should aim for a stage list that is more dynamic so that the tier list created would be based on the character's ability to play on a dynamic enviroment.

See what I did there? Adaption to stages could be argued as an extremely important concept considering it's what the entire counterpick system is based on. The more dynamic (and static) stages you are superior on - the better the counterpick system is for you.

is your entire issue with the counterpick system is that static stages are favored to be starters over dynamic stages?

My entire issue is that we would favor either static OR dynamic stages over eachother. It's simply not warranted, with no reasoning behind it other than...

BAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I DONT KNOW HOW TO PLAY ON JAPESSSS THE CROC KEEPS KILLING MEEEEE BAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ITS UNCOMPETITIVE BECAUSE I LOSE TO THE EASILY AVOIDABLE CROC AND NOT MY ENEMY

BAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW BAN IT

:leek:

 

[Omni]

you call circle camping degeneritive play because you are bias about how people should play the game, susa

and the game has changed immensely since the beginning stage list and all. were you not here for it? the stage list finally stopped changing once the majority become comfortable with the leftovers

your explanations are very immature and dont really address the problem. dynamic play is usually unfavored over static play as i said because static stages create more of a player vs. player focus and most closely imitates the fighting game genre we've attempted to shape ourselves into being

i also didnt say your idea was less competitive. it's a different kind of competitive; one in which you'd rather see over the status quo

and i already explained it had resaoning unless you want to suggest that the entire community had no reasons for wanting certain stages turned off and being fine when TO's eventually banned them. if that's the case go ahead and attach to your OP that you think everyone is dumb except you

items can be adjusted to be competitive. so can stock, timer, coin, stamina, etc. it's a preference choice and it's based off biasness. why cant people choose which style they want to play in just like people can choose what stage or character they want to choose? a whole buncha why can't we do this and why haven't we done this. the answer is because the community didnt want it

and yes your issue is that we favor static over dynamic. that's something you're going to have to deal with

but seriously, Susa, this topic has been going on for how long now?

what are you going to do about it? why haven't you done anything about it? why do you think it's so difficult for your idea to come to fruition? because there arent enough people who want to cater to your idea of how the game should be played. you're literally wasting time here debating this with the small select few of us. do something about it because us sitting here saying that we disagree with your approach to the game isn't bringing you any closer to having your idea implemented

 

[Jack Kieser]

Just fr the record, I'm really getting sick of people saying "the community", as if anyone even knows what the entire community would want. It's like the phrase "the American people" being used during an election season; it's a meaningless term used to make a bad argument seem more legitimate by appealing to the masses.

It's still a logical fallacy.

Omni, I doubt that you've taken the time to hold a formal poll of SWF tournament goers and find out, within a +/- 3% margin of error, what exactly the "community" thinks. So, stop invoking this invisible specter that somehow represents ALL COMPETITIVE SMASHERS and is also, somehow, always on your side. This isn't just leveled at you, Omni; this pertains to everyone. From this point on, anyone who uses the phrase "the community" to imply he / she knows at all what "the community" thinks / feels / wants / hopes / dreams admits that their current argument is null.

 

[Omni]

the community doesn't need a number, Jack

whatever the majority chose represents the community decision because it accurately reflects what will or will not be put into place

i obviously dont mean every single smasher in existence. you and i both know that neither of us are that dumb to suggest that so don't entertain the idea that i'm presenting that info with that mindset involved

let's not argue semantics like that unless you simply disagree with how i perceive the community

 

[TheTantalus]

Just curious- what makes a stage dynamic or static

From what i'm seeing in this argument, a dynamic stage is one that could:

- Damage/Kill me for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by no fault of my own

In my opinion, the best and most fair stages are the ones that keep the game in the hands of the players. The counterpick system is designed to have stages that blatantly favor certain characters while not favoring others. Why should a game be decided by the stage and not the players, ESPECIALLY the first one?

If you look at the pound ruleset (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=287983) you'll see a balanced striking system infused with counterpicks that blatantly favor certain matchups and situations. Even the most "fair" stages still provide advantages and disadvantages to certain characters. But I don't feel like a stage should be a deciding factor of skill, which is what tournaments are meant to decide upon.

I'm not sure why you think your status quo should be everyone elses, but this is a free thinking community. There have been 2 opportunities this year to apply for the BBR, I haven't seen your name on the app pages. But more importantly, you have the power to move your ideas! I went from a random scrub ROB player to creating a national ruleset in less than 3 years time. Take your ideas and see how they grow! If they don't, then maybe your status quo is not what is best.

 

[SuSa]

you call circle camping degeneritive play because you are bias about how people should play the game, susa

If I can hit you and run until the timer (that is forced upon us) to run out.
Yea that's degenerative.

