Event - EVO 2016 How many stage bans for Smash 4 at EVO 2015?

[BearUNLV]

How many stage bans should there be for Smash 4 at EVO 2015?

Have your voice heard.
Thank you for your vote!

Lots of love from Vegas,
Bear

 

[JipC]

who actually voted 1 and why

 

[ぱみゅ]

Depends on how Bo5's are handled.
If you get bans for every win, then 1.
If you get bans only on the first win, then 2.
If you get bans but they only last for the next game, then 2.

 

[BearUNLV]

For Smash 4 at EVO 2015, I thought it's Bo5 only for Grand Finals?

 

[Ritronaut]

Depends on how Bo5's are handled.
If you get bans for every win, then 1.
If you get bans only on the first win, then 2.
If you get bans but they only last for the next game, then 2.

If I recall correctly the entirety of evo, even grand finals, is best of 3. Isn't it?

 

[Pazx]

this issue has been blown dramatically out of proportion

 

[Freezie KO]

who actually voted 1 and why

The poll is confusing. It doesn't say how many stage bans do you want. It says "How many stage bans". So maybe the people voting 1 are just answering how many stage bans are currently at EVO.

 

[BearUNLV]

The poll is confusing. It doesn't say how many stage bans do you want. It says "How many stage bans". So maybe the people voting 1 are just answering how many stage bans are currently at EVO.

I edited the wording in the description, but most people I spoke with understand the poll.

 

[unit976]

Now that we're getting the votes for this, can we make a straw poll for top 16 or top 8 Bo5? Unless its already Bo5 then you can ignore me.

 

[NickRiddle]

EVO won't change set counts, It'd make it run too long

 

[BearUNLV]

Let's try for 1000+ total votes. So far though, it seems 2 stage bans is highly preferred.

 

[Shaya]

Stickying/etc until we get a confirmation/reply from Wizard about this.

 

[BearUNLV]

Stickying/etc until we get a confirmation/reply from Wizard about this.

Thank you Shaya

 

[Unknownkid]

Won't 2 stage ban promote more Smashville? I thought you guys were sick of Smashville...

 

[CT Chia]

Either is perfectly acceptable imo. I'm personally in favor of one ban (there really aren't that many stages anyway, or that many new/weird ones), but the community standard is two.

 

[SphericalCrusher]

2. Lots of legal stages to pick and ban from.

 

[BearUNLV]

Thank you all for voting. If you're wondering, I'm doing this poll to ensure clarification for stage bans at EVO 2015 & other regions that didn't realize it's currently 1 stage ban. I enforced 1 stage ban at DVDA#10 in Vegas, and it was met with confusion.

Again, thank you all for your votes and voices.

Best,
Bear

 

[Overswarm]

who actually voted 1 and why

I did.

The first thing people need to understand is that a stage ban has never been about "balance". As a nuclear option, sure -- you may play a character that just can't win on stage X but is totally fine for everyone else. Before that stage's legality is cemented, you ban it.

But average usage? It's preference. At most it's to just allow you to pick your poison. If you were banning stages specifically to create an "even" matchup on the stage then why would you not strike again? Why stage strike for an even stage for the first round and then abandon that for a completely different process for the second and third games of the set?

The reason we don't strike for game 2 and 3 is because they aren't supposed to be "even". Your counterpick is meant to show your character at the peak of their ability. Your opponent is given an opportunity to showcase their character variety and mitigate your counterpick's strength through personal skill and adaptability.


Riddle me this: If you're going to allow 2 bans, why would you not allow 3? Why not 4?

The reason you don't allow 2 bans when you have 1 ban available is because it reduces character viability, stagnates stage options, and reduces player choice.

Let's look at EVO's stages:

Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Town & City, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Duck Hunt, Halberd

Now let's cut them into different groups based on, say, ceiling height. I'll be using low % kill options here and using Halberd as a base.

Can kill early off the top:
Halberd (30-40%%)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)

Can't kill early off the top:
Battlefield (39%-59%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


That looks pretty varied, but anyone who has played Smash 4 knows that those numbers don't really tell the whole story.
The numbers are set from lowest possible kill % to the highest possible kill % -- in other words, the highest space in the stage (like the Duck Hunt tree) versus the lowest point in the stage (the base, where you spend most of your time).

With an average of ~54%, the only two stages that could be considered to have "low ceilings" at the base are Halberd and Town & City, and Town & City only by 3%. That's one single jab.

If you are playing a character who wants a low ceiling, you don't consider Town & City as your "low ceiling counterpick". Same with Duck Hunt. You think of Halberd and Delfino.

Halberd because it's constantly small. It's legitimately a low-ceiling stage, like Pokemon Stadium 1 in Melee.

Delfino because it provides ample opportunities to get low % KOs due to its dynamic nature. You don't catch people often in the treetops on Duck Hunt, but people end up on the platforms on Delfino all the time after a transformation. If they have really poor positioning you can kill them at % similar to Halberd.

Granting two bans completely and totally removes the ability to counterpick a stage with a low ceiling.

Your options are, what? Castle Siege, which is closer to the top blastzone during one of three transformations? You're counter-picking yourself here.

Having a single ban means your opponent gets the ability to pick their poison -- Delfino or Halberd.

Having two bans means your opponent says "You can't counterpick, but I can".

What if your opponent is counterpicking you and he wants a longer, flat stage with plenty of room to move around? What would you ban?

Stages without much room to move around:
Halberd (30-40%%) (he banned it)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)
Battlefield (39%-59%)

Stages with a lot of room to move around:
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%) (he banned it)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


Well, sucks for you. You can ban FD and Smashville, but he still gets T&C. Ban T&C, he still has Smashville and FD. If he's feeling quirky he has Lylat and Castle Siege.


Allowing multiple bans results in a stagelist that favors those who do well on the stages that are left -- the most common ones. If your character doesn't see the difference between FD, SV, and T&C then congratulations! Two bans doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever until you're in a 3 out of 5.

Two bans is a knee jerk reaction from people who feel that they deserve the right to never be at a disadvantage. Just because your best stage is a common format doesn't mean it's the standard.

 

[Chilex]

I did.

The first thing people need to understand is that a stage ban has never been about "balance". As a nuclear option, sure -- you may play a character that just can't win on stage X but is totally fine for everyone else. Before that stage's legality is cemented, you ban it.

But average usage? It's preference. At most it's to just allow you to pick your poison. If you were banning stages specifically to create an "even" matchup on the stage then why would you not strike again? Why stage strike for an even stage for the first round and then abandon that for a completely different process for the second and third games of the set?

The reason we don't strike for game 2 and 3 is because they aren't supposed to be "even". Your counterpick is meant to show your character at the peak of their ability. Your opponent is given an opportunity to showcase their character variety and mitigate your counterpick's strength through personal skill and adaptability.


Riddle me this: If you're going to allow 2 bans, why would you not allow 3? Why not 4?

The reason you don't allow 2 bans when you have 1 ban available is because it reduces character viability, stagnates stage options, and reduces player choice.

Let's look at EVO's stages:

Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Town & City, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Duck Hunt, Halberd

Now let's cut them into different groups based on, say, ceiling height. I'll be using low % kill options here and using Halberd as a base.

Can kill early off the top:
Halberd (30-40%%)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)

Can't kill early off the top:
Battlefield (39%-59%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


That looks pretty varied, but anyone who has played Smash 4 knows that those numbers don't really tell the whole story.
The numbers are set from lowest possible kill % to the highest possible kill % -- in other words, the highest space in the stage (like the Duck Hunt tree) versus the lowest point in the stage (the base, where you spend most of your time).

With an average of ~54%, the only two stages that could be considered to have "low ceilings" at the base are Halberd and Town & City, and Town & City only by 3%. That's one single jab.

If you are playing a character who wants a low ceiling, you don't consider Town & City as your "low ceiling counterpick". Same with Duck Hunt. You think of Halberd and Delfino.

Halberd because it's constantly small. It's legitimately a low-ceiling stage, like Pokemon Stadium 1 in Melee.

Delfino because it provides ample opportunities to get low % KOs due to its dynamic nature. You don't catch people often in the treetops on Duck Hunt, but people end up on the platforms on Delfino all the time after a transformation. If they have really poor positioning you can kill them at % similar to Halberd.

Granting two bans completely and totally removes the ability to counterpick a stage with a low ceiling.

Your options are, what? Castle Siege, which is closer to the top blastzone during one of three transformations? You're counter-picking yourself here.

Having a single ban means your opponent gets the ability to pick their poison -- Delfino or Halberd.

Having two bans means your opponent says "You can't counterpick, but I can".

What if your opponent is counterpicking you and he wants a longer, flat stage with plenty of room to move around? What would you ban?

Stages without much room to move around:
Halberd (30-40%%) (he banned it)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)
Battlefield (39%-59%)

Stages with a lot of room to move around:
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%) (he banned it)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


Well, sucks for you. You can ban FD and Smashville, but he still gets T&C. Ban T&C, he still has Smashville and FD. If he's feeling quirky he has Lylat and Castle Siege.


Allowing multiple bans results in a stagelist that favors those who do well on the stages that are left -- the most common ones. If your character doesn't see the difference between FD, SV, and T&C then congratulations! Two bans doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever until you're in a 3 out of 5.

Two bans is a knee jerk reaction from people who feel that they deserve the right to never be at a disadvantage. Just because your best stage is a common format doesn't mean it's the standard.

Good insight, but I'm sure that if 2 bans become the rule, players are allowed to choose whether to ban 1 stage or 2 stages.

 

[Overswarm]

Good insight, but I'm sure that if 2 bans become the rule, players are allowed to choose whether to ban 1 stage or 2 stages.

They wouldn't be able to decide for their opponent, though.

 

[Chilex]

They wouldn't be able to decide for their opponent, though.

I reread your post more thorougly after seeing the "2 bans" rule from an opponent's perspective.

I now concur with 1 stage ban.

However judging by this poll it seems that 2 bans will be the rule regardless of whether people like it or not.

 

[Overswarm]

I reread your post more thorougly after seeing the "2 bans" rule from an opponent's perspective.

I now concur with 1 stage ban.

However judging by this poll it seems that 2 bans will be the rule regardless of whether people like it or not.

Yeah, simplified things with longterm consequences almost always take hold.

People will just hear "if I get two bans, there's no low ceiling stages. That's GOOD." and it won't click in their head unless it affects them directly.

 

[azzucips]

I like getting 2 bans just to get rid of 2 out of the 3 horrible, horrible counterpick stages (Duck Hunt and Delfino).

 

[Jrzfine]

I did.

The first thing people need to understand is that a stage ban has never been about "balance". As a nuclear option, sure -- you may play a character that just can't win on stage X but is totally fine for everyone else. Before that stage's legality is cemented, you ban it.

But average usage? It's preference. At most it's to just allow you to pick your poison. If you were banning stages specifically to create an "even" matchup on the stage then why would you not strike again? Why stage strike for an even stage for the first round and then abandon that for a completely different process for the second and third games of the set?

The reason we don't strike for game 2 and 3 is because they aren't supposed to be "even". Your counterpick is meant to show your character at the peak of their ability. Your opponent is given an opportunity to showcase their character variety and mitigate your counterpick's strength through personal skill and adaptability.


Riddle me this: If you're going to allow 2 bans, why would you not allow 3? Why not 4?

The reason you don't allow 2 bans when you have 1 ban available is because it reduces character viability, stagnates stage options, and reduces player choice.

Let's look at EVO's stages:

Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Town & City, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Duck Hunt, Halberd

Now let's cut them into different groups based on, say, ceiling height. I'll be using low % kill options here and using Halberd as a base.

Can kill early off the top:
Halberd (30-40%%)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)

Can't kill early off the top:
Battlefield (39%-59%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


That looks pretty varied, but anyone who has played Smash 4 knows that those numbers don't really tell the whole story.
The numbers are set from lowest possible kill % to the highest possible kill % -- in other words, the highest space in the stage (like the Duck Hunt tree) versus the lowest point in the stage (the base, where you spend most of your time).

With an average of ~54%, the only two stages that could be considered to have "low ceilings" at the base are Halberd and Town & City, and Town & City only by 3%. That's one single jab.

If you are playing a character who wants a low ceiling, you don't consider Town & City as your "low ceiling counterpick". Same with Duck Hunt. You think of Halberd and Delfino.

Halberd because it's constantly small. It's legitimately a low-ceiling stage, like Pokemon Stadium 1 in Melee.

Delfino because it provides ample opportunities to get low % KOs due to its dynamic nature. You don't catch people often in the treetops on Duck Hunt, but people end up on the platforms on Delfino all the time after a transformation. If they have really poor positioning you can kill them at % similar to Halberd.

Granting two bans completely and totally removes the ability to counterpick a stage with a low ceiling.

Your options are, what? Castle Siege, which is closer to the top blastzone during one of three transformations? You're counter-picking yourself here.

Having a single ban means your opponent gets the ability to pick their poison -- Delfino or Halberd.

Having two bans means your opponent says "You can't counterpick, but I can".

What if your opponent is counterpicking you and he wants a longer, flat stage with plenty of room to move around? What would you ban?

Stages without much room to move around:
Halberd (30-40%%) (he banned it)
Duck Hunt (13%-54%)
Battlefield (39%-59%)

Stages with a lot of room to move around:
Delfino Plaza (40%-56%) (he banned it)
Town & City (21% - 51%)
Final Destination (54%)
Smashville (42%-54%)
Lylat Cruise (42%-57%)
Castle Siege (39%-60%)


Well, sucks for you. You can ban FD and Smashville, but he still gets T&C. Ban T&C, he still has Smashville and FD. If he's feeling quirky he has Lylat and Castle Siege.


Allowing multiple bans results in a stagelist that favors those who do well on the stages that are left -- the most common ones. If your character doesn't see the difference between FD, SV, and T&C then congratulations! Two bans doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever until you're in a 3 out of 5.

Two bans is a knee jerk reaction from people who feel that they deserve the right to never be at a disadvantage. Just because your best stage is a common format doesn't mean it's the standard.

To differentiate winners and losers there must be something that the winners get that the losers do not, yes? Being able to ban 2 stages is a consolation prize for your small victory, and I see no reason to take that away. All this does is provide even more incentive to not drop a single game in a set.

 

[Overswarm]

To differentiate winners and losers there must be something that the winners get that the losers do not, yes? Being able to ban 2 stages is a consolation prize for your small victory, and I see no reason to take that away. All this does is provide even more incentive to not drop a single game in a set.

This makes no sense. When you win, your prize is a game win in your set.

The whole idea of the CP system is to give the losing player the advantage for the next game.

 

[ToiletRoll]

Voted 2. Not sure why I voted 2, maybe I don't want a sudden surge of 300 or so votes to come out in the last day and ruin my competitive ideals. But realistically why are we debating this? clearly 2 is the win.

 

[Jrzfine]

This makes no sense. When you win, your prize is a game win in your set.

The whole idea of the CP system is to give the losing player the advantage for the next game.

Many games use this 'winners' advantage' system, such as CoD's killstreaks, TF2's unlockable equipment, and the entire EXP system in any MMORPG ever. Winners get more things to help them win than losers do. The CP system still lets the loser pick one of 7 stages, so it's not like they're just handing the winner the victory or anything.

 

[Overswarm]

 

[BearUNLV]

Thank you all for voting. Keep sharing with anyone that's coming to EVO to compete.

 

[Jrzfine]

How childish. Are you going to explain what you mean or are you just being rude for its own sake?

 

[Overswarm]

How childish. Are you going to explain what you mean or are you just being rude for its own sake?

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

 

[Jrzfine]

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

Again with the rudeness.

Winners get more things to help them win than losers do.

All three of my examples derive from highly competitive games. All three of them have a reward system that favors the winners. With that being said, I will not continue this discussion if you continue to act condescending because it does not promote helpful discussion, which is the point of this thread.

 

[Shaya]

While it's perhaps a cop out to the argument, there's much less pleasant ways of saying "Agree to disagree".
Overswarm's stance and what currently is (and always has been) the competitive smash paradigm is the "counterpicking system" which is designed to benefit the loser, not the winner.

A picture paints a thousand words and I've just written out a few of them for you.

 

[BearUNLV]

It's official. 2 stage bans. @ Shaya you can unpin now <3