I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Laijin]

I remember when this exact argument very nearly down to a tee was used for not banning stages.

Logical fallacies ftw

Anyways back on topic.
What this guy said.

 

[The Business]

What Cactuar said on the second page pretty much sums up my feelings on all those levels.

 

[BTmoney]

I think you have a good intention but I also think you unfortunately raised some fairly shallow arguments Laijin.

Like you, I would also like to see more stages and I'm sure there are others but that is not rigid enough to make a change.

Yeah, there's not much else to be said. If you want this kind of change, you need to talk to high-top level players directly and gather support for it. Flailing around on the forums, complaining that it isn't the way you want it to be, doesn't accomplish much.

This is essentially the correct step you should take although the backhanded comments are never needed.

inb4lackofrespect

 

[Battlecow]

What Cactuar said on the second page pretty much sums up my feelings on all those levels.

Cactuar hasn't yet posted on the second page

 

[The Business]

Cactuar hasn't yet posted on the second page

you should do stand-up.

 

[Jockmaster]

Gea

The fact that someone COULD stall with Peach like that almost immediately breaks the stage. Yeah people don't normally do it, but with everything on the line, if KJ64 were legal there would be nothing stopping someone from performing a stall on that stage that would essentially defeat the purpose of a competitive meta

 

[Ripple]

a peach stalled a ganon.

ganon is slow and has terrible verticle momentum. you deserve to be stalled out if you pick him or anyone else slower than him on KJ64

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

kongo jungle should be banned because it is ridicoulusly easy to time out the opponent in certain matchups. captain falcon vs ice climbers or peach is a great example.
im a captain falcon main and i like playing on kj64 for varietys sake in friendlies, so there isnt personal bias here.

timeouts do happen in other matchups (yl vs puff loloolololloolol), but its ridicoulusly free on kj64 imo.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Playing on illegal stages is fun. You can have good, competitive games on them.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the majority of our tournament sets are best-of-3. And though I enjoy playing on those stages, I also find their flaws unacceptable at that scale; they influence the outcome of a set too drastically to be playable in a tournament environment.

Where that line is drawn is entirely subjective (would Cruise be acceptable in a best-of-9, for example?), and part of why making smash rulesets is so damn difficult. But we do what we can, and part of that is dealing with the consensus. Since most people dislike those stages, we are where we are.

 

[standardtoaster]

mushroom kingdom II

 

[Jockmaster]

a peach stalled a ganon.

ganon is slow and has terrible verticle momentum. you deserve to be stalled out if you pick him or anyone else slower than him on KJ64

It could be argued that that Peach could have stalled Marth or ICs as well

Basically, the stage does not add anything to the meta and only takes away from it


Why do we value stage diversity so much? Is it really just for "fun"? Because there is no competitively sound reason to have multiple stages

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

i love playing on half-dumb stages. one of the reasons i love pm. the wind waker boat stage <3

the game is so deep and complex that it is not necessary to add more stages for variety. other (2d) fighting games seem to be doing well with almost no stage differences lol.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

I thought the current stage list was made to help out space animals. @psisdumbandbrinstarisfine

 

[Gea]

Gea

The fact that someone COULD stall with Peach like that almost immediately breaks the stage. Yeah people don't normally do it, but with everything on the line, if KJ64 were legal there would be nothing stopping someone from performing a stall on that stage that would essentially defeat the purpose of a competitive meta

See I respectfully disagree on the basis that the match talked about isn't actually showing stalling. Please keep in mind that I am not denying the stage often leads to camping, but Peach is actually one of those characters sort of hurt by the stage in a lot of instances. I'd go on to argue that the match with Pink Shinobi / Rockcrock is just a cruel exhibition of one player who cannot dismantle a very campy strategy, but ultimately a strategy that is not entirely safe. That's pretty much why I am asking for other matches showing stalling. I've also watched Smasher89 there, and while he plays "lame" there, I'd hardly call it stalling.

Some of the European players in this thread have actually asserted Peach is bad on the stage in terms of camping and I am more inclined to agree with them. The idea is that float runs out and her vertical movement is slow as balls. Characters like Falcon and Falco can easily get around and play keepaway, but that is not stalling.

Please remember I'm not advocating the stage be legal, I am just actually curious as to what constitutes stalling there as opposed to camping/running the timer.

 

[Bing]

I legitimately enjoyed using those stages(RC and KJ64) as counterpicks because I liked the layout of the stages. I wouldnt necessarily say they make anything "more fun" but they did add a bit of diversity in the potential outcome of sets. I do see the obvious flaws in each stage but, I dunno, as a Fox main I just enjoyed them.