If I can hit you and camp like ****ing hell and run a like a ***** forever (because there IS NOT A TIMER) I don't consider that degenerative.

So yea... circle camping is only degenerative when it turns into "Do this, and you can **** up a large amount while your opponent must play perfectly."

You know... kind of why O. Sagat is soft banned? Right? Because he can just sit there performing one wall all day long and most of the cast has to play PERFECTLY while the O. Sagat has a LARGE MARGIN OF ERROR. Right?

Please correct me if I'm wrong with that.

and the game has changed immensely since the beginning stage list and all. were you not here for it? the stage list finally stopped changing once the majority become comfortable with the leftovers

Stage list continues to change and be altered in some ways. I've noticed some regions becoming more liberal while others become more conservative.

I say MLG is doing a better job than the BBR when it comes to stage list, even if many people aren't agreeing with it "Because green greens is stupid."

your explanations are very immature and dont really address the problem. dynamic play is usually unfavored over static play as i said because static stages create more of a player vs. player focus and most closely imitates the fighting game genre we've attempted to shape ourselves into being

Uhm.... most... closely imitates... itself? Is that what you are saying?

Or what "fighting game genre" have we tried to shape ourselves into?

i also didnt say your idea was less competitive. it's a different kind of competitive; one in which you'd rather see over the status quo

It's not a different kind, it's nearly the same exact thing.
But it removes our unneeded bias from stages.

and i already explained it had resaoning unless you want to suggest that the entire community had no reasons for wanting certain stages turned off and being fine when TO's eventually banned them. if that's the case go ahead and attach to your OP that you think everyone is dumb except you

The argument is "a large portion of people did not want to play on these stages because they are stupid/gay/static stages have an illusion of not effecting matches as much as dynamic stages."

If the argument was "Dynamic stages promote degenerate play for the following reasons: ________" I wouldn't be arguing against it.

Currently the logic is just a double standard.

TO's will do anything if it's going to promote attendance and a "healthy competitive community" (Applying not just locally, but on a national level)

items can be adjusted to be competitive. so can stock, timer, coin, stamina, etc. it's a preference choice and it's based off biasness. why cant people choose which style they want to play in just like people can choose what stage or character they want to choose? a whole buncha why can't we do this and why haven't we done this. the answer is because the community didnt want it

1) Agreed, but that doesn't remove the fact that items are random. Something most every stage lacks is a "random item spawn with said random item"

Even if we narrowed down so that the only item to spawn was a Mr. Saturn (shielld presssure) that doesn't change it from spawning RANDOMLY and can COMPETELY TURN A MATCHUP UPSIDE DOWN because THE OPPONENT CANNOT CONTROL IT.

If you can prove a random factor in a stage, that does not give some amount of warning (I'm pretty sure the items on Distant Planet sprout and give warning of their soon-to-be location.. if not than for this reason alone I feel DP can be banned) But AFAIK, there is no such random factor. The croc comes at certain times, stage changes give warning for PS 1/2, and other dynamic stages give plenty of warning of upcoming events. (Flashing light for Frigate flip, lava movements for Brinstar/Norfair, etc.)

Stock/Stamina/Timer/Coins I already had explained.

Because I believe in following precedents. Something that the BBR seems to hold so highly, after all.

and yes your issue is that we favor static over dynamic. that's something you're going to have to deal with

No. My issue is that you would favor static over dynamic or that you would favor dynamic over static.

There should be no favoring over either.

"I favor air-based characters. From now on all ground-based characters are banned from my tournament and may only be used for counterpicks"

Wait what?

but seriously, Susa, this topic has been going on for how long now?

Too long because certain people are stubborn and refuse to bring up the points I ask them to bring up. Instead they use the argument "it's what the majority of the community wants" (Didn't MK have a majority vote for a ban)?

Oh, that's right. We don't listen to the community on that regard, **** the community on that regard, the community is stupid on that regard.

x 1000000000

Selective choosing at it's best? Maybe it's a certain bias? Who knows... but it's not consistent...

what are you going to do about it? why haven't you done anything about it? why do you think it's so difficult for your idea to come to fruition? because there arent enough people who want to cater to your idea of how the game should be played. you're literally wasting time here debating this with the small select few of us. do something about it because us sitting here saying that we disagree with your approach to the game isn't bringing you any closer to having your idea implemented

Host tournaments with a full-stage-strike system. Because I'm 17 and don't have a job until January and lack the means of communicating with businesses and locations to try and rent a venue. "Because we've been this way for 8 years". Answering your answers in respective order.

Not everyone has the ability to secure a venue.

Also I do plan on showing this topic to TO's once I find a way to see everyone who is in the Tournament Organizers usergroup. But before I do that I want to ensure both sides bring up enough points to address so that neither viewpoint seems biased.

