Full Stage List Striking - New name

[Omni]

considering that BPC basically already answered that..... I didn't feel the need to

what im suggesting is that i don't have an extra amount of time to weed for a single post that did respond to that

so if you know where the location to that answer is and you don't want to repeat it just quoting it would be nice

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"Yeah we left that topic like 15 pages ago, lol."

Basically I don't think anyone here, including SuSa, thinks that the counterpick system is still a bad idea.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Except that the entire mentality on this issue is brutally flawed. Let me ask you a question. Does BF heavily (or moderately) favor a character in the MK-ICs matchup? What about the G&W-Falco matchup? If not, then why would it always be stricken fairly early in the matchup if you were striking from a stagelist that contained 11 stages (the typical EC list, for example)? This means one of two things:
-The stage benefits one of the characters fairly heavily
-One of the characters simply has a lot of better stages.

Both of those essentially come out to the same thing. See, with the starter list, we're essentially rewarding a character's ability to perform well on multiple stages, and multiple different stages. This works perfectly only with a full stage strike.

Ics vs Falco is MK's favor on BF, is it better for them slightly? Yes, but they still lose because he can be stupidly safe and separate them.

G&W vs Falco helps both out in different ways, more so Falco but again I support 7 stage list anyways.

Even in a full stage list people who play the game even at a low-mid level of play know better than to let themselves get cp'd to rainbow cruise, the only case stages like this wouldn't get striked is if it's a ditto or someone just really likes some stage, some Snakes actually don't mind Rainbow Cruise it's a nice Snake stage if they learn the layout correctly.

Technically we should reward good characters for not losing because of a CP stage. Still won't matter at face value when we have two intelligent players playing each other. Plus this all assumes you know your opponents character, what happens if I play someone completely different like go LOLG&W or LOLWario on someplace like Brinstar when you thought I was a Peach main.

People are going to still strike the stage so still doesn't happen and lean towards the more neutral stage so characters like Mr. G&W still don't get huge buffs from this and it doesn't nerf Falco to the degree people wish it to.

So a full stage list was a waste of time.

The point is, as has been said, to shift the median. When you use the full starter stage striking method, but remove RC and Brinstar, you've effectively shifted the median in several matchups by two places. Remove Delfino, and that makes 3. Et cetera. Like, sure, those stages will be stricken in almost every matchup. But for the char who didn't strike it, it's the difference between having 10 strikes or having 8 strikes to deal with his opponent's good stages. Get it?

Certain stages favor certain characters, the job of a Starter and Counter pick system is to make sure the stage doesn't place heavy influence on the outcome of game 1, or in cases of banned stages games 2/3 and onward.

We do a starter list to stop stages from giving huge advantages to characters and be arbitrarily good because the stages let them be good.

I really think small stage lists like, FD only Japan, 3 stage, 5 stage, are going to inflate some characters advantages on these stages.

9+ and we let characters that have stupidly polar stages run the show for some characters.

Our community wants a happy medium, because of how everyone has different ideas on how the game should be played, because of how we have changed the game. Even looking at a stage list some people still think Pictochat shouldn't be legal because of what it does to game play.

Agreed, so we should strike them.

Impossible to do for the entire cast without having a highly liberal stage list. (Read: Every legal stage being a starter)

Otherwise you specifically cater to a portion of the cast. Saying "Everything goes, no bars hold" allows the "catering" to be NATURAL not ARTIFICIAL.

If we allow them to play on a stage Game2 or Game3, it should be allowed Game1. But Game1's goal is to be as neutral as possible, which it currently fails at.

Some stages still cater to specific characters quite exclusively where as the neutral stage lists goal is to remove this as much as possible.

I have a hard time believing Brinstar and such are going to be fine with a bunch of the cast. FD like you and BPC have said caters to Icies, DDD and such, I disagree to the extent of which it caters. I disagree that it gives them strict polar advantages, except possible Icies, it's not the best stage for every MU of course and I would personally put it at a number 5 spot as far and neutrals go.

Some people don't want stages to severely cater on game 1, but think it's OK to CP it if you lose because the stage isn't broken but starting on it is silly because it still caters more heavily than starters should.

ANY DYNAMIC STAGE is a better stage than any neutral (save maybe YI (B)) - and this is coming from someone who plays as Sheik more than Snake. Snake just has an overall better chance of winning in the current tournament scene. Largely because of how much Game1 hurts Sheik.

I'll try to get some MM's and possibly record my Sheik at this upcoming tournament Sunday. That way I can provide some backing to my words, given my inactivity in the smash scene as of late.

Actually this is kinda the opposite of what my friend does, PS1, Halberd, SV, and BF are his favorite stages with Sheik.

Which is what I'm trying to do. A full starter list has no cons other than "it's too different" and "I don't like it baaawww"

As far as fair competition and "how the game is supposed to be played" it allows for more accurate competition between "who is the better player" than "who plays a character that is better on static stages because that's what we decided to hold as a value"

A static stage list makes about as much sense as a ground time/air time rule...