 

[Vudujin]

I think cactuar and jockmaster pretty much said ever reasonable thing that could be said to defend not having those stages.

Fun stages are fun though.

 

[Jockmaster]

I thought the current stage list was made to help out space animals. @psisdumbandbrinstarisfine

Wait how? Just because gimmicky lower tiers can't abuse stupid hazards and dynamics of other stages to gain an advantage that they wouldn't otherwise have?

I agree PS is dumb, the fact it still exists just shows older more influential players wont let go of their precious counterpicks

 

[DoH]

The drive to remove counterpicks was pressed for by Falcon players actually. The decided since they didn't a counterpick stage but were forced to deal with Brinstar/Mute/DK/Cruise, no one should have counterpicks that significantly affected the matchup; they left on Stadum because they were comfortable on that against spacies but didn't see how that stage affects non-fastfallers vs spacies. Since most of the rest of the MBR that voted are spacies, Falcons, and Marths, they were fine with eliminating counterpicks while preserving stadium.

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited. In my set with PewPewU, I won game one on FD, and banned Yoshis. He CPs to stadium and wins and bans Dreamland. Now my only choices are to go back to his counterpick, or a tri-platform stage that gives his character an advantage. If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

 

[Bing]

Wait how? Just because gimmicky lower tiers can't abuse stupid hazards and dynamics of other stages to gain an advantage that they wouldn't otherwise have?

I agree PS is dumb, the fact it still exists just shows older more influential players wont let go of their precious counterpicks

Yeah PS should be added to the starting list, I'd be totally cool with that :D

 

[-ACE-]

I'm for the general idea of aiming to reduce the amount of times that a stage hazard determines the outcome of a match. Hbox ness vs Armada's elf anyone? Tournaments aren't about fun... well, they are actually. But not the matches themselves. If your opponent wants a serious, competitive set you owe him one, that is, imo. BS outcomes definitely take away from competition.

It could be argued that that Peach could have stalled Marth or ICs as well

wut

 

[Laijin]

The drive to remove counterpicks was pressed for by Falcon players actually. The decided since they didn't a counterpick stage but were forced to deal with Brinstar/Mute/DK/Cruise, no one should have counterpicks that significantly affected the matchup; they left on Stadum because they were comfortable on that against spacies but didn't see how that stage affects non-fastfallers vs spacies. Since most of the rest of the MBR that voted are spacies, Falcons, and Marths, they were fine with eliminating counterpicks while preserving stadium.

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited. In my set with PewPewU, I won game one on FD, and banned Yoshis. He CPs to stadium and wins and bans Dreamland. Now my only choices are to go back to his counterpick, or a tri-platform stage that gives his character an advantage. If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

#1 post of the thread here.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

The drive to remove counterpicks was pressed for by Falcon players actually. The decided since they didn't a counterpick stage but were forced to deal with Brinstar/Mute/DK/Cruise, no one should have counterpicks that significantly affected the matchup; they left on Stadum because they were comfortable on that against spacies but didn't see how that stage affects non-fastfallers vs spacies. Since most of the rest of the MBR that voted are spacies, Falcons, and Marths, they were fine with eliminating counterpicks while preserving stadium.

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited. In my set with PewPewU, I won game one on FD, and banned Yoshis. He CPs to stadium and wins and bans Dreamland. Now my only choices are to go back to his counterpick, or a tri-platform stage that gives his character an advantage. If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

Similar thing happens in Marth/Fox. I can't go to FD but Fox gets either DL or Stadium.

There are a lot of matchups like that, actually.

#removePlayerBans

 

[Bing]

I'd actually be okay with removing player bans, outside of FD I like every stage.(Need my platforms)

 

[Jockmaster]

I agree DoH if we are going to limit the stagelist then there should be no player bans

 

[Bones0]

You know, the same argument could be used for some of the neutrals. Fountain of Dreams gives a significant advantage to some characters because of the platforms and low ceiling. Why don't we ban that stage?

FoD has the second highest ceiling after DL... >_>

The drive to remove counterpicks was pressed for by Falcon players actually. The decided since they didn't a counterpick stage but were forced to deal with Brinstar/Mute/DK/Cruise, no one should have counterpicks that significantly affected the matchup; they left on Stadum because they were comfortable on that against spacies but didn't see how that stage affects non-fastfallers vs spacies. Since most of the rest of the MBR that voted are spacies, Falcons, and Marths, they were fine with eliminating counterpicks while preserving stadium.

