SuSa
Banned via Administration
"I'd rather"
I'd rather strike from a full list.
:leek:
I'd rather strike from a full list.
:leek:
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Full Stage List Striking - New name
- Thread starter SuSa
- Start date
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
But DMG, striking from all legal stages IS acceptable, and is the most accurate way to find the MEDIAN stage for the matchup. Using 7-9 starters is just a scaled down, more practical version of the same thing, that presents slightly less accurate results.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Oh god no. That would be just as bad as letting the character trait "cannot adapt to stages" dictate what stages are starter stages (hint: this is what most starter lists in Brawl and, in fact, melee do). We bring every character trait to the table. How? By including every stage. Every matchup, in fact every group of 2 players will have a different neutral stage (most snakes wouldn't want to start on RC against MK; SuSa would love to). We leave in all options because removing any of them shifts this neutral away from the actual median. Go with 15 instead of 21? G&W's median stage is probably 1-3 stages further from where it would be if you were striking the whole list. Go with 9 instead of 21? G&W's median stage is around 5 further from "neutral" than he'd like. Go with 5? Not only is G&W's median stage bad for him, it's about 10 stages worse than the neutral he'd like to go for.
IMO the line is pretty blurred. Where's DP? It's actually not that good of a counterpick for almost any character. Where's YI(M)? It's good for a huge portion of the cast. Where's SV and BF? They both are favored counterpicks for a lot of characters. etc.
Furthermore, you still won't ever go to this hardcore counterpick. Game one has a remote possibility of starting on a hardcore CP stage, but for that to happen, the conditions are either one player agreeing to it (for example, susa not striking RC against a metaknight because he knows that he ***** MK auf RC), the matchup actually being fairly decent there (Would a ness strike Brinstar against MK? Would a G&W strike Norfair or RC against MK?), or one player really ****ing up bad.
Yeah, the purpose of them on the stagelist isn't that people will play on them.
You get this? We aren't adding them so people will play on them (although they still might). We're adding them to force strikes. When you have 21 stages, each player has 10 strikes. TEN! That's a lot of stage strikes! And while, say, Battlefield may not be so worrisome for a char like MK, or G&W when they only have 2 strikes and there are worse stages for them on the list, with 10 strikes and not that many stages that are worse for them, they're going to strike BF, SV, PS1, etc. Whereas in, say, the 5-starter list, chars like G&W, MK, and Wario... they have amazing counterpicks. They have a ridiculous number of stages that they do really, really well on. Their opponents don't have to deal with that though. They have to deal with 5 of their worse stages. The whole point of adding "hardcore counterpicks" is to ensure that the stage striking system is actually fair. You don't have one group of chars with all their best counterpicks on the starter list and one group with all of their worst stages; you have a stagelist where every character has all of their best stages, and every character has to deal with their opponent's best stages. This naturally shoves the advantage towards characters with a lot of good stages, but that's fairly normal. How else would you do it?
Well first of all, where are the softcore counterpicks on the grounded side? I imagine the fried socks, edible underwear, etc. stands for the hardcore counterpicks. What about stages like Battlefield, Smashville, and the like? Stages that are counterpicked a lot but aren't exactly "massively advantageous"? Furthermore, did mentioning the hardcore counterpicks push him more in the direction of the more "Balanced" food? I don't think so.
Most of this is really bad because 99% of all smashers are ********.
I think a way to twist this analogy is to point out the diveristy of the cast. You and your friend are fairly normal people well grounded in reality, and you'd love to eat the mac and cheese. However, let's say you aren't just designing the menu for you two but you also need to design a menu to be agreeable by other groups such as your dog, the monster under the bed, an ant colony, that guy down the street who has 15 different food allergies and also happens to be a vegan, and a 400 pound gorilla wearing a necktie. You have to use the same menu to offer food to all of these groups. That deep fried sock is probably not something your or your friend would enjoy, but to the dog or the monster under the bed, it probably sounds great.
Brawl has 666 match-ups at that. Can you really name many stages that are definitely not going to be the median result in any single matchup? It gets much harder when you factor out the stages we currenty ban to boot. Sure Brinstar isn't likely to be median in many matchups, but who is to say what is bad for Meta Knight vs Snake is also bad for Yoshi vs Captain Falcon? It makes me doubt any stage is really "always struck". Of course, you do have the "Smashville" phenomina in which players have a tendency to gravitate toward the familiar and the "safe" even at the cost of a potential advantage, but that's more a common player weakness than an actual sign of how the game works.
