I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Ripple]

2cents

"you cannot choose a stage that you have already picked yourself and won on in a b05 set" <-- maybe i read that wrong, but the way that's phrased, if you had your 2nd strongest cp and the opponent won then the you will get to go back and try to win on that stage again (since you had lost)? sounds a little lopsided.

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.

 

[Blubby]

if your opponent gives you already an advantage and u cant use it its your own fault, also most likely the opponent will agree to go on the same stage anyway

 

[cheese619]

I am in favour of the current ruleset, the same ruleset used at Apex. Also I agree with Tr3MoR the opinions of top players such as M2K, PP, Mango, HBox and Armada should take precedence over everyone else's opinions. They are the players playing at the highest level who understand the game better than anyone else and are most affected by the ruleset.

 

[Ripple]

if your opponent gives you already an advantage and u cant use it its your own fault, also most likely the opponent will agree to go on the same stage anyway

your opponent can never truly give you an advantage on their CP because they choose a character 2nd.

 

[MusicalMike]

It's simple.

We change from Stock to Coin Battle.

Now all stages are legal.

 

[PMsurveys]

Both sides appear to be in a deadlock so Idk if we will come to a solution about freeing some unbanned stages but I feel the thread brought up another point that we seem to be more in agreement on which is the role of the neutral stages in relation to removing bans. This quote got me to start thinking a little bit differently.

A valid point. I want to extend this point into the relevance of neutral stages and question if such a thing actually exists in Smash. Through this analysis, maybe it will help both sides have a common ground so we start to resolve the "stage argument" regarding bringing back more stages:


It seems that while reading through this thread what defines the quality of a stage (neutral/counterpick/banned) has been mixed up and is not consistent which leads me to believe that there is no such thing as neutral stages. Atm competitive smash matches are based around this qualification of "neutral vs counterpick" stages since every set must begin with 1 of the chosen 5 "neutral" stages. This begs the question, "What factors determines what makes a stage neutral or counterpick?"

The obvious first answer is one where the stage itself is of neutrality where it doesn't directly influence the match by "fighting back" with the players so to speak aka the moving stages or hazards. If one were to go by this definition of a neutral stage then it is proven by comparing FD to Stadium but it is disproven by comparing FD to Yoshis. If direct stage influence puts FD and Stadium in 2 different categories, then why are FD and YI in the same category? This is one inconsistency and is a point against the idea of neutral stages existing.

The second possible answer would be that stage layout plays a big factor in determining a stages quality in relation to matchups and a character's innate ability to exploit it. Example would be that Stadium is a CP because Fox dominates on that stage or that Hyrule/Great bay is banned because characters can exploit it by playing keep away. Once again, if you apply this to the "Neutral stages" you will see an inconsistency.
*If you compare FD to BF you will find that while both are labeled as "neutral" they are completely opposite of each other on the neutral spectrum depending on the match up. Case in point: IC does way better with platforms vs flat stage so in their eyes, FD and BF do not give them the same odds even though they are in the same category
*Compare Dreamland to Yoshis: Both Tri-plat stage however the size makes a huge difference on the MU. Case in point is Falcon who excels more in bigger stages or Peach whose longevity is reduced in YI vs DL.

So is there really such thing as a "Neutral" stage or is every stage actually better qualified as a CP? It would seem that the latter is the case.

__________
TL;DR: This analysis further validates DoH's idea that we should remove bans and maybe it will make us think differently about the current state of a smash set. Some further ideas to think about are:

-Should there be a list of Neutral Stages at all?
-Should we limit the first match of a set to a handful of 5 arbitrary, predetermined stages instead of limiting the stage choices on a MU by MU basis?
-What new stages can be added based on the perspective of all stages being CP to varying degrees?
-If both characters can equally exploit a stage that currently banned, should it still banned or should it be legal on a case by case basis?

Great post.

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.

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

 

[BSeeD]

Lol this is so fun.

The 2 last pages (except for nublet - nice to see your still active btw, loved gg next stock years ago please make another one now XD - ) are ONLY mentioning Fox, Falco, Sheik, Peach, Marth, and a little bit of Falcon.