I don't believe in prettying up or slanting the viewpoint on a subject. I take direct quotes. This is why I'm on Pierce's ignore list. Because I quoted our PM's word for word to ensure the community was not seeing a point biased from my side because I'd obviously try and paraphrase Pierce in a way that makes his argument look lacking and like he's an idiot - because it'd help my argument. Right?

I try to make sure both sides are layed flat on the table. No gimmicks, no trickery, no lying. Pick your side.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

CP stages don't WARP matchups, either, in most cases. Frigate doesn't warp match-ups, PS2 doesn't warp match-ups, DISTANT PLANET doesn't even warp matchups.

Know what happens to stages that "warp" matchups? They're stricken! This is what you don't understand, is that even though they MAY not get selected, their presence is still a powerful tool that causes the median of bias to be displayed more accurately.

This is quite simple when you look at how a character performs in comparison to the big picture (all the stages)

MK's performance in a 5-starter list is SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE than his performance in a full-list.

IC's performance in a 5-starter list is SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than their performance in a full-list.

THIS is where the bias comes in, by restricting Game 1 to stages that are static and "Don't skew the match-up", when a character's performance in Game 1 should be representative of their PERFORMANCE AS A WHOLE. MK should be performing BETTER on Game 1 than he does, but we have stacked the stagelist against him!

So we should let stages that offer non competitive elements and help polarize character advantages to far and beyond extremes be available game 1 to add more fluff to the stage list because a small few characters are good on CP stages while the cast at large suffers from the stages running how match-ups are played and making match-ups less about what the characters can do and more about how badly they can abuse stages.

If that's what you want I won't stop you from want it.

Frigate doesn't warp, neither does PS2, Distant Planet is a bad stage, lol. Hide under the platform by the ledge on the slope, or better yet use the permanent walk off to camp the hell out of it, if rain comes, just fly down and plank until it's gone.

People don't care if they can strike them, otherwise we're opening the door for a lot of stupid stages to be legal.

MK does worse...uhhh kinda, he doesn't care as long as he doesn't go to FD. He does better, but I would to if I was the absolute best character on almost every CP stage anyways.

ICs don't benefit that much, they still would be able to threaten the cast with the infinite, even more so considering platform camping is a viable strat against them, which every starter but FD has.

The majority of the community is GARBAGE at theory, and this is why we have the BBR, as a representative group of people who AREN'T garbage (for the most part) at theory. There's a good chance that most of the community wouldn't mind playing only on FD. DOESN'T MAKE THEM RIGHT.

Also, stage selection is not even CLOSE to an issue that people will stop going to tournaments over. Nobody is quitting the game because Port Town is a CP.

Oh look, the BBR made a recommended list which is good, even if I think all tier 3 CP stages should be dropped from the list and just banned.

And you should care what the community thinks because we don't play on Port Town or Norfair because a lot of regions hate those stages and don't want them on the list.

Forcing you community to do something that they don't agree with is something I would never so as a TO, ever. Unless it is a choice that is outright ludicrous, banning Ganondorf, then I would listen what the community wants.

You really don't understand this "median of bias" thing. The median of bias is NOT the stage that both players want to go to, it's NOT the stage where the match-up is 50/50, and it's NOT ALWAYS a static stage.

Frigate DOES get picked, even in a 7-starter list! I ran that list for two weeks, and it GOT picked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JqYt2VbUkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9V1sIidkg

Just because you don't THINK these stages will get used doesn't mean they won't! I'd be COMPLETELY happy to play Game 1 on Brinstar, Norfair, Japes, Distant Planet, etc. This gives me an advantage, because it means MY OPPONENT HAS TO STRIKE THEM. Bringing preference into play means players are REWARDED for stage knowledge, and playing viable characters.

AS THEY SHOULD BE.

First off that Ike is stupid for going to Frigate against Marth game 1.

Second I don't care if a small group wants to play on japes, etc. I care if it places heavy influence on game play and certain characters get stupid good because of a stages layout.

You could put banned stages on a list being a Wario main and win because they had to strike so many stages just to keep you from being able to hit you once and time you out because of the layout.

The median stages are the ones that place the least influence on match-ups on the cast, and it's not hard to see that certain stages, SV is a big example, don't skew match-ups heavily.

The current stage list is the way it is because people still think we're playing melee, and that static is good. Everything in this paragraph is wrong, and we ARE proving it, by displaying plenty of hypotheticals, and even ACTUAL results.

Nothing to argue here, that's why I banned him.