The thing with looking at the actual stage attributes independent of characters is that most of them can't really be that independent. For instance, damaging hazards are definitely not neutral across the cast. Some characters are better than others at forcing the opponents into damaging hazards or avoiding the hazards themselves, and if having damaging hazards is held as "bad" with would-be starters becomming counterpicks and would-be counterpicks being banned, isn't that unfair to those characters? Even beyond characters, isn't it unfair to players who have a knack for exploiting damaging hazards when they arise? Isn't it an unfair advantage to players who are mostly good but play stupidly around hazards to be shielded? Pretty much every attribute a stage could have falls under this sort of thinking, and even more, just having outlier attributes themselves is an attribute that some players are better at handling than others. I understand having issues with the attribute "randomness" which only affects characters insofar as "character otherwise unlikely to win benefits since 50/50 events can only improve the winning odds", but then I consider the nearly universally agreed upon starter Yoshi's Island (Brawl) which is one of the most random stages in the game in terms of having a significant effect on the match and remember that it's not even that bad there, and I wonder how it could really be an issue on most stages we're considering. Yeah, I can really see the point if we want to say WarioWare shouldn't be legal etc., but is Green Greens really more random or significantly random at all? I could see it being argued, but I don't think it's obvious.
I'm not saying we have to cast it aside. The counterpick system is definitely functional and practical, and when used with a stage list at least as diverse as the MLG's, I think the results are probably not completely fair but fair enough to be happy with. There are perhaps some theoretical improvements that are worth exploring, but we hardly need to feel guilt about taking advantage of the good thing we know. Using a small number of starters or eliminating a lot of counterpicks, however, seems to be to be more about engineering the game to directions that are unfair to certain characters and more importantly certain players. As a notorious run-away player yourself DMG, I'm somewhat surprised you tend to take the positions you do. Is it not only fair that, if the game rewards running away, that someone with a knack for running away like you can take advantage of it and do well? Isn't it kinda unfair to engineer the rules to make running away as hard as possible? I'd think when making the rules, our first goal should be to make sure to represent the game as it "really" is and to do our absolute best to avoid trying to make the game play any particular way. That way not only do the characters each get a fair measure, but more importantly the players get what they deserve too. No one is going to discover his talents marginalized by the rules beyond the unfortunate necessity of practicality, and likewise, no one with a narrow skillset is going to do unusually well (which is really just another way of being unfair to players with broader, less specialized skillsets).
The preference argument I saw earlier seems weak to me in the same way. If the community does all agree that they just don't want to play on Norfair, fine. Ban it. The thing is, when people complain and say that they think Norfair should be legal, that's the voice of people who actually do want to play on Norfair. If you ask around, I think you'll find there are quite a few people who are actually really big fans of Norfair or pretty much any other "controversial" stage, and given that most of us in some way are playing to win, wanting to play on those stages represents some expectation of improved performance from that stage being legal (not just in terms of "it helps my character" but also in terms of "I think I can do better than most people there as a player"). At that point, banning it out of community preference is walking all over the faces of the people in the minority and perhaps even directing the growth of the community toward certain preferences (people do tend to have a massive status quo bias). That seems a lot sketchier to me so that's why, when controversy arises, I'm quick to go to the theoretical criteria for banning. In my eyes, by the point we have a controversy, the community preference has already failed to make a decision.
Also, to be fair to all sides, Susa's last post was completely ridiculous. What he posted made perfect sense within the context of his overall argument (which can be disagreed with, as I've done in this post). That was kinda twisting it into something it wasn't and then making a joke out of it. I'm not sure what that could accomplish.
Brawl has 666 match-ups at that. Can you really name many stages that are definitely not going to be the median result in any single matchup? It gets much harder when you factor out the stages we currenty ban to boot. Sure Brinstar isn't likely to be median in many matchups, but who is to say what is bad for Meta Knight vs Snake is also bad for Yoshi vs Captain Falcon? It makes me doubt any stage is really "always struck". Of course, you do have the "Smashville" phenomina in which players have a tendency to gravitate toward the familiar and the "safe" even at the cost of a potential advantage, but that's more a common player weakness than an actual sign of how the game works.