There is a huge difference how the air time/ground time bs affects the game and a starter stage list. The time rules directly affect how match-ups are going to be played and arbitrarily nerf characters so one character can't air camp.

A starter stage list tries to prevent the first stage from making Game 1 starting on someones LOL stage.

We can do a full stage strike but why does any of this matter when people at the highest level of play are going to strike the stages that give the opponent a heavy advantage if they are certain characters.

So we end up on stages that are neutral anyways, some stages give advantages even as neutrals, they don't do this to the extent CP stages do.

I would like to let you know this now. I ****ING LOVE YOU. Not too sure how you knew Nyu was my #1 favorite character of all time, but this is quite possibly the best picture you could have ever chosen to agree with me with. EVER.

<3

:3

1) Because not EVERYONE will srike it EVERY time. It changes heavily on their character, their opponents character, and both players' preferences.

2) Exactly. This means strike wisely, don't be a scrub.

3) Because you're only thinking about Top tier vs top tier. With over 600 possible matchups it's impossible to create a conservative stage list that is fair to every single possible matchup. Which is what is ideal for competition (unless we are now agreeing that centralizing the game is a good thing...)

Like I said above, I have a hard time believing the cast is going to want to start on stages like Cruise and such unless they already have an advantage on it already. That threat of someone changing to *Insert amazing character on this stage* is going to exist and always will, no one is going to let that happen on Game 1 if it is that critical to the success of the set.

Also you should say I'm thinking Top tier vs Top tier, I play Lucario/Link after all and I think of those two usually when new ideas are presented.

Link likes Cruise and Brinstar when the opponent isn't MK, Mr. G&W, wtc. Lucario likes Yoshi's, Frigate, and other stages.

The goal of a starter stage list is to make a list that is more neutral to all match-ups as close as possible, this changes are more or less stages are allowed as starters.

what im suggesting is that i don't have an extra amount of time to weed for a single post that did respond to that

so if you know where the location to that answer is and you don't want to repeat it just quoting it would be nice

He has a point, saying, "We covered that 15 pages ago" doesn't actually answer or respond correctly to what he said.

Granted not looking yourself Omni is kinda lazy, even with a search option to filter posts out to find it.

 

[Omni]

not looking is lazy
not summarzing the answer in a sentence or two is lazy
not quoting the referenced post if the person knows exactly where it is is lazy

we're all lazy

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I just answered it. Look up. :3

@RR: will answer soon, but lemme ask you something-is Delfino a "ridiculously amazing stage" for MK? How about G&W? Wario?

 

[Omni]

"Yeah we left that topic like 15 pages ago, lol."

Basically I don't think anyone here, including SuSa, thinks that the counterpick system is still a bad idea.

i didn't say anything about it being a bad idea

i was actually directly responding to the OP's main declaration:

"The Counterpick System is NOT Competitive"

and i was just thinking, well, i think the fact that people have been competing under the counterpick system for +8 years shows that well the counterpick system is competitive

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

not looking is lazy
not summarzing the answer in a sentence or two is lazy
not quoting the referenced post if the person knows exactly where it is is lazy

we're all lazy

Don't be lazy.

@RR: will answer soon, but lemme ask you something-is Delfino a "ridiculously amazing stage" for MK? How about G&W? Wario?

It's good for them, but it's not as good as Cruise and Brinstar is for them.

Acceptable CP stage or in some cases starter if the starter stage list is large enough.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

2+; it only refers to brawl, but in general you're right.

@RR: Well that's literally the very best MK, G&W, or Wario can get. Try it-strike 10 of their best stages from the 21-list from a few pages back, and see what the best stage that's still left is, and you'll get a basic idea of why the system works.

 

[SuSa]

Actually this is kinda the opposite of what my friend does, PS1, Halberd, SV, and BF are his favorite stages with Sheik.

Well what do you know, we'd strike different stages. Those 4 would be the ones I strike immediately.

Especially Halberd.

Further proving my point. The immeasurable player preference of a stage, that can make theoretically GREAT stages HORRIBLE and put the at an even greater disadvantage Game1.

The fairest stage would be chosen by the players Game1 from an agreed median of the stage list.

There is a huge difference how the air time/ground time bs affects the game and a starter stage list. The time rules directly affect how match-ups are going to be played and arbitrarily nerf characters so one character can't air camp.

Actually, not really. Air/ground force mt to fight in the air/ground - and a stage without platforms increases the ability for a character to fight on the ground; while a stage with platforms and a passable stage from underneath increases the ability for a character to fight airborne.

Is that not the "problem" with Brinstar?

Since when did we start catering to ground based characters more heavily than air based characters? Why did we draw a line between "platforms to help air based characters is ok" and "passable stages, or strangely-placed platforms to help air based characters IS NOT ok"?