Again, people contionue to make the confusion that balance = objective treatment. ICs are not gamebreaking on Battlefield, this is correct. HOWEVER, they perform FAR better there than they do on 80% of the stagelist, which is WHY THIS IS NOT THE MEDIAN OF BIAS.

Not every CP stage is a Brinstar or a Rainbow Cruise, they do worse but come on, all you need is a platform and the mindset to camp the crap out of them using platform camping.

Playing on BF is playing the match-up, playing on Brinstar is the stage just screwing them up.

First of all, referencing Picto is a strawman, because Diddy still gets BF, FD, SV and YI, which are all AMAZING stages for him, when he happens to perform pretty bad on the rest of the stagelist, which uis why this is a problem.

Only the BAD, NON-versatile characters suffer, not the whole cast. Marth, Snake, MK, Wario, GW, Pika, all the VERSATILE characters, LOVE the bigger lists, because they're GOOD CHARACTERS being handicapped by a BAD STRIKING PROCESS.

This is not designed to balance match-ups, which is what the 5-starer does. (Read: Let's improve our chances vs. MK) Stages can and SHOULD place a heavy influence on the match-up, because EVERY stage does this. FD, BF, Norfair, Picto, RC, YI, Lylat, they ALL heavily influence things.

Here we go again with assuming the goal is to give characters the best MU vs MK again.

This never was the goal, ever. If it was I place shame on the people who made the stage list, this should never be the goal of a stage list.

The goal is to make a stage list where the stages place the least influence on match-ups, most CP stages place heavy influence on match-ups.

Diddy would do worse on CP stages of course, but that doesn't matter, since it's not applicable to what the goal for making a list is suppose to be.

So what's the problem then? I frequently make my strikes (9-starers) FD, PS1 (preference), and then two matchup strikes. This system allows for flexibility in reaching the median of bioas, which is the whole **** point of avoiding "I strike FD. You strike BF. SV IT IS, HURR DURR"

Well if someone wants to be stupid and think that starter stages are heavily ground influential then more power to them, I'll just control where I want to go since they aren't thinking about if those starters are actually good for me or not.

Except it pretty much is? FD, SV, YI all HEAVILY favor grounded characters, and BF is pretty bad too. PS1 is only marginally better due to transitions, and Lylat is the only one that's really "ok".

The first three are more ground based, but outside of FD it doesn't force pure ground combat because they have actual platforms.

BF grounded? That stage is a mix because of the platform layout, Wario can hop around all he wants, Snake and stay under the platforms for ground approaches.

PS1 is also in the mix category because of how it changes can affect how it changes the match-ups.

Lylat is a mix as well.

That's the whole **** point! MK is a really good character on EVERY STAGE, so he GETS TO TAKE YOU WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO GO. This is how it SHOULD be, because that accurately relfects the fact that MK is really versatile!

The stage list shouldn't be made to make someone good or bad since how good characters are is not the main purpose or goal of a stage list.

The stagelist heavily favors the playstyle. It's exactly the same **** thing.

FD - Grounded
SV - kinda grounded with a moving platform
BF - Mix
PS1 - Mix
YI - more grounded than aerial.

It doesn't heavily favor, it favors more, but it's not anywhere to the levels of which RC or Brinstar could take it.

I've covered this already. "Pure" is wrong. SV DOES influence match-ups, and the community is usually wrong.

So we should let the stage e the deciding factor in a match-ups?

SV is the most fair stage in this game for most match-ups, I don't see how you could think otherwise.

Not what we're saying. See Section 2: Accurate Reflection of Median of Bias.

You guys are pretty much holding Diddy, Ice Climbers and others as evidence for this that the stage list makes them good. How is this not what your saying.

Still wrong.

Japes would never be a starter because "That ****'s janky" (See: The community is ********) Otherwise, people WOULD do that to keep MK in check.

You're wrong again, static is not standard. This needs to be a slogan for this movement. STATIC IS NOT STANDARD.

It's not that these stages give huge advantages (most of them do anyway), it's that they're COMPENSATING for the fact that most of these characters suck EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Does Falco lose to MK in a big list? Yes.
Does Diddy? Yes.
Does ICs? **** YEAH.
Does Snake? Only slightly, Snake is versatile.

These characters are being ARTIFICIALLY boosted by the stagelist, to combat MK.

YOUR MOVE, SLICK.

Japes is a bad stage, not legal material with how the stage promotes hardcore camping and lol living vertically. Also gators that can kill.

Static is more standard because those stages are less likely to skew match-ups. They don't give large advantages to the degree CP stages do.

Oh look MK can go anywhere and pick and choose almost anything, gee wonder if that is part of why he ***** the cast.

So you decide to post a picture to be a complete **** about this in the process with a large bolded quote, good job on that.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Items:
Spawn Randomly
Many are over-centralizing/broken. Ganon gains several 0-deaths on much of the cast if he just gets lucky enough to get a certain item.

