I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[RaphaelRobo]

Dude if you don't like the platforming elements in melee and all you care about is comboing, then why do you play Melee? Don't you think you'd enjoy a game like Marvel vs Capcom or Street Fighter a lot more? Those games focus on you and the opponent without all the distracting platformin' and irregular stages

Cactuar says he values moving more than comboing, not the other way around.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol @ thinking I care more about comboing.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I won't go so far as to say the face but Mushroom Kingdom II has got to at least be an eyebrow

 

[Cactuar]

MKIIlegitIIquit

 

[Laijin]

Edit: Nevermind I misunderstood what you meant. =__=

 

[thespymachine]

I mean, they are competitively viable. You can have a competition, and the better player wins. There are layers of skill tested differently in every environment. This isn't really a debatable point from a game theory perspective. There is some variance to the environments, and generally speaking, they add depth. One that does not really add depth is Corneria's lasers - practically invisible and impossible to predict, so there's no real risk/reward to be found.

Anyway, you're separating on what skills you think are important instead of the ones that are present and tested within the game, and calling those viable. You can't do that. Viable is viable.

You can have a competition with items on and the better player could win too. Does this mean items should be back?

Can we not separate skills that a competitive community thinks is important from ones that are 'in-box' like items? I thought the whole point of making rulesets as a community was to test skills we thought were valuable.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Does this discussion really matter? The fact is, we still have the gentleman's rule, and I'm always going to ask my opponent if I can CP to Brinstar/Big Blue/MKII/Mute City. Especially Big Blue and Mute City, because F-Zero music is awesome.

Plus, I've read this same discussion a million times already, and nothing ever changes. Ever. Everyone just agrees to disagree.

 

[rjgbadger]

i just dont see the prob with KJ64 being a CP

i also think think FoD should be a CP. we need more counterpick stages

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I'd totally scumbag your Ganon on Big Blue LOL

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I'd totally scumbag your Ganon on Big Blue LOL

Of course, I get destroyed by Falcon there. But it'd be fun, right?

Also, how do you know I wouldn't switch to Kirby? I main both characters. Plus, Kirby's really really good.

But that just shows, no matter how the ruleset changes, me and you are still going to go to Big Blue whenever we inevitably have a game against each other. Will you be at Evo?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

EDIT: Internet is stupid.

 

[KishPrime]

You can have a competition with items on and the better player could win too. Does this mean items should be back?

Can we not separate skills that a competitive community thinks is important from ones that are 'in-box' like items? I thought the whole point of making rulesets as a community was to test skills we thought were valuable.

As an independent, isolated community, we should do whatever the people want.

As a game theorist, you're taking someone else's design, claiming it as your own, and trimming off the parts you don't like.

I think items should be on. Explosive crates pretty much did them in though - turned into some excessive randomization. That detracts more than adds, just like I was saying about Corneria's lasers. If we could turn those lasers off, we would. ORRRRRRRRR we could set them to only attack certain zones of the stage. Now it's risk/reward and more competitively tolerable.

Not saying it's an airtight argument, but yeah, I think that items could've been justifiable if not for the extreme swings. It's native to the spirit of the game and as I said, Melee is more poker at heart than chess, even though the technical depth likely matches chess.

 

[Laijin]

Does this discussion really matter? The fact is, we still have the gentleman's rule, and I'm always going to ask my opponent if I can CP to Brinstar/Big Blue/MKII/Mute City. Especially Big Blue and Mute City, because F-Zero music is awesome.

Plus, I've read this same discussion a million times already, and nothing ever changes. Ever. Everyone just agrees to disagree.

Yes. Because not everyone in the community agrees with the standard tournament rules. So its up to the T.O's preference.

But I'm actually more concerned about EVO's rule set since no smash T.Os are running it. So it should be up to the community to decide what the rules are IMO. Probably via a vote would be best

 

[Cactuar]

Bro, we should put jokers back in the poker deck, thats how the deck comes.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I don't agree with the standard tournament rules either. But the fact is, it hasn't changed no matter how many times it happens. Hearing the same arguments over and over gets kind of boring.

Also, joker's are amazing. Especially if you get lynched after being dealt one.