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited. In my set with PewPewU, I won game one on FD, and banned Yoshis. He CPs to stadium and wins and bans Dreamland. Now my only choices are to go back to his counterpick, or a tri-platform stage that gives his character an advantage. If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

In any set, you should be able to win on at least 3 of the 6 stages. In bo3s, your opponent will typically try to ban your best counterpick, which means you need to use your second best counterpick, and also be capable of winning the stage that was struck to. Without bans in place, you'd both just be playing on more extreme counterpicks for no reason. Why should a Falco vs. Marth set play on YS, FD, DL instead of YS, BF, FoD or some other combination of stages that have a less radical impact on the match?

In your example, you ban YS, lost on PS, and apparently do not think you should be forced to play game 3 on BF or FoD. Surely you can understand why it's "fair" that you lost considering you were only comfortable/able to win on 2 of the 6 legal stages. If you don't believe you can win on YS, FoD, BF, and PS, then getting rid of bans so you can pick a stage more heavily in your favor hardly seems like a fair solution. All getting rid of bans in bo3s does is make game 1 much more crucial because both players are less likely to win on their opponent's best counterpick.


@Crimson
I don't think I'll ever understand how Marth vs. Fox on FD is OMGWTFEPICWIN status, but adding two side plats suddenly swings the stage in Fox's favor. And before someone mentions the god damn ceiling, it isn't even that low. Getting usmashed by Fox on PS is the equivalent of getting usmashed by Fox on BF's side plats...

 

[Jockmaster]

wut

Idk I was just thinking that if Peach stalled on the top platforms that Marth wouldn't have the proper aerial mobility or vertical reach to get to her.

Its a stretch I know thats why I'm saying it could be argued

 

[DoH]

The way Marth works he has half of the stages that give him an advantage, so even with a ban and DSR he will always have one as an option. With Peach I only have one stage that's a hard counter pick and one that's a slight advantage; the hard CP was banned and I won on the slight advantage.

Your argument that you should be able to win on 3 different stages is irrelevant in a bo3; I only need to win on 2 stages. The dwindling stage list has left me with NO counterpick while Marth has 3 stages that give him an advantage. You should be able to win on stages with more than just the same tri-platform configuration.

What is the justification for bans if any of these stages (Stadium excluded) are neutral enough to be a starter stage? You should be able to win on any of them regardless of matchup. If the starters are as neutral as they have been posited, then the first game shouldn't have that drastic of an impact; besides, both players got to effectively have input in the choice of the first stage.

 

[Froggy]

With evo coming up I really think we should just say **** you to the current rule set. I think it's about time we stop letting a high profile group of friends dictate how the stages in the community are ran.

 

[Bones0]

I can believe you that Marth has an advantage on most stages, but that's just Marth being good at the matchup. If Peach and Marth each had an absurdly good counterpick vs. each other, would you really want to strike for a close match game 1, auto-win on your cp, and then auto-lose on his cp? Of course not. Now I don't believe (nor should anyone) that any of the legal stages left are particularly unbalanced, but you're essentially arguing that you should be playing on harder counterpicks for absolutely no reason. There is no reason not to allow bans when it means more evenly matched stages overall. If it were up to me, we'd just be doing bo5s and we'd be playing a lot more stages per set. You'll typically get 4-5 unique stages of varying counterpick strength. But no one wants to test my ruleset, so what can I do? *shrug*

 

[thespymachine]

It sucks that Melee has basically no stages that are decently neutral that aren't a different version of BF.
From this observation, I don't think it's our fault our stage list is so small (personally, I don't think PS or YI are competitively viable).

I'm for no bans, and the ideal stage list wouldn't differientiate between cp and starter stages.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

The drive to remove counterpicks was pressed for by Falcon players actually. The decided since they didn't a counterpick stage but were forced to deal with Brinstar/Mute/DK/Cruise, no one should have counterpicks that significantly affected the matchup; they left on Stadum because they were comfortable on that against spacies but didn't see how that stage affects non-fastfallers vs spacies. Since most of the rest of the MBR that voted are spacies, Falcons, and Marths, they were fine with eliminating counterpicks while preserving stadium.

I would be up for turning on brinstar. It isn't random and it's bad for spacies which balances the game.

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

why is pokemon stadium legal? it has a low ceiling and transformations that have walls and rock formation often gives both players a break where it is against their favor to approach. If spectators at EVO see both players just practicing tech/ standing there for a while it would be extremely confusing.

 

[Bones0]

why is pokemon stadium legal? it has a low ceiling and transformations that have walls and rock formation often gives both players a break where it is against their favor to approach. If spectators at EVO see both players just practicing tech/ standing there for a while it would be extremely confusing.

Idk much about SFxT, but I saw a video of it a while back, and it looked way worse than PS transformations.

