Full Stage List Striking - New name

[fkacyan]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290839

I think I just won stages.

Wow, I woke up this morning and it was still dark. I guess what was between myself and the sun was your giant ego.

 

[DMG]

Leggo my Eggo

Sirlin also said it's potentially reasonable to ban something that falls just short of the accepted ban definition if there's a lot to gain with the thing in question moved. Don't forget that part.

 

[Gnes]

Regarding my match vs Tyrant on Brinstar, I took the lead near the end of the match with 130% 2 stocks while tyrant came down with 1 stock.

He then proceeded to tornado the middle of brinstar and dies LOL.

He also suicided his last stock on norfair, i forgot how. Both matches ended with me having 2 stocks left.

 

[DMG]

Good enough

Why did you not ban Brinstar or Norfair though? Im assuming you picked RC? I mean ****, I wish whenever we played you would give ME Brinstar lolol

 

[Gnes]

I banned Frigate in almost every set I played because its by far my worst stage. Esam beat me on RC cause he's amazing.

I'm perfectly fine against mk on brinstar and norfair(realized this one in my set against dojo). Its all just generic gimmicky play on those stages for mk anyways. You won't see anything u haven't seen before.

 

[SuSa]

****. Gnes being that pro stage player with that hatin' on Frigate.

Don't worry. Halberd's my worst stage, it's a stupid stage. Needs to be banned so I can stop wasting my ban on it.

/trollface

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Leggo my Eggo

Sirlin also said it's potentially reasonable to ban something that falls just short of the accepted ban definition if there's a lot to gain with the thing in question moved. Don't forget that part.

I think that's actually kinda covered under my thread... Isn't it? Perhaps not by word, but it seems like it's pretty much covered by the very thought of this concept.

@Thio: perhaps, I haven't seen it in a while.

I banned Frigate in almost every set I played because its by far my worst stage. Esam beat me on RC cause he's amazing.

I'm perfectly fine against mk on brinstar and norfair(realized this one in my set against dojo). Its all just generic gimmicky play on those stages for mk anyways. You won't see anything u haven't seen before.

Can I quote you on this?

 

[Gnes]

Its my belief....u shouldn't look to deep into it. With that said i dont mind. I dont really know the argument that's going on in this thread, nor am i taking a side, I'm just posting in regards to my set vs tyrant and Polt's incomplete info.

 

[SuSa]

Its my belief....u shouldn't look to deep into it. With that said i dont mind. I dont really know the argument that's going on in this thread, nor am i taking a side, I'm just posting in regards to my set vs tyrant and Polt's incomplete info.

It supports (somewhat indirectly however) a lot of the argument we've been working for in this thread, hence him wanting to quote it.

People like to use ad hominem on him a lot because "he does bad at tourneys" so having the MLG Champ can totally kill the ad hominem.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I actually don't do that bad at tournaments, I'm just working on going to more of 'em. :V

 

[SuSa]

You lost to a Lucas as MK.

trollface (I need to save a real one onto my CPU to use...)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You lost to a Lucas as MK.

trollface (I need to save a real one onto my CPU to use...)

Probably the best lucas in germany. Without knowing the matchup at all (pummel break? wazzat?). And I took game one from him in the bracket. Lost to his ICs.

 

[SuSa]

But dude.

It was a Lucas.
And you were Meta Knight.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think that's actually kinda covered under my thread... Isn't it? Perhaps not by word, but it seems like it's pretty much covered by the very thought of this concept.

Mind pointing that out?

 

[fkacyan]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290877

rawr

 

[Veel]

Susa you have a numbers of posts from a couple hundred back that resonated with me:

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

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

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

The former system has 10,656 more possibilities than the latter to be truly "neutral" for the possible matchups in the game.

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

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

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

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

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:

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

Find the "fairest stage" for 14,000~ combinations (666 matchups * 21 stages) and find the "least stage influencing" starter list from that.

Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.

While theory crafting aboot this, I realized something: there is no absolute match-up ratio between two characters. You cannot possibly have a sort of static ratio, a ratio removed from stages: every game of brawl presupposes a stage.

This is a fatal flaw for any stage pool approach for game one. Normally, the idea is you start with a match up ratio and then seek to find a stage that very closely preserves that ratio. In doing this you are not artificially boosting characters or balancing match ups but instead finding a fair middle ground for both players through allowing the natural ratios to set the field of play.