 

[KishPrime]

bro, we should put jokers back in the poker deck, thats how the deck comes.

<_<

-_-

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[thespymachine]

I did not mean to suggest that variance implies more depth. That's silly. Variance and depth are mutually exclusive. However, variance doesn't produce any choices, as you phrase it, because variance is just a measure of how far spread-out things are from the mean. In the example given, the randomness inherent in Poker is exactly what allows for this "psychological field" you've mentioned.

In other words, randomness can and often does add depth to a game.

I think the randomness of poker makes an equal field of opportunity, allowing the psychological field to be played. In Smash, the 'randomness' is dependent on what character you are and where you are on the stage, not an equal field.

[I've been on swf too much today. I can't concentrate anymore. lol]

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, my intention behind that statement is to remind everyone who talks about variance in poker... there are a ton of variations of poker that involve additional random elements. There is a reason that competitive poker is played without them.

You guys talking about turning those stages on is similar to saying "bro, deuces through 10's are all wild this game, k?" to me.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Of course, I get destroyed by Falcon there. But it'd be fun, right?

Also, how do you know I wouldn't switch to Kirby? I main both characters. Plus, Kirby's really really good.

But that just shows, no matter how the ruleset changes, me and you are still going to go to Big Blue whenever we inevitably have a game against each other. Will you be at Evo?

Wow, blindside me with the Kirby counterpick?

David Sirlin in the flesh, over here

[of course I'll be at EVO!]

 

[KishPrime]

Yeah, my intention behind that statement is to remind everyone who talks about variance in poker... there are a ton of variations of poker that involve additional random elements. There is a reason that competitive poker is played without them.

You guys talking about turning those stages on is similar to saying "bro, dueces through 10's are all wild this game, k?" to me.

That's hardly the same level of impact on the game. It's more akin to saying "everything above a straight is just too random, so let's not count those."

Stages are the lens through which all player interactions occur. I know there's room for argument there, but position on the stage, now more than ever, MATTERS. The reason for that is different geographies. And the randomness on the stages in question are generally minor, far more minor than anything in poker. That adds HUGE amounts of depth to the game with each additional stage you have to learn and master.

 

[Cactuar]

I disagree with that. The characters are the lens through which all player interactions occur. The stages are literally the table that the game is played on. Let's put fans all over our table that blow our cards around. This adds to the competitive element of the game. Hold on to your cards, bro.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Cactuar]

(For the record, I'm just messing around. The argument hasn't progressed much imo since I've asked you guys to gather more support. <3 you all)

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Wow, blindside me with the Kirby counterpick?

David Sirlin in the flesh, over here

[of course I'll be at EVO!]

Yeah, not enough people know how to play against Kirby.Switching to him catches them off guard. Then I lose, because it's Kirby.

And we definitely have to play some games at evo.

 

[KishPrime]

I disagree with that. The characters are the lens through which all player interactions occur. The stages are literally the table that the game is played on. Let's put fans all over our table that blow our cards around. This adds to the competitive element of the game. Hold on to your cards, bro.

The dismissiveness is generally why I prefer not to argue with you.

I know that the you who plays games doesn't treat stages that way. I know that you play differently on different stages, and in different parts of stages. So I don't understand how you can say that with a straight face.

Ah well. I'm out, yo. Good talking again!

 

[Cactuar]

Who says I was saying anything with a straight face? <3

Come on, I published a 2 stock, nearly every stage legal ruleset. I love playing all the stages.

 

[KishPrime]

Stay frosty. <3

 

[Revven]

I think the dogface avatar says it all tbh looool

 

[kupo15]

I've never understood Smash's distinction between Neutrals and Counterpicks. What makes some stages more or less neutral than others? (please, nobody respond to this, I've spent more than enough time theorycrafting on Smashboards and I don't want to start this argument again with a new set of usernames.) The answer is that it's almost purely personal and community preference, by the way. Give me a sec to explain.

That was the exact same question I asked myself this thread and made a post about it 2 pages ago but noone seemed to notice it [my post]
(except this guy below )

I've come to the conclusion that there are no such thing as neutral stages and that every stage is a CP stage to some degree depending on the MU. If only we could reflect that in how stages are decided.