 

[JPOBS]

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited. In my set with PewPewU, I won game one on FD, and banned Yoshis. He CPs to stadium and wins and bans Dreamland. Now my only choices are to go back to his counterpick, or a tri-platform stage that gives his character an advantage. If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

You could have gone to FoD or Battlefield. Given your example, PPU's character has an allegd advantage on all the playable stages except for FD (according to yourself). So in this scenario, your character would have been at a disadvantage, whether starter stages are bannable or not (because having already on on FD, you could only go to a platform stage according to DSR, even if there are no bans). That's just an inherent weakness in your playing a worst character.

The way Marth works he has half of the stages that give him an advantage, so even with a ban and DSR he will always have one as an option. With Peach I only have one stage that's a hard counter pick and one that's a slight advantage; the hard CP was banned and I won on the slight advantage.

the stagelst isn't a means of balancing thv cast. if marth is better on more stages than peach, then that's irrelavent.

 

[Ørn]

Wouldn't adding Kongo Jungle 64/Rainbow Ride/Brinstar just help out the top tiers more? Fox/Falco are really good on the two first stages, and there's a lot of slower characters who would really suffer from having those stages added. I imagine Sheik/Marth/Puff/Falcon would benefit a lot more in match ups against characters lower on the tier list.

I'm having a very hard time thinking of a character with losing match ups who would benefit from these counterpicks (Peach vs. Marth was mentioned, and that's one of the only ones I can think of).

Brinstar would probably be good against fastfallers, but I mean, they could just ban the stage... It's not like they really mind any of the neutrals. Making them have to choose between banning FD or Brinstar would probably be the biggest advantage you'd get, but even then, it's still pretty rough fighting Fox/Falco on Kongo Jungle or Rainbow Ride. The top tiers generally have a bigger camping advantage than low tiers do.

So yeah. Can someone give me a compelling argument as to how this would not just help out the top tiers more?

EDIT: I mean, you could make the argument that the stage list isn't really supposed to cater to balance anyway, but it seems like that was the gist of OP's post.

 

[rjgbadger]

im not in favor of many stages

but kongo64 needs a counterpick slot

and maybe mute city

 

[DoH]

You could have gone to FoD or Battlefield. Given your example, PPU's character has an allegd advantage on all the playable stages except for FD (according to yourself). So in this scenario, your character would have been at a disadvantage, whether starter stages are bannable or not (because having already on on FD, you could only go to a platform stage according to DSR, even if there are no bans). That's just an inherent weakness in your playing a worst character.

the stagelst isn't a means of balancing thv cast. if marth is better on more stages than peach, then that's irrelavent.

If starters weren't bannable I could have gone to dreamland. Marths advantages on all the starter stages is an artificial construct; if we played the ship 11 Peach would have an upper hand.

 

[JPOBS]

I understand. all sets bo5, no bans, is probably the best ruleset i think

 

[Laijin]

If we got rid of stage bans I wouldn't be complaining actually. Its the only true way to be fair about this. First game in the set should be randomized including Pokemon Stadium, no stage striking. Then counter pick can be whatever the player wants(YS, BF,FoD, FD, DL,PS).

The current legal stages are all neutral right? And doesn't give any significant advantages to characters, right? According to Cactuar's logic. So this should be completely fair.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah, there's not much else to be said. If you want this kind of change, you need to talk to high-top level players directly and gather support for it. Flailing around on the forums, complaining that it isn't the way you want it to be, doesn't accomplish much.

Disagree. Actually, disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread. Why is public expression in a grassroots community based on a forum considered an ineffective tool? Why are we garnering support from a very minor fraction of the player base? To further skew their influence? The competitive scene does not cater to a handful of players.

Why are the stages banned? We had them legal for years and they posed no threat to our tournament operations. Lots of players still want them legal, the abuse of them was extremely limited to pocket cases to the point of being negligible, they had no negative ramifications on our tournament logistics and offered no variance in results. This suggests that they are banned for the only good reason left: simply because some players do not want them legal. This is fine if the majority of the community agrees on this point, but that decision was made without consulting the player base at large.

Why is counter picking needed? This is a loaded question. Of course it's not needed, but it still shapes the face of what competitive play looks like. I would like for my game to not look like street fighter. I believe that additional stages test skill with real returns and margins for one to gain an advantage on the opponent. On this point, I feel that "Battlefield Only" is a particularly terrible idea for only testing players' abilities to waveland at a specific platform height, play to a specific subset of rules for edge games, eliminate other strategies with depth like chaingrabs, and so on. The addition of a counter pick system is one of my sources of the intricate depth that draws players to this game over alternative games.

I can keep going if you want, but it wouldn't really matter. The point is that sound logical arguments exist to keep the prior system and that dropping it was a matter of preference, a preference that was never really checked with any feedback to/from the community. This is not a decision that was particularly necessary.