The thing with looking at the actual stage attributes independent of characters is that most of them can't really be that independent. For instance, damaging hazards are definitely not neutral across the cast. Some characters are better than others at forcing the opponents into damaging hazards or avoiding the hazards themselves, and if having damaging hazards is held as "bad" with would-be starters becomming counterpicks and would-be counterpicks being banned, isn't that unfair to those characters? Even beyond characters, isn't it unfair to players who have a knack for exploiting damaging hazards when they arise? Isn't it an unfair advantage to players who are mostly good but play stupidly around hazards to be shielded? Pretty much every attribute a stage could have falls under this sort of thinking, and even more, just having outlier attributes themselves is an attribute that some players are better at handling than others. I understand having issues with the attribute "randomness" which only affects characters insofar as "character otherwise unlikely to win benefits since 50/50 events can only improve the winning odds", but then I consider the nearly universally agreed upon starter Yoshi's Island (Brawl) which is one of the most random stages in the game in terms of having a significant effect on the match and remember that it's not even that bad there, and I wonder how it could really be an issue on most stages we're considering. Yeah, I can really see the point if we want to say WarioWare shouldn't be legal etc., but is Green Greens really more random or significantly random at all? I could see it being argued, but I don't think it's obvious.
I'm not saying we have to cast it aside. The counterpick system is definitely functional and practical, and when used with a stage list at least as diverse as the MLG's, I think the results are probably not completely fair but fair enough to be happy with. There are perhaps some theoretical improvements that are worth exploring, but we hardly need to feel guilt about taking advantage of the good thing we know. Using a small number of starters or eliminating a lot of counterpicks, however, seems to be to be more about engineering the game to directions that are unfair to certain characters and more importantly certain players. As a notorious run-away player yourself DMG, I'm somewhat surprised you tend to take the positions you do. Is it not only fair that, if the game rewards running away, that someone with a knack for running away like you can take advantage of it and do well? Isn't it kinda unfair to engineer the rules to make running away as hard as possible? I'd think when making the rules, our first goal should be to make sure to represent the game as it "really" is and to do our absolute best to avoid trying to make the game play any particular way. That way not only do the characters each get a fair measure, but more importantly the players get what they deserve too. No one is going to discover his talents marginalized by the rules beyond the unfortunate necessity of practicality, and likewise, no one with a narrow skillset is going to do unusually well (which is really just another way of being unfair to players with broader, less specialized skillsets).
The preference argument I saw earlier seems weak to me in the same way. If the community does all agree that they just don't want to play on Norfair, fine. Ban it. The thing is, when people complain and say that they think Norfair should be legal, that's the voice of people who actually do want to play on Norfair. If you ask around, I think you'll find there are quite a few people who are actually really big fans of Norfair or pretty much any other "controversial" stage, and given that most of us in some way are playing to win, wanting to play on those stages represents some expectation of improved performance from that stage being legal (not just in terms of "it helps my character" but also in terms of "I think I can do better than most people there as a player"). At that point, banning it out of community preference is walking all over the faces of the people in the minority and perhaps even directing the growth of the community toward certain preferences (people do tend to have a massive status quo bias). That seems a lot sketchier to me so that's why, when controversy arises, I'm quick to go to the theoretical criteria for banning. In my eyes, by the point we have a controversy, the community preference has already failed to make a decision.
Also, to be fair to all sides, Susa's last post was completely ridiculous. What he posted made perfect sense within the context of his overall argument (which can be disagreed with, as I've done in this post). That was kinda twisting it into something it wasn't and then making a joke out of it. I'm not sure what that could accomplish.
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
BPC & AA post the same thing, and they're both right.
Woo!
Woo!