Great post.

Thank you for noticing it and responding! I thought that it was being completely ignored! :D

I think that "neutral" stages are labelled so only because of match ups of the characters that we commonly see (the high/top tiers!), in a general, overall sense.

• For instance, fox vs marth is pretty even on yoshis, fod, bf, slight marth favour on fd, slight fox favour on DL64.
• Pretty similar results for falco vs marth as well.
• Peach vs fox/falco is pretty much the same match up on all the neutrals imo, but with FD being the odd one out due to the CG (though players like Toph and Leffen will tell you fox vs peach on FD isn't even that bad), and DL64 being only as bad as the fox's play style will let it be.
• Peach vs falcon is pretty similar match up % on all platform stages, imo. peach lives longer on larger stages, falcon has less room to run on smaller ones. Peach edge guards falcon better on smaller ones, and has a harder time on bf/DL64.
• Peach vs marth is similar to falcon, but peach prefers larger stages just to live longer.
• Sheik vs marth is pretty much the same match up on all the "neutrals"
• Falcon marth is more scewy, bigger stages lets falcon DD and recover more, so he tends to do better there vs marth.

Although characters may play slightly different, and perform slightly different on all the neutrals, the fact is that these stages are all closer to each other in terms of keeping the match ups similar and the game play similar than if any of the matches were to be put on some of the current banned stages like Poke Floats or Mute City.

Ok, I agree with what you said but doesn't that sound like we created the stage rules around the top tier instead of the whole cast? If we wanted to be as fair as possible across the board wouldn't it be a good idea to make the first match as even as possible? In order to do this we can't just have the same handful of stages applied to everyone without considering the MU. If the MU is top tier vs top tier then the current stage list is fine but if the MU is IC vs Fox, then including FD as a starter stage might not be the best idea since the stage would make the match one sided.

I would really like to see these four changes:

• Legal stages for the set are determined by MU to maximize stage options for that MU instead of a globalized "one size fits all" like it currently is
• Starter stages (^^from the criteria above) are picked as the most Neutral depending on MU
• The stage of the first match is chosen at random from the list of Neutral stages (^^from above) instead of Stage Striking
• Remove the ability to ban stages during the CP phase

This means that the every set could potential have a different list of legal stages depending on the MU. This also means that the list of legal stages can change MID SET depending on if either player decides to change their character. This will make the stage selection more dynamic

Yes, we know that poke floats and mute city have no problems at all in terms of randomness or stage hazzards (mute city's cars are fine since they're more predictable and no more of a nuisance than yoshi's story's shy guys), and IMO they definitely do fall under the category of being stages that favour certain characters, similar to the way FD favours marth vs spacies." But then what sets these stages apart and suddenly makes them CP or even BANNED stages?
Well, assuming it's not because of silly personal preference of TO's/top players who decided this, the only thing that really sets these stages apart from the neutrals is that they force people to play differently there....
Yeah

From what I gather, there are several factors that could cause a stage to be banned instead of legal: too disruptive or active (:brinstardepths or dominating broken tactic (:yoshism to name two. But there are some banned stages that depending on the MU should not be banned!

Take :yoshism:
Its banned because of the broken shine tactic fox has. The reasoning is that if, for example, its Fox vs Falcon then Fox's waveshine is too broken on the stage which is true so the stage should be banned. BUT, what if the MU is Fox vs Puff/YL/Falco?? Fox can't waveshine these characters which makes the tactic not broken on this stage anymore....so why is Pipes banned if the broken tactic isn't present anymore? It should be legal for these MUs!!

MAIN POINT: The biggest flaw in the current stage choices is that legal stages are NOT decided based on a case by case basis but rather is globalized. Because the effect of the stage on a match is something truly unique to Smash, lets take advantage of that in a dynamic way instead of trying to stifle it unnecessarily!

 

[Laijin]

Would like to point out I noticed your post two pages ago and I put it in the OP after you posted :D

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Cactuar]

I think the dogface avatar says it all tbh looool

 

[Mahie]

The reason most stages are banned is Fox actually.

