Full Stage List Striking - New name

[SuSa]

So what are you saying? That the problem with the CP system is that it DOESN'T force everyone to use MK?

No, the problem with our CP system is it unneedingly nerfs bad characters to make the game "more fair".

But we don't do other "unneeded" nerfs to make the game "more fair".

It's a double standard.

:leek:

 

[Life]

I already read and commented on that.

:leek:

Where? I don't see it.

Also, every ledge on Norfair is at some point covered by lava (though never all at once except for the 1-frame superwave, but that's easily avoidable with good timing). It pretty much only interrupts planking but otherwise doesn't have a ton of effect on the match, except by offering survival and/or damage racking options (you fsmash me at a bazillion mph towards the side, I bounce off the wall at relatively low knockback and survive; I'm in special fall and use the floor or wall to refresh upB; I camp in the lava via powershielding + Marth/Ike Counter (all characters can do it, Counter makes it easier). Then the obvious combo-off-the-wall-into-killmove we've seen dozens of times.)

tl;dr Norfair's lava is awesome.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Also, off-topic, but when did Jiggs get on the same level as fox in melee? Not arguing, just curious; it's been a while since I played melee...

IIRC basically every recent large tournament has looked like this:
1. Mango (jiggs)
2. HBox (Jiggs)
3. M2K (most of top tier except jiggs)

if you don't mind dumbing down competitive play, i agree with you. unfortunately, smashboards has a big interest in tournaments.

O.o

Wait. Banning (I'm gonna guess here) 6+ stages is not dumbing down competition (you will never have to fight on those stages, you will not have to ever figure them out, and they, by coincidence, are stages with very high learning curves), but removing the dominant character in the game who gets like half of all tournament cash prizes is. GOOD TO KNOW. Seriously, where is the logic behind this? I never have to figure out how Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Norfair, Brinstar, PTAD, or Delfino work. Compare the amount of competitive "dumbing down" happening there to the amount happening when you ban a character who wins a very considerable number of matchups by pressing B a lot.

Because that would be too obvious of a nerf

MK can't do this, but everyone else can = Well what's the problem officer?

And restructuring the stagelists, making the starter list obscenely biased against MK, and banning perfectly fine stages because of MK isn't obviously nerfing MK?

MK (and G&W, and Wario, and Pikachu, and Ness...) doesn't get his best non-broken counterpicks, but a certain subgroup of characters who don't share those counterpicks do = WELL WHAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.

Nerfing MK like this is not only a big fat constructivist nerf, it's also ridiculously heavy-handed, seeing as MK is one of the only top tiers who actually likes those stages (or, in fact, wouldn't spend bans on them).

No, the problem with our CP system is it unneedingly nerfs bad characters to make the game "more fair".

But we don't do other "unneeded" nerfs to make the game "more fair".

It's a double standard.

:leek:

Err... our CP system redefines who is bad and unviable. Just like any system implemented to select stages. There is no fair in-game method (random? Not likely). Hell, by banning circle camp stages, we're making slow characters viable. Do you see what I'm saying? The CP system isn't necessary, but something is. The fact is, the CP system has proven itself to at least be functional, and provide far more competitive depth than almost any other system.

 

[ADHD]

if you don't mind dumbing down competitive play, i agree with you. unfortunately, smashboards has a big interest in tournaments.

BEST POST EVER yayyy

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BEST POST EVER yayyy

Agreed; taken out of context, it's what we've been saying this whole time. In context? It's awful.

 

[Deleted member]

So much interest in competitive tournaments that more people attend MK-banned tournaments than non-MK tournaments.

Woops, that did just kill your argument with facts and data?

Now please, back to the CP system - off of MK.

:leek:

Err, what facts and data? To my knowledge, all of the top paying and highest attendance tournaments to date so far have had MK legal?

I think you're going to have a hard time ignoring MK for the CP list since it's based around that particular character.

No, the problem with our CP system is it unneedingly nerfs bad characters to make the game "more fair".

But we don't do other "unneeded" nerfs to make the game "more fair".

It's a double standard.

:leek:

I can definitely see that, but it makes more sense to foster high-end play and talent than it does to cater to the (in)ability of bad characters.

Wait. Banning (I'm gonna guess here) 6+ stages is not dumbing down competition (you will never have to fight on those stages, you will not have to ever figure them out, and they, by coincidence, are stages with very high learning curves), but removing the dominant character in the game who gets like half of all tournament cash prizes is. GOOD TO KNOW. Seriously, where is the logic behind this? I never have to figure out how Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Norfair, Brinstar, PTAD, or Delfino work. Compare the amount of competitive "dumbing down" happening there to the amount happening when you ban a character who wins a very considerable number of matchups by pressing B a lot.

I think comparing the depth of the two directly is a travesty of logic on your part. The point of a stage list isn't to add depth to competitive play. The stage list is only supposed to create a means in which the attendees of the tournament agree that the means of victory was mutually acceptable. In short, it validates a win/loss situation that is understood, and therefore is more of a social function. In an extreme example, MLG could open its stage list to simply having no banned stages. It would certainly add depth to the game, but the stage list would no longer serve its purpose as a medium of competition. Even if the stage list is to assume functions for both validity and enhanced game depth, at some point we have to draw an arbitrary line for what we are willing to "deepen" the game and what is unacceptable in a tournament setting. This is probably a good portion of that "What Pierce said in his PM to me was something along the lines of We know the CP system is broken, but we don't know of a better one" thing.

 

[SuSa]

Err, what facts and data? To my knowledge, all of the top paying and highest attendance tournaments to date so far have had MK legal?.

HOBO tourneys with MK banned had higher attendance than non-banned tournaments.

I can go grab you more data if you want, I know it's archived somewhere.

I can definitely see that, but it makes more sense to foster high-end play and talent than it does to cater to the (in)ability of bad characters.

Uhm.... you already are catering to the inabilities of bad characters. Are you reading this thread properly? That's what our current CP system does.. it gives bad characters viability because of how it works.


BPC's argument about what makes a stage "neutral" is far better for competitive play. The more things there are to take advantage of a stage, the more cons and pros every character has to playing on it. Our "neutral" stages as of now are completely polarized but our community has the mindset that "little to nothing going on = neutral" when that isn't the case at all.

:leek:

 

[DMG]

BPC's argument about what makes a stage "neutral" is far better for competitive play. The more things there are to take advantage of a stage, the more cons and pros every character has to playing on it. Our "neutral" stages as of now are completely polarized but our community has the mindset that "little to nothing going on = neutral" when that isn't the case at all.

Addressing mostly the bolded part (LONG post coming up, you have been warned):

Having more pros and cons isn't necessarily a good thing. The more you start to add varying dynamics/features to a stage, the more the risk grows of adding something broken or approaching that level.




Look at FD for example: Flat stage with 2 edges. Nothing special at all. It's a top CP for characters who like grounded, flat, unobstructed stages. It's pretty influential matchup wise. But, thank god there's nothing stupid about it.




Now look at a stage like 75m: Diverse stage with multi platformed layout, ladders you can interact with, hazards to watch, etc. There's a lot more on this stage clearly than FD. More pros and cons for characters on this stage. But, then comes along 1-2 verrrrry bad qualities of the stage that turn something creative into something broken. Through everything else, the stage is also extremely large and quite easy to circle camp/run away forever on.