EDIT:

Oh god.. *facepalms*

and i was just thinking, well, i think the fact that people have been competing under the counterpick system for +8 years shows that well the counterpick system is competitive

2 years, with many many many many many issues and splits between the community on fixing the **** thing.

I'm not going to get this topic locked just because you can't properly read post 1.

Brawl != Melee

Our actions in Brawl should not carry over from Melee. They are of the same series and are not the same game nor similar enough to be considered the same game. Do you see any major changes to the game's physics? Or have you never played Brawl and Melee? Notice how one's all slow and floaty, lacks hitstun, has tripping, and is a much different game?

Yea. We should cater to that one with it's own ruleset. Not one that's borrowed from a faster-paced, "heavy" game with hitstun - no tripping, and is overall a completely other game.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

@RR: Well that's literally the very best MK, G&W, or Wario can get. Try it-strike 10 of their best stages from the 21-list from a few pages back, and see what the best stage that's still left is, and you'll get a basic idea of why the system works.

And the problem I see with this is that we're going to end up on the same stages that are starters, because the ones that influence game play heavily 95% of the time won't be started on.

So the full stage list is pointless in that reguard except for the very few instances where someone is being stupid or a ditto is occuring/characters that do kinda well here.

Starters shouldn't place heavy emphasis on the MU, if some stages do that to extremes they shouldn't be a starter to begin with.

 

[Omni]

2 years, with many many many many many issues and splits between the community on fixing the **** thing.

the only real issue has been Metaknight because it's the first time the smash community has been introduced with a #1 top tier character. these "splits" you talk of exist in every fighting game community that has a top character.

outside of mk the issues have been pretty mild and standard

but both of those points are not touching on my main statement

regardless of the 'many x6 issues' we've had Brawl has been a viable and competitive fighting game. it was picked up by MLG which is like uh one of the most competitive gaming sponsors for video games?

Susa, what im trying to tell you is that you are wrong.

brawl is competitive
brawl uses the counterpick system
the counterpick system is competitive

maybe you're trying to use a different term or word for the counterpick system. saying that the counterpick system is NOT competitive when a game is currently competitive while using it does not a sad panda want

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well what do you know, we'd strike different stages. Those 4 would be the ones I strike immediately.

Especially Halberd.

Further proving my point. The immeasurable player preference of a stage, that can make theoretically GREAT stages HORRIBLE and put the at an even greater disadvantage Game1.

The fairest stage would be chosen by the players Game1 from an agreed median of the stage list.

So should we accommodate me because I like to play on Norfair, Rumble falls?

Also personal preference means nothing to me when considering this, because I try to avoid my personal stage bias' in MU discussion.

If you don't like the starter stages...well tough you like stages that aren't generally neutral for players and the cast at large, or stages that have very polar elements to them.

Not saying ones would pick are though.

Actually, not really. Air/ground force mt to fight in the air/ground - and a stage without platforms increases the ability for a character to fight on the ground; while a stage with platforms and a passable stage from underneath increases the ability for a character to fight airborne.

Is that not the "problem" with Brinstar?

Since when did we start catering to ground based characters more heavily than air based characters? Why did we draw a line between "platforms to help air based characters is ok" and "passable stages, or strangely-placed platforms to help air based characters IS NOT ok"?

The ground air rule forces players to play their characters certain ways or lose in a time out because they were in the air too long, I guess it sucks for Peach, Wario, Jigglypuff because they need to go in the air to fight.

The rule itself has no real purpose but to stop time outs/air camping, which is a legitimate strategy even if I don't do it.

FD doesn't even force players to fight on the ground, Brinstar quite heavily forces people to play a certain way because the stage out right forces it to happen.

And starter on even our current list have platforms, BF, SC, Yoshi's, PS1, Lylat, etc.

It's ok if the layout/stage doesn't heavily influence the game, which many CP do which is why they shouldn't be on the initial striking list.

 

[Tesh]

Susa, what im trying to tell you is that you are wrong.

brawl is competitive
brawl uses the counterpick system
the counterpick system is competitive

maybe you're trying to use a different term or word for the counterpick system. saying that the counterpick system is NOT competitive when a game is currently competitive while using it does not a sad panda want

That makes perfect sense, let me try.

Brawl is competitive
Brawl has random tripping
Tripping is competitive

If I bake you a cake and sprinkle some dirt on it, it might still taste pretty good anyway. But that doesn't mean dirt is a key ingredient for making tasty cakes.

Now, I don't agree with removing the counterpick system, but you can come up with a better counter arguement than that.

@ Ryu, every stage layout has an impact on the game. Every stage adds something and/or takes something away.

 

[Omni]

That makes perfect sense, let me try.

Brawl is competitive
Brawl has random tripping
Tripping is competitive

If I bake you a cake and sprinkle some dirt on it, it might still taste pretty good anyway. But that doesn't mean dirt is a key ingredient for making tasty cakes.