A shine on brinstar's depth is much more cruel than on the other stages. That and the ridiculously low ceiling when you're on the upper part.

Speaking of which, Yoshi's Island is not only about waveshine people around. The boundaries are really small, and Fox is definitely the one who takes advantage of that the most in that layout.

More stages = Less balance guys, that's just the way it is.

 

[CanISmash]

People just have to get fox out of their head. We act like he's metaknight. Wah fox running fox camping, fox hasnt dominated in the 12 years as much ad we still cry about "fox johns" ban this b/c of fox, ban that b/c fox.

Anyone who says bc of fox i want u to close ur eyes and imagine yoshi fighting kirby instead

 

[MK26]

how is that lopsided?

I win Game 1
opponent CPs PS for game 2 and loses
opponent CPs PS game 3 and wins
Why shouldn't I be able to CP Back to PS for game 4 even though I already won there? it wasn't MY CP.

Can't we just agree to change the definition of Dave's Modified Stupid Rule to something like:

Maybe redefine the rule as "you can't pick the last stage you won on that wasn't an opponent's counterpick". I think that covers everything.

I'd rephrase it to "If you won on a stage while it was the neutral choice or your counterpick, you can't pick it." Clean and simple.

 

[kupo15]

Would like to point out I noticed your post two pages ago and I put it in the OP after you posted :D

Oh so you did! I had no idea lol Thanks! :D

kupo and MK26, the distinction originally existed because we chose our first stage randomly. The idea is that there are certain stages which are just drastically terrible for some characters, like Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Mute City, so those stages are going to be distinguished counterpicks. In other words, they cannot be chosen for the first match of the set (at least not randomly), because that would potentially screw over certain characters.

However, we started using that little strike system, which means that this is no longer a reasonable fear. You can now strike the stages that will screw you over, so the distinction feels a little antiquated to me. Personally, I don't see a point in it, and think we should only distinguish between "legal" and "banned" stages.

Oh I see and I agree with removing the antiquated distinction.

I actually think the Stage strike system to compensate doesn't feel like a good solution. Even with the Stage strike system you can feel like its luck of the draw as to which stage is chosen and still feel screwed over. If your character is better on flatter stages than platforms...well 4 of the 5 Starter stages have platforms so even the stage striking system won't help even the playing field out that much.

If instead you had a customized set of stages specifically deemed fair for the MU, then that first match will be much more fair.

The reason most stages are banned is Fox actually.

A shine on brinstar's depth is much more cruel than on the other stages. That and the ridiculously low ceiling when you're on the upper part.

Speaking of which, Yoshi's Island is not only about waveshine people around. The boundaries are really small, and Fox is definitely the one who takes advantage of that the most in that layout.

More stages = Less balance guys, that's just the way it is.

And this exactly proves my point. You say that most stages are banned because of Fox so by increasing the number of legal stages you skew the balance of the game. Well, if Fox is NOT a character picked...then why can't Yoshi's island be played? All of your reasons against Yoshi's being legal is moot since Fox is no longer in the picture.

And I am sooo glad you brought up the point that it's small boundaries is further reason to ban it. If the MU is against two weak characters like M2 vs Pika as an example, why can't Yoshi's be legal since neither character can exploit the boundaries since they are both weak??

This is what I'm talking about when I say that we have been limiting our stages based on blanketed conditions.

 

[Gea]

Unfortunately, I am only occasionally spurred into elitist monologues.

EDIT: lol I used sophistry wrong

Actually I like your posts because you don't go into elitist monologues. I think it was Sveet that said something along the lines of, "Debating on the internet is tiring because it's more about people splitting hairs over language and less about discussing concepts." Rephrased, more or less.

 

[Ripple]

Can't we just agree to change the definition of Dave's Modified Stupid Rule to something like:



I'd rephrase it to "If you won on a stage while it was the neutral choice or your counterpick, you can't pick it." Clean and simple.

Why shouldn't you be able yo CP the 1st stage of a set though?

 

[Lovage]

i think brinstar sucks because some of the lava levels are right on/below the floor and they can burn you even if you can't see the lava

and then if u happen to be a FFer at low% you will take 70% but hey thats melee hehe