Without an absolute match up ratio how can anyone objectively craft a starter stage list? You would have to somehow strive to craft it from the combined stage-match up ratios of each character, yet this creates problems. If you decided to craft the list from the median of these, you are no longer preserving what is natural to the game but instead balancing the cast's match ups through the counter pick system.

I cannot really conceive of any good alterations that could save the idea of having a starter pool from being subjective and either buffing certain characters or balancing match ups.

If I am correct, then a full stage striking system for game one might be the only reasonable option for a counter picking system in Brawl, even if it is undesirable.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.

And that's why we, the "we want to do something about this flawled system" side have been looking for this whole time.

While theory crafting aboot this, I realized something: there is no absolute match-up ratio between two characters. You cannot possibly have a sort of static ratio, a ratio removed from stages: every game of brawl presupposes a stage.

This is a fatal flaw for any stage pool approach for game one. Normally, the idea is you start with a match up ratio and then seek to find a stage that very closely preserves that ratio. In doing this you are not artificially boosting characters or balancing match ups but instead finding a fair middle ground for both players through allowing the natural ratios to set the field of play.

Without an absolute match up ratio how can anyone objectively craft a starter stage list? You would have to somehow strive to craft it from the combined stage-match up ratios of each character, yet this creates problems. If you decided to craft the list from the median of these, you are no longer preserving what is natural to the game but instead balancing the cast's match ups through the counter pick system.

cannot really conceive of any good alterations that could save the idea of having a starter pool from being subjective and either buffing certain characters or balancing match ups.

See Pierce's quote in OP?
It is about that.

If I am correct, then a full stage striking system for game one might be the only reasonable option for a counter picking system in Brawl, even if it is undesirable.

And that's exactly what SuSa's been trying to say from the very start.

 

[SuSa]

Susa you have a numbers of posts from a couple hundred back that resonated with me:

Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.

While theory crafting aboot this, I realized something: there is no absolute match-up ratio between two characters. You cannot possibly have a sort of static ratio, a ratio removed from stages: every game of brawl presupposes a stage.

This is a fatal flaw for any stage pool approach for game one. Normally, the idea is you start with a match up ratio and then seek to find a stage that very closely preserves that ratio. In doing this you are not artificially boosting characters or balancing match ups but instead finding a fair middle ground for both players through allowing the natural ratios to set the field of play.

Without an absolute match up ratio how can anyone objectively craft a starter stage list? You would have to somehow strive to craft it from the combined stage-match up ratios of each character, yet this creates problems. If you decided to craft the list from the median of these, you are no longer preserving what is natural to the game but instead balancing the cast's match ups through the counter pick system.

I cannot really conceive of any good alterations that could save the idea of having a starter pool from being subjective and either buffing certain characters or balancing match ups.

If I am correct, then a full stage striking system for game one might be the only reasonable option for a counter picking system in Brawl, even if it is undesirable.

Glad you realized the flaw with the current system. The stage effects EVERY SINGLE MATCH, be it FD, BF, RC, JJ, any stage and it is impossible to find a matchup ratio.. without a stage? How the hell would you even test THAT?

Beyond that all matchup ratios are just subjective numbers anyways (This is why there are so many matchups where one person might say it's 60:40, the other 50:50, and even another saying 40:60)

It's an impossible project.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Susa has a very good point.

To me I don't think any of Link's match-up are unwinnable, but good luck with a bunch of them lol. Other people think otherwise, and I disagree.

Granted you can reach an agreement on match-ups to a point where you can average a number out. The info on how the play the match-up is far more important than the number ever will be.

 

[Yikarur]

we don't have a flawed system if extreme polar stages are banned =D

 

[SuSa]

Yes you do, because Sheik still performs best on Yoshi's Island (Brawl) compared to Battlefield, Smashville, or FD

Of course others disagree with me, saying the taller ceiling makes her already bad kill potential, worse. I disagree with that because it isn't a large difference and the stage helps her recovery and it's harder to gimp her on YI(B).

The exact opposite would be Lylat being her worst stage. She can't wall jump, there's no random platform that might save her, the tilt sometimes happens fast enough to ruin your recovery, and the stage is overall bad for her needles (3 platforms + tilted ground)

So even just using a 5 stage starter it already shows a drastic change in her matchups.