Now, I don't agree with removing the counterpick system, but you can come up with a better counter arguement than that.

except your strawman doesn't take into consideration that tripping is a very, small, minor, and brawl exclusive detail compared to a counterpick system which is the foundation to nearly every competitive game ever created and hosted at a regional/national level tournament.

the fact that such a system is so universal amongst very competitive fighting games is almost evidence in itself that it is successful and does not make a fighting game any less competitive. if it did then for the sake of increasing competition everywhere it would have been removed

moral of the story: don't strawman

 

[chaosmaster1991]

And the problem I see with this is that we're going to end up on the same stages that are starters, because the ones that influence game play heavily 95% of the time won't be started on.

While it might be true that we'll end up on one of the current starters most of the time, it probably won't be the same stage. So, when a match-up goes to BF in a 7 starter list, that same match-up might end up on Delfino or something when striking from the full list.

 

[Ripple]

the was a terrible argument omni. we know you can do better than that. we've seen what happens when you want to debate something

 

[Tesh]

You're just saying that the fact that it doesn't kill the competition (much like tripping doesn't) is proof that it improves the competition. Which is exactly what I said about my wonderful cake. If you mix alot of good stuff with 1 bad thing, it doesn't make that bad thing into a good thing.

 

[Omni]

You're just saying that the fact that it doesn't kill the competition (much like tripping doesn't) is proof that it improves the competition. Which is exactly what I said about my wonderful cake. If you mix alot of good stuff with 1 bad thing, it doesn't make that bad thing into a good thing.

this is what i'm trying to explain to you. btw, metaphors and "good/bad" scenarios don't make your empty strawmans any better

the counterpick system is a very large, vital part of any successfully ran fighting game tournament. it essentially dictates how people play the game and what characters they choose if they're trying to play based on a tier system. stop attempting to compare it to tripping

i'm not saying that the counterpick system "doesn't kill the competition". i am saying that the counterpick system is one of the main driving forces behind the competition.

 

[UberMario]

the only real issue has been Metaknight because it's the first time the smash community has been introduced with a #1 top tier character. these "splits" you talk of exist in every fighting game community that has a top character.

inb4Fox

So should we accommodate me because I like to play on Norfair, Rumble falls?

Why on Earth would the opponent not scratch RF from a list? Much less be on the list in the first place?[/Quote]

If you don't like the starter stages...well tough you like stages that aren't generally neutral for players and the cast at large, or stages that have very polar elements to them.

Some of the neutrals are highly polarized, most notably Final Destination and [far less so, but] Battlefield. PS1, Delfino Plaza, and Castle Siege aren't exactly "neutral" either. The former is a projectile haven and approaching nightmare during it's transformations, while the later two benefit regular campers and walkfoff campers. There are plenty of current counterpicks that are more neutral for the roster than a good amount of starters.

 

[Omni]

inb4Jigglypuff

fix' d

 

[Ripple]

every character in melee has a stage where they are beaten by another top tier.

 

[SuSa]

regardless of the 'many x6 issues' we've had Brawl has been a viable and competitive fighting game. it was picked up by MLG which is like uh one of the most competitive gaming sponsors for video games?

Isn't there also the chance it may be dropped due to lack of showing up? Did Melee ever have that issue? (I never followed Melee when it was in MLG.. so this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one)

Also it did take what... 2 years for MLG to decide to add it to the circuit?

Susa, what im trying to tell you is that you are wrong.

brawl is competitive
brawl uses the counterpick system
the counterpick system is competitive

Transitive property. Awesome.

Brawl is competitive.
Brawl contains items.
Items are competitive.


But guess what! We removed items.

So should we accommodate me because I like to play on Norfair, Rumble falls?

Nope, your opponent would likely strike both of those against you.

Also personal preference means nothing to me when considering this, because I try to avoid my personal stage bias' in MU discussion.

If I bring MK to RC as Snake. I feel I have the advantage. Like every other Snake seems to disagree with me for some stupid reason but Snake is really gimmicky and hard to gimp there.

I brought M2K to Rainbow Cruise, and did better than I did on the neutral we started off on. I'm not just talking out my ***. Snake is better on RC than any of the current starter stages. Of course, this is up to debate by practically everyone.

My point about personal stage bias' was that it alters the game you would play on game one

If Ally and ADHD played using this method, then Fatal and Gnes did the same. What are the chances do you think that they would end up playing on the same stage? Both matches are Snake vs Diddy Kong.

I'm voting very small.

If you don't like the starter stages...well tough you like stages that aren't generally neutral for players and the cast at large, or stages that have very polar elements to them.

Starter stages... generally neutral for players?

Oh god that's a good laugh.

Just because a stage isn't static or has elements doesn't make it NOT NEUTRAL. That's what my argument is getting at.

A full list striking system would find the median of a matchup, because in theory each player would strike to weaken their opponent. If each opponent is removing the other's most beneficial stage, you are left with a stage that does not benefit either side.

A stage that does not benefit either side is neutral.