As for this, I wonder whether it'd be different if only one item was active (food or sandbag or something). That way, both players know that every 20-25 seconds (on low) that item would spawn somewhere. It's probably not more random than the support ghost on YI then, where you know the location (more or less), but not the time.

Stocks:
Timer would mean we play for "who can get the most KO's and SD the least" or "who can get 1 KO than plank"
Coins can be easily abused, IC's would never drop a game if they could get a grab.
Stamina - I actually don't have anything against this personally, other than it'd be near the same as playing 1 stock matches. If you SD you lose in Stamina mode, but I wouldn't say this isn't competitive. However... stocks isn't "not competitive" either and it's what our community decided to be better. Why? Probably because they are against 1 stock matches to begin with.

Timers - Added only to keep the tournaments running on time. Tournaments running is pretty vital to a competitive scene. Tournaments not running = no competitive scene. Moot point.

How you can't even see the difference between the stage list and the above changes is beyond me. The stage list is not warranted at all.

I thought the combination was used to give players more ways to win, increasing the strategic depth? Two possible ways to win are obviously better than only one, so Stocks+Timer is superior to Stock only/Time only/Coin/Stamina in every way imaginable, no?

 

[Omni]

this tit-for-tat is going to get dirty. you have so many holes in your argument just based of lack of knowledge or ignorance or idk dude. i'll probably stop here

- majority vote to ban Meta Knight is 2/3'rds; not 51%.

- circle camping happens all the time but only shows itself best with stages like hanenbow. your precious RC is an example of where circle camping can be used at its finest with specific characters. watch some recent matches of TKD's Fox or Will's DK against Cheese on SV. it may not be a circle but its the same concept. having someone chase you isn't automatically degenerate

- you didnt address the lack of player vs. player focus

- since you understand the concept of TO's wanting to make money are you suggesting that they... change the rules the system and risk losing money for the sake of adjusting the game to how you think it should be shaped? huhwha

- yea the opponent can't control where items spawn. the opponent also can't control where they spawn on stages. they can't control when crock traps come out. they can't control when Frigate wants to flip over. they can't control when exploding apples will appear nor can they predict the sequence of exploding/non-exploding blocks appearing on Green Greens. if you want to talk about control or the lack thereof then reevaluate your stance more carefully. so lack of control has nothing to do with items so dont use that as an argument

- in regards to warnings items appear at what we call specific rates. that means that depending on the rate of how items spawn you can predict within a certaim time increment when an item is about to spawn. thus the actual act of a item spawning is a "warning" for when the next item will spawn. from there you space yourself accordingly on the stage to cover the most amount of spawn locations

- you believe in following precedents? that completely contradicts your argument for wanting to override the counterpick system. so what you're saying is you believe in some and not in others. ok.

- favoring static play over dynamic play because it promotes PvP competition doesn't compare with favoring ground characters over air characters. stop strawmanning. one clearly is attempting to shape the game to be the most competitive. your example is just a random example that says nothing

- it also sounds like you don't know how to implement this idea in the least bit. a single person attempting to host tournaments with his own standards that are completely different from every other TO's? nah, dawg. ain't happening. im starting to think you don't have a real solid legit plan for implementing your idea and u just kinda wanna ramble about what you think is right and what you think is wrong. nothing is going to change if what you just told me is your gameplan

 

[Jack Kieser]

Just curious- what makes a stage dynamic or static

From what i'm seeing in this argument, a dynamic stage is one that could:

- Damage/Kill me for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by no fault of my own

It should be obvious if you have even a fleeting understanding of how to use a dictionary. "Static" means "unchanging". FD and BF are PURE static stages, with SV and YI:B being 90% static (because the only thing that changes is the position of the platforms). A "dynamic" stage is a stage that changes during the course of play. Examples are Frigate and Delfino... actually, examples are about 90% of the stages in the game. In fact, it is also important to note that there are no stages that are 100% dynamic; every stage has static elements. Even RC has a section of time where the stage layout DOES NOT CHANGE (the boat section).

So, your definitions of what "static" and "dynamic" mean are bad. You're already starting your argument from a bad place.

In my opinion... I don't feel...

This is why your argument fails. You're totally right, your argument is based off of a gut feeling, an opinion that has no real logical backing. In fact, this thread has directly refuted your "opinionated" reasoning multiple times. What's worse is that you have a purple name. You should NEVER be the person to use an argument starting with the word "opinion". If ANYONE in this debate should be using ONLY hard facts and logic, it should be a BBR member.