"As a notorious run-away player yourself DMG, I'm somewhat surprised you tend to take the positions you do. Is it not only fair that, if the game rewards running away, that someone with a knack for running away like you can take advantage of it and do well? Isn't it kinda unfair to engineer the rules to make running away as hard as possible? I'd think when making the rules, our first goal should be to make sure to represent the game as it "really" is and to do our absolute best to avoid trying to make the game play any particular way. That way not only do the characters each get a fair measure, but more importantly the players get what they deserve too. No one is going to discover his talents marginalized by the rules beyond the unfortunate necessity of practicality, and likewise, no one with a narrow skillset is going to do unusually well (which is really just another way of being unfair to players with broader, less specialized skillsets)."
Of course: if you seriously added Brinstar, Norfair, RC, YI M, Green Greens,etc to starters from a "greedy" standpoint I would love it! It would personally benefit me the absolute most in Texas bar none if that was adopted. Strongly enough to the point where frankly I would probably always beat Razer and Gnes setwise because you allowed me to take them to stages where they either auto lose with their character or they switch off and go MK/Ditto me. I guarantee you if your starter list was something like SV, PS2, BF, Norfair, Brinstar, RC, YI M, that hands down I would win the set because I could strike the first 3 and let them "pick their poision". I 'm fine with Using a stage to beat someone, but I feel people are turning Brawl into Abusing a stage to beat someone. The difference being "I used the Smashville platform to time out a Lucario player or I used the PS1 transformation to tilt lock my opponent" compared to "I abused the fact that Brinstar is a permanent sharking stage or that Norfair's huge layout allows me to run away from most of the cast freely."
Norfair? Diddy cannot catch Wario on this stage, good luck stopping that lol. Snake is kinda in the same boat: I mean he can try to limit your platforms but the instant he has to go airborne to keep up or chase you, he loses. YI M? If there's no LGL, MK hands down auto win on this stage (like most stages obv, but it realistically helps him more than the open space around the edge like a normal stage). If you have one only for MK, then go G&W and they would have to ditto me or try to go MK themselves to stop me from planking the center, which strongly augments his regular planking game to a level not far from MK (it's still beatable, but the degree of difficulty in exploiting his holes is something M2K himself would shake his head at). Green Greens? Same thing as YI M. Playing under the stage as MK there are too many options, some strong enough you don't even need to scrooge to abuse lol. You can abuse the crap out of Down B from Below to make your way to various places on the stage safely, and Shuttle Loop as well is a bit dumb on this stage with so many auto cancels and fakeouts. If it's Gnes, Diddy can do alright against Wario here but it's an incredibly strong disadvantage. RC is the least troublesome out of the trio, but it would obviously favor me over them.
Why I don't want those stages legal for Game 1: A lot of those stages are borderline CP. Frankly I don't think Brinstar or Norfair should be legal because of what they turn Smash into. Sure, they favor running away which in itself isn't a bad thing, but the DEGREE they favor Running away is absurd. How many characters can realistically have a shot at beating Wario on Norfair if he hits and runs? You would be lucky to get an evenish or small disadvantages matchup, let alone actually have the advantage on him there. His usual counters sans MK all crumble to him there: Peach, Marth, Dedede all have issues with him there. Marth can kinda go evenish, but he's the lucky one. Everyone else in the cast would tend to have an absurd disadvantage here against Wario, either auto lose or approaching really close to it. He would have like MK beat him, Marth evenish, G&W evenish, and the rest solid disavantage to "well this just got ********".
Most people don't see things like that, or they write it off because "Well Ganon or Link kinda like it, they would prefer to take MK here, that should mean it's a good stage!" or "But Peach takes a dump on Diddy here and DK can try to take on Falco" etc. Any stage in the game is acceptable to play on if people do not go to the fullest to abuse them, and that's happened with some of our CP's. A few times, you will see it completely demonstrated, a MK timeout on Norfair or something really gay on Pipes (back in Texas at least when it was legal for a bit). And of course people shook their heads and said "Thank god we're getting rid of this"...
There's not a lot of tournament data for YI M in particular besides maybe Texas, so I understand for stages like that people not immediately seeing the issues with it since it's relatively new to most scenes. There's no doubt it is unfit for competitive play, that is obvious once you evaluate it and have seen it in action. You will probably have some painful losses to watch in your scene, unless no one is able or willing to play as gay as possible, which furthers the problem of "Well any stage can be legal/look legal if you don't abuse it".
It's alright though. MLG Dallas is looking tasty. Like a fried sock, it's gonna be crazy.
