Meta It's Time To Abandon 3 Starter Lists

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Between the potential instant death and skewing the list toward the extreme of no platforms a good bit of the time, I think that's enough cause for concern, myself.

T&C has considerably more platform coverage than Smashville does, and your "potential instant death"... Have you ever seen that happen? I haven't. What I have seen is countless examples of Shiek mains just fairing people off the edge of Smashville for a very easy 0-death, Pikachu's fairing way out there (hell, I've killed people like that), and Ness doing the same. I've seen more stage-dependent stupid **** on Smashville than on almost any other stage (other than Halberd).

 

[BestTeaMaker]

As someone who plays Charizard, the first thing I do is to make sure to strike Smashville first. Not a great stage to start a match with.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

T&C has considerably more platform coverage than Smashville does, and your "potential instant death"... Have you ever seen that happen? I haven't. What I have seen is countless examples of Shiek mains just fairing people off the edge of Smashville for a very easy 0-death, Pikachu's fairing way out there (hell, I've killed people like that), and Ness doing the same. I've seen more stage-dependent stupid **** on Smashville than on almost any other stage (other than Halberd).

I have seen people die at 10% to spikes and footstools on that stage--It's happened to me, and it's happened to my main practice partner. It's always really heartbreaking.

 

[Raijinken]

I've seen people die to spikes and footstools at 10% on any stage with an abyss. Anecdotal misfortune isn't really enough to justify a relative ban like that (banning from starter to counterpick, that is).

We could just take advantage of stage sharing to add Stadium M and things like that to our "starter list" before we realize that FLSS is better.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Being on a platform immediately above the stage and dying due something like that feels much worse (and much more stage-specific) than that happening offstage elsewhere.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have seen people die at 10% to spikes and footstools on that stage--It's happened to me, and it's happened to my main practice partner. It's always really heartbreaking.

I bet. Not unlike dying to fair strings at 0% on Smashville.

Being on a platform immediately above the stage and dying due something like that feels much worse (and much more stage-specific) than that happening offstage elsewhere.

Newsflash: every single stage has some sort of BS stage-specific gimmick. T&C's is hard to execute and rarely seen. Smashville's... not so much.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Newsflash: every single stage has some sort of BS stage-specific gimmick.

Nah. I'm gonna need you to cite every one of those for the common usable stages. "Interesting quirk" and "quirk that kills you at 0% from a relatively safe position" are very different things.

 

[MysteriousSilver]

I would argue that this means that being above a T&C platform as it's about to change is not a relatively safe position.

 

[Malex]

"Dying at 0%" and "Safe position" are mutually exclusive.


Edit: Ninja'd =(

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Nah. I'm gonna need you to cite every one of those for the common usable stages. "Interesting quirk" and "quirk that kills you at 0% from a relatively safe position" are very different things.

As the others said, that's not a relatively safe position. Even if the platforms didn't move, guess what: if I catch you with a well-placed uair as ZSS, Diddy, or Rosalina up on one of those platforms, you're gonna die. But okay, you want stage-specific gimmicks? I'll give you stage-specific gimmicks.

SV: easy 0-deaths, BS saves, and all kinds of nonsense.
T&C: you can get knocked onto a platform at a precise time and die if you miss your tech or get footstooled (how does this even happen?! Do you guys like, never play on stages that aren't FD/BF/SV?! How do you not know better?)
Lylat: Tilting, QAC, up until recently ledges
Duck Hunt: matchup-specific circle camping and unbeatable runaway
Wuhu: Walkoffs, water
Delfino: Ceiling, water, walkoffs
Halberd: Ceiling
BF: Ask @ Luigi player he'll tell you all about why BF is a ****ty starter.
Castle Siege: Walkoffs
FD: no platforms

And before you say anything, keep in mind that what you're complaining about is about as likely to happen as, I dunno, a ness in Melee getting killed by Randall while recovering. It's possible but easily avoided and generally not very likely. You keep on holding this up as a 0-death... Oh well, I don't care. The fact that a 0-death is possible but incredibly unlikely is far less significant to actual gameplay (you know, what matters) than the fact that the platforms on the first segment are fairly high above the ground.

 

[Raijinken]

As the others said, that's not a relatively safe position. Even if the platforms didn't move, guess what: if I catch you with a well-placed uair as ZSS, Diddy, or Rosalina up on one of those platforms, you're gonna die. But okay, you want stage-specific gimmicks? I'll give you stage-specific gimmicks.

