It's time for a rule change

[erbanez]

I lost to S2j and SS on FoD in MM/tourney. If you know what you are doing, it's not that bad.

Exactly. Any stage can be played with any character.

 

[Roneblaster]

The reason i hate smashboards, this thread, and you strongbad:

1/4 of this thread is people asking me why i think this way, 1/4 is brawl discussion, 1/4 is people putting words in my mouth assuming it has to do with my character choice, and 1/4 of it is you being wrong, like normal.

1 guy got the main point, strike from all neutral stages, not these 5 "neutrals"

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Excluding time constraints, striking from more stages = better as long as the stage choice favours all characters fairly.

 

[Bones0]

The reason i hate smashboards, this thread, and you strongbad:

1/4 of this thread is people asking me why i think this way, 1/4 is brawl discussion, 1/4 is people putting words in my mouth assuming it has to do with my character choice, and 1/4 of it is you being wrong, like normal.

1 guy got the main point, strike from all neutral stages, not these 5 "neutrals"

The reason the thread has no uniform discussion is because you gave no argument for your suggestion. You essentially said "We should strike from all stages, or only the 3 neutrals without moving platforms." You gave no reason as to what was wrong with YS or FoD as neutrals, and you ignored people when they brought up the fact that they are great stages to strike from both for ditto matches and even other matchups where both players happen to not mind the stage.

1/4th of the thread asked why you feel this way because you gave no explanation.

1/4th of the thread references Brawl's Smashville because it is an accepted neutral stage that has a moving platform.

1/4th of the thread is wondering if you are simply biased against FoD and YS because of your character.

1/4th of the thread is Strong Bad and others explaining why YOUR REASONING for this rule change is unfair while you ignore them.

 

[Strong Badam]

I never said this rule change is unnecessary or unfair. YO DAWG DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH
also my name has a space in it thanks

 

[Bones0]

I never said this rule change is unnecessary or unfair. YO DAWG DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH
also my name has a space in it thanks

That better? >_>

 

[Mokumo]

i think im down for this kinda rule change. as much as i love yoshi's story, i just don't think its neutral especially after watching some of those genesis videos.

reneblade is just a troll though

 

[Divinokage]

i think im down for this kinda rule change. as much as i love yoshi's story, i just don't think its neutral especially after watching some of those genesis videos.

reneblade is just a troll though

Ya but you still need 5 stages for proper stage striking and i mean most matches will not start on yoshi's regardless unless someone really wants to and 2 people striking against it most of the time.. It can happen but there's no stages that can replace yoshi's anyhow. I thought the genesis ruleset was really good except for counter picking.. it felt odd to have so little to choose from and it definitely puts added pressure.

 

[Superspright]

Actually it has nothing to do with my character.
Yoshis is NOT a neutral stage, it has a floating platform that is out of the players control and can and does influence the outcome of matches

*Facepalm* How can you even say that considering Randall comes at precisely 10 second intervals. Odd intervals Y5 and even intervals X5. So 25 is left, 35 is right. I believe. It's extremely easy to time Randall if you don't suck and actually pay attention to the time. When I am at high percents I try to camp the side he's going to come from. Having him as an option is enough.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What I want to know: If Randall is so bad that the stage shouldn't be a starter... Why should it be legal at all?

That's like saying that Flatzone shouldn't be a starter because of the random tools, but it can still be a counter-pick.

The only distinction between starters and counter-picks are that starters are more "neutral", it has nothing to do with their layout or lack of random elements.

 

[Sinji]

We need Mute City.

 

[Wobbles]

What I want to know: If Randall is so bad that the stage shouldn't be a starter... Why should it be legal at all?

That's like saying that Flatzone shouldn't be a starter because of the random tools, but it can still be a counter-pick.

The only distinction between starters and counter-picks are that starters are more "neutral", it has nothing to do with their layout or lack of random elements.

This basically.

The differentiation between neutrals and counterpicks was established before stage striking on the basis that when Peach fights against Marth, the set's outcome could be skewed by him getting Mute City for the first round. Or Fox getting RC against a Ganon or whatever. So they took the levels that were perceived as most fair and set them to random, while levels that were a little more skewed but still considered legal could be picked from later.