Of course: if you seriously added Brinstar, Norfair, RC, YI M, Green Greens,etc to starters from a "greedy" standpoint I would love it! It would personally benefit me the absolute most in Texas bar none if that was adopted. Strongly enough to the point where frankly I would probably always beat Razer and Gnes setwise because you allowed me to take them to stages where they either auto lose with their character or they switch off and go MK/Ditto me. I guarantee you if your starter list was something like SV, PS2, BF, Norfair, Brinstar, RC, YI M, that hands down I would win the set because I could strike the first 3 and let them "pick their poision". I 'm fine with Using a stage to beat someone, but I feel people are turning Brawl into Abusing a stage to beat someone. The difference being "I used the Smashville platform to time out a Lucario player or I used the PS1 transformation to tilt lock my opponent" compared to "I abused the fact that Brinstar is a permanent sharking stage or that Norfair's huge layout allows me to run away from most of the cast freely."
Norfair? Diddy cannot catch Wario on this stage, good luck stopping that lol. Snake is kinda in the same boat: I mean he can try to limit your platforms but the instant he has to go airborne to keep up or chase you, he loses. YI M? If there's no LGL, MK hands down auto win on this stage (like most stages obv, but it realistically helps him more than the open space around the edge like a normal stage). If you have one only for MK, then go G&W and they would have to ditto me or try to go MK themselves to stop me from planking the center, which strongly augments his regular planking game to a level not far from MK (it's still beatable, but the degree of difficulty in exploiting his holes is something M2K himself would shake his head at). Green Greens? Same thing as YI M. Playing under the stage as MK there are too many options, some strong enough you don't even need to scrooge to abuse lol. You can abuse the crap out of Down B from Below to make your way to various places on the stage safely, and Shuttle Loop as well is a bit dumb on this stage with so many auto cancels and fakeouts. If it's Gnes, Diddy can do alright against Wario here but it's an incredibly strong disadvantage. RC is the least troublesome out of the trio, but it would obviously favor me over them.
Why I don't want those stages legal for Game 1: A lot of those stages are borderline CP. Frankly I don't think Brinstar or Norfair should be legal because of what they turn Smash into. Sure, they favor running away which in itself isn't a bad thing, but the DEGREE they favor Running away is absurd. How many characters can realistically have a shot at beating Wario on Norfair if he hits and runs? You would be lucky to get an evenish or small disadvantages matchup, let alone actually have the advantage on him there. His usual counters sans MK all crumble to him there: Peach, Marth, Dedede all have issues with him there. Marth can kinda go evenish, but he's the lucky one. Everyone else in the cast would tend to have an absurd disadvantage here against Wario, either auto lose or approaching really close to it. He would have like MK beat him, Marth evenish, G&W evenish, and the rest solid disavantage to "well this just got ********".
Most people don't see things like that, or they write it off because "Well Ganon or Link kinda like it, they would prefer to take MK here, that should mean it's a good stage!" or "But Peach takes a dump on Diddy here and DK can try to take on Falco" etc. Any stage in the game is acceptable to play on if people do not go to the fullest to abuse them, and that's happened with some of our CP's. A few times, you will see it completely demonstrated, a MK timeout on Norfair or something really gay on Pipes (back in Texas at least when it was legal for a bit). And of course people shook their heads and said "Thank god we're getting rid of this"...
There's not a lot of tournament data for YI M in particular besides maybe Texas, so I understand for stages like that people not immediately seeing the issues with it since it's relatively new to most scenes. There's no doubt it is unfit for competitive play, that is obvious once you evaluate it and have seen it in action. You will probably have some painful losses to watch in your scene, unless no one is able or willing to play as gay as possible, which furthers the problem of "Well any stage can be legal/look legal if you don't abuse it".
It's alright though. MLG Dallas is looking tasty. Like a fried sock, it's gonna be crazy.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Considering that is a standard size starter list, you wouldn't strike the first 3. You'd strike 1.