So it's a fact that this game has 6 characters now ? Wasn't aware of that.

Nublet is giving a point about Luigi and nearly noone mentioned it, I see no discussion about how it affects the other 20 characters neither.

I find it very funny that noone seems to be aware that we don't speak of this game in its entirety anymore.

I think that if there's one aspect of Melee that should take all characters in consideration, that aspect would be stage listing.

But yeah, I'm a dreamer you know

Edit: But I STRONGLY agree with the fact we shouldn't use EVO to test a new ruleset. This would be really stupid.

 

[Vulcan55]

Since stage striking is so commonplace now, why can't we just throw one* more map into the pool and get rid of the idea of 'counterpick stages' completely?

The only downside I can think of is that, now for those people who really hate Pokestad, they have to either ban it, change their striking preferences, or risk playing on it slightly more often than they do now.


*Hell, why not throw in 3 more stages?

 

[Punzz]

stages

im a new player and im ok with the 6 stages, if you want to play on those other stages play it on your own time. If you and your opponet agree to go on any stage you can do it just watch darkrain vs kage melee fc.

 

[outofphase]

You're reasoning isn't detached. You just said it was unfair because of how Puff doesn't get Brinstar. If your reasoning was detached, your explanation for why PS should be banned would have stopped after "I think PS and BS have equal amounts of jank." Pick the legal stages based on how they affect gameplay quality. If you think PS detracts from the type of skill you value, great. If you think spacies should lose a good counterpick because Puff lost her good counterpick, you're ******** for taking matchups into consideration. -bones

i dont know why you put that in quotes when it is clearly not what i said. and i do think spacies should lose a good cp. not because puff did, but because its "kind of jank". i do feel brinstar is slightly more jank, but not enough to warrant a ban if you arent going to ban ps. its not about matchups, its about fairness. if youre going to allow a cp that is op and practically universal, despite that its jank, that shows its all about preference. its not about what skills i value, its about the fact that spacie mains obviously had a hand in ps being the only cp left.

 

[KishPrime]

Stages were removed to increase competitiveness and advance the metagame among characters. Not to improve how well people could abuse stages.

The metagame has advanced the last two years with this ruleset, not with the old MLG one.

These things are not inherently true. That people can believe this blindly in a game theory discussion is frightening to me. Look, there's no official definition anywhere, but I would hope that we could agree that the only way a metagame can "advance" is under two circumstances:
1. Usually what people mean is that the metagame size is growing, that is, that the game is becoming a deeper, more interesting experience. This suggests that you are increasing the depth, testing a wider variety of skills, and increasing the volume of relevant knowledge. The meta regresses when the size decreases, as broken and dominant strategies emerge.
2. An alternative or complementary interpretation is treating the metagame like a timeline. At a given point on the timeline, unexplored options in the future allow options in the present to succeed that otherwise would not succeed. In this case, the meta can actually regress if there are not enough players pushing it forward, but it is rare and hard to lose knowledge once it is gained.

So Removing Stages - does it "advance" the metagame under either definition? A hearty No - at least to any definite conclusion. In the case of 2, removing stages could function as either a regression or an advancement. If the stages themselves became broken+dominant strategies, then removing them would be a benefit. Pipes was a casualty of this that everyone agreed on - people had started to counter people there with Fox/Falco even if they didn't play the characters and scoring wins. However, evidence of this occurring on many other stages outside the kinds of disparities you already see on "neutral" stages is inadequate.

Under case 1, removing stages only advances the metagame if you're increasing the depth, testing a wider variety of skills, and increasing the volume of relevant knowledge. Now, analyzing the depth tree of a game like Melee is near impossible to begin with. With that said, it's extremely hard to make the case that removing stage variety does ANY of those three things (save for the example above). On the contrary, it's narrowing the scope of skills. People on that side of the argument have repeatedly echoed that straight up - "Those aren't skills I think are important or that I think matter."

That's fine, but you aren't ADVANCING THE METAGAME BY REMOVING THEM. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are purposely regressing the metagame to only that which you think is valuable. If someone actually wants to make an argument from character dominance, that would be progress, but I've never seen anyone do that.