I'd be willing to say Sheik:MK is 50:50 on YI (B), but closer to 40:60 or even 35:65 on SV and Lylat (respectfully) and about 45:55 on FD.

Funny how I can go from hard disadvantage to neutral - and the best I get is still a disadvantage - due to our stage list.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm working on that Yikarur.

Well at least with stages I think are over the acceptable point in polar like Norfair, Port Town Aero Drive, Pipes, Luigi's Mansion.

Ones like Green Greens, Pirate ship, and such I'm not quite sure yet.

Susa was right, I was looking at why I was taking stage off was stupid. Now I'm working on fixing that by seeing if the stage really is degenerate in some fashion.

 

[Yikarur]

MU Numbers are so stupid. I don't agree with 35:65 on SV, it's an subjective opinion, there is nothing wrong with Smashville, why should the match-up change that drastically? I don't think so.
I can understand your lylat point though but you should never end up on lylat.
If you strike BF and Lylat you probably end up on SV, and you can't tell me that SV is whyever THAT awful for Sheik. SV is a really good stage.
and I think a lot of people would disagree with "~50:50 on YI(B) and FD"
it's subjective. For a lot of people rainbow cruise is like 20:80 disadv. for Snake against MK, and you're ration is much better.
Because the stages aren't that interactive, the MU Ratio isn't much influence and it is more based on the skill of the player. I think a very good sheik player can win on SV against a good MK, of course Sheik needs a lot effort because Sheik is overall worse then MK.

 

[SuSa]

There is everything wrong with Smashville. The platform can mess up Sheik's grab release chaingrab on MK - which is always free damage for us, especially since we can end it in a needle storm.

The platform isn't always there to save us. (I said 40:60 not 35:65.. that was Lylat that was 35:65)

I strike SV and Lylat. They strike FD and Yoshi's Island. BAM. I'm at a disadvantage.

Of course, I go pretty even or close to it on a large majority of the stage list. I just took the biased 5 stage starter list as my example.

Guess what?

I already said they are all subjective. I told you right off the bat you may disagree with me.

Also 20:80 is laughable considering I beat most any MK that isn't a top-ranked national player there. (Tyrant, M2K, TKD) and I have people banning the stage against me.. haha...

The stage is entirely influenced by the character traits which are boosted/nerfed on each stage. Even Final Destination effects matches just as much as PTAD.

That's what I'm trying to get you to see here.

 

[Yikarur]

20:80 was an exampleeeeeeeeeeee to show you how subjective match-up ratios are D:
and I don't agree with "FD influences the match as much as PTAD"
it clearly doesn't. You should be able to see the difference between those stages.

 

[Omni]

so you're saying smashville is wrong because it messes up a specific character's match-up with another character making it in one or the other's favor

what am i doing getting back into this

susa, your main argument doesnt hold enough weight son

 

[SuSa]

Are you really going to make me get all subjective and pull up like 20 other matchups that it makes happen?

It's called I have a ****ing life.

You can go do the 14,000~ possibilities for me. Like I've asked you to.
Three times now.

Let me know when you finish, I'd love to see the list. Make it in any program you want. Notepad, excel, google docs. Doesn't matter.

Once you finish yours, I'll read through it and guess what make changes based on my views of the matchups. We'll then compare those views and argue about the likely 4000+ differences between us and decide who is right on what part; and when we finally come to an agreement....

We'll have a 3rd person do this.

We'll continue to do this until 66% of the community agrees with every. single. matchup.

EDIT:

Wow Yikarur.. my example went right over your head? Didn't it.

Do you agree FD effects matches differently than BF? How about Lylat compared to YI (B)? Now how about Brinstar compared to RC? Now how about Japes compared to SV?

Every.
Single.
Stage.
Effects.
Matchups.
To.
The.
Same.
Degree.

Why?

Each stage supports certain character traits and if your character has most of those traits.. guess what. That stage supports your character.

Likewise, a stage can not support certain character traits. If your character is unsupported on that stage. Guess what? That stage is bad for your character.

 

[Ripple]

susa what are you doing? if you're at a disadvantage against a character on the starter, then that's probably your fault for picking that bad character who apparently has very few good median of biases

 

[SuSa]

That's why I don't start with Sheik. She's just my main example because I know more about her than other chars.