This is the problem with a LOT of stages though. Look at Hanenbow: There is absolutely NOTHING gamebreaking about that stage besides the circle camp/running away problem. It would be nice to have a stage that interacts like that, if it didn't have something else weighing it down. A lot of stages however do have problems, even some of the ones we currently have legal.



RC and Brinstar have some issues I think people water down because they just see that they are "diverse" in features. Yes Brinstar has lava that can kill/save you, and hittable parts that let you modify the layout and refresh moves, and multi platforms with rugged terrain... But it's also a sharking and scrooging free for all because someone decided to design it as a permanent sharking stage.



RC has everything from scrolling background to rugged terrain to multi platformed edge availability shifting boundary changing etc. It has a lot of pros and cons for characters, but it's lopsided in that the characters who are really good on this stage tend to be able to avoid conflict easily enough on their "bad" parts on the stage.



Take MK vs Snake on RC for example: MK doesn't really want to fight Snake on the Ship. There's nothing strong for him to use really. However, if he waits a bit, he can get a GREAT part of RC where everyone is forced to move around a lot to survive. So he tries not to fight a ton on the ship, and then on the next few parts, he exploits the stage. Do you think Snake can REALLY run from MK once the stage starts scrolling up? Or that he can get around MK when he has to cross over to the right safely? Probably not. So Snake gets punished, and in turn also can't really use the parts of the stage that favor him.



That's a common trait for a lot of diverse stages unfortunately: there tends to be 1-2 standout features that a few can abuse over the rest, and in return not really have to deal with the parts they are weak on. Brinstar has close sides and is really close together, MK in particular would be easier to punish his tornado and much easier to kill. But he doesn't have to deal with that if he goes under and sharks all day. Rainbow cruise has some parts with extremely low ceilings and nothing in particular that MK would completely **** at, but if you can't force him to fight there he doesn't have to deal with that. (Brinstar honestly is a problem just because of MK. Timing out people with Wario or G&W there is strong, but not super dumb. Rainbow Cruise is a bit more spread out, multiple characters can abuse the stage similar to MK, he just happens to be the strongest abuser of the stage.)



Some common stage issues:

Too Large (might not focus on circle camping, but just running away in general)
Too many edges (clustered together it's even worse, most multi edged stages are clustered)
Permanent Sharking
Circle Camp loops (for stages that aren't extremely large, like Distant Planet)









Next post I'll get into why I think labeling traditional CP's as starters to solve the problem is a bad idea, and why I think trying to balance the starter stages based on matchups is bad as well.

 

[napZzz]

I mis interpreted your intentions susa and re read this very happily

you're gonna be the one, NEO

bpc's argument is stupid, add in more factors and its just even more **** for other characters to abuse/be hindered by, you can call that "neutralizing" things by removing the current bad neutrals that apparently benefit top tiers (stages are part of the reason they're up that high) it'll just benefit mk more than anyone and a stage like...ps1? come on....theres nothing competitive about the stage, its just a ****ing joke continously aside from the normal inbetween section

 

[DMG]

For starters:


I disagree with the idea of adding in CP's like Brinstar/RC/even some of the lesser ones like Delfino into the starter list. My philosophy on starter stages is this:

Give the players, NOT the characters, a selection of fair stages.

By that, I mean I am against the idea of trying to make starter stages "balanced for matchups", and instead try to give players a selection of the fairest stages possible to start off a set. This means stages like FD, BF, and Smashville (the tri-core most people know about). When I say fair, I am referring to stages that do as little as possible to impact gameplay, AKA stages as close to Player vs Player as possible.


Stages are integral to Smash, that is obvious. At the same time, you need to understand the context of how important Game 1 of a set is, and I personally think the right way to go is to try and give the players fair stages to start on. I think that trying to balance the starter list by matchups is bad because it means you are not ok with matchup variations or character advantages and want Game 1 to hinder/help each charater get as close to 50-50 as possible. Some people think optimally every particular matchup would have a well identified "even" stage that you would be forced to play on Game 1 because anything else would stray from getting 50-50.


I think, at LEAST for Game 1 of a set, we should provide players with fair starting grounds (meaning fair not concerning pure matchup balance, but fair as in "Will this stage let me fight my opponent the most without interfering or interacting with me/him/us?") and let matchup advantages and weaknesses show through naturally. If Diddy or Snake or IC's or x character happens to be good on those stages that "do nothing", then so be it. Let them display it freely in a competitive fashion. Don't say "Well this isn't fair for other characters, let's balance it by adding this stage that moves or has lava or shape shifts". You should be asking simply "Is this fair for PLAYERS?" If it is extremely fair for the players, allow it as a starter. If there is some question about how fair it is, simply do not and let it be a CP/Banned.

 

[napZzz]

I dont see how people like BPC can argue that adding more to a stage makes it more competitive/fair, it just distorts gameplay/matchups to higher levels of stupid, let it stay clean and simple game 1 and let the counterpicks wait to be....counterpicked

anyways, as long as mk around nothings gonna matter for the counterpick system regardless, I should just go back to using a pocket mk for when people take snake (who I always use) to some dumb stage game 2 or 3. Suddenly, I have the advantage on THEIR, not mine, THEIR counterpick unless they're also mk, in which case its just a ditto on a dumb stage

 

[Life]

I dont see how people like BPC can argue that adding more to a stage makes it more competitive/fair, it just distorts gameplay/matchups to higher levels of stupid, let it stay clean and simple game 1 and let the counterpicks wait to be....counterpicked

No such thing as "distorting" gameplay. In fact, the addition of extra elements arguably enhances it.

anyways, as long as mk around nothings gonna matter for the counterpick system regardless, I should just go back to using a pocket mk for when people take snake (who I always use) to some dumb stage game 2 or 3. Suddenly, I have the advantage on THEIR, not mine, THEIR counterpick unless they're also mk, in which case its just a ditto on a dumb stage

The problem here is not the stages.

I might answer a couple other points if I get bored enough, but real life calls.

 

[ADHD]

I dont see how people like BPC can argue that adding more to a stage makes it more competitive/fair, it just distorts gameplay/matchups to higher levels of stupid, let it stay clean and simple game 1 and let the counterpicks wait to be....counterpicked

While this is true, they'll never admit it or be able to see it. Most of them seldom compete with anything on the line.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think comparing the depth of the two directly is a travesty of logic on your part. The point of a stage list isn't to add depth to competitive play. The stage list is only supposed to create a means in which the attendees of the tournament agree that the means of victory was mutually acceptable. In short, it validates a win/loss situation that is understood, and therefore is more of a social function.

I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Stages are a part of the game. I've backed up how stages add competitive depth fairly well, thank you. As long as there isn't a broken/overcentralizing tactic (circle camping, perfect runaway, walkoff camping, etc.), then the stage almost certainly adds to the competitive nature of the game. I've backed this up beyond a doubt.

In an extreme example, MLG could open its stage list to simply having no banned stages. It would certainly add depth to the game, but the stage list would no longer serve its purpose as a medium of competition. Even if the stage list is to assume functions for both validity and enhanced game depth, at some point we have to draw an arbitrary line for what we are willing to "deepen" the game and what is unacceptable in a tournament setting. This is probably a good portion of that "What Pierce said in his PM to me was something along the lines of We know the CP system is broken, but we don't know of a better one" thing.

Err... I believe swordgard put it best. "We add everything, then remove what's broken". There's a fairly clear and simple cause to ban a stage: broken and overcentralizing tactic. Every stage except debatably Onett that the BBR bans follows this criteria. Every stage they don't ban lacks this criteria. The reason for this is criteria is fairly simple; when a stage is broken, it doesn't deepen competition, it in fact lowers the amount of skill you need to play the game. If you are good at fin camping, that's all you ever need on corneria. Circle camping reduces the game to "who can run faster". Et cetera.

Addressing mostly the bolded part (LONG post coming up, you have been warned):

Having more pros and cons isn't necessarily a good thing. The more you start to add varying dynamics/features to a stage, the more the risk grows of adding something broken or approaching that level.

Which is why we limit the stagelist at all. Again, look at the BBR 3.0 list. That's virtually the full extent of what you can legalize (well, add Onett and maybe Skyworld). Everything else has something broken.

Look at FD for example: Flat stage with 2 edges. Nothing special at all. It's a top CP for characters who like grounded, flat, unobstructed stages. It's pretty influential matchup wise. But, thank god there's nothing stupid about it.

K...

Now look at a stage like 75m: Diverse stage with multi platformed layout, ladders you can interact with, hazards to watch, etc. There's a lot more on this stage clearly than FD. More pros and cons for characters on this stage. But, then comes along 1-2 verrrrry bad qualities of the stage that turn something creative into something broken. Through everything else, the stage is also extremely large and quite easy to circle camp/run away forever on.

Wait is this your argument? That 75m is stupid? Dude, we KNOW. We don't support legalizing it either because you can circle camp it like nobody's business. It follows the ban criteria.

This is the problem with a LOT of stages though. Look at Hanenbow: There is absolutely NOTHING gamebreaking about that stage besides the circle camp/running away problem. It would be nice to have a stage that interacts like that, if it didn't have something else weighing it down. A lot of stages however do have problems, even some of the ones we currently have legal.

Err... no, no stage we currently have legal has this issue. At all.

RC and Brinstar have some issues I think people water down because they just see that they are "diverse" in features. Yes Brinstar has lava that can kill/save you, and hittable parts that let you modify the layout and refresh moves, and multi platforms with rugged terrain... But it's also a sharking and scrooging free for all because someone decided to design it as a permanent sharking stage.

Semi-permanent. You can't shark while the lava is above a certain level. And I'm fairly sure we have been shown, time and time again, that MK is not broken on Brinstar. He's ridiculously good, but not broken.

RC has everything from scrolling background to rugged terrain to multi platformed edge availability shifting boundary changing etc. It has a lot of pros and cons for characters, but it's lopsided in that the characters who are really good on this stage tend to be able to avoid conflict easily enough on their "bad" parts on the stage.

This is because, *gasp*, some characters are simply better than others. If I play olimar and let an MK take me to RC, I should **** well expect to lose because I let my opponent take me to a stage where I cannot reasonably win! Just like Ganon-ICs.

Take MK vs Snake on RC for example: MK doesn't really want to fight Snake on the Ship. There's nothing strong for him to use really. However, if he waits a bit, he can get a GREAT part of RC where everyone is forced to move around a lot to survive. So he tries not to fight a ton on the ship, and then on the next few parts, he exploits the stage. Do you think Snake can REALLY run from MK once the stage starts scrolling up? Or that he can get around MK when he has to cross over to the right safely? Probably not. So Snake gets punished, and in turn also can't really use the parts of the stage that favor him.

Because it's a good stage for MK, and only a decent stage for Snake? This concept is really not that hard to grasp.

That's a common trait for a lot of diverse stages unfortunately: there tends to be 1-2 standout features that a few can abuse over the rest, and in return not really have to deal with the parts they are weak on. Brinstar has close sides and is really close together, MK in particular would be easier to punish his tornado and much easier to kill. But he doesn't have to deal with that if he goes under and sharks all day. Rainbow cruise has some parts with extremely low ceilings and nothing in particular that MK would completely **** at, but if you can't force him to fight there he doesn't have to deal with that. (Brinstar honestly is a problem just because of MK. Timing out people with Wario or G&W there is strong, but not super dumb. Rainbow Cruise is a bit more spread out, multiple characters can abuse the stage similar to MK, he just happens to be the strongest abuser of the stage.)

So ban MK? If MK is broken on these stages, we don't set the stages lower than the character for any good reason. We ban the **** character. HOWEVER, they have not shown themselves to contain overcentralizing tactics or be broken. Look at MLG DC, look at APEX 2.

Some common stage issues:

Too Large (might not focus on circle camping, but just running away in general)

Banned all of them due to overcentralizing tactics.

Too many edges (clustered together it's even worse, most multi edged stages are clustered)

This is so not even a problem. WTF?

Permanent Sharking

Not only doesn't exist, but isn't a problem on the stages where it's temporarily possible either.

Circle Camp loops (for stages that aren't extremely large, like Distant Planet)

Not on DP... And we banned these. All of them. You say it works on DP. I say, "Proof?!?" There is none. There REALLY is no evidence that you can circle camp DP.

Next post I'll get into why I think labeling traditional CP's as starters to solve the problem is a bad idea, and why I think trying to balance the starter stages based on matchups is bad as well.

Good luck with that.

bpc's argument is stupid, add in more factors and its just even more **** for other characters to abuse/be hindered by, you can call that "neutralizing" things by removing the current bad neutrals that apparently benefit top tiers (stages are part of the reason they're up that high) it'll just benefit mk more than anyone and a stage like...ps1? come on....theres nothing competitive about the stage, its just a ****ing joke continously aside from the normal inbetween section

This post is so full of ******** it's not even funny. First of all, can you please learn to format your posts in whole sentences? It's ridiculously hard to refute your arguments because they have no structure.
Let's make one thing very clear. We never add anything. We can't without hacking. We can only remove. When we "legalize", say, PTAD, all we're doing is removing the rule that says "you can't pick PTAD". That's all. We aren't adding anything whatsoever, simply not removing it any more.
That said.... I don't call hazards neutralizing. Never did. In fact, I wouldn't call any stage element or lack thereof neutralizing. Get it right. A stage, in and of itself, cannot be neutral. If it turns out that, say, PTAD is the most matchup-balanced stage in the game (it isn't, I know, but hypothetically), then it would be neutralizing. Yes, a stage with a massive amount of hazards is neutralizing because it doesn't heavily affect matchups. That's the whole point of a starter stage.

What you call "stupid" things to abuse/be hindered by, I call "strategic elements open to abuse for the player who is better at dealing with it". I.e. it helps the better player win by providing more different skills necessary to win.

And I'm not proposing removing any of the current starters (well, except FD, until the starter list gets up to like 11 stages). I'm proposing adding starters, to fix this ridiculous polarization that's present. Read this thread plz.

For starters:

I disagree with the idea of adding in CP's like Brinstar/RC/

Well, there goes FD...

even some of the lesser ones like Delfino into the starter list.

...And SV. And possibly even Battlefield and Yoshi's.

My philosophy on starter stages is this:

Give the players, NOT the characters, a selection of fair stages.

OH NO YOU DID NOT. YOU DID NOT JUST MAKE THIS MISTAKE. Come on man, I expected better of you.

And I already hear it. "But it is fair-it's fair to the players". Wait, what? I don't understand this line of reasoning, because while Final Destination-Battlefield-Smashville may be "fair" to the players in some sense, so is Rainbow Cruise-Brinstar-Castle Siege. When I inquire what "fair to the player" means, I hear that stage movement is not fair to the player. This makes no sense. Why would any non-random stage be more fair to a player than another? Both players, assuming more or less equal skill level, have an equal chance of winning on each and every non-random stage in the game. There's nothing "unfair" about Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise as such; they're completely and totally non-random and therefore completely fair to the player. And even in the case of randomness, most stages have the sort of randomness that does not lead to any worthwhile inconsistencies (think, 1/10^10% level of inconsistency), or their random elements announce themselves miles in advance-but I'm getting off topic, this is the subject for an entirely different blog.

The short version of the above paragraph is that being fair to the player is, in this context, commonly misunderstood (because it doesn't mean what it really should), and virtually always a non-issue–nobody's recommending Pictochat as a starter here (yet), and stage interaction is not a matter of player fairness at all.

By that, I mean I am against the idea of trying to make starter stages "balanced for matchups"

Not to interrupt, but this is the entire point of the starter list. If you're not going with that, why is using the starter list better than just random stage selection like they did in melee? One good reason.

and instead try to give players a selection of the fairest stages possible to start off a set.

So...
FD
BF
SV
JJ
Brinstar
RC
YI(M)
right? Because those are the stages that are the most fair to players. Seriously, read this thread. I even asked you to namesearch it and you didn't. If you want to cut stages, then FD is the first on the chopping block because it requires an extremely small amount of skill, and it would be unfair to remove it and mitigate player skill regarding stage adaptation.

This means stages like FD, BF, and Smashville (the tri-core most people know about). When I say fair, I am referring to stages that do as little as possible to impact gameplay, AKA stages as close to Player vs Player as possible.

Yes, but that's not fair to the player at all! Please help me out here, I'm somehow not making the connection.

Completely non-random, totally avoidable stage hazard --------- unfair to the player. Where is the connection? I'm really not seeing it.

Stages are integral to Smash, that is obvious. At the same time, you need to understand the context of how important Game 1 of a set is, and I personally think the right way to go is to try and give the players fair stages to start on.

ASDIOF$#)(*H#V(HIORHFWE

EVERY NON-RANDOM STAGE IS FAIR TO THE PLAYER. And what's more, game 1 shouldn't mitigate the skills the player needs (dealing with stages) more than it has to.

I think that trying to balance the starter list by matchups is bad because it means you are not ok with matchup variations or character advantages and want Game 1 to hinder/help each charater get as close to 50-50 as possible.

What? No, no we don't. That's a horrible strawman. We want them to be as close as possible to their actual ratio. Do you really think that striking from the whole stagelist, as opposed to 3 or 5 of Diddy and Falco's best stages helps push the Diddy/MK or Falco/MK matchup towards 50/50?

Some people think optimally every particular matchup would have a well identified "even" stage that you would be forced to play on Game 1 because anything else would stray from getting 50-50.

Yeah, I hate those people too. They're idiots. Using the stagelist to rebalance matchups is one of the #1 things I believe should not be done.

I think, at LEAST for Game 1 of a set, we should provide players with fair starting grounds (meaning fair not concerning pure matchup balance, but fair as in "Will this stage let me fight my opponent the most without interfering or interacting with me/him/us?")

...That's not fair. More accurately: "Will this stage let me fight my opponent the most without me requiring the skills of dealing with stage interaction?" Seriously! Get your facts straight when it comes to player fairness.

and let matchup advantages and weaknesses show through naturally.

Yeah, see, this doesn't happen with the method you are proposing. Are you forgetting that adaptability is a MAJORLY positive character trait? What's ICs' major matchup weakness against MK, G&W, and Wario? The fact that ICs can't deal with those chars' counterpicks. That when MK takes them to either brinstar or RC, ICs cannot deal with the terrain, regardless of player ability. Diddy virtually can't play at all on Brinstar. Same with Snake. Falco and Olimar can't deal with RC. This is a major character weakness, one that, with your method, would go completely ignored.

If Diddy or Snake or IC's or x character happens to be good on those stages that "do nothing", then so be it. Let them display it freely in a competitive fashion. Don't say "Well this isn't fair for other characters, let's balance it by adding this stage that moves or has lava or shape shifts".

So in other words, it's fine to prop bad characters up due to some ridiculous preconceived notion that stage movement is anticompetitive or unfair?

You should be asking simply "Is this fair for PLAYERS?" If it is extremely fair for the players, allow it as a starter. If there is some question about how fair it is, simply do not and let it be a CP/Banned.

All right. RC, Brinstar, and Japes for starter. If you want to ignore matchup polarization, those 3 stages are awesome starters.

I dont see how people like BPC can argue that adding more to a stage makes it more competitive/fair, it just distorts gameplay/matchups to higher levels of stupid, let it stay clean and simple game 1 and let the counterpicks wait to be....counterpicked

Define counterpick. Is PS2 a counterpick? Well, let's see. Does anyone ever COUNTERPICK it? No, not really? Hmm, geez, I wonder what that could mean...
Seriously, you have these completely arbitrary and senseless definitions for starter/counterpick, your opinion on "gameplay distortion" has been torn apart time and time again, and "clean and simple" mitigates important gameplay skills and nerfs characters who are good at adapting to stages.

anyways, as long as mk around nothings gonna matter for the counterpick system regardless, I should just go back to using a pocket mk for when people take snake (who I always use) to some dumb stage game 2 or 3. Suddenly, I have the advantage on THEIR, not mine, THEIR counterpick unless they're also mk, in which case its just a ditto on a dumb stage

Just thought I'd mention this... As far as "being good at adapting to stages" goes, Snake is really, really high up the list. Finding a stage which is actually bad for him is hard. I mean, ask SuSa. People ban Rainbow Cruise against him. Yes, he only mains snake. I mean, it's no MK, but seriously...

@ADHD: 1. False; AA is often at tournaments; I'm going to every worthwhile tournament in germany in the next few months including one with around 80 people; Raziek is a PR'd player and top-level TO in Nova Scotia (their scene is not half as bad as you'd think); Overswarm and AlphaZealot are high-level tournament players and TOs. Kindly stop trying to use ad hominem. We CAN understand, and we know that you're simply wrong.
2. Most of us, you know, actually know how to deal with stages.

 

[Raziek]

Seriously, I'm getting really sick of the Ad Hominem.

 

[Prawn]

herp derp. lets base our stagelists off of arbitrary matchup numbers and the current opinion of how well some characters do on stages, not like those ever change or anything.

herp derp

 

[Prawn]

herp derp. lets call your arguments stupid for stating that we should play a fighting game 1 and not a stupid *** platformer

herp derp

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I couldn't disagree more with the overall statement of the original post here. The counterpick system is in no way non-competitive.

Every competitive fighting game has a counterpick system in place for characters. Why? It's the only effective way to manage the issue of when and how players get to change characters between the games of a set. Unless you want to have one-character only tournaments like Japan, such a system is necessary.

In Smash, the third character is the stage, hence the use of a stage counterpicking system in addition to the existing standard of a character counterpicking system.




There is certainly merit to arguing the most efficient process/implementation of a counterpicking system, but stating that its very existence is, by default, "not competitive" is blatantly ignorant. Counterpicking is a staple in all competitive games that have characters, stages, or anything at all to choose from.

 

[Tesh]

I think some of these people need to actually practice on these stages before they say it ruins the game. Every match I have seen used as evidence against these stages seems to be some otherwise good player making horrible decisions out of ignorance.

Why don't you all look back at the first time you played Rainbow Cruise? If you aren't familiar with that stage, of course you will wind up killing yourself and getting wrecked by a knowledgeable player.

Even FD, people were getting caught under the lip out of inexperience with the stage. Yet no one argues anymore than FD's lip makes it a counterpick as it makes the game less PvP and more PvS.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

herp derp. lets base our stagelists off of arbitrary matchup numbers and the current opinion of how well some characters do on stages, not like those ever change or anything.

herp derp

Actually, this statement would work if we didn't already have an inherent way of finding the stage which is closest to "even" (even being the "actual ratio" for the matchup, more or less) for the matchup. But, what a coincidence, we do. It's called "striking the whole stagelist". And you can get fairly close to that by striking from a fairly large starter list (like the one mentioned in my other thread) which contains unbiased and unpolarizing stages.

herp derp. lets call your arguments stupid for stating that we should play a fighting game 1 and not a stupid *** platformer

herp derp

TvC, SSF4, SF4, MvC2, MvC3 soon, SCIV, Tekken 8(?), Guilty Gear... I'm probably even forgetting a few. You have that HUGE selection of high-level competitive games, a few of which even have serious high-level sponsorship and gigantic (we're talking upwards of a thousand players here) tournaments. Am I the only one that sees it as hilarious that, with so many games on the market, you want Brawl to be another generic 2D fighter?

Stages are a part of the game. If RC, RF, or, to push the hyperbole, BF makes brawl seem like a Platformer/Fighter as opposed to a straight-up fighter... Well, fun fact: brawl is a Platformer/Fighter. If you want to play a straight-up competitive 2D fighter, there are many, a few even with bigger scenes than brawl. Don't force brawl's square peg into a round hole, find a round peg like Street Fighter. Bad enough that we're taking a game which was built with the intention to be a party game and made it one of the top competitive fighting games; now we want to remove the entire platforming element from it for no reason other than "we'd rather play a fighting game"? If you'd rather play a fighting game, then could I recommend the SRK forums? Or 8WR? And don't get me started on how much of the competitive depth and skill requirements this idiotic notion removes from the game.

Seriously, this post is probably the most stupid post in the whole thread. Yes, moreso than Nappys' (and those were pretty bad!). Herp. DERP.

I think some of these people need to actually practice on these stages before they say it ruins the game. Every match I have seen used as evidence against these stages seems to be some otherwise good player making horrible decisions out of ignorance.

Why don't you all look back at the first time you played Rainbow Cruise? If you aren't familiar with that stage, of course you will wind up killing yourself and getting wrecked by a knowledgeable player.

Even FD, people were getting caught under the lip out of inexperience with the stage. Yet no one argues anymore than FD's lip makes it a counterpick as it makes the game less PvP and more PvS.

Oh look! An excellent post! Thank you Tesh! It's good, but kinda off-topic...

 

[Deleted member]

I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Stages are a part of the game. I've backed up how stages add competitive depth fairly well, thank you. As long as there isn't a broken/overcentralizing tactic (circle camping, perfect runaway, walkoff camping, etc.), then the stage almost certainly adds to the competitive nature of the game. I've backed this up beyond a doubt.

Err... I believe swordgard put it best. "We add everything, then remove what's broken". There's a fairly clear and simple cause to ban a stage: broken and overcentralizing tactic. Every stage except debatably Onett that the BBR bans follows this criteria. Every stage they don't ban lacks this criteria. The reason for this is criteria is fairly simple; when a stage is broken, it doesn't deepen competition, it in fact lowers the amount of skill you need to play the game. If you are good at fin camping, that's all you ever need on corneria. Circle camping reduces the game to "who can run faster". Et cetera.

I agree that stages do add competitive depth. Any variation of gameplay is going to add depth. The main point here is that the stage list is not in place to add depth; it is simply a medium of competition as previously stated. Anything additional from the stage list is merely a byproduct.

As for swordgard, I flatly disagree with that entire method. I do think there's a clear and simple cause to ban a stage, but it is not gameplay related. The best reason to ban a stage from the stage list is simply that it does not facilitate a competitive environment for its players. I'll try to illustrate my point better.

What you're suggesting (and what many of the BBR also think last I knew):
1. Stage is broken.
2. Prove that it is broken, thus justifying a ban.
3. Ban the stage.

While there is nothing wrong with this, it becomes highly controversial very quickly as players "prove" a stage is broken when the game tactic may not be fully understood yet. A good example comes from when I and several other EC BBR members tried to ban Norfair because of MK ledge camping, to which overswarm promptly came in and said his usual "ban MK then, don't force us to play your version of the game with Norfair banned". Logically, it seems to resolve itself, and yet all of our players hated Norfair regardless of whether MK was camping there or not.

Here's what the MBR does and also what I am suggesting instead:
1. Stage may or may not be broken.
2. Stage is tested, and is either found to be broken or not.
3. If the stage is broken, use that to justify a ban of that stage. If it's not broken, evaluate your player base to see if they want to use it in tournament.
4. Sort the stage into the stage list accordingly.

While a broken stage will definitely yield it being banned under this method, the stages that the players simply don't want in their tournaments are also removed. Can we prove Norfair to be broken? Maybe, maybe not. But if only a small percentage of the tournament attendance wants to play there and a large majority do not, you are still dis-servicing your player base by keeping it legal. The stage list is no longer serving its primary function of fostering a competitive setting with a mutually agreed upon set of rules.

 

[DMG]

So...
FD
BF
SV
JJ
Brinstar
RC
YI(M)

^^^ That's a horrible starter list LOL



Yeah, because someone realistically wants to have the chance to lose Game 1 on a stage like Brinstar or Japes. Instead of using mild CP's like Frigate or Castle Siege, no you went for the bad boys of the CP selection lol.

What data do you have that would support using those stages over current ones? Do you have a matchup chart or list for each stage in comparison to the old ones that shows truer ratios? Or tournament results that suggest the stages are "fairer" than the others? Is there a reason at all to even try those stages besides "Well I believe they have the potential to work?"


So you have an alternative. Fine. Convince people why Stages like that are so integral to Smash that you have to accept the possibility of playing Game 1 on a stage like Green Greens, Norfair, RC, Brinstar, Japes, YI Melee, etc. Why doing so is the best path to go down, over "boring" stages for Game 1. I mean, lets be honest. For Game 1 of a set, at the end of the day, most people want to be able to say "Hey, I played this guy on FD and lost" compared to "Hey I played on Green Greens and lost". People for Game 1 want to win or lose to the player as pure as possible (even on semi lopsided stages like FD (((Despite that being very RPS like in nature with the characters who are good on it)))), not win or lose because someone abused Brinstar better than the other guy.




Edit: Well put Umbreon.

 

[Baro]

Items.

Bring back items.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I agree that stages do add competitive depth. Any variation of gameplay is going to add depth. The main point here is that the stage list is not in place to add depth; it is simply a medium of competition as previously stated. Anything additional from the stage list is merely a byproduct.

WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY? We can improve the competitive depth of the game. We can force the players to know more in order to win. We can ensure that the game retains a solid callback to its original degree.

And we shouldn't. Because "they're just stages" and because (can you please back this completely arbitrary statement up?) "the stage list should not add depth, it is simply a medium of competition". Sense. It makes very, very little.

As for swordgard, I flatly disagree with that entire method. I do think there's a clear and simple cause to ban a stage, but it is not gameplay related. The best reason to ban a stage from the stage list is simply that it does not facilitate a competitive environment for its players. I'll try to illustrate my point better.

What you're suggesting (and what many of the BBR also think last I knew):
1. Stage is broken.
2. Prove that it is broken, thus justifying a ban.
3. Ban the stage.

While there is nothing wrong with this, it becomes highly controversial very quickly as players "prove" a stage is broken when the game tactic may not be fully understood yet. A good example comes from when I and several other EC BBR members tried to ban Norfair because of MK ledge camping, to which overswarm promptly came in and said his usual "ban MK then, don't force us to play your version of the game with Norfair banned". Logically, it seems to resolve itself, and yet all of our players hated Norfair regardless of whether MK was camping there or not.

Yeah. And yet, on the other hand, it turns out, MK's planking on the stage isn't even proven to be broken. There's almost nothing controversial about many stages, it's just that many players have a warped opinion of them. I don't really know what I'm supposed to get from that last paragraph, especially regarding norfair, because Norfair is really not that broken (or at least, not proven to be). Furthermore, a player hating a stage should never, in a competitive environment, be a reason to ban the stage. NEVER! It's the scrubbiest thing ever. "We don't like this, let's ban it". Yes, I know, in some places if you legalize, say, Norfair and Port Town, people simply won't come to your tournaments. But in such cases, it's up to you as a TO to convince them that the stages are all right, and that they should accept them as a competitive norm.

Here's what the MBR does and also what I am suggesting instead:
1. Stage may or may not be broken.
2. Stage is tested, and is either found to be broken or not.
3. If the stage is broken, use that to justify a ban of that stage. If it's not broken, evaluate your player base to see if they want to use it in tournament.
4. Sort the stage into the stage list accordingly.

Yeah, see, this is the problem. I'm gonna reference one of my favorite posts ever, one by Jack Kieser.
[collapse=big post]
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10807220&postcount=89

The concept of "don't get any random in my Brawl" is really a moot point, in the long run. Let me ask you, are you a game designer? Have you crafted a game, in any form, before? I have experience making small text games for programming assignments, but other than that, I don't, and I'm willing to bet that most of the pro players in Brawl haven't, either (if they did, they wouldn't be playing; game design takes a LOT of time). Why is this important? Because we, as players, don't have PERSPECTIVE. We are looking at the game from the inside, out. We see the game as it is happening, and we have a goal, and we want that game to allow us to achieve that goal. For US to modify the game, necessarily, demonstrates a conflict of interests between us and the game; in theory, we could modify the rules so much so that we ALWAYS achieve a win state, couldn't we?

We, in essence, are screwed from the start.

Now, why does this matter when it comes to random chance? Let's look at the critically-acclaimed and award winning board game, Settlers of Catan. In this game, the win state revolves around resource collection. It's actually a very cerebral experience. However, the game board AND the resources collected, revolve around cards drawn and dice rolled. Now, we, as players playing competitively, may say, "Even the inkling of random chance means that I have less of an effect on how I win the game. Random = bad". However, we're saying this from the inside, out. Our objective is to win, and as good players, we want to do anything in our power to do that... even if it means degrading the game! Our allegiance isn't to game integrity, it's to OURSELVES. As such, we are biased. Players, necessarily, CANNOT MAKE THE RULES to a game they play, because of this essential conflict of interest. The game, in essence, is OUR ENEMY.

The designer, however, has no personal stake in wins or losses. His job is to design a game where there is a discreet win state and an objective way to achieve it. Sometimes, such as the case of SoC, random chance is A NECESSARY COMPONENT of the game, in order to create the necessary rules AS A COLLECTIVE that allows for a discreet win state. We, as players, will NEVER know this. We have to trust that the game is not out to get us, that there is a discreet win state, and that we can achieve it.

How does this apply to Brawl? It applies to ALL competitive fighting games in the mantras "don't ban until gamebreaking" and "ban as little as possible". Why is this? Why ban at all? First of all, no designer, however good, is perfect, and no game is either. Oversights happen, especially in video games, and sometimes those oversights (such as the IC freeze glitch in Melee) have to be corrected after the fact or else the game loses its discreet win state (and thus, its integrity). However, the reason we should only ban the most egregious offenders is because we, as players, are BIASED AGAINST THE GAME. If we allow one change to lead to another, and another, and another, we can destroy the integrity of the game without knowing it. This is personified BEST in Brawl with stage bans.

By banning stages preemptively, we remove elements from the game and CHANGE IT INTO ANOTHER GAME. Brawl, in its native state, is about multitasking. It's about juggling many different opponents (in whatever form) at once and coming out on top. Sometimes your opponent is a foe, sometimes it's a stage hazard, and sometimes it's an inanimate object, just as a Waddle Dee or banana peel... but, IN ITS NATIVE STATE, Brawl is a game about multitasking. Now, is our CURRENT game about multitasking? Most of the interactive stages are gone. Items are gone. It's 1v1.

We, through overuse of bans, have literally changed the win conditions of Brawl.

Because we are PLAYERS and not DESIGNERS, we have NO IDEA whether what we are doing is helpful or not... all we know, as players, is that our changes allow us an EASIER time of achieving our (now modified) win state, and that we, as players, enjoy the game more... but as to whether the game has its original integrity, we cannot say, because we lack PERSPECTIVE.

Finally, how does this relate to our original scapegoat questions about random chance? Simply, whether a game has random chance or not is irrelevant. A game is designed as is, as a complete product. All of the rules of chess, poker, Settlers of Catan, SFIV, and Brawl have been crafted from the beginning by people who have MORE PERSPECTIVE THAN WE EVER WILL to work together to achieve a goal. Modifying ONE THING has massive repercussions that we, as players, will never understand, and CAN NEVER understand because of out CONFLICT OF INTEREST with the game.

[/collapse]

Letting the players decide if something is reasonable to be legal is an awful idea and leads to severely anticompetitive mindsets in almost every case. In most cases, it leads to people thinking that stage movement and hazards are bad. In many cases, it leads to obscenely conservative stagelists, stagelists that ban incredibly competitive stages such as PTAD, Rainbow Cruise, and the like. In some cases, it leads to almost completely removing the competitive aspect of stages from the game (Japan). It literally makes the game a worse competitive game.

While a broken stage will definitely yield it being banned under this method, the stages that the players simply don't want in their tournaments are also removed. Can we prove Norfair to be broken? Maybe, maybe not. But if only a small percentage of the tournament attendance wants to play there and a large majority do not, you are still dis-servicing your player base by keeping it legal. The stage list is no longer serving its primary function of fostering a competitive setting with a mutually agreed upon set of rules.

And they are dis-servicing themselves by demanding that it be banned, simply because they don't like it, and it's up to people like us to show them that that's the way it works. Partially by getting the new players who aren't set in their ways used to how stages, partially by warming the old crowd up to "gay" stages, and partially by firmly stating, "it does not matter if you want it banned or not", and welcoming them to the idea that, if we really did things their way, a majority of new players could come in and demand that FD, SV, and BF be banned, and we'd have to do it.

So...
FD
BF
SV
JJ
Brinstar
RC
YI(M)

^^^ That's a horrible starter list LOL



Yeah, because someone realistically wants to have the chance to lose Game 1 on a stage like Brinstar or Japes. Instead of using mild CP's like Frigate or Castle Siege, no you went for the bad boys of the CP selection lol.

Actually, yeah CS belongs there. Frigate? It's unfair to the player due to randomness.

What data do you have that would support using those stages over current ones? Do you have a matchup chart or list for each stage in comparison to the old ones that shows truer ratios? Or tournament results that suggest the stages are "fairer" than the others? Is there a reason at all to even try those stages besides "Well I believe they have the potential to work?"

Umm... In case you haven't noticed, I don't advocate that starter list. I KNOW it's a ****ty starter list. Brinstar, RC, JJ, YI(M) and FD are HORRIBLE starter stages. What I'm doing here is going by what you say, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is. You say that the only thing that matters is being fair to the player, I go with some of the only stages in the game that are completely fair to the player. And yes, brinstar is completely fair to the player. By any other definition of fair to the player, the term loses all meaning, as well as any form of reasoning as to why it should be a criteria to be a starter.

So you have an alternative. Fine. Convince people why Stages like that are so integral to Smash that you have to accept the possibility of playing Game 1 on a stage like Green Greens, Norfair, RC, Brinstar, Japes, YI Melee, etc. Why doing so is the best path to go down, over "boring" stages for Game 1. I mean, lets be honest. For Game 1 of a set, at the end of the day, most people want to be able to say "Hey, I played this guy on FD and lost" compared to "Hey I played on Green Greens and lost". People for Game 1 want to win or lose to the player as pure as possible (even on semi lopsided stages like FD (((Despite that being very RPS like in nature with the characters who are good on it)))), not win or lose because someone abused Brinstar better than the other guy.

Yeah, this is also completely not what I'm advocating. At all. In case you're wondering, the starter list I'd propose is this:

3: PS2, Smashville, Lylat
5: +Battlefield, Castle Siege
7: +PS1, Frigate
9: +Halberd, Yoshi's
11: +Delfino, Final Destination
13: +Jungle Japes, Rainbow Cruise
15: +Brinstar, Norfair

But then again, you don't believe in "fair to the character", only the completely arbitrary "fair to the player" (that is, completely arbitrary after you redefine it completely).

 

[John12346]

Semi-permanent. You can't shark while the lava is above a certain level. And I'm fairly sure we have been shown, time and time again, that MK is not broken on Brinstar. He's ridiculously good, but not broken.

Just one thing I wanted to point out about sharking. On the legal stages where it is possible(Delfino, Halberd, Brinstar), sharking is available 50%(Delfino, Halberd) or more(Brinstar) of the time.

And I'm also pretty sure it's been determined that MK's sharking is unreasonably hard to beat. It's actually kind of like an extension to his planking considering he can go back to the ledge once he's finished throwing out Uairs.

So ban MK? If MK is broken on these stages, we don't set the stages lower than the character for any good reason. We ban the **** character. HOWEVER, they have not shown themselves to contain overcentralizing tactics or be broken. Look at MLG DC, look at APEX 2.

Well, don't forget there are plenty of tournies where MK DID win due to his favorably strong counterpicks.
.
.
.
.
.
As far as my opinion on how the stage selection should go; I think the 9 starter stage list is fine, although I'm talking about the one including FD, BF, SV, PS1, Halberd, Delfino, Seige, Lylat, and YI.

Mainly for the same beliefs as you, a larger stagelist DOES allow both players to kill off their opponent's best starter stages and start on the best possible grounds for fighting.

As far as the conflicting stages you and I believe should be in, I think that all comes down to the eye of the beholder; some people may favor your 9 stages, and others may favor the MLG 9 stages; there's no real definite answer. We should just leave it up to more influential ruleset organizers(BBR or TOs).

 

[DMG]

Correct. I don't believe in "fair to the character" because it means you specifically want to alter the stage list to be more fair to the characters. That is arbitrarily trying to be fair for a broad spectrum of matchups that vary depending on BOTH what CP stages are legal, and what/how many starters are legal.


People complain about removing stages specifically cause of MK (Ban the character, not the stage, leave perfectly fine stages alone if he's the only problem, etc), but then when it comes to starters everyone has a problem with Snake or Diddy getting a good stage Game 1. What happened to being unbiased towards characters when determining the validity of stages? (It would be easier to be unbiased about those stages with MK if there was some realistic probability that he would be banned, without it some bias is understandable)




For Game 1, what should define a stage as a starter? Criteria based on perceived matchups? Stages that are as non-interactive as possible/closest to PvP and not PvP+S? Stages that are diverse in terrain or size? A balance of boring and "active"? Seriously, name a single criteria for establishing starter stages that isn't SOMEWHAT arbitrary. The very act of choosing a select few stages specifically for Game 1, while excluding others, means that whatever your decision is it will be arbitrary either by number/amount or by criteria.


Why PS2 over Battlefield? What criteria do you have for stages that would validate moving PS2 over Battlefield that also isn't arbitrary? It's not based on migitating randomness, Battlefield is a static stage and PS2 is not and YI is over FD. Is it based on what you think would be best matchup wise? I might disagree with PS2 over BF if that is the case, or Frigate over Yoshi's. Is it based on some combination of variety/platforms? I notice all the stages up til FD have platforms, but then I would ask why are platformed stages given preference over the others? Because they are more "neutral"? I could disagree with that, and point to instances where adding platforms makes camping/running away much stronger.

 

[demonictoonlink]

And I'm also pretty sure it's been determined that MK's sharking is unreasonably hard to beat. It's actually kind of like an extension to his planking considering he can go back to the ledge once he's finished throwing out Uairs.

Just get on top of a platform. They're available on all those stages. Sharking = beat

 

[DMG]

Just get on top of a platform. They're available on all those stages. Sharking = beat

Platforms that, in turn, can also be sharked?









Or Platforms that cannot compensate for a stock, let alone %, deficit?

 

[napZzz]

You'll have to go in depth to argue that adding factors into stages will neutralize things. its easy to say it and expect to be correct, but you arent going to know without actually studying in depth with characters and testing it in tournament or under serious gameplay settings (not on brawl- wifi *COUGHH*)

even if **** ever changes to be your way, all its going to do is unbalance the game in different ways and just make some characters better and some worse (mainly just benefitting mk). Then we can just come back and do the same **** argument about how the stage list is making blahblah characters where they shouldn't be and just reverse the argument. Leave things where they should be right now, simple and clean. Take out all the dumb starter stages and leave it to just be player v player, CHARACTER V CHARACTER, no matter what some characters are going to benefit from a stage list and its not something you can stop by adding in gimmicky stages and other random trash. Leave the counterpick stages, to be COUNTERPICKED

do you even know why these stages with all the extra **** are CALLED counterpicks? its BECAUSE of the random factors that they're there, to give certain characters better chances of winning on the stage they choose and to hinder others, adding them in and just mixing things together isn't the way to go and make things any better....we might as well just put every stage on and strike down to 1 of them for game 1

at this rate, I'd almost just support the japanese style of playing, just the 3 simple neutrals so nothing is very abusable any way and its just all around more balanced...(and hinders mk)

 

[Akaku94]

DMG, your alleged hypocrisy when it comes to stage choices is simply not valid. When we say not to ban a stage because of MK, it's because the stage isn't the problem. There is nothing bananble about the stage, and character strength on a COUNTERPICK STAGE is supposed to be good! However, deciding that Final Destination, which is many characters' strongest counterpick (like Snake, Diddy, Falco, Ic's, etc.) is not a neutral stage but rather a counterpick is a legitimate argument. Banning vs. Unneutralizing (I know that's not a word ) is a huge difference, and since the whole point of a starter stage is that it is fair and does not affect matchups; whether it's RC's aerial focus or FD's lack of platforms, stages that strongly favor certain characters (MK, IC's, or whoever) should be counterpicks, not starters.

It's a simple thing to understand, really

 

[napZzz]

people should understand you aren't going to be able to balance things no matter how you change the stage list

this argument about classifying what a stage should be because of how it benefits/hinders certain characters is ********

because NO MATTER WHAT STAGES YOU PUT UP characters can and will be better than others on them, just stop bothering with changing it and play with the wayt hings are now, instead of pretending that adding plenty of factors in will change things for the better

because an argument like this isn't going to be won, its just like a classic atheist vs. christian argument for example. No matter what the hell you say each side is already stuck on what they want and they wont give up no matter what is put in front of them

 

[DMG]

DMG, your alleged hypocrisy when it comes to stage choices is simply not valid. When we say not to ban a stage because of MK, it's because the stage isn't the problem. There is nothing bananble about the stage, and character strength on a COUNTERPICK STAGE is supposed to be good! However, deciding that Final Destination, which is many characters' strongest counterpick (like Snake, Diddy, Falco, Ic's, etc.) is not a neutral stage but rather a counterpick is a legitimate argument. Banning vs. Unneutralizing (I know that's not a word ) is a huge difference, and since the whole point of a starter stage is that it is fair and does not affect matchups; whether it's RC's aerial focus or FD's lack of platforms, stages that strongly favor certain characters (MK, IC's, or whoever) should be counterpicks, not starters.

It's a simple thing to understand, really

"and since the whole point of a starter stage is that it is fair and does not affect matchups"

So then you want starters to be balanced based on matchups, right? Ok then, what % of matchups matter? Should I feel pity for Peach and Wolf, or Ness and Lucas? What is the acceptable level of matchup "skewing" that can take place?

Is it acceptable to have an uneven number of stages?

 

[Raziek]

@Napzz "You're right but nobody is going to change so stop arguing!"

Is that about the gist of what you just said?

People complain about Diddy, Falco, etc getting benefits Game 1 because they are NOT VERY VERSATILE, and do not deserve to have that flaw compensated for.

MK IS Versatile, and deserves that advantage he has on CPs.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Every bit of data I've seen suggests that, contrary to most arguments, Meta Knight is fairly agnostic to the stage list. Last I checked he was somewhere in-between 1/3 and 1/2 of the metagame which is fairly region independent so the stage lists really aren't doing much to change his totally individual performance. What they do seem to do is change how the other charaters do. A narrow stage list, from what I've seen, concentrates the remainder of the metagame in the hands of a few characters whereas a broader stage list spreads it out a lot more. The narrower list has the advantage that the next few best characters compared to Meta Knight will look more favorable, but the broader list has more diversity. The results of the MLG events should back this up very nicely really.

An analogy that should maybe make it clear is this. Consider that the cast of Brawl is a family. Meta Knight is the father, and all the other characters are the kids. Daddy Meta Knight takes a pie that is to be shared among the family, cuts it in half, and takes half for himself. None of the kids can say anything about this since he's daddy Meta Knight, but they can decide how to divide up the pie among the rest of them. One plan is for the oldest kid, Snake, to take half of the remaining pie, for the next oldest twins Diddy and Falco to take pretty big slices, and for most of the younger kids to just get crumbs. This means when comparing pie pieces, the oldest kids don't look that bad compared to big daddy Meta Knight. Another plan is to divide the remaining pie as evenly as possible, which isn't really that evenly given that you are trying to divide half of a pie 35 ways which is actually really hard if anyone has ever tried it but does allow for a lot of the kids to be pretty close in the amount of pie they have. Of course, little Ganondorf is allergic to pie no matter what.

This is in no way an argument relating to MK banning, and we aren't going to go there. I'm just putting out there my observation that MK doesn't really seem to care what the stage list is and does awesomely to about the same degree on all of them; it's all those other characters that care.

 

[John12346]

To follow up on Ampharaos' point, I've seen MK beat Diddies and ICs on FD on more than one occasion here at NY local tournies, some mid-bracket and some during finals matches.

I'm not sure if there was any gap in player skill, but it may help enforce the point that MK circumvents the CP system pretty **** well.

 

[Ripple]

I talked to "someone" in the BBR yesterday and they said this about the CP system. when I told them about your thread SUSA

I said this "well, it basically says that the BBR has a double standard for "competitive" play and we either need to get rid of the CP system ( since MK breaks it and the BBR has admitted they know this) or ban MK for the sake of "competitiveness" since a CP system is unfair to everyone but MK. Its actually a very good argument. he proves that the CP system, not the metagame revolves around MK

and then "they" said this: "The BBR has adopted our current CP system from Melee, and feels most players are satisfied with it."

 

[Raziek]

The CP system adds A LOT of depth to the game. Unless you have a better one, Ripple, MK has to go, not the system.

Do you have a better idea, that doesn't throttle 90% of the stages from the list? (If you say JP stage list, I will choke you.)

 

[Ripple]

The CP system adds A LOT of depth to the game. Unless you have a better one, Ripple, MK has to go, not the system.

Do you have a better idea, that doesn't throttle 90% of the stages from the list? (If you say JP stage list, I will choke you.)

Whoa..... I was just posting exactly what I said and exactly what they said. I haven't read BPC's stagelist so I can't make an informed opinion because it seems like I'll be a hypocrite.

although I do know that FD shouldn't be neutral

 

[ADHD]

Seriously, I'm getting really sick of the Ad Hominem.

@ADHD: 1. False; AA is often at tournaments; I'm going to every worthwhile tournament in germany in the next few months including one with around 80 people; Raziek is a PR'd player and top-level TO in Nova Scotia (their scene is not half as bad as you'd think); Overswarm and AlphaZealot are high-level tournament players and TOs. Kindly stop trying to use ad hominem. We CAN understand, and we know that you're simply wrong.
2. Most of us, you know, actually know how to deal with stages.

I'm sorry but I kind of giggled a bit.

 

[Raziek]

In the immortal words of many children, "YOU STARTED IT!"

I also didn't take part in it. >_>

Just because I get name-dropped, doesn't mean I'm at fault.