The lesson of this story: It's not the people on the pro-stage side that are making decisions on fun and personal value - it's the anti-stage people who do this the most.

EDIT: Also, not gonna lie, this post deserves it's own topic. But I won't do that.

 

[BigWenz]

nvm question was answered.

 

[fabulouspants]

just legalize all the **** stages that the majority dont like and make the FGC laugh even harder at melee. poke floats and rainbow cruise would be good for spectators.

 

[Juushichi]

you are being ridiculous.

the people in the FGC community that laugh at us already laugh at us for other reasons.

the first question FGC players asked me when they actually cared to ask about the game I played was "why did you ban items? why did you ban stages? I don't understand why you only play on (16, iirc for brawl... and keep in mind 10-16 is now "liberal" for brawl, obvi less for melee) x amount of stages."

 

[Laijin]

Avoid name calling to people who are new to the game please.
Keep it classy.

 

[Juushichi]

my b

sorry

better?

 

[fabulouspants]

watching fox run around on rainbow cruise for 6+ minutes would be good especially with 50k+ viewers watching. good publicity for competitive smash.

 

[fabulouspants]

just imho. kongo jugle would be good too

 

[Revven]

watching fox run around on rainbow cruise for 6+ minutes would be good especially with 50k+ viewers watching. good publicity for competitive smash.

just imho. kongo jugle would be good too

Lol nice trolling.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

That's fine, but you aren't ADVANCING THE METAGAME BY REMOVING THEM. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are purposely regressing the metagame to only that which you think is valuable. If someone actually wants to make an argument from character dominance, that would be progress, but I've never seen anyone do that.

I just wanted to say that it's not regressing the metagame either. It's just shifting its focus.

Proceed.

 

[KishPrime]

I just wanted to say that it's not regressing the metagame either. It's just shifting its focus.

Proceed.

If that's your argument, then we're not in disagreement. You admit to changing the norms of the game for your own pleasure. Again, nothing wrong with that! But it certainly isn't "making the game better" or "advancing it." It's shifting/changing it. And it CAN be a regression in the first sense if it lowers the overall depth/variety of options in the game.

I'm fine with people doing what they want, but people doing what they want and then telling everyone else they're wrong when they're the ones altering the base composition of the game is just silly.

 

[Airrider]

My honest opinions (not a competitive player):

KJ64: Pretty easy to stall, so why have it anyway?

Rainbow Cruise: Big and annoying stage. Do we really want it?

Brinstar: A great stage, really.

Would i want these stages to return?

No.

But i sure wouldn't mind seeing Brinstar as a CP though.

 

[thespymachine]

I just wanted to say that it's not regressing the metagame either. It's just shifting its focus.

Proceed.

If that's your argument, then we're not in disagreement. You admit to changing the norms of the game for your own pleasure. Again, nothing wrong with that! But it certainly isn't "making the game better" or "advancing it." It's shifting/changing it. And it CAN be a regression in the first sense if it lowers the overall depth/variety of options in the game.

I'm fine with people doing what they want, but people doing what they want and then telling everyone else they're wrong when they're the ones altering the base composition of the game is just silly.

I agree that it can be either regression or advancement with addition/removal of stages. But this all depends on the stages you have to use. Melee is highly limited in stages that are both not chaotic/janky and of different type (ie, we're pretty much down to 4 variations on BF with FD and a jankying two platform stage). With that, I will say that removing stages that are janky/chaotic focuses the game on characters good with the BF setup - as far as Melee is concerned; I don't think there is anything inherent in removing stages that regresses/centralizes the metagame. However, I'm firm with the focus of play on players/characters and not a focus on the (ab)use of stage elements that are wacky. With that, adding/keeping stages doesn't really help the metagame either since there is a bit of chaotic variation beyond player vs player.

If we had one type of stage each in our stage list, that wasn't janky, we'd be good.
A BF, FD, PS (without transformations), FoD (when it doesn't have its two lower platforms), etc etc.

 

[Smasher89]

Adding the old bigger stagelist is imo perfect for this oppoturnity, to crown the new best player after Armada quit.