She actually has a very nice median of bias - but that's taken away, thrown in the gutter, pissed on, dried off, than thrown into a fire, mix the ashes with a drink, and dranken, only to become **** and decompose in the Earth because of the current starter list.

She's not the only character to be effected by this either.

Some are effected in the exact opposite manner (IC's) where there bias is taken, put under gold, and made into a trophy to be displayed to the world.

Our starter list is biased as **** - for no objective reason. It holds no logical basis.

Want less bias?
Full.
Stage.
Striking.

All the blame is then put onto the players. Oh? Your character is bad on a majority of every legal, non-degenerate stage? Your character lacks good character traits and is bad.

 

[Life]

@DMG: Whatever happened with you showing Norfair being broken at MLG? /curious.

 

[SuSa]

He didn't attend.

 

[Life]

Good to know. Maybe some other major tournament then. We'll see.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Our starter list is biased as **** - for no objective reason. It holds no logical basis.

The BBR gave a reason more than, "we don't like it."

You and some other don't agree with it and say it's not logical.

Which leads to debate on this issue.

 

[SuSa]

It is rather illogical, given their other decisions - the precedents set, and the criteria they try to follow.

It's a double standard.

/sick of restating my OP

Look at what I told Omni to do.

14,000~ possibilities.
Take them all into consideration.
Find the most agreeable list of those 14,000~ possibilities.

Then it'd be the least biased list seeing as it's only biased for the majority instead of the minority.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well, it would certainly prove your point if you did see those as well.

Either way, I'll just look for stages that I think are no no's on either list, since I think it a far more pressing issue atm.

 

[Omni]

you missed my point entirely, Susa

you're trying to create a stage list focusing on character balance. that's cool.

another approach is creating a stage list and IGNORING the characters all together (except for character specific glitches). that's cool.

your entire point of making this thread is an attempt to bring some kind of balance for the rest of the cast that doesn't necessarily exist. you're completely forgetting the main problem is that your stance is just that

A STANCE

you think that your way is the right way to approach the game. that's great, but we've already been pass the approach phase and you're a few years too late to be introducing this concept. it's not going to fly and no one will follow it. once you take away things it becomes EXTREMELY hard to put back which is why MK ban advocates were all for temporarily banning MK.

so what exactly is your argument, Susa?? there is NOTHING to argue. you're simply just bringing up a new idea/concept about how you think the game should be played. then you say, "it's backed up by thousands of years of competitive philosophy". if i were a professor i'd spit my coke on that thesis and leave it there to stain just to show you how ridiculous i think that sounds because it's such an empty supporting statement

do you still feel entitled to this approach?
do you still think you are "right" and the current system is "wrong"?
do you still think the japanese are "doing it wrong"?
do you understand the position you are in?

because if you still cant get past this very very basic and simple point there's seriously no way you're going to make progress at all

 

[SuSa]

I'm not balancing the cast at all.

I'm removing the biased push into the inbalance that has been created.

Correcting a change != causing a change.

If I changed red to green.
But red is supposed to be red.
So you change green to red.

I'd be mad you touched my green, but red's supposed to be red.

Horrible, horrible analogy I know. I couldn't think of a good one.

 

[Veel]

Susa I think you are missing Omni's point: his argument is not that any point of your system is bad, he might even concede that it is better!

His argument is attacking your motive. Why are you doing this? What will you system realistically accomplish? You have answered what he is getting at in your thread, he just hasn't read it all and is asking that to you and you have been responding by addressing minutia. The jist of his above post isn't that your stance is flawed, it is that your stance is just another stance and he does not believe you have a meaningful purpose in pushing this.

That or I have misunderstood his dozen or so posts in this thread.

 

[SuSa]

My purpose has been stated several times. You are subjective when creating your win criteria - past that you are objective. Splits in the community happen on a possible 3rd step. Another subjective step. To have the most objective game possible - you do not step down to that third step.

I ate dinner and lost my train of thought, if there even was one. However since I put a decent amount of typing into that I'll leave it. Just ignore the collapse box if you reply:

Spoiler

From a competitive standpoint that third step is bad. It's wrong. It's everything you don't want in competition. Looking at every single competitive system they do everything to avoid going down to that 3rd step.