Thus you'd get something like:
DMG strikes BF
Opponent strikes Norfair
DMG strikes SV
Opponent strikes RC
DMG strikes YI (M)
Opponent strikes Brinstar
You guys play on PS2
Nice try, and now you see the importance of coming to an agreement on how many stages each person strikes first depending on how large the starter list is. Break that amount and you can do what you did - which is stupid. Change it to be reasonable (1) and you can't, but it takes longer to strike 25~ stages 1 by 1 than it takes to strike 7.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Proof: we have almost none. As in, we have the experience of one of the best warios in the world, who I have not seen abusing this knowledge to even top-8 at a recent national. I'd really appreciate it if you could actually back up your claims with something beyond personal anecdotes and/or theorycraft.
And the rest of us don't see it and are left going with either your statements alone or their own experience. WE WANT TO SEE IT! We want more than just a few players saying, "this **** is ********". Why haven't we seen Norfair be abused with stalling tactics? Why have I never seen a high-level video of that happening? Why am I left with your statements alone?
@Ubermario: read the thread. RC is not a good starter, but the reason we'd add it to the starter list (albeit as stage like 16 or so) is so that it forces a strike, and that the median isn't shoved away from the actual medium. Adding it anywhere below 13 starter stages is, of course, completely ludicrous.
Lollll BPC. Alright bro, MLG Dallas I'll make every CP Norfair unless my opponent bans it just for you, and make sure it gets recorded. But then you might question the skill of my opponent or say he didn't try to stop me well, which leads us back to nowhere.
You can make the "place well at a tournament to prove your point" argument. That's fine. Expecting us to believe your opinions in return is hard garbage though. Can you even list strong performances at a regional (in a good region?) lol. I wouldn't be questioning someone's opinion based on how they placed and then turn around and ignore how you are doing.
You can make the "place well at a tournament to prove your point" argument. That's fine. Expecting us to believe your opinions in return is hard garbage though. Can you even list strong performances at a regional (in a good region?) lol. I wouldn't be questioning someone's opinion based on how they placed and then turn around and ignore how you are doing.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Dunno. I've never even seen what the hell you're talking about, nor do I have a clue what you mean really, so w/e. Just show it off, would be nice.
Actually, big issue here: the placings have a direct connection to the argument. Lemme explain.
If Norfair is really that busted for wario, then you would be winning, and that a lot more. It's like TKD claiming that Spear Pillar is busted for fox, going to a tournament where SP and Temple are legal, and then not winning. Right? And I know you're a top-level wario main, AND famous for playing gay. If the stalling strategies there are so busted, what's going on?
SuSa
Banned via Administration
No matter what, you would not get Norfair, RC, or Brinstar from the list you chose.
So please tell me what the problem was, other than your stupid striking system allowing one player to force a poor decision upon the opponent by striking 1/2 of the list in one go, instead of alternating at acceptable rates.
Your example was just pitiful, and I showed the flaw in your counterlogic. So please, try to show me a list where striking would result in such a biased stage choice.
Oh right, you can't.
EDIT:
That is your list. 7 Stages. Each player strikes 3. (Also your ratio of "neutral":"counterpicks" is bad and forcing anyways.. another problem of having SUCH A SMALL LIST)
So your opponent has the chance to strike Norfair, Brinstar, and RC. Leaving whatever 3 strikes you didn't use to decide on the final stage.
A more appropriate list would be larger, having every legal stage - causing even less centralization and control over which stage you get in the end. You'll end up striking on a relatively neutral stage (assuming both players aren't idiots when striking) and even if some are striked often, often != always.
So with a larger list, you get fairer stages. If one character is just OMFG GOOD on every stage, yes they may have a higher chance of getting a stage they are good on that's simply because the character is better.
:leek:I strike FD
They strike Brinstar
I strike SV
They strike Norfair
I strike BF
They strike RC
Leaves us with YI M. No matter whether I strike all 3 at the same time, 1 at a time, or 1221122112211 etc. Unless they strike YI M, which leaves Brinstar, Norfair, or RC like I said.
They strike Brinstar
I strike SV
They strike Norfair
I strike BF
They strike RC
Leaves us with YI M. No matter whether I strike all 3 at the same time, 1 at a time, or 1221122112211 etc. Unless they strike YI M, which leaves Brinstar, Norfair, or RC like I said.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Again, that was with your ****ty small stage list with 3 hardcore cp's, one mild one, and 3 "neutrals".
Try doing that with the following stage list:
If you can still narrow it down (1by1) all of the possibilities that your opponent may strike, if you both strike one by one, that leave you in an advantage.