I'm not sure why you think your status quo should be everyone elses, but this is a free thinking community. There have been 2 opportunities this year to apply for the BBR, I haven't seen your name on the app pages. But more importantly, you have the power to move your ideas! I went from a random scrub ROB player to creating a national ruleset in less than 3 years time. Take your ideas and see how they grow! If they don't, then maybe your status quo is not what is best.

...or, you could not be a scrub? That too. It seems as though you went from being a random scrub ROB player to a scrub creating a national ruleset. Scrubby logic is still scrubby.

All of these "appeal to the masses" arguments are bad, and it's sad to see them coming from BBR members, the people who are supposed to be standing up and telling the community what's right. I know you don't feel that's your job, but with a community as divided and non-cohesive as this one, it should be. Get some backbone, man. The majority is rarely right.

the community doesn't need a number, Jack

Of course, because "the community" doesn't exist. 10$ says plenty of people agree with whatever is going on because they aren't in power. They agree with the "status quo" because they have to. So much for "the community".

whatever the majority chose represents the community decision because it accurately reflects what will or will not be put into place

Ha. Whatever the top 1% of Smashers want gets put into place.

i obviously dont mean every single smasher in existence. you and i both know that neither of us are that dumb to suggest that so don't entertain the idea that i'm presenting that info with that mindset involved

When you say "the community" as though it is a singular, quantifiable entity, that's exactly what you're saying. I'm trying to educate you that the phrase is meaningless, and you should stop using it.

 

[Omni]

the status quo is driven by the majority. the majority represents the commnunity. if enough people want something to change then it will change. the problem you may have is that it isn't enough people

the top 1% of smashers aren't doing much. the BBR released their stage list and it was literally mocked and laughed at by the community and the TO's did not entertain it

so if u want me to replace the term community with majority because you don't agree that the majority essentially reflects the community decision then just say that. you're still arguing semantics over something you completely understand. you just disagree with how its perceived

on that note: wrappin up things at work and gonna play some smash. i heavily suggest that you come up with a better gameplan Susa if u want your idea to come to light.

 

[SuSa]

So we should let stages that offer non competitive elements and help polarize character advantages to far and beyond extremes be available game 1 to add more fluff to the stage list because a small few characters are good on CP stages while the cast at large suffers from the stages running how match-ups are played and making match-ups less about what the characters can do and more about how badly they can abuse stages.

Why are dynamic stages less competitive?
It actually only polarizes a few, already broken characters. It adds a median of bias to matches that removes polarization. Instead of "us" choosing who is to be polarized by our starter list, it IS THE PLAYERS AND HOW THE GAME WAS DESIGNED that chooses.

The cast at large does not suffer from a larger stage list. Why you think this is beyond me, but I can only think of few (already bad) characters that do bad on a larger stage list.

People don't care if they can strike them, otherwise we're opening the door for a lot of stupid stages to be legal.

I care, and the few people I discussed this method over care. It's a very logical method, that - outside of banned stages - keeps bias out.

Trufax:
Every.
Single.
Tournament.
Match.
I.
Played.
Including.
Doubles.
And.
Singles.

Started on Smashville because every other stage is polarizing and unbalanced for many matchups. The ones I striked started on Smashville - and others were just agreed to start on Smashville.

I'm all in favor of a 1 stage starter list, I like Smashville. I win there.

Oh look, the BBR made a recommended list which is good, even if I think all tier 3 CP stages should be dropped from the list and just banned.

All those tier 3 CP stages are great. Nothing degenerative about them, otherwise they would be banned.

And you should care what the community thinks because we don't play on Port Town or Norfair because a lot of regions hate those stages and don't want them on the list.

Strike it. Strike it.
Problem.
****ing.
Solved.

If NEITHER PLAYERS wants to play on it, ONE OF THEM CAN STRIKE IT.

OMFG THAT WAS SOOOOO HARD.

Forcing you community to do something that they don't agree with is something I would never so as a TO, ever. Unless it is a choice that is outright ludicrous, banning Ganondorf, then I would listen what the community wants.

Ban Ganondorf, he's soooo broken vs Diddy Kong. He can like, grab a banana and has a 40% combo on Diddy.

First off that Ike is stupid for going to Frigate against Marth game 1.

That Ike almost won on Frigate against Marth game 1, but was read and got hit by Marth's neutral B. And this is without knowing either of those players skill levels.

Second I don't care if a small group wants to play on japes, etc. I care if it places heavy influence on game play and certain characters get stupid good because of a stages layout.

It won't place a heavy influence on gameplay.
Strike it.
Problem.
****ing.
Solved.

Is this so hard to grasp?

You could put banned stages on a list being a Wario main and win because they had to strike so many stages just to keep you from being able to hit you once and time you out because of the layout.