A stage that is heavily favoring one player over another - such as FD, YI (B), BF, and Lylat Cruise can do. IS NOT NEUTRAL

Unless you think favoring one player over another is suddenly neutral. In which I'd love to hear your reasoning and logic behind that - as well as your definition of "neutral".

The ground air rule forces players to play their characters certain ways or lose in a time out because they were in the air too long, I guess it sucks for Peach, Wario, Jigglypuff because they need to go in the air to fight.

The rule itself has no real purpose but to stop time outs/air camping, which is a legitimate strategy even if I don't do it.

FD doesn't even force players to fight on the ground, Brinstar quite heavily forces people to play a certain way because the stage out right forces it to happen.

FD does heavily force players to play a grounded game. Would you say you are airborne on FD or Rainbow Cruise more often? You probably said Rainbow Cruise? Right? Now you're excuse is probably because it moves. I'll give you that. Now how about Battlefield? Oh.. you're jumping around and using those platforms more?

Snake can play a really air campy game on SV/BF. He cannot do this on FD due to the lack of platforms to help him remain airborne and keep his landing less predictable. FD forces him to play grounded.

It's ok if the layout/stage doesn't heavily influence the game, which many CP do which is why they shouldn't be on the initial striking list.

The problem is they only heavily influence the game in a few, maybe half the games 600+ matchups.

If it's so influential. STRIKE IT problem solved.

But to say because it effects the Snake vs Falco/Marth/Diddy matchup heavily so it shouldn't be a starter, even though it has little effect on Yoshi vs Falco/Marth/Diddy is just stupid and biased.

While it might be true that we'll end up on one of the current starters most of the time, it probably won't be the same stage. So, when a match-up goes to BF in a 7 starter list, that same match-up might end up on Delfino or something when striking from the full list.

We MAY end up on the current starters most of the time only because it's what most players are used to. Once players saw that they could gain a neutral stage for Game 1 more people would likely strike with some knowledge of the game and find a stage that does not benefit either character to a large degree.


Please note that striking from a full list will hurt some characters. Namely Snake who has at least one of the current starters as one of his "best stages" for nearly every matchup in the game. So I'm not coming from a personal bias with wanting this change. It'd create a fair match Game1 vs my opponents if I'm not counterpicking them Game1...

:leek:

 

[Omni]

Isn't there also the chance it may be dropped due to lack of showing up? Did Melee ever have that issue? (I never followed Melee when it was in MLG.. so this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one)

Also it did take what... 2 years for MLG to decide to add it to the circuit?

it will probably be dropped because the audience isn't as large as the other circuits nor is it as profitable. and it doesnt matter how long it took. you're beating around the bush and not drawing to the fact that Brawl is a very competitive fighting game.

Transitive property. Awesome.

Brawl is competitive.
Brawl contains items.
Items are competitive.


But guess what! We removed items.

you essentially just did exactly what Tesh did.

That makes perfect sense, let me try.

Brawl is competitive
Brawl has random tripping
Tripping is competitive

except your strawman doesn't take into consideration that tripping is a very, small, minor, and brawl exclusive detail compared to a counterpick system which is the foundation to nearly every competitive game ever created and hosted at a regional/national level tournament.

the fact that such a system is so universal amongst very competitive fighting games is almost evidence in itself that it is successful and does not make a fighting game any less competitive. if it did then for the sake of increasing competition everywhere it would have been removed

moral of the story: don't strawman

i also scanned through your post up there and completely disagree with your definition of a neutral stage. just fyi, your definition of a neutral stage isn't really a definition; just your interpretation of what you want it to be

 

[SuSa]

it will probably be dropped because the audience isn't as large as the other circuits nor is it as profitable. and it doesnt matter how long it took. you're beating around the bush and not drawing to the fact that Brawl is a very competitive fighting game.

So competitive that it barely made it through your "see this is why it's a competitive game" for your reasoning.

Times change, peoples assumptions can be wrong. I mean, the Sun does revolve around the Earth right? The Earth is also flat.

you essentially just did exactly what Tesh did.

Same rebuttal, different evidence. He used a random factor that we cannot control. If you would like me to use a different example because items are "random" (spawn points + what spawns) I'd be glad to. In fact, this next example is way better!

Brawl is competitive.
Brawl contains stages that do not have random factors.
Said stages are competitive.

Yep.

i also scanned through your post up there and completely disagree with your definition of a neutral stage. just fyi, your definition of a neutral stage isn't really a definition; just your interpretation of what you want it to be

Define "neutral" stage. One that is "static" or one that does not pick sides?

Last I checked a neutral country does not sell weapons to one country and tells the other "Well too ****ing bad, you should've been the other country."

:leek:

 

[Jack Kieser]

Last I checked a neutral country does not sell weapons to one country and tells the other "Well too ****ing bad, you should've been the other country."

:leek:

LOLOLOLOL, that is an awesome quote. Just sayin'.

 

[Omni]

So competitive that it barely made it through your "see this is why it's a competitive game" for your reasoning.