It's not "wrong" unless trying to define it as competitive. We are competitive gamers and we participate in tournaments (competition).

The BBR, as I have seen it over the years, takes the most objective stance possible for most of their decisions. They do not back something "without logic". They will not ban something without a criteria. They be careful with the precedents they set. In essence - they are the most objective body in this community, yet they choose to be subjective about certain subjects. For absolutely no reason. This is why TO's don't follow their ruleset to the button. (Continues onto next paragraph)

My attacking this standpoint is that the BBR should be as objective as possible - and let TO's be the subjective people they can be. The TO's are the 3rd step. The BBR is the 2nd step. Our community is based around a unified concept of the 1st step.

I don't see tournaments held in any region that don't use 3 stocks, some variation of a timer (8 or 10 minutes usually), the ability to counterpick your opponent, double blinds on game 1, the ability to choose your own character, and the ability to influence or agree upon a stage to play on. Sets are best 2/3, and 3/5 for finals.

These all effect the win criteria. It's the criteria that this community has agreed upon. All of our major events are held with this criteria in mine. The difference between 8 and 10 is an argued/tested difference but isn't so argued as to have created a rift in the community. I've seen no arguments to lower the time limit. Our subjectiveness on this level is a minor difference amongst us. Most people just don't care because most of the community holds "remove your opponents stocks" higher than "have more stocks when time runes out" as "the better win". It's a minor difference in the sense that they are not changing the win criteria. There is still a timer. They are just altering one of the two win criteria to take importance over the other - and it's pretty agreed upon so few people care.

The differences that matter on this third level are "what stages should be legal" - this being one of the largest issues amongst the community. The BBR has already seperated stages into 2 levels. "Legal" and "Banned for being degenerate to our win criteria". That's awesome.

What they shouldn't have done is separate Starters, Counterpicks Group 1, Counterpicks Group 2, Counterpicks Group 3. There is no logical and objective reasoning they can point to for doing this.

The huge tl;dr

I understand that one must be subjective to create a competitive game. I've been saying this. "How do we win?"

What I am trying to show - from this point there are two paths. The objective path and the subjective path. The objective path has priority and I consider it "the 2nd step" because before you can even be subjective you need some criteria and precedents to support your "How do we win?" statement.

After this - it's possible to be as subjective as possible. Cool, this is what most TO's do regardless. It's pretty much human nature to change things to your biased opinion.

My argument is:
The BBR is influential.
The BBR is highly objective when it comes to any alterations to the game they make. This is 100% awesome for creating a standard.
When you create an entirely objective standard - all you can do is remove things from it.

When you remove things you dampen your communities chance of being viable compared to those who don't. This has shown to be true with pretty much any region that ban's Meta Knight. When it comes to playing that character elsewhere, they simply don't have great results. Usually this can lead to unbanning Meta Knight. Why? They want to be as competitive as possible. They want to win!

Being objective in nearly every decision you make - and choosing to be subjective on other parts. Is a double standard. Be entirely objective - or be entirely subjective. At the latter point, you're no different than any other TO or community and you will be completely ignored.

Look at the current commonly used rulesets. What do they all have in common?

Objective points. They all use a timer. They all have stocks. None of them use items. None of them have a banned stage legal. All have best 2/3 with finals being 3/5. Most have MK legal. Few (if any) allow custom stages.

What do they all have different?

Subjective points. Most use different stage lists. Some have different amounts of time on the timer (different from having a timer). Some have Meta Knight banned. Some allow custom stages.

How did these subjective points come into being?

Alterations of the objective standpoints.

The best part?

All subjective communities are in a minority. All stage differences still only use legal stages. Whether these stages are banned elsewhere, they all are in the majority of "we only use legal stages". The difference is "what legal stages do we use?"

This is what I'm arguing. Right there.

If you don't follow this post, I don't blame you. I'll try to think of a way to make my point as simple as possible next time.


The small tl;dr
Subjective standards makes the BBR useless. Abolish it or have it become objective. /But this will never happen because of how influential the BBR is and how many BBR members are staff.

 

[Omni]

stop typing so much

in your earlier post you used the term "correct"

have i not shown you how that mentality is flawed?

implying that you are correcting something is implying that it is incorrect

why is it so hard for you to get this one small point susa