Or you can play on our current stage list, with 1 ban, and even if you ban Norfair you may go to Brinstar or you may go other stages Wario can plank and play keep-away on. Point being?

The median stages are the ones that place the least influence on match-ups on the cast, and it's not hard to see that certain stages, SV is a big example, don't skew match-ups heavily.

Do the 14,000~ matchups on every stage and tell me what these median stages are.

It's very hard to see, and it is argued over greatly. PS2 > FD for instance, and other stages. I do agree with Smashville being highly neutral for the cast - but it's the ONLY EXAMPLE I AM SEEING.

Not every CP stage is a Brinstar or a Rainbow Cruise, they do worse but come on, all you need is a platform and the mindset to camp the crap out of them using platform camping.

Okay, ban everything but FD. They all have platforms.

Playing on BF is playing the match-up, playing on Brinstar is the stage just screwing them up.

If Brinstar is really screwing you up, you ****ing suck at this game. I've been timed out on Brinstar and the only times the lava touches me is when my opponent hits me into it or I willingly jump into it because it's faster than jumping for Snake and I can get uair/bair's off it when I hit myself.

That's called using the stage intelligently.

Here we go again with assuming the goal is to give characters the best MU vs MK again.

This never was the goal, ever. If it was I place shame on the people who made the stage list, this should never be the goal of a stage list.

The goal is to make a stage list where the stages place the least influence on match-ups, most CP stages place heavy influence on match-ups.

Diddy would do worse on CP stages of course, but that doesn't matter, since it's not applicable to what the goal for making a list is suppose to be.

I'm not agreeing with what it was based on.
But the result of what happened is there.

I'm trying to show a solution.

Well if someone wants to be stupid and think that starter stages are heavily ground influential then more power to them, I'll just control where I want to go since they aren't thinking about if those starters are actually good for me or not.

Smashville, amIdoingitright?

Off to go eat lunch.

EDIT:
@Chaos
You don't know the location of the item spawn. That's the largest issue I see with it. Also I do believe that there is a method behind the madness of YI's Brawl ghosts - and I want to look at it's stage data to prove this.

:leek:

 

[TheTantalus]

And this is why I usually don't participate in these discussions. It usually turns into "your ideas suck because you have an opinion". I will agree I'm not the best with words, but I don't see Jack Keiser or SuSa posting tournaments and results with their ideas, just arguing about them.

 

[SuSa]

Had a few full-stage-striking money matches yesterday.
They were ****ing wonderful

We upped the bans to 3 (we figured 1/7 was a fair number of bans. So 3/21) - which removes any chance of a "sure-win" on your counterpick. (Wario/MK on Brinstar....) but you can still get counterpicked pretty harshly (nowhere near as bad as current...)

One of my first matches was on Rainbow Cruise... but it could have easily been on Pirate Ship if my enemy felt more comfortable with that stage.

I've been playing around with it and pretty soon will only agree to money match under the condition that we do a full list strike for Game 1.

We decided on 3 bans, but in no way is that final or standard or I'm recommending it. We just found it to be the fairest amount at the time to ensure we don't get a "sure win" due to the stage. (Which is what oh-so-many people are arguing against, with the "gay tactics" and the "sure win on this counterpick" and stuff... funny how the idea completely avoids this problem.. yet it's apparently the main issue? lol... nice testing guys)

If anything I'd say it's other players refusing to even do as I've asked... if you want to refute my points I'm GIVING YOU THE BEST METHODS IN WHICH TO DO SO:

Go grab the full stage list (I've posted it twice now) and find someone to strike it out with, and play your match on that stage. Was it a major issue?

Find the "fairest stage" for 14,000~ combinations (666 matchups * 21 stages) and find the "least stage influencing" starter list from that. (Why 21 and not 22 you ask? Because of how my striking works... 22 would require a TO to just add 1 currently legal stage to the banned section...)

Because I found the 4 times I did it, NOT A SINGLE TIME WAS IT AN ISSUE.

:leek:

 

[Omni]

susa it's not that your idea is bad

it's that the majority of other people don't have an issue with the status quo

so like

ya know? how are you gonna fight that

 

[Jack Kieser]

And this is why I usually don't participate in these discussions. It usually turns into "your ideas suck because you have an opinion". I will agree I'm not the best with words, but I don't see Jack Keiser or SuSa posting tournaments and results with their ideas, just arguing about them.

No, it turns into "when you are suggesting a standard that THOUSANDS of people will, ultimately, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over, you better have a **** good reason backing you up". Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No one is entitled to having their opinion dictate anything to others. Why is Congress so screwed up lately? Because politicians are using their uniformed opinions to dictate laws. Why is your argument bad? Because you are letting your uninformed opinion dictate Brawl-law.