Times change, peoples assumptions can be wrong. I mean, the Sun does revolve around the Earth right? The Earth is also flat.

huh, you're not even addressing the argument anymore. my point is that the counterpicking system is universally used for nearly all fighting games and is a main driving force in its foundation. agree or disagree, susa?

Same rebuttal, different evidence. He used a random factor that we cannot control. I you would like me to use a different example because items are "random" (spawn points + what spawns) I'd be glad to. In fact, this next example is way better!

Brawl is competitive.
Brawl contains stages that do not have random factors.
Said stages are competitive.

Yep.

you're going to make me pull my hair out because you aren't reading

i specifically said "not brawl specific" in my explanation above. a brawl stage that does not contain random factors, again, does not compare to the system that is the counterpick system which is what this thread is about

stop trying to bypass the main argument by dancing around it

Define "neutral" stage. One that is "static" or one that does not pick sides?

Last I checked a neutral country does not sell weapons to one country and tells the other "Well too ****ing bad, you should've been the other country."

:leek:

there is no set definition. my personal definition of a neutral stage list isn't one that is chosen based on how in-game characters work (or dont work) on them in regards to balance. for me, a neutral stage is a stage that involves the most amount player vs. player/character vs. character interaction or the least amount of outside influence.

basically i believe in creating a stage list that has little to no character influence in terms of "ddd is too good here" etc. from there once the stage list is made we X out all the obvious stages i.e. stages that allow for overly broken tactics or glitches to exist (DDD wall cg'ing).

im sorry if i dont find you very funny. i dont think you are very funny

 

[Tesh]

Omni disagrees with the definition of the word neutral.

 

[Omni]

^oh yeah, that's why i stopped coming around here to debate. trolls who say meaningless things in attempt to prove a non-existent point

say something or don't say anything at all, Tesh

 

[Ripple]

there is no set definition. my personal definition of a neutral stage list isn't one that is chosen based on how in-game characters work (or dont work) on them in regards to balance. for me, a neutral stage is a stage that involves the most amount player vs. player/character vs. character interaction or the least amount of outside influence.

basically i believe in creating a stage list that has little to no character influence in terms of "ddd is too good here" etc. from there once the stage list is made we X out all the obvious stages i.e. stages that allow for overly broken tactics or glitches to exist (DDD wall cg'ing).

the first part of your posts makes it seem as though your definition of a neutral is a stage that is most "Fair" to a player. which is something we should not abide by because every stage is fair to a player ( except those that contain random elements such as picto).

but the second part of your post completely contradicts what you had just said. you said whatever stage has little character influences as possible should be a neutral. which most people should agree with.

I'm sorry but could you state specifically what you want to see in a neutral? a stage that is fair to players or fair to the general cast of characters?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You know, I need to start assembling a list of arguments that just flat-out don't work. Arguing that "fair to the player" means "most PvP, least PvS" and that that should affect the stage's starter status is ******** and I've shown this god knows how many times. Not to mention almost EVERYONE mangles the definition.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

@ Ryu, every stage layout has an impact on the game. Every stage adds something and/or takes something away.

I acknowledged this already.

Starters should be the ones that have the least amount of influence.

While it might be true that we'll end up on one of the current starters most of the time, it probably won't be the same stage. So, when a match-up goes to BF in a 7 starter list, that same match-up might end up on Delfino or something when striking from the full list.

Perhaps, but all of that useless fluff we went through to strike. If it isn't played on as a starter, why is it a neutral?

Why on Earth would the opponent not scratch RF from a list? Much less be on the list in the first place?

Good point, why would Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise be on a starter list?

I'm using an extreme example but the point remains these stage are severely polar.

Some of the neutrals are highly polarized, most notably Final Destination and [far less so, but] Battlefield. PS1, Delfino Plaza, and Castle Siege aren't exactly "neutral" either. The former is a projectile haven and approaching nightmare during it's transformations, while the later two benefit regular campers and walkfoff campers. There are plenty of current counterpicks that are more neutral for the roster than a good amount of starters.

Final is number 5 on my list of starters, only character that would make this stage LOL is Ice Climbers.

You can't honestly argue those stages are more polar or MU threatening compared to even stages like Frigate or Pictochat.

Although I'd like to hear what exactly is more neutral than the stages you just listed as being bad for being a starter.

 

[Omni]

fair to players or fair to the general cast of characters?

i didn't use the term "fair" at all. that's where i think the problem lies with people trying to create neutrals or come up with the definition of neutrals

 

[SuSa]

huh, you're not even addressing the argument anymore. my point is that the counterpicking system is universally used for nearly all fighting games and is a main driving force in its foundation. agree or disagree, susa?

Agreed to an extent.

You have to realize SSB != other fighting games. It's rather unique.

I don't know another 2d fighter game which has it's method of taking lives off your opponent being ring outs with no other standard method (outside of coin/stamina modes) of killing your opponent.