It generates more hype (that isnt timeoutchecking the clock) and thoughtful counterpicks, more of a clash of oldschool knowledge and newschool techrush making the sets and choices more impacting and interesting to watch as a person in one of the audiences.
Hopefully the community can work toward advancing the metagame and not stand still (except like peach and falco) in like 2004-5 with all techskillmisstakes.

EDIT: Imaging the KJ64 or mute cityplayer getting cohunterpicked with character and getting stomped even more. Or getting smashed/4stocked on mute city by the same peach he run away from in 8 min the match earlier. Since he cant handle getting near the character, especially since you´ll lose your warmup and execution by just focusing on running away.

 

[KishPrime]

Thespymachine's post just makes me sad.

For each stage, you have to make a pretty strong case that removing it adds options, depth, and variety to the game if you want to say it's not a regression. Otherwise you have to assume that removing something from a game removes options. No one has yet done that with the most recent bans. They just say "nojank." Whatever. That's not an argument from intelligence or game theory for a stronger meta.

I'll just say it straight up - removing options (in this case, stage variety) DOES regress/centralize the meta, unless you have a compelling reason as to why this is not the case.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[KishPrime]

For that matter, as consistent as when we ran 17 and 20 stage tournaments. Even with bad stages still on because they were borderline for the time, they very rarely swung a set.

 

[thespymachine]

Thespymachine's post just makes me sad.

For each stage, you have to make a pretty strong case that removing it adds options, depth, and variety to the game if you want to say it's not a regression. Otherwise you have to assume that removing something from a game removes options. No one has yet done that with the most recent bans. They just say "nojank." Whatever. That's not an argument from intelligence or game theory for a stronger meta.

I'll just say it straight up - removing options (in this case, stage variety) DOES regress/centralize the meta, unless you have a compelling reason as to why this is not the case.

Sorry I make you sad. :/ I'll try to explain myself.

I use 'no jank' and 'chaotic' as terms to simplify the 'turnip threshold' discussion. And I think 'turnip threshold' is pertinent to stage list discussion. [To put my opinion quickly and simply, I don't think any elements that remove focus from player vs player, or for circumstances that are (in part) unpredictable, should be a part of the competitive environment]

You are right though. Removing stages removes options and variety, and centralizes the metagame. However, the question then becomes whether those options and variety are viable and conducive to a competitive environment- if they are viable/conducive, then we lose depth; if not, we don't lose depth (but we don't necessarily add any either).
And centralizing the metagame isn't, in itself, good or bad. If the centralization is based on a focus to make a certain character good/bad, then it's bad. But, if the focus of centralization is to provide an environment that favors the uninterrupted expression of skill, then it is good - whether this centralization favors certain stages/characters is not our problem, but a problem of what choices we have available with the game (with Melee, it's not very many - but the case is, and will be, very different in Project M).

I hope this clears some things up. There just seems so much to discuss in this topic that it's hard to cover it all with detail in a single post.

I think there is an issue that is making your distinction hard to swallow for some people, Kish. People often erroneously believe that variance implies less depth. However, Poker is a magnificently deep game with a ton of variance. The variance in Poker is at levels most of these fighting game players cannot possibly imagine. Conversely, Checkers is an extremely shallow game with very little variance; variance that only exists at the level of human error. Variance is something that people, generally speaking, dislike, but it's absurd to suggest that simply removing randomness by wholesale elimination of mechanics makes a game deeper. In fact, sometimes additional randomness on its own can add depth.

I think, also, that people are grossly exaggerating the variance as a result of these stages. Your mileage may vary, I guess, but results were as consistent when we ran a ten-stage ruleset as they are now.

I don't think variance in itself implies more depth either. It depends on the choices those variances produce, and then the viability of those choices.
For example, the card distribution in poker is random - ie, large variance - but because it's played on a psychological field, the variance doesn't necessarily contribute to its depth. In the end, it is about luck - which is why you don't see the same people winning WSoP very much - but since there is a psychological skill-set involved, you will see the same people at the top consistently.

 

[KishPrime]

A good reply. The problem is that there is no question that the stages are "viable/conducive to a competitive environment." Most have, in fact, been proven to be so, and they weren't removed because they weren't.