That just means you're using a better character.
:leek:
Try doing that with the following stage list:
(All legal stages as of now, I removed Distant Planet to leave us with 21/22 stages. The removal was random but we needed an odd numbered list)
If you can still narrow it down (1by1) all of the possibilities that your opponent may strike, if you both strike one by one, that leave you in an advantage.
That just means you're using a better character.
:leek:
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Yeah, in fact, I literally struck down that list for ICs vs. MK and it came out to Delfino.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
There are far to many factors playerwise to truly strike it down to one say-all stage. Players would change it up between a few in just one matchup alone. Not only would the matchup change which stage you strike to, but the player you're fighting can change the stage.
Like you stated, I'd probably be one of the few Snake's who would leave RC open for MK to take me to. I'd hope they took me there because it's my personal preference.
:leek:
Like you stated, I'd probably be one of the few Snake's who would leave RC open for MK to take me to. I'd hope they took me there because it's my personal preference.
:leek:
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
But, that's the strength of having a wide-open stage list for match 1 (especially). Considering the individual characteristics of each character, times the 595 matchups, times ALL of the legal stages, you can't possibly figure out which stage is the 100% most neutral stage per matchup. What is most likely to happen is that, given enough time and enough tournaments, a range of most neutral stages ends up developing for each matchup, augmented by player preference and the personalities / playstyles of the two people in the match.
I honestly don't see how "FD, BF, SV" is any better than that.
I honestly don't see how "FD, BF, SV" is any better than that.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Jack, you know you're arguing to the person supporting your first paragraph... right?
We have the same view. =P
:leek:
We have the same view. =P
:leek:
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Oh, I wasn't arguing. I was just expanding. Agree to agree, as it were.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Well yeah, I mean more or less typically. It was just your typical "strike all of MK's best stages first" thing, you know? The result simply wasn't that awful. It certainly wasn't a hardcore counterpick stage...There are far to many factors playerwise to truly strike it down to one say-all stage. Players would change it up between a few in just one matchup alone. Not only would the matchup change which stage you strike to, but the player you're fighting can change the stage.
Like you stated, I'd probably be one of the few Snake's who would leave RC open for MK to take me to. I'd hope they took me there because it's my personal preference.
JOE!
Smash Hero
does Mk have any really "bad" stages (out of the legal ones) in the first place?
John12346
Smash Master
FD comes to mind, but then I am reminded of tournaments here in NY where MK beat Diddies and ICs on FD.
And besides, that's the stage he always bans, anyway...
And besides, that's the stage he always bans, anyway...
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Yep. Every char does. You have to see them relative to the character's overall performance, otherwise the comparison loses any and all meaning. FD is definitely one of MK's bad stages for many matchups (although for some, it's a godsend...).
ADHD
Smash Hero
Oops, nvm misread.
solecalibur
Smash Master
Its like you have to win game 1 or something???
its best 2/3
SuSa
Banned via Administration
This argument is fail and you should feel bad.
Let's use a quick example to show how best 2/3 is ****ed over in our current system:
I get FD, my character owns on FD, your character BLOWS on FD. I've effecively countered you GAME ONE. I win because your character cannot handle FD.
You choose your counterpick. You turned the tables on me and managed to barely get by with a win. You win game two. (This was for the sake of argument, I could end it here if my character cannot be CP'd and we're of about the same skill level)
Oops. I get to CP you... AGAIN. This time I take you to a hard CP and the stage kills you almost more than I do. You end up SD'ing 3 times because your character just cannot recover on Port Town Aero Dive, and you were a little unlucky when you fell off the platform.
Congrats, I just won a best 2/3 set because the first game was weighed heavily in my favor due to a ****ty stage list. How do you feel?
[Beyond that, Game 1 is important in unmeasurable psychological ways; such as momentum, setting the pace of the next two matches, applying pressure to the loser to win, etc.]
:leek:
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Yes, let us nitpick my post.
Replace FD with "the chosen Neutral Stage" (considering I can strike from just neutrals, I can strike the few neutrals your character is decent at)
My post should have been somewhat obvious that FD was a mere example.
:leek:
Replace FD with "the chosen Neutral Stage" (considering I can strike from just neutrals, I can strike the few neutrals your character is decent at)
My post should have been somewhat obvious that FD was a mere example.
:leek:
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Well, FD or SV. Pick your poison. If you're the kind of character that wouldn't like FD, the best you're probably going to get, especially in a 5 stage list like some people want, is BF. And if you're the kind of character that really wants FD, you'll probably really want BF, too.
...and no "what about the ICs?". There's a combo video in the video forum of an IC main chain grabbing across Battlefield's platforms. It's epic, and frightening.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
It's not that it makes CG'ing harder. It's that it's generally harder to get a grab on Battlefield, due to their opponents being able to platform camp (Snake <3)
:leek:
:leek:
SuSa
Banned via Administration
My point is my character has the advantage on 3/5 of our "Neutral" (starter) stages. I just have to strike the 2 I don't have the advantage on (easily done).
The way to make the matches have as neutral of a Game 1 as possible (without artificially altering characters) would be to have the two players strike from EVERY LEGAL STAGE for Game 1.
If there is no possible way that one of the two players could end on a neutral stage (or more neutral than our current starter list) than that just proves their character is bad.
Currently we reward characters who have at least 2 strong stages in the current starter list. We would reward stage diversity if we chose to strike from every stage, but at least this follows a precedent.
The current system is a double standard...
:leek:
The way to make the matches have as neutral of a Game 1 as possible (without artificially altering characters) would be to have the two players strike from EVERY LEGAL STAGE for Game 1.
If there is no possible way that one of the two players could end on a neutral stage (or more neutral than our current starter list) than that just proves their character is bad.
Currently we reward characters who have at least 2 strong stages in the current starter list. We would reward stage diversity if we chose to strike from every stage, but at least this follows a precedent.
The current system is a double standard...
:leek:
Akaku94
Smash Journeyman
I love how we keep saying the same things to answer the same arguments over and over and over. It's almost like there's no arguing with our logic... oh wait.
However, if by striking from the whole list we end up frequently playing on stages that are not equal for the matchup, isn't that the same as getting an advantageous mu for game 1 in the current system?
However, if by striking from the whole list we end up frequently playing on stages that are not equal for the matchup, isn't that the same as getting an advantageous mu for game 1 in the current system?
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Yes, but the point is that would only happen if you're playing a bad character in the first place. If you're playing Ganon, and you constantly get shafted even when striking from all legal stages, that might be a sign, especially if Oli, Pkmn Trainer, or Jiggs can start on an at least marginally neutral stage.
Honestly, we can theorycraft it all we want, but the only way to know for certain is to see how actual players maining multiple characters make their picks when real money is on the line.
...get on it, SWF .
Honestly, we can theorycraft it all we want, but the only way to know for certain is to see how actual players maining multiple characters make their picks when real money is on the line.
...get on it, SWF .
Akaku: No because then it would be Wario/MK/someone else instead of those darn IC's! Good on a lot of stages = you deserve to get a CP Game 1. Average or bad on a lot of stages = suck it. The full stage striking could be even more lopsided than our current system (because the characters who dominate the standard neutrals DO have to play RPS with each other for advantages, you don't see that on most CP stages) and it would be justified in the name of fulling embracing stage flexibility Game 1.
MK 6:4ing everyone in the cast through full stage striking = acceptable
Snake, Diddy, IC's, Dedede, Falco, Marth, Olimar fighting over FD = nope
MK 6:4ing everyone in the cast through full stage striking = acceptable
Snake, Diddy, IC's, Dedede, Falco, Marth, Olimar fighting over FD = nope
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Welp, I don't have time to explain it again. Anyone else wanna do the honors? Anyone?
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
I'm not seeing exactly what you're trying to say, DMG...
Could you clarify?
Could you clarify?
Akaku94
Smash Journeyman
just making sure... I knew I had heard that before! Though I like how all four of you said the same thing. It makes me feel somewhat ignorant 
Either way, I agree with you guys, for the record
Either way, I agree with you guys, for the record
JOE!
Smash Hero
he's saying a certain winged character from Sakurai's pet game series completley dominates the cast in every way imaginable, including the CP system, but thats OK.
Having a few characters do the same thign on a few stages is cause for outrage tho