Other fighter games have a life bar. (Stamina Mode is the nearest thing in Brawl) - and a ringout removes that entire life bar (as it would in Stamina mode)

If you want to be so close to other fighting games, Stamina mode would be more competitive. In fact, it'd be the nearest imitation of other good competitive games. Agree or disagree?

you're going to make me pull my hair out because you aren't reading

i specifically said "not brawl specific" in my explanation above. a brawl stage that does not contain random factors, again, does not compare to the system that is the counterpick system which is what this thread is about

stop trying to bypass the main argument by dancing around it

A brawl stage that does not contain random factors is directly related to the counterpick system via the first match - which is what the counterpick system depends on. Unless we start counterpicking without any basis on the first match, pick our counterpicks before the first match (and not depending on the results after it)

But wait... the loser is the one whom counterpicks based upon the results of the first match which has everything to do with the Game1 Stage.

there is no set definition. my personal definition of a neutral stage list isn't one that is chosen based on how in-game characters work (or dont work) on them in regards to balance. for me, a neutral stage is a stage that involves the most amount player vs. player/character vs. character interaction or the least amount of outside influence.

I didn't know you disagreed with the definition of a standard English word. Here's the definition I'm using:

1.
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during World War II.
2.
not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.

What you are trying to dictate is a "starter" stage, which has no set definition. However the current ruling is because the "starter stages are neutral" which is complete bullcrap. The reasoning for our starter changes needs to change to reflect the actual decision.

"We chose these because we feel static stages are more competitive, with little to no real basis on that other than our biased opinions."

:leek:

 

[rathy Aro]

Wait, a way to shut down the subjectivity argument for good? Really?

Oh, what a joyous day! I can't wait to read it.

I already know a way. I was just using it yesterday with some other smashers.... they all laughed. =(



I'm finding it very difficult to follow this thread. You guys seem to be talking about what consitutes a neutral stage, but I don't see how that relates to the cp system (well I think I do, but there are better ways to argue against it). Anyway, I just want to know what people have in mind as an alternative? Random stages and double blind pick every game? One game sets? Or maybe something a little more outlandish?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Tell us, because mine sort of hit a stumbling block.

 

[SuSa]

I already know a way. I was just using it yesterday with some other smashers.... they all laughed. =(



I'm finding it very difficult to follow this thread. You guys seem to be talking about what consitutes a neutral stage, but I don't see how that relates to the cp system (well I think I do, but there are better ways to argue against it). Anyway, I just want to know what people have in mind as an alternative? Random stages and double blind pick every game? One game sets? Or maybe something a little more outlandish?

Game 1 is what the counterpick system revolves around. Thus making it vital to the counterpick system.

Changing the way Game1 is done can altar the counterpick system.

I am suggesting a full stage list - instead of this "starter stage" which altars the game on a false belief of neutrality. (People seem to think starters are starters because they are "neutral" even though there is no real justification for our current starter system other than the BBR's opinions on what should be a starter and what should be a counterpick of god knows what basis)

:leek:

 

[Omni]

Agreed to an extent.

You have to realize SSB != other fighting games. It's rather unique.

I don't know another 2d fighter game which has it's method of taking lives off your opponent being ring outs with no other standard method (outside of coin/stamina modes) of killing your opponent.

Then you're not very informed. Lol. Virtua Fighter is just one of many that comes to mind.

Other fighter games have a life bar. (Stamina Mode is the nearest thing in Brawl) - and a ringout removes that entire life bar (as it would in Stamina mode)

If you want to be so close to other fighting games, Stamina mode would be more competitive. In fact, it'd be the nearest imitation of other good competitive games. Agree or disagree?

You're avoiding the argument again by bringing up a new one.

My point was that looking at %'s is much closer than a Sudden Death tie-breaker. Stamina Mode is the closest to other fighting games, actually, but because the powers that be decided to use stocks we're not using Stamina Mode. Unless you're telling me you're going to push for Stamina Mode, lol.

A brawl stage that does not contain random factors is directly related to the counterpick system via the first match - which is what the counterpick system depends on. Unless we start counterpicking without any basis on the first match, pick our counterpicks before the first match (and not depending on the results after it)

But wait... the loser is the one whom counterpicks based upon the results of the first match which has everything to do with the Game1 Stage.

"A brawl stage that does not contain random factors." Is this your definition of a neutral stage? The counterpick system is not limited to stages. If we want to discuss stages and how it relates to games outside of Brawl take a look at Tekken, most shooters, and Starcraft.

I hope you realize that a game with stages, characters, and counterpicking is not new. Brawl has unique elements to it but this is not one of them.

I didn't know you disagreed with the definition of a standard English word. Here's the definition I'm using:

Based off your definition a neutral stage does not exist. Yay or nay?

What you are trying to dictate is a "starter" stage, which has no set definition. However the current ruling is because the "starter stages are neutral" which is complete bullcrap. The reasoning for our starter changes needs to change to reflect the actual decision.

"We chose these because we feel static stages are more competitive, with little to no real basis on that other than our biased opinions."