That's not really an issue now because players have control over where they go. If both players are fine with a game starting on Brinstar and Brinstar is legal at the tournament, then what is the reason for not allowing it to happen?

The only real trick here is hoping we end up with an odd number of stages so as to permit a balanced striking system.

 

[Mokumo]

How many stages are there in our current list? The original idea in the op says that we strike stages from the entire stage list. Why is that a bad idea?

 

[CloneHat]

Is he saying that we should strike from all stages, or that YS shouldn't be a neutral? The two ideas don't really support eachother.

 

[Mokumo]

Actually you have a point there... If you're striking from All the stages, arent they all neutral? I guess I'm dum.

FoD sucks

 

[Brookman]

**** this game. I'ma play smash 64

 

[ph00tbag]

This basically.

The differentiation between neutrals and counterpicks was established before stage striking on the basis that when Peach fights against Marth, the set's outcome could be skewed by him getting Mute City for the first round. Or Fox getting RC against a Ganon or whatever. So they took the levels that were perceived as most fair and set them to random, while levels that were a little more skewed but still considered legal could be picked from later.

That's not really an issue now because players have control over where they go. If both players are fine with a game starting on Brinstar and Brinstar is legal at the tournament, then what is the reason for not allowing it to happen?

The only real trick here is hoping we end up with an odd number of stages so as to permit a balanced striking system.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. Although I wouldn't say it's worth it to have Mute City be legal even for counterpicking in the first place. Having really lame stages be legal just ties the outcome of the set more tightly to the first match. And Mute City is one stage that can have this effect.

But then the trick is definitely having the odd number of stages available. I can think of eight that I don't think are excessive.

**** this game. I'ma play smash 64

Have fun camping on Hyrule Castle.

 

[Bones0]

You can add more stages and strike from all of them, but the result is going to be the same as if we just use the 5 neutrals we have now. No one is going to strike to counterpick-esque stages except for maybe dittos, but if you wanna play Jiggs vs. Peach on Brinstar just agree on it. Obviously people are going to ask what is the bad side of having more stages? Well you need more bans, which will end up being useless because, like I said, people are obviously going to ban counterpicks before neutrals. Even that is fine for matchups where counterpicks are shared equally. If you have Brinstar which favors Peach and RC which favors Fox and give them both an extra ban, obviously there's no issue. But when you have a character like ICs that has no token counterpick, they get shafted and have to use both of their bans on counterpicks instead of neutrals, and vice versa for their opponent. Instead of playing on the even neutral, they'll end up playing on the neutral that is currently the best counterpick for them.

 

[Youngling]

FD, BF, and DL. + 0, 2, or 4 stages agreed on by both players.
then strike from there.
theres your stage list.

 

[Kal]

What is this notion of "even neutral" you bring up, Bones? It's not like Battlefield is inherently any fairer than Brinstar; some characters get shafted on the former and some on the latter. It's not as though being stationary and without hazards will intrinsically make match-ups more even. In fact, I think a case can be made to suggest exactly the opposite.

I may have misunderstood your post, however. By "even neutral" you might have meant "a neutral which is even for both players in the provided example." In which case, I would agree that some characters might struggle with such a counterpick system, but that this doesn't necessitate that it's unfair. Having more counterpicks available is a character strength, and ICs not having as many is just a weakness.

 

[Bones0]

What is this notion of "even neutral" you bring up, Bones? It's not like Battlefield is inherently any fairer than Brinstar; some characters get shafted on the former and some on the latter. It's not as though being stationary and without hazards will intrinsically make match-ups more even. In fact, I think a case can be made to suggest exactly the opposite.

I may have misunderstood your post, however. By "even neutral" you might have meant "a neutral which is even for both players in the provided example." In which case, I would agree that some characters might struggle with such a counterpick system, but that this doesn't necessitate that it's unfair. Having more counterpicks available is a character strength, and ICs not having as many is just a weakness.

I say even neutral because with the 5 neutrals being struck from, the matches are much more even than when counterpicks are allowed and "worse" characters are forced to waste bans on wack stages they can lose to gimmicks on. You can say ICs being horrible on Brinstar and RC is a character weakness, but no one argues for Flatzone. The fact that half the cast gets waveshined to death by Fox are just character weaknesses, so why are these stages banned? I am not suggesting stages with obstacles and hazards are intrinsically more competitive, but I would definitely argue that in practice they are more fair and competitive for Melee.