This isn't a "look at this guy and how stupid he is" argument. This is a "look at this uniformed guy; this is why he's wrong" argument. Oh, but I'm sorry. You're right. It's not fair to prove why someone is uninformed. Go ahead. Tell people what rules will, at some point, decide how over 200k$ change hands using your opinion.

 

[SuSa]

Not having an issue?

Have you looked around recently? Also many people feel that they cannot change the status quo which is another problem.

You identified yourself as a "realist" and stated because it is not likely, it must be impossible - therefore not worth trying.

That exact mentality is what causes change to never happen. If you put forward no effort, how could you possibly expect a result?

:leek:

 

[Omni]

Susa, im a realist because i am looking at your gameplan and i do not see it being feasible for you to put your idea into motion

the fact that they cannot change the status quo is what you're fighting against

and the reason why you're fighting against it because the status quo is supported by enough people

so you can't change the status quo if the majority is content with it

i feel like you're missing something here...

 

[Jack Kieser]

SuSa, don't listen to Omni. His argument is basically "look, I'm in the position to enact change, but I don't want to, because I'd rather ignore all of the logic and reason in this thread. But, because I'm one of the few people who CAN enact change and I don't want to look bad in hindsight, I'm going to offload the responsibility onto you. If the idea fails, therefore, it's YOUR fault for not trying hard enough."

It was a bad argument when people used it against me in '08, and it's a bad argument now. If ANYONE presents information that is logically sound and could be to the betterment of the community / competitive nature of the game, it's the BBR's job to take it into consideration, at minimum. It doesn't matter who says it, the BBR should run with it, if it can be PROVEN to be right (and this has been, multiple times). SuSa, you CAN help, sure, by running tournaments, but ultimately, until you get that purple name, it's not your responsibility to force the people making the rules to listen; if they were doing it right, they'd listen on their own.

 

[Yikarur]

it's just that it's not necessary.

"when you are suggesting a standard that THOUSANDS of people will, ultimately, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over, you better have a **** good reason backing you up"

what is your reasoning behind such a testimony?

 

[Omni]

don't listen to me? what makes you think i'm in a position to enact change? just because i'm in the BBR? lol.

you guys have some kind of BBR complex. you guys can accomplish just as much as me. you dont need a purple name to enforce a great idea

what i am suggesting is a gameplan that is more feasible and not your current one. im not discouraging you from spreading your idea but telling you that you need to make it better or it wont pass

there just isn't a huge demand for change right now in regards to the counterpick system. it's not addressing a large enough need to warrant a change. so if you're going to try to push it you need a more solid gameplan or it wont go anywhere outside of your own tournaments

@jack: yeesh, guy. making it seem like im trying to crush the dude's dreams or hopes. just because i'm anti-ban doesn't mean i'm your enemy. i hope you can get over that soon

 

[SuSa]

*sigh*

You still fail to see my main purpose. Shall I PM it to you to not even risk this thread being locked by you? I guess I will because apparently nobody on the BBR that has responded to this thread is getting it.

The BBR creates a standard.
A standard is treated as "the norm"
The status quo does not equate to "majority" it equates to "what's the norm"
Society is raised to not question what is normal, but to be normal themselves.
Therefore people do not question or attempt to change it, even if it's something they don't believe in.
There are of course extremists who do attempt to go for that change.
Some fail.
Others succeed.

Now let's take a look at just the first step.

The BBR develops a standard to help create what "the norm" is.

The BBR develops this standard by using logic, precedents, and influence from other well-established gaming communities as well as being able to use a criteria for changes. Or at least this is everything I've ever seen backed by them being stated as. "We ban stages because they are degenerative, not because you don't like them." "We don't ban Meta Knight because he is not warranted to be banned."

The issue comes when they use a double standard, and will claim the use of one precedent or standard as the reason for a change - but refuse to use that same standard or precedent for another change.

If they are going to try to dictate what "the norm" is, they should at the very least follow their own rules. Many people overlook these double standards, but the ones whom do are usually very against the body that is the BBR. Because - refuse it or not - the BBR has a large impact on the community.

How do I know this?

If the BBR did not effect the community in some way, it is completely unneeded. Why would the BBR exist otherwise? IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE BUT TO EGO-BOOST

So now if you want to argue against following your own precedents and purpose. I will ask for the BBR to be abolished completely on the grounds that it serves no purpose. I'd, of course, be completely shut down because the MLG uses the input of the BBR to some degree, as well as the community - oh not to mention that many of the staff are in the BBR. (Yourself, Hylian, Pierce, and more)

If I'm wrong, please do try and point it out. I might be missing something here... like the entire purpose why the BBR currently exists or something...

:leek: