Full Stage List Striking - New name

[SuSa]

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."

I left for a while and have about 2 pages of walls of text to read, and to be frank - I let the two sides argue over it a bit and decided there was little I had to readress.

And that response completely avoids the statement. It just says we adopted it from the previous game - and because it is a part of our community, we keep it because they feel most players are satisfied with it.

If I always gave you a cherry lolipop every weekend for all the years you were growing up - and you were content with it. How would you feel if I changed it to a grape gumball after 9~ years?

Totally strange analogy, but it raises my point. Quite a number of people dislike change, especially major change. So he completely avoided the statement by saying "Well most people are content with it, kind of like Ganoncide/Bowsercide - but that's minor so we can change that. "

:leek:

 

[Moxin]

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

You.... you realize that there was no ad hominem in the posts you quoted, right?

 

[ADHD]

You.... you realize that there was no ad hominem in the posts you quoted, right?

Well, yeah. But raziek was tired of being ad hominemed cuz his marth is mad booty and loses to DDDs on Onett for not knowing the stage, and then BPFree was trying to anti-ad hominem himself as well as others.

 

[Raziek]

Moxin is right.

Attacking SOMEONE ELSE'S credentials, is ad hominem.

While it IS true that having tournament experience on these stages is important, MOST OF US DO, for one, and secondly, (in BPCs case), him not having tournament experience on Norfair (due to his area's list) is STILL not relevant to the logic surrounding his argument, since it is NOT based on his experience, but simply philosophy and logic.

Edit: Ninja'd by ADHD, who proceeds to attack me ad hominem in the same post. -_-

NO RELEVANCE.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

Except, as I said before, we already have a system of being fair to matchups and characters. Legalize as much as possible, and make the starter list as large as possible. Boom, automatically fair-to-characters stagelist. As said, we're not aiming for 50-50, we're aiming for what the counterpick/starter system allows us as the matchup ratio.

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)

Starter =/= counterpick. We're not complaining that snake/diddy get their best stages... on their counterpick. We're complaining that they get them game one, where it matters the most. As said, compare to MK getting Frigate or Delfino game one. Would you ***** about that? SO WOULD I. But we're not offering MK those stages game one. We're offering PS2, PS1, Lylat, CS, YI. We're offering stages where MK isn't awful, but isn't great either. Notice how, on the starter list I proposed, there are none of MK's best counterpicks until you get up to around 15 stages on the starter list, at which point striking them is childishly easy and still leaves you tons of strikes. I'm not proposing a list like Frigate/Delfino/Rc/Norfair/Brinstar. That's just as much bull**** as, say, the typical 5-starter list that ensures that bad, limited characters such as ICs, Diddy, and Falco get 3 of their best stages in a list with 5 stages.

There is no double standard, unless you want to assume that you need the exact same criteria for a starter as a counterpick... which, honestly, seems very dumb. Like, really, that paragraph... not that great.

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.

Take the whole stagelist+/-one stage. Boom, there's your starter list. Too long? Yeah, I guess you can't strike 21 stages. So start striking in a few stereotypical matchups (G&W-ICs, ICs-Diddy, DDD-Wario, Pit-TL, etc.-the more the better, but try to get all of the ones that are typically heavily stage-based). After a few of those, a few stages will become clear that always get stricken very, very fast. Those are the stages that you remove from the starter list, due to the fact that they are heavily matchup-polarizing. There's your method. It's a little tricky, but after you've figured it out, it's not that hard. It's really not that hard to tell which stages are polarizing and which aren't.

Why PS2 over Battlefield? What criteria do you have for stages that would validate moving PS2 over Battlefield that also isn't arbitrary?

Very few beyond what I said above. In almost every matchup, BF will be stricken before PS2. In fact, if you absolutely needed a 1-stage starter list, PS2 would be that stage. It's been proven through fairly extensive testing that PS2 isn't just fair, it's retardedly fair. Like, "can't name one matchup that is effected significantly by it" fair. Compare to BF, where, for example, ICs have their third-best stage, Falco has one of his top counterpicks, and various characters are all very, very good. Also, this list is assuming that you will go with at least 7, if not 9 or more, starters. It's in fact kind of necessary for the integrity of the starter list regardless of what stages are on it.

It's not based on migitating randomness, Battlefield is a static stage and PS2 is not and YI is over FD.

Randomness plays a small role. YI is above FD because FD is a neutral in the same way Brinstar is-it isn't. YI has some slight random effects, but it is not a hardcore counterpick in most matchups, save for a few including DK or Sonic.

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.

PS2 is the best stage for matchup fairness. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and it's backed up by how often the stage is used as the stage for game one in Nova Scotia. Mind you, the region usually has 9-11 starter stages! Frigate over yoshi's... Frigate is pretty **** fair, but that may be a point I have to revise. Either way, as said, the order below 7 or 9 shouldn't matter because you need 7+ starters to maintain the integrity of the stagelist overall.

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.

FD is the only stage without platforms. It also happens to be a haven for projectile campers, a ridiculously polarizing counterpick, and almost every char who loves FD does well on SV (very low on the list) and Battlefield (similarly low). I'm not giving preference to platformed stages; there is only one stage without platforms and it BELONGS that low.

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*)

Actually, it's kinda logical if you take the steps that we take.
Larger starter list? You come closer to a median stage which is fair for round one naturally.
Larger counterpick list? You stop removing strong counterpicks for characters who should have them.
I don't even know how stage hazards comes into neutralizing things though. I never argued it did, only that if it does, we shouldn't remove them for that reason.

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).

First, see AA's argument (and notice how the most restrictive regions are some of the most MK-congested ones). Second, notice how we're not going to be unbalancing the game-we already have unbalanced the game. Our current setup gives ground-based, limited characters an obscene boost, compared to "normal" brawl, in which such chars are actually kinda ****ed. By enlarging the starter list, we come closer to an actual neutral for game one. By enlarging the counterpick list, we stop limiting characters who are natrually better's options.

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 read my posts? Because I've completely refuted this line of thinking to you many, many times.

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

Yeah, that's one of the things we're proposing for game one. It just takes too **** long. Otherwise, it would be perfect. It would provide the most fair stage to start the matchup on.
And a counterpick stage is called a counterpick because, *gasp* you counterpick your opponent to it.

Notice how FD is always banned. Notice how you always counterpick your opponent there, or to SV, if you're diddy/falco/ics.

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)

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. Actually READ my arguments for once.

 

[DMG]

"PS2 is the best stage for matchup fairness. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and it's backed up by how often the stage is used as the stage for game one in Nova Scotia. Mind you, the region usually has 9-11 starter stages! Frigate over yoshi's... Frigate is pretty **** fair, but that may be a point I have to revise. Either way, as said, the order below 7 or 9 shouldn't matter because you need 7+ starters to maintain the integrity of the stagelist overall."

Well, concerning Texas at least, the most commonly played Game 1 stage is Smashville by a large margin. Stages like YI might be better matchup wise, but that is usually what people strike to play on. This with all sorts of starter sizes as well, from 3-9 the trend has tended to be Smashville.

So who's right? One region likes PS2, the other likes Smashville. EC I've seen a ton of games start on BF, WC similar, Midwest who knows what they tend to start on. For Smashville in particular, remember that the moving platform does considerably skew some matchups. Timing out a lot of characters becomes much easier because the platform aids them. A stage like YI might be more balanced matchup wise despite the saving ghost affecting gameplay sometimes substantially for no real reason.

If we're doing stages based on matchups, you still have the arbitrary line in the sand to draw on where to stop allowing stages. If you feel FD is truly a polarizing stage to the magnitude that it deserves the CP stage labeling, why expand the starter list to ever include it? Same with Brinstar and friends that you put at the back of the line for starter list sizes. Why expand to those stages in the first place if we feel they are CP's to begin with? Why not stop the list at 7 or shorter if it's clear that the further you add stages the looser your original criteria has to be to allow them in?


I mean, if you don't draw the line somewhere, and include every legal stage as a potential starter, then you basically have no differentiation between starter or CP and any legal stage becomes fair game for a Game 1 starter no matter how polarizing they may be. Do you want Game 1 to have the potential to start on an extremely polarizing stage? I assume not since you advocate having FD as a CP because of said polarization.


Here's one inherent problem with expanding the stage list to much bigger numbers: There are a greater number of polarizing stages than non polarizing stages. There are MUCH fewer PS2's/etc stages you believe to be matchup fair, as opposed to the plethora of FD's and Brinstars and Norfairs/RC's/etc's out there. Going just by your list (and your hatred of FD), a reasonably starter list would never include FD and would be 9 stages or smaller correct? Because going past that would be adding "bad" stages like FD right?

Going off your list and your hatred of FD, if I understand you correctly, would mean that expanding the stage list much further would actually be a bad idea because then you start adding in clear CP stages into the starter pool. Am I misinterpreting you on that?

 

[SuSa]

And what is the problem with one large stage list that everyone strikes off of with no need for a Counterpick list? If a player is striking properly, you should never play on a polarized stage because you're striking in your best interests as is your opponent. Thus you are removing eachothers' best stages in an attempt to play on a stage slightly favoring yourself or neutral.

I'd like to see the problem with the above, that isn't "lol we've never done it that way so never will"

There's also ways you can do that to speed up the process and work it out so that each player has an equal say - so it "making tournaments take longer" is neglible. And players can still agree to just play on _____ right from the start if they wish. (I've asked that many-a-times with players "Let's just start on SV? K?")

:leek:

 

[DMG]

If you are fine with adding polarizing stages for Game 1, then sure. However, if you are not ok with that, you would probably be against having an "open" starter list like that because then a ton of stages would be added that were polarizing, which is what you wanted to avoid in the first place.

"Remove FD and make it a CP"

"No wait, expand the starter list to include FD, my bad dawg"

etc

 

[SuSa]

It wouldn't matter to add polarizing stages to Game 1 because your opponent would strike said stage... I literally see no counterargument against this other than "let's stick with what we've always done"

There is no real reason to even seperate "starters" from "counterpicks" with a full-strage-list strike system for game 1. (Why even have neutrals? They are proven to be polarized... let the players decide which stage effects them the least)

If it player strikes incorrectly and ends up on a bad stage for them, maybe they should study the game further and learn what to strike.

Who cares if the first game ends up being played on Japes or Rainbow Cruise. Both players decided to play on said stage, striking from a complete list of stages.. meaning they see it as one of the fairest stages for their first match.

Then you can hold counterpicking as we currently have it. (Again, keeping my argument against this in it's own thread)

We only need "Legal" and "Banned" stages.

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

DMG, how many of those other regions you listed even have PS2 LEGAL?

Now how many use more than five starters?

Now how many use PS2 as a starter?

AFAIK, NS is the ONLY region that uses PS2 as a starter, so of COURSE other regions are gonna like other stages for Game 1.

Not to mention, in your standard FD/BF/SV/YI/Lylat(Ps1) stage list, Smashville WILL often be the stage that matches go to.

FD is ALWAYS struck if the match-up is even remotely polar, Lylat is as well. At that point BF and YI usually go, and SV is the result.

It's the result of being PIGEONHOLED into going to it, not because the players think it's the most fair stage for the match-up.

If these regions used larger starter lists, I don't think you'd see SV quite as much, though I'm sure it would still have a large portion of picks.

Know what stage you'll almost NEVER see picked, except among new players? FD, because that's how polarizing it is.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"PS2 is the best stage for matchup fairness. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and it's backed up by how often the stage is used as the stage for game one in Nova Scotia. Mind you, the region usually has 9-11 starter stages! Frigate over yoshi's... Frigate is pretty **** fair, but that may be a point I have to revise. Either way, as said, the order below 7 or 9 shouldn't matter because you need 7+ starters to maintain the integrity of the stagelist overall."

Well, concerning Texas at least, the most commonly played Game 1 stage is Smashville by a large margin. Stages like YI might be better matchup wise, but that is usually what people strike to play on. This with all sorts of starter sizes as well, from 3-9 the trend has tended to be Smashville.

So who's right? One region likes PS2, the other likes Smashville. EC I've seen a ton of games start on BF, WC similar, Midwest who knows what they tend to start on. For Smashville in particular, remember that the moving platform does considerably skew some matchups. Timing out a lot of characters becomes much easier because the platform aids them. A stage like YI might be more balanced matchup wise despite the saving ghost affecting gameplay sometimes substantially for no real reason.

This has to do with a combination of:
-Poor matchup knowledge; therefore assuming "ah, SV is gonna be fine"
-Poor stage knowledge and just going to whatever stage they feel most comfortable on
-Feeling like going to a stage which is better for your character is "unfair" and making the ridiculous assumption that SV/BF/etc is the "most fair".

EDIT: Raziek has it right as well.

PS2 has quite a bit of know-how and research behind it regarding its status as "most fair". In fact, I still haven't met anyone who could show off anyone who does exceptionally well on it, or, for that matter, anyone who does exceptionally poorly. Hell, I've since expanded it to "name one matchup which is heavily affected" and still haven't found an answer. I suppose this isn't the right place to debate this, but still-PS2 is really, REALLY fair.

If we're doing stages based on matchups, you still have the arbitrary line in the sand to draw on where to stop allowing stages. If you feel FD is truly a polarizing stage to the magnitude that it deserves the CP stage labeling, why expand the starter list to ever include it? Same with Brinstar and friends that you put at the back of the line for starter list sizes. Why expand to those stages in the first place if we feel they are CP's to begin with? Why not stop the list at 7 or shorter if it's clear that the further you add stages the looser your original criteria has to be to allow them in?

Not really. You try to order it by least polarizing->most polarizing, but where do you draw the cut-off line? Well, you need:
-Enough of a selection to provide a realistic median for the matchup

...actually, that's the only criteria. So, in short, 7+. However many more than that you add is determined by exactly one important factor: how long it takes your players to strike/how long you're willing to put up with spending on striking at your tournament. Which is in fact completely arbitrary. It doesn't really matter that much though. Just go by the rule of thumb, "the more, the better".

The reason we have "hardcore CPs" in the "starter list" is because, well, they're stages too. The fact that most of them are weighted towards the aerial characters means that the fact that aerial characters have more incredible stages is actually considered in the starter list by forcing more limited, grounded characters to strike them. If at any point a character is taking you to a stage that is considered a hardcore counterpick in that character's favor in the matchup (for example, Falco on FD, SV, or BF in the MK matchup-oh SNAP see what I just did there?), the one of three things is happening: either the opponent is striking poorly, the starter list is not performing its function, or the character has a ****ton of hardcore counterpicks (i.e. over half the starter list; if the starter list is short, like with the above named example, then it has more to do with the starter list not doing its job than anything else).

I mean, if you don't draw the line somewhere, and include every legal stage as a potential starter, then you basically have no differentiation between starter or CP and any legal stage becomes fair game for a Game 1 starter no matter how polarizing they may be. Do you want Game 1 to have the potential to start on an extremely polarizing stage? I assume not since you advocate having FD as a CP because of said polarization.

First half of this paragraph: yes, I want that. Ideally, the starter list is the entire legal stagelist. That allows for the most ideal median stage for the matchup; the "most fair" stage for game one so to speak.
As for the second half... Potential? Okay, lemme ask you something. You know you're up against a Falco as Wario. What are the chances that you'll end up on Japes? Brinstar? FD? Close to zero unless the opponent is a complete moron. Yes, technically, you could end up on a very polar stage for the matchup (although it's worth mentioning that not every stage is equally polarizing in every matchup; FD is retardedly polar for MK-ICs, but for MK-Snake, or Falco-Diddy? Not so much. Kinda, but not AS much). Realistically? It simply will not happen, unless one character is that ridiculously good on just over half the stagelist.

Here's one inherent problem with expanding the stage list to much bigger numbers: There are a greater number of polarizing stages than non polarizing stages. There are MUCH fewer PS2's/etc stages you believe to be matchup fair, as opposed to the plethora of FD's and Brinstars and Norfairs/RC's/etc's out there. Going just by your list (and your hatred of FD), a reasonably starter list would never include FD and would be 9 stages or smaller correct? Because going past that would be adding "bad" stages like FD right?

The stages are't "bad", they're just "worse". Can't see them in a vacuum like that. In a game where the only other stages are RC, Brinstar, and PTAD, FD is a great starter stage.

Furthermore, there may be more polar stages, but I promise you-there are definitely not more polar stages in a certain direction so to speak than there are polar stages in the other direction plus depolarizing stages. I.e. "aerial" characters get way more polarizing stages than "grounded" chars do, by their very nature. But never so many more that you'd end up on one of the ridiculously polar aerial stages. So maybe, with a ridiculously extended stagelist, you have to fight MK on Frigate or Lylat or Yoshi's game one. Oh well, this means your char has a ridiculously bad selection of good stages, and MK has a retardedly good selection (we all know this).

Going off your list and your hatred of FD, if I understand you correctly, would mean that expanding the stage list much further would actually be a bad idea because then you start adding in clear CP stages into the starter pool. Am I misinterpreting you on that?

Yep. It's not a bad idea at all for the reason explained above.

And what is the problem with one large stage list that everyone strikes off of with no need for a Counterpick list? If a player is striking properly, you should never play on a polarized stage because you're striking in your best interests as is your opponent. Thus you are removing eachothers' best stages in an attempt to play on a stage slightly favoring yourself or neutral.

I'd like to see the problem with the above, that isn't "lol we've never done it that way so never will"

This. As long as you agree that removing counterpicking overall is an awful idea due to how much depth it removes.

 

[DMG]

Alright. Full stage list striking.

FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Delfino
Halberd
CS
Frigate
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Norfair
Brinstar
RC
Japes
YI M
Pirate Ship
Mansion
(Missing a stage I think, whatever another stage to make it 21 or scale down a bit to 19-17)


I'm MK. I strike FD BF SV (could keep this for certain matchups), YI, Lylat, PS1, PS2, CS, Halberd, and here either keep striking whatever I might not feel comfortable on (maybe I don't want to play on Pirate Ship/Japes/etc despite MK not being inherently bad there) or be done. You would probably strike Norfair Brinstar, Norfair, Green Greens, Mansion, Delfino, DP, YI M, etc and the Game would probably start on Frigate unless MK struck that instead of Pirate Ship/stage he didn't like, in which case well then you might be going to Pirate Ship Game 1.

Is Pirate Ship the most neutral overall stage for MK's matchups? Not at all. Sure, games will probably strike to here unless you willingly give him more. Is this really a neutral proving ground? Probably not. It might be what everyone strikes down to, but that doesn't make it the most neutral stage. You could make it worse and add in banned stages as well.


Nobody would willingly allow a banned stage unless they wanted to abuse it. It would be insta INSTA struck by most people. Should we allow them into the starter selection because "It's ok guys, they will never be picked by smart people?" You could say the same about some of the harder CP's out there: being a legal stage IMO does not instantly mean you are acceptable to start on for Game 1. Otherwise, expand the stage list to include every banned stage and let the players use their knowledge of stages to the fullest degree possible when striking, even if we already know they will mindlessly insta strike Mario Bros, 75M, Hyrule, etc

 

[SuSa]

Alright. Full stage list striking.

FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Delfino
Halberd
CS
Frigate
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Norfair
Brinstar
RC
Japes
YI M
Pirate Ship
Mansion
(Missing a stage I think, whatever another stage to make it 21 or scale down a bit to 19-17)


I'm MK. I strike FD BF SV (could keep this for certain matchups), YI, Lylat, PS1, PS2, CS, Halberd, and here either keep striking whatever I might not feel comfortable on (maybe I don't want to play on Pirate Ship/Japes/etc despite MK not being inherently bad there) or be done. You would probably strike Norfair Brinstar, Norfair, Green Greens, Mansion, Delfino, DP, YI M, etc and the Game would probably start on Frigate unless MK struck that instead of Pirate Ship/stage he didn't like, in which case well then you might be going to Pirate Ship Game 1.

Is Pirate Ship the most neutral overall stage for MK's matchups? Not at all. Sure, games will probably strike to here unless you willingly give him more. Is this really a neutral proving ground? Probably not. It might be what everyone strikes down to, but that doesn't make it the most neutral stage. You could make it worse and add in banned stages as well.

I said to keep stages in two lists. Legal and Banned. So your last part doesn't matter. As for striking, Green Greens isn't good for MK and is GREAT for certain characters (See: ___ vs RichBrown), Mansion is also bad for MK, as is YI M.

So I would strike Norfair, Brinstar, Delfino, DP, Frigate, Pirate Ship.

Obviously the numbers I used for striking examples would need to be worked out a bit.

 

[Raziek]

DMG, using MK as an example REALLY doesn't help your case, since.... you know, he breaks the system.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alright. Full stage list striking.

FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Delfino
Halberd
CS
Frigate
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Norfair
Brinstar
RC
Japes
YI M
Pirate Ship
Mansion
(Missing a stage I think, whatever another stage to make it 21 or scale down a bit to 19-17)


I'm MK. I strike FD BF SV (could keep this for certain matchups), YI, Lylat, PS1, PS2, CS, Halberd, and here either keep striking whatever I might not feel comfortable on (maybe I don't want to play on Pirate Ship/Japes/etc despite MK not being inherently bad there) or be done. You would probably strike Norfair Brinstar, Norfair, Green Greens, Mansion, Delfino, DP, YI M, etc and the Game would probably start on Frigate unless MK struck that instead of Pirate Ship/stage he didn't like, in which case well then you might be going to Pirate Ship Game 1.

Is Pirate Ship the most neutral overall stage for MK's matchups? Not at all. Sure, games will probably strike to here unless you willingly give him more. Is this really a neutral proving ground? Probably not. It might be what everyone strikes down to, but that doesn't make it the most neutral stage. You could make it worse and add in banned stages as well.


Nobody would willingly allow a banned stage unless they wanted to abuse it. It would be insta INSTA struck by most people. Should we allow them into the starter selection because "It's ok guys, they will never be picked by smart people?" You could say the same about some of the harder CP's out there: being a legal stage IMO does not instantly mean you are acceptable to start on for Game 1. Otherwise, expand the stage list to include every banned stage and let the players use their knowledge of stages to the fullest degree possible when striking, even if we already know they will mindlessly insta strike Mario Bros, 75M, Hyrule, etc

K. First of all:

DMG, using MK as an example REALLY doesn't help your case, since.... you know, he breaks the system.

This.

Second of all, lemme add PTAD because, you know, it should be legal too and your list has an even number. Now we have this:

FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Delfino
Halberd
CS
Frigate
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Norfair
Brinstar
RC
Japes
YI M
Pirate Ship
Mansion
PTAD

Now, I will strike against a metaknight.
What his selection is:
FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Halberd
CS
Frigate
YI M

I just struck 10 stages, as one player would. Now look at that selection. How many of those stages are a "hardcore counterpick" for MK? Also, depending on who you main/how you play, you could:
-Put back Brinstar/RC/Norfair and strike FD/SV/whatever (Ness, G&W, ZSS, Pikachu, and a few others would want to do this
-Put back Delfino to get rid of Frigate or YI (dunno who would do this)
-Put back Distant Planet, Pirate ship, or Japes, neither of which appear particularly broken for MK, to ditch Frigate.

MK doesn't even break the system. He gets a good stage game one. Of course he will, he's amazing everywhere. But he does not get a hardcore counterpick, unless you'd consider 3rd pick in a constrictive stagelist a hardcore counterpick. And that's just for matchups like MK-Falco or MK-ICs; MK can't really go right against various chars on this system (G&W gets a huge boost; wario gets a huge boost; Olimar gets a slight boost...).

Dunno how you were striking, but if you do it right, MK does not have hardcore counterpick options. He has fairly normal, balanced stages for the matchup.

And even if they were "hardcore counterpicks" according to your completely arbitrary evaluation, then MK deserves that boost. Why? Because he is that much better on over half of the legal stagelist. That stage is, essentially, neutral.

EDIT: Also, did you purposefully remove Picto? That's not a good MK stage... Replace any one of the questionables (Pirate Ship, Green Greens, Distant Planet...) with Picto, and suddenly MK has another stage he should strike... leaving him with this:

FD
BF
SV
YI
Lylat
PS1
PS2
Halberd
CS
YI M (Or Jungle Japes, not sure)
Picto


Go on. Find me a stage on there which is "broken" for MK. Or, for that matter, more than a solid starter for him. I don't think you can.

 

[DMG]

Have you seen the match where Anti 3 stocks ADHD on Mansion? It's nasty.

Green Greens... it really depends on what your LGL/scrooging rules are. With a really high LGL, it doesn't stop MK from running out the time in that fashion. Without a scrooging rule, same thing. MK under that stage has too many options, as in if you thought scrooging on Smashville was powerful enough you would be sad at Green Greens. Of course, most regions have had this banned for a long time, wasn't til MLG came that it started to see some use. I'd give it some time, let people realize how gay they can play.

YI M has some pretty big issues, not even MK specific ones. Of course that one hasn't been seen widespread either. We have had it legal in Texas for awhile along with Green Greens and Corneria, those were the good old days LOL.



Striking for the whole list realistically will never get implemented. Convincing someone that a distinction between Starter and CP is not needed... Well that's a hard sell.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Have you seen the match where Anti 3 stocks ADHD on Mansion? It's nasty.

Green Greens... it really depends on what your LGL/scrooging rules are. With a really high LGL, it doesn't stop MK from running out the time in that fashion. Without a scrooging rule, same thing. MK under that stage has too many options, as in if you thought scrooging on Smashville was powerful enough you would be sad at Green Greens. Of course, most regions have had this banned for a long time, wasn't til MLG came that it started to see some use. I'd give it some time, let people realize how gay they can play.

Yeah, and the stages aren't there-you can strike them very, very safely.

YI M has some pretty big issues, not even MK specific ones. Of course that one hasn't been seen widespread either. We have had it legal in Texas for awhile along with Green Greens and Corneria, those were the good old days LOL.[/quote]

It's either this or JJ, Delfino, or Frigate-none of which MK is actually that spectacular on.

Striking for the whole list realistically will never get implemented. Convincing someone that a distinction between Starter and CP is not needed... Well that's a hard sell.

BUT I JUST PROVED IT TO YOU! I just showed you that it's not broken for MK. If it isn't broken for the most adaptable character in the game, who's it broken for?

 

[DFEAR]

if a character breaks the system...why not fix the system now. whats taking so long? affirmative action anyone?

 

[Raziek]

"Fixing" the system without banning MK involves removing almost every stage in the game, which sacrifices SO much depth that it isn't worth it. (Or, if theory craft suggests, using full-list striking, but that would probably make MK dominant enough to be bannable, which people refuse to do.)

Otherwise, you have to ban MK.

 

[ADHD]

You know, Picto is actually kind of smaller than it seems.

 

[DFEAR]

dunno wyatt smashville seems wayyyyy smaller than picto :\

 

[SuSa]

SL has data on every stage + hit boundaries. Will be public once we work on how to best present it. (Working on pictures for it)

So uhm.. you get to see exactly how big the stages are in comparison to eachother once we release this. [Should be sometime soon... if I knew how to make the pictures I could get it out there in a few days]

:leek:

 

[Prawn]

i agree 100% with this thread

 

[Akaku94]

Not sure yet if I like striking from the full list. What would a 7-stage starter be? Probably something like:

Battlefield
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Lylat
Pokemon Stadium 1
Yoshi's Island
Halberd

Or similar, right?

How would the striking go against MK from that list? I bet the final match would end up on either YI or Lylat, right? Diddy or Falco would probably get taken to PS1 or PS2. Of course, I may be wrong, but a 7-stage starter sounds fine to me. Too big a starter list or a full strike guarentees aerial characters a great stage game 1 IMO, while of course the current system makes grounded characters artificially better.

 

[Raziek]

Aerial characters are more versatile though, so they DESERVE said advantage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...And even then, the advantage isn't half as serious as many would imagine. MK on Frigate, Delfino, or even lesser counterpicks for him is not exactly a breaking point.

 

[Raziek]

^This too.

 

[T-block]

You know, Picto is actually kind of smaller than it seems.

I assume you're talking about boundary size? The side blastzones are definitely closer than "normal", but the ceiling is slightly higher.

Aerial characters are more versatile though, so they DESERVE said advantage.

Let's be careful about using words like "deserve". We can assert that rewarding versatility is not necessarily a bad thing, but saying they deserve it is just as arbitrary as saying stages "should" not interfere with gameplay, etc.

 

[Raziek]

I don't see the problem with that, honestly.

If we want the stage for game 1 to reasonably represent each character's overall qualities, it stands to reason that characters that are better on more stages, deserve to have that characteristic reflected by the stage for game 1 being slightly in their favor.

 

[DMG]

So you are letting a character trait (being flexible concerning stages) dictate what stages we should use, instead of a criteria that revolves around stage traits?

 

[Raziek]

No, I'm saying that a character's qualities should be evaluated considering ALL the stages we consider legal.

Ideally, this is full list striking, but you can "roughly" simulate that using a larger number of starters, for practical purposes.

All stages that are not broken (By Degenerate tactics or over-centralization) CAN, and SHOULD be considered legal.

 

[DMG]

I'm just surprised people do not want to make a distinction between stages that are legal for the entire set and those only legal for CP's. I think there's a big enough difference between Brinstar and x starter stage that it would be silly to completely dismiss that kind of gap and just lump them all together. Most people would agree there's a noticeable gap from "softcore" starter stage to "hardcore" CP stage, and I don't blame them for not wanting Game 1 to even consider the remote possibility of starting on a harcore CP stage.

 

[rathy Aro]

I tried reading through as much of this thread as I could manage to, but I'm not understanding what you all want as an alternative to the cp system?

 

[SuSa]

I'm just surprised people do not want to make a distinction between stages that are legal for the entire set and those only legal for CP's. I think there's a big enough difference between Brinstar and x starter stage that it would be silly to completely dismiss that kind of gap and just lump them all together. Most people would agree there's a noticeable gap from "softcore" starter stage to "hardcore" CP stage, and I don't blame them for not wanting Game 1 to even consider the remote possibility of starting on a harcore CP stage.

While striking, they could strike these "hardcore" CP stages, and not have any possibility of starting on a hardcore stage.
:leek:

 

[BSP]

So are we getting at striking from the entire stage list in the game to set game one, or are we going to have a legal and banned section and just strike the legals? I guess either could work, since you would just strike anywhere you know the other character would be helped more.

 

[SuSa]

The latter you mentioned.

 

[DMG]

Is there a stronger argument for allowing them besides "They will probably be struck down anyways?" Frankly, if you see no realistic possibility of a game being played there because "it will likely be struck", then why add it in the first place? That's fluffing up the starter list just to fluff it up lol. You aren't adding to stage diversity if you are just adding in CP stages people will generally auto strike.


You invite a friend over to dinner. He accepts. When he arrives at your home, you welcome him inside, ever the gentleman. You ask if he would like a cup of coffee or tea, he politely declines and asks in return when Dinner shall be prepared.



You inform him that today there are many selections available. He could choose from starting off with a Healthy Salad, maybe some Bread or Soup. Main Dish selections of Chicken with Pasta, various Gourmet Seafoods, a fine Fillet Mignon Steak. Maybe a more vegetarian direction with Eggplant Parmesan, Veggie Burgers, Tofu casserole, or Broccoli and Cheese. He is impressed with the selection so far. You take note and carry on.



Next, you state the Deserts. Triple Chocolate Mousse Cake, Raspberry Cheese Cake, Mango Ice Cream, and Apple Pie. He smiles warmly at each new item you mention. But there is more, yes much more...



After all of this, you pause for a moment and then go "However, you must know all of your options for today. There is even more I can offer you." Your friend says Go On, so far so good! I can't wait to hear what else there is. So you press onwards.

"I have a deep Fryer in the back. I can fry up some other things I have around. For instance, my Wife's edible underwear. Strawberry flavored if you were curious to know. I also have this Twinkie lying around somewhere that hasn't been touched in a few years. Im pretty sure I got some socks I would be willing to part with if you want. I also have a Milkbone that would probably be pretty tasty if fried. Got today's paper on the table, just give me the go ahead and I'll saute that bad boy up for ya."


Your friend stares at you, jaw dropped. He is utterly speechless for a good 10 minutes or so. An awkward silence starts to haze the room. Finally, he stand up and says directly to you "What in Gods name was all of that you just suggested? Are you mad?" A bit offended, you reply "Of course not. I don't expect you to eat a Deep Fried Sock, but I do have to make sure you know about all of your options in their entirety. Things would not be right if I did not tell you everything possible that I could make for you, that would be denying you the possibility of saying Yes to them." Your friend is bewildered at that remark. "What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you offer those things in the first place if you already knew in advance that I would instantly decline eating them? What purpose does offering them to me serve? I mean sure, maybe you knew I would have declined something like the Veggie Burger, a fair group of people would have said yes to that and it's not something uncommon. But to offer me those things? I deeply
question your sensibility sir. I think I will go home and order Take Out instead. Good day to you."







There you have it. My overly complicated analogy on the matter.

 

[Raziek]

Except, that your analogy doesn't quite work completely in your favor.

In this case, the good foods are non-polar stages. Bad foods, polar stages. Nobody's going to eat them.

Yes, Brinstar is a bad food. Know what else is a bad food?

FD.

 

[SuSa]

Just because it won't be picked "often" doesn't mean it won't be picked "ever".

Also, if we were to give this a shot, we could come up with lists designed BY OUR PLAYERS on what are the best neutrals and which should be counterpicks.

Neutrals = The most agreed upon stages (which may change throughout regions, and yes the changes may be a bit more drastic than now.. but I highly doubt that)

Counterpicks = The stages which are almost always striked first for most games

:leek:

 

[DMG]

Then take FD out and replace it with something else instead of saying every stage is acceptable to start on. I'd rather replace FD with something janky like PS2 than lie and say Brinstar is acceptable to start on.

I CP a new dimension