I agree with this. However, by your definition of "neutral" I don't see how you're going to come up with a non-biased stage. It's -impossible- to have a neutral stage under your definition meaning you can only create one out of biasness. Do you need me to explain why?

 

[rathy Aro]

Tell us, because mine sort of hit a stumbling block.

The idea of something being subjective is basically the same one asociated with the overused cop-out "that's opinion, not fact" or "that's opinion, it can't be right or wrong". I (largely influenced by a computer science background) believe that there is only true and false; 1s and 0s. Opinions CAN BE RIGHT OR WRONG. Now you might bring up a counter example like: "One person may think Sheik is the most fun character in the game and another might say its marth. Fun is subjective, there's no way to say one person is right or wrong." What you are really saying is fun is undefined. You aren't able to compare two things that based on how much fun they have because you don't know what fun is! If we quantify fun (and everything that exists CAN BE QUANTIFIED) you could easily compare it. You could define fun biologically by measuring the processes within the brain that create the feeling of pleasure or you could create a concrete criteria by which we measure what is or isn't fun.

tl;dr: If someone says you said something "subjective," properly define what you are both arguing about and then, using this definition, prove that your "opinion" is actually fact.

Give me an arguement often countered by "SuBJEcTIve!!!!!! U CANT D00 THAT!! Flarble Garble" and I'll demonstrate how I would respond.

edit: I should note that, this doesn't "counter" the subjectivity arguement, if you really are just basing your statements off of unproven opinion and not observed or reasoned fact. =P

Game 1 is what the counterpick system revolves around. Thus making it vital to the counterpick system.

Changing the way Game1 is done can altar the counterpick system.

I am suggesting a full stage list - instead of this "starter stage" which altars the game on a false belief of neutrality. (People seem to think starters are starters because they are "neutral" even though there is no real justification for our current starter system other than the BBR's opinions on what should be a starter and what should be a counterpick of god knows what basis)

:leek:

Sound legit. I can't argue with that

Spoiler

yet, gimme some time to think about it

.

 

[SuSa]

My point was that looking at %'s is much closer than a Sudden Death tie-breaker. Stamina Mode is the closest to other fighting games, actually, but because the powers that be decided to use stocks we're not using Stamina Mode. Unless you're telling me you're going to push for Stamina Mode, lol.

Stamina Mode is the closest to other fighting games, actually, but because the powers that be decided to use stocks we're not using Stamina Mode.

but because the powers that be

"the BBR"

Yea, I get you're getting at and is why I'm strongly against the BBR. I'm pretty sure you are well aware of that and we can keep it out of this thread.

We should stick with Sudden Death. Gotta stay true to that results screen! (Reference to new Bowsercide/Ganoncide rulings)

Screen didn't tell me that guy won. It told me SUDDEN DEATH! GO!

I want an argument that doesn't use itself to support itself please. You speak as if change is impossible and that things should always remain how they are because that is how we've always done it.

Not sure how much research you've put into communities or peoples who held those beliefs. They tend to not be up to par with the rest of society

A quick look at economics may show you a traditional economy is pretty stable, but little to no improvements are ever made. You just go along doing what you've always done because its the way its always been done. Compare that to a command or market economy. Now name me a traditional economy that is doing better than a command or market economy.

Because I can't think of any.

"A brawl stage that does not contain random factors." Is this your definition of a neutral stage? The counterpick system is not limited to stages. If we want to discuss stages and how it relates to games outside of Brawl take a look at Tekken, most shooters, and Starcraft.

I never said it was limited to stages. But a stage is a factor of it. You also did not refute my point that "Brawl contains stages. Brawl is competitive. Therefore stages that are in Brawl are competitive."

You only refute it with "The powers that be decided on it" which is just self-supporting argument. Again I bring you to my above point.

Based off your definition a neutral stage does not exist. Yay or nay?

It does, but it's not something you can narrow down to exist for 600+ possible matchups.

Yay mathematics.

This is why I propose the players, you know. STEP IT UP and learn about the game and it's stages to create a more accurate depiction of neutral than any one person's (or group's) opinion of what is "neutral". If every single stage is a starter, and each player strikes off his opponents best stages then you are left with a neutral stage.

The only argument against this is if you are using a character that is not designed to be played well on many varying stages. Which makes the character bad. We don't make changes to nerf/buff characters - that is a precedent we follow, and this is why I continually raise the "it's a double standard" point.

I personally cannot see anyone above... well... Ganon who could possibly not have most every matchup result in a neutral stage given intelligent striking.

I agree with this. However, by your definition of "neutral" I don't see how you're going to come up with a non-biased stage. It's -impossible- to have a neutral stage under your definition meaning you can only create one out of biasness. Do you need me to explain why?

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

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

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

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

:leek:

 

[Akaku94]

First thing's first:

inb4jackKIESER

... Now I feel awful! And I'm usually so good about sPELEENG spelling...

More to come in a while... heading for dinner now...