If RC didn't have such ridiculous antics that made it ridiculously good for some characters by completely shifting the focus of gameplay, I wouldn't argue for it being banned because it could be a valuable addition to the stage list. As it is, however, RC and Brinstar add nothing to the game. They will virtually never be struck to because almost every matchup has one person benefiting greatly, and for the same reason they will always waste a player's ban based solely on their character. Our goal should be to maximize the effect a player's skill has on the outcome, and part of that includes minimizing the effect of playing a certain character or playing on certain stages. I think everyone can agree that ideally, any character should be able to win. We are further from this goal when we allow counterpicks that practically encourage gimmicks to gimp players before the game even starts.

Most matchups have advantageous and disadvantageous neutrals, but the reason they are neutrals is because the advantages are so small, and often quite disputed. I've seen Falco players take Peach players to YS and DL, and vice versa. I've never seen a Peach take a Falco to RC or a Falco take a Peach to Brinstar, though.

 

[Archangel]

**** Stage Striking lets Just make it so game 1 of every set is on Battlefield. I mean damn that's the way it usually turns out anyway.


On a serious note I think each player should strike out 1 stage and then just play random. Between what is left.

 

[Roneblaster]

Strike from all the stages.

Yoshis and FoD are significantly LESS NEUTRAL than BF DL and FD.

those are my points.

the neutrals as they are arbitrary with minimal justification, its time to quit justing going by the old rules.

remember when we did 1 ban per player, then random? yea that **** is dumb (sorry spam) the ruleset would benefit from either of my suggestions as well.



this is the OP: (this is also how i know most of you havent actually read the OP)

1. Its time to stage strike from ALL legal stages.

2. If not #1, The only stages to be struck from should be DL64, FD, and BF.

only difference is it didnt quote the last line from the OP

 

[Mokumo]

i'd try it

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

lol FoD is the 2nd most neutral stage in the game. ****, arguably the most neutral since it interrupts so many chaingrabs for low tiers.

But whatevs.

Instead I think we should talk about how Mushroom Kingdom II should be legal. Imma take you on a magic carpet ride. Show you a whole new world.

 

[Pengie]

Instead I think we should talk about how Mushroom Kingdom II should be legal. Imma take you on a magic carpet ride. Show you a whole new world.

Well **** anyone got a counter argument for that? Didn't think so; make it happen at Apex Alex Strife!!!

 

[Kal]

I say even neutral because with the 5 neutrals being struck from, the matches are much more even than when counterpicks are allowed and "worse" characters are forced to waste bans on wack stages they can lose to gimmicks on.

I don't think the matches are more even at all. It's certainly a very complex issue to determine whether these stages really create a more even game. You would need to determine the probabilities associated to every matchup on every stage, and then figure out a way to determine whether removing the non-neutrals really created a more even game.

Regardless, is it really our job to try and balance the game? Presumably this line of logic could be used to justify a plethora of unwarranted bans on the premise that the resultant game is "fairer."

And try to keep in mind that calling these stages "wack" and implying that their use as a counterpick is just a "gimmick" is not doing anything for your argument; it's just rhetoric that undermines the opposing point of view.

You can say ICs being horrible on Brinstar and RC is a character weakness, but no one argues for Flatzone. The fact that half the cast gets waveshined to death by Fox are just character weaknesses, so why are these stages banned? I am not suggesting stages with obstacles and hazards are intrinsically more competitive, but I would definitely argue that in practice they are more fair and competitive for Melee.

Because the advantages due to legalizing Flatzone are so overwhelming that the game degenerates. I have seen no such argument for Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise.

If RC didn't have such ridiculous antics that made it ridiculously good for some characters by completely shifting the focus of gameplay, I wouldn't argue for it being banned because it could be a valuable addition to the stage list. As it is, however, RC and Brinstar add nothing to the game. They will virtually never be struck to because almost every matchup has one person benefiting greatly, and for the same reason they will always waste a player's ban based solely on their character. Our goal should be to maximize the effect a player's skill has on the outcome, and part of that includes minimizing the effect of playing a certain character or playing on certain stages. I think everyone can agree that ideally, any character should be able to win. We are further from this goal when we allow counterpicks that practically encourage gimmicks to gimp players before the game even starts.

