Wow, I woke up this morning and it was still dark. I guess what was between myself and the sun was your giant ego.
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!
Wow, I woke up this morning and it was still dark. I guess what was between myself and the sun was your giant ego.
I think that's actually kinda covered under my thread... Isn't it? Perhaps not by word, but it seems like it's pretty much covered by the very thought of this concept.Leggo my Eggo
Sirlin also said it's potentially reasonable to ban something that falls just short of the accepted ban definition if there's a lot to gain with the thing in question moved. Don't forget that part.
Can I quote you on this?I banned Frigate in almost every set I played because its by far my worst stage. Esam beat me on RC cause he's amazing.
I'm perfectly fine against mk on brinstar and norfair(realized this one in my set against dojo). Its all just generic gimmicky play on those stages for mk anyways. You won't see anything u haven't seen before.
It supports (somewhat indirectly however) a lot of the argument we've been working for in this thread, hence him wanting to quote it.Its my belief....u shouldn't look to deep into it. With that said i dont mind. I dont really know the argument that's going on in this thread, nor am i taking a side, I'm just posting in regards to my set vs tyrant and Polt's incomplete info.
Probably the best lucas in germany. Without knowing the matchup at all (pummel break? wazzat?). And I took game one from him in the bracket. Lost to his ICs.You lost to a Lucas as MK.
trollface (I need to save a real one onto my CPU to use...)
Mind pointing that out?I think that's actually kinda covered under my thread... Isn't it? Perhaps not by word, but it seems like it's pretty much covered by the very thought of this concept.
It's -impossible- to have a neutral stage that is chosen for a specific portion of the cast.
Please attempt to strike from a full stage list for each possible matchup and tell me the number of biased matchups compared to our current system.
[Just so you know the math for that, that's 666 matchups, 21 possible stages to be chosen, resulting in 13,986 possibilities. Compare that to a current system of 5 stage default and you get 3330 possibilities.
The former system has 10,656 more possibilities than the latter to be truly "neutral" for the possible matchups in the game.
If you can find the stages used most often in 13,986 possibilities. Those are the most neutral stages for the majority of the cast. That would be the fairest conservative stage list possible. So if you want to not have such a liberal stage list, at least do the math.
Have fun finding out 14,000~ possibilities and then arguing if your result is considered "right" or not. Because I honestly don't know the fairest stage for Yoshi vs IC's... but a Yoshi main and an IC main could probably figure it out.
$10 says it's not our current 5 stages.
EDIT:
Until that math is done, there is NO BASIS for our current starter system other than pure bias.
:leek:
In theory it can... if you want to work out nearly 14,000 possible matchups and derive the 5 most common stages from that, assuming your stage choice was properly done for each matchup.
Meaning take a full list, get the top players of each character to strike for the match against eachother, and take that stage as the most neutral stage for the matchup. Do so 14,000 times..... profit?
But good luck getting anyone to spend the time doing that..
:leek:
Do the 14,000~ matchups on every stage and tell me what these median stages are.
Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.Find the "fairest stage" for 14,000~ combinations (666 matchups * 21 stages) and find the "least stage influencing" starter list from that.
And that's why we, the "we want to do something about this flawled system" side have been looking for this whole time.Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.
See Pierce's quote in OP?While theory crafting aboot this, I realized something: there is no absolute match-up ratio between two characters. You cannot possibly have a sort of static ratio, a ratio removed from stages: every game of brawl presupposes a stage.
This is a fatal flaw for any stage pool approach for game one. Normally, the idea is you start with a match up ratio and then seek to find a stage that very closely preserves that ratio. In doing this you are not artificially boosting characters or balancing match ups but instead finding a fair middle ground for both players through allowing the natural ratios to set the field of play.
Without an absolute match up ratio how can anyone objectively craft a starter stage list? You would have to somehow strive to craft it from the combined stage-match up ratios of each character, yet this creates problems. If you decided to craft the list from the median of these, you are no longer preserving what is natural to the game but instead balancing the cast's match ups through the counter pick system.
cannot really conceive of any good alterations that could save the idea of having a starter pool from being subjective and either buffing certain characters or balancing match ups.
And that's exactly what SuSa's been trying to say from the very start.If I am correct, then a full stage striking system for game one might be the only reasonable option for a counter picking system in Brawl, even if it is undesirable.
Glad you realized the flaw with the current system. The stage effects EVERY SINGLE MATCH, be it FD, BF, RC, JJ, any stage and it is impossible to find a matchup ratio.. without a stage? How the hell would you even test THAT?Susa you have a numbers of posts from a couple hundred back that resonated with me:
Even though this would be a back breaking project it actually appealed to me and I believed that through doing this, one might be able to craft a viable variant of our current starter stage pool system.
While theory crafting aboot this, I realized something: there is no absolute match-up ratio between two characters. You cannot possibly have a sort of static ratio, a ratio removed from stages: every game of brawl presupposes a stage.
This is a fatal flaw for any stage pool approach for game one. Normally, the idea is you start with a match up ratio and then seek to find a stage that very closely preserves that ratio. In doing this you are not artificially boosting characters or balancing match ups but instead finding a fair middle ground for both players through allowing the natural ratios to set the field of play.
Without an absolute match up ratio how can anyone objectively craft a starter stage list? You would have to somehow strive to craft it from the combined stage-match up ratios of each character, yet this creates problems. If you decided to craft the list from the median of these, you are no longer preserving what is natural to the game but instead balancing the cast's match ups through the counter pick system.
I cannot really conceive of any good alterations that could save the idea of having a starter pool from being subjective and either buffing certain characters or balancing match ups.
If I am correct, then a full stage striking system for game one might be the only reasonable option for a counter picking system in Brawl, even if it is undesirable.
The BBR gave a reason more than, "we don't like it."Our starter list is biased as **** - for no objective reason. It holds no logical basis.