In this case, the "uninterrupted expression of skill," is more accurately read "technical skill within a fixed environment." There are many skills being tested in base Melee that go beyond these. Centralizing it around that particular class of skill is damaging to the integrity of the game, and by integrity, I just mean the fabric that makes it up. By ruling out those other classes of skill, you're cutting the face out of the Mona Lisa because you like the background.

Can you do it if you own the painting? Sure! Are you making it better by doing so? I dunno. My feeling is no.

 

[Gea]

Is there a KishPrime fanclub I can sign up for, with a weekly newsletter?

 

[KishPrime]

Unfortunately, I am only occasionally spurred into elitist monologues.

EDIT: lol I used sophistry wrong

 

[Laijin]

I too, would like a KishPrime newsletter

 

[thespymachine]

A good reply. The problem is that there is no question that the stages are "viable/conducive to a competitive environment." Most have, in fact, been proven to be so, and they weren't removed because they weren't.

Our disagreement comes with the fact that we differ on opinion on whether the most recently removed stages are viable - you believe yes, I believe no (I don't think YS or PS are either).

In this case, the "uninterrupted expression of skill," is more accurately read "technical skill within a fixed environment." There are many skills being tested in base Melee that go beyond these. Centralizing it around that particular class of skill is damaging to the integrity of the game, and by integrity, I just mean the fabric that makes it up. By ruling out those other classes of skill, you're cutting the face out of the Mona Lisa because you like the background.[/QUOTE]
It could be read that way, but not what I meant (depending on what you mean by "fixed").
Example: Randall is fixed in his pattern, but is interrupting when lower than stage-level is off screen (since his appearance can be sudden). But then, is time-keeping a skill that we consider to be valuable in a FG environment? I mean, there are timing elements when it comes to when to input moves, or when you can input them - does this relate to keeping track of where Randall is though?

Has there been an in depth discussion about what skills we DO want to allow to be expressed and tested?

 

[KishPrime]

Our disagreement comes with the fact that we differ on opinion on whether the most recently removed stages are viable - you believe yes, I believe no (I don't think YS or PS are either).

Has there been an in depth discussion about what skills we DO want to allow to be expressed and tested?

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.

 

[Cactuar]

The problem is what I've already pointed out. Kish views the ability to play in irregular environments as Mona Lisa's face, while I view the ability to interact with the opponent to be the face. I have no problem with removing some of the background if it brings the face into clearer light and allows for greater appreciation of the subject of the painting.

I don't know why you would play a platform fighting game competitively if you care more about the platforming than the fighting, but w/e. This is coming from a guy who values moving around on stages more than comboing the opponents.

 

[KishPrime]

I don't know why you would want to play a platforming fighting game while trying to minimize the value of the platforming.

And I actually tremendously value the interaction. The interaction is still 95.6% of the game and makes the platforming aspects worthwhile. There's no point in trying to suggest I don't.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Isn't the reason you'd play a platform fighting game because of the platforming? Otherwise you'd just play a regular fighting game, wouldn't you?

EDIT: Seriously? How do both of you post while I'm typing that?

 

[Cactuar]

The thing is, it isn't minimizing it. It is making the type of platforms consistent, specifically for competitive play. The platforming aspect doesn't cease to exist because we remove non-standard versions of it. This is balancing between platforming and fighting elements, without any intention to minimize either.

I'm suggesting that you don't because you just said that I'm cutting out the face of the mona lisa by removing stuff that has negligible positive influence on competitive play. I'm inclined to call you a drama queen.

 

[Laijin]

The problem is what I've already pointed out. Kish views the ability to play in irregular environments as Mona Lisa's face, while I view the ability to interact with the opponent to be the face. I have no problem with removing some of the background if it brings the face into clearer light and allows for greater appreciation of the subject of the painting.

I don't know why you would play a platform fighting game competitively if you care more about the platforming than the fighting, but w/e. This is coming from a guy who values moving around on stages more than comboing the opponents.

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

 

[KishPrime]

As far as consistency goes, stages are still the same every time in their random elements. There's no need to clamp down further, unless you want to.