Shifting the focus of gameplay? Who gets to determine what the focus should be? It's not like it overcentralizes the metagame, so there's little objectivity here: you decide what aspects of the gameplay you want to be tested, and you mandate it in the stagelist.

I don't agree that you should minimize the effect stage choice has on the outcome of matches. While I agree that stages should not be able to degenerate gameplay (e.g. Hyrule forces a strategy which guarantees a win, and the gameplay degenerates), I don't think simply having an impact, even a significant one, on the outcome of a match should warrant a ban.

And finally, I disagree with the premise that, ideally, any character should be able to win, at least insofar as how much we remove from the game to make good that ideal. You can use that line of thought to remove basically whatever you want. If we ban Fox and Sheik, a large number of characters become much more viable. How is that any different than banning a stage?

In general, it's just not our job to try and balance gameplay. We don't have complete knowledge on what makes the game balanced, and there are far too many different possible rulesets that result in different balances. This is why we resort to banning things which are provably broken.

Most matchups have advantageous and disadvantageous neutrals, but the reason they are neutrals is because the advantages are so small, and often quite disputed. I've seen Falco players take Peach players to YS and DL, and vice versa. I've never seen a Peach take a Falco to RC or a Falco take a Peach to Brinstar, though.

Are the advantages really that small? You would need to create a list of all matchups on all stages and then decide whether the matchups are "more even overall" (which is doable, but there are certainly many different ways to measure what is "most even overall"). And keep in mind that this completely prevents any future testing; once we've banned Brinstar, we can't discover any future tactics that may change the status quo.

 

[Dart!]

why was this a discussion thread? i've yet to hear someone actually propose a "better" idea than the three stage strike nor have i heard anyone say why it's a bad idea. /thread

 

[darkoblivion12]

It's really sad that some people are suggesting making BF the first stage. As a marth player, I love striking BF first, having the opposing player strike YS/FD if they're a spacey, and ending up on FoD. There really is no true neutral. Just stages where you like or don't like matchups.

You shouldn't be trying to limit the number of neutral stages if all of them get played at some point during the striking process. I've ended up on all the neutrals countless times.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Yeah, its frightening to me how much people want to reduce the stagelist. We need to spend more time looking for stages to add than stages to remove...just cause we thought a stage shouldnt be legal in 05 doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal now.

Mushroom Kingdom II ya'll. Embrace that ****. Breathe it in.

 

[Divinokage]

Lol **** MK2, yes we should add stages just to add them... good ****.. not.

 

[Roneblaster]

just to reiterate, i am not in favor of removing stages from the legal list, just changing how the first stage is selected.

although it wouldn't take me convincing if you selected the right stages and said "competitive gaming, get this **** outa here."

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Lol **** MK2, yes we should add stages just to add them... good ****.. not.

Deep breaths. Through your nose. Inhale it. Take it all in. MK2. Breathe it in.

But Kage, you do know how good MK2 is for Ganon right? Hes ****ing awesome as **** there.

And its not adding stages just to add them. Its adding stages cause those stages should never have been banned in the first place.

 

[Wobbles]

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. Although I wouldn't say it's worth it to have Mute City be legal even for counterpicking in the first place. Having really lame stages be legal just ties the outcome of the set more tightly to the first match. And Mute City is one stage that can have this effect.

But then the trick is definitely having the odd number of stages available. I can think of eight that I don't think are excessive.


Have fun camping on Hyrule Castle.

Well I am not really saying Mute should be legal one way or the other (though I am curious to see how our top players would play there now, and whether it would remain as excessively Peach-Puff dominated as it was before. I am NOT volunteering to play HBox on that level though lol). I always think it's funny how despite their similar configurations there are so many special tricks and maneuvering elements unique to Battlefield compared to Dreamland compared to Yoshi's. Imagining what players much more clever than me could come up with on a stage like Mute makes me giggle a bit. Wavelands, cancels, combos, cool cross-platform CGs and chases... stuff could be pretty rad.

The point is just that we now use a system where you directly pick the level you play on, which makes the original purpose--preventing skewed but not exactly broken levels from being randomed--obsolete. So yeah.