SV: easy 0-deaths, BS saves, and all kinds of nonsense.
T&C: you can get knocked onto a platform at a precise time and die if you miss your tech or get footstooled (how does this even happen?! Do you guys like, never play on stages that aren't FD/BF/SV?! How do you not know better?)
Lylat: Tilting, QAC, up until recently ledges
Duck Hunt: matchup-specific circle camping and unbeatable runaway
Wuhu: Walkoffs, water
Delfino: Ceiling, water, walkoffs
Halberd: Ceiling
BF: Ask @ Luigi player he'll tell you all about why BF is a ****ty starter.
Castle Siege: Walkoffs
FD: no platforms

And before you say anything, keep in mind that what you're complaining about is about as likely to happen as, I dunno, a ness in Melee getting killed by Randall while recovering. It's possible but easily avoided and generally not very likely. You keep on holding this up as a 0-death... Oh well, I don't care. The fact that a 0-death is possible but incredibly unlikely is far less significant to actual gameplay (you know, what matters) than the fact that the platforms on the first segment are fairly high above the ground.

You forgot about the balloons on both Animal Crossing stages eating projectiles and interacting with freezeframes to extend hitboxes. Same for the ducks. And on the subject of Duck Hunt, you forgot about the stage gimmick caused by widespread ignorance of a 31 year old game, which results in apparently "random" platform creation at inopportune times.

Oh, and Castle Siege also has tilts and statues that eat projectiles.

 

[TheAnomaly]

SV: easy 0-deaths, BS saves, and all kinds of nonsense.
T&C: you can get knocked onto a platform at a precise time and die if you miss your tech or get footstooled (how does this even happen?! Do you guys like, never play on stages that aren't FD/BF/SV?! How do you not know better?)
Lylat: Tilting, QAC, up until recently ledges
Duck Hunt: matchup-specific circle camping and unbeatable runaway
Wuhu: Walkoffs, water
Delfino: Ceiling, water, walkoffs
Halberd: Ceiling
BF: Ask @ Luigi player he'll tell you all about why BF is a ****ty starter.
Castle Siege: Walkoffs
FD: no platforms

BPC makes an excellent point here. Regardless of the stage there is always something about it that affects gameplay(i.e. in this situation I must be more wary of moves X, Y and Z than normal because it might cost me an early stock or move X is now a safer option for Character A than it normally is). The only difference I see between our current "starters" and "counterpicks" is that people are already accustomed to the different situations which arise on those stages. I'm fairly certain that the first time someone took a 0-death string on SV or a high damge ZSS combo on BF they thought it was a gimmick too until they learned to be wary of the specific move in the specific situation in which they are at a disadvantage.

TLDR version: The real question in this discussion shouldn't be whether the extra stages are "unfair" or "gimmicky" but about how reasonable it is to have to learn the situations in which your character is and isn't safe on all of them as opposed to a few of the "starters". In my opinion it isn't really that unreasonable but I may be biased as I come from a chess background in which a deep knowledge of many situations is necessary to perform at any reasonable level. I would love to hear other people's opinions on this matter.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

BPC makes an excellent point here. Regardless of the stage there is always something about it that affects gameplay(i.e. in this situation I must be more wary of moves X, Y and Z than normal because it might cost me an early stock or move X is now a safer option for Character A than it normally is). The only difference I see between our current "starters" and "counterpicks" is that people are already accustomed to the different situations which arise on those stages. I'm fairly certain that the first time someone took a 0-death string on SV or a high damge ZSS combo on BF they thought it was a gimmick too until they learned to be wary of the specific move in the specific situation in which they are at a disadvantage.

TLDR version: The real question in this discussion shouldn't be whether the extra stages are "unfair" or "gimmicky" but about how reasonable it is to have to learn the situations in which your character is and isn't safe on all of them as opposed to a few of the "starters". In my opinion it isn't really that unreasonable but I may be biased as I come from a chess background in which a deep knowledge of many situations is necessary to perform at any reasonable level. I would love to hear other people's opinions on this matter.

I've said before that the main difference between "okay" and "not okay" stages in people's minds seems to be how much mental energy they're willing to devote to keeping track of the stage.

I've also said that if people would actually devote a solid chunk of time (like, 1-2 hours) doing nothing but messing around on a given stage, they would probably gain a better understanding of how the stage works and thus reduce the mental load. (This is also why I think a tournament where BF/FD/SV/T&C/etc. are all banned, no gentleman's, would be an interesting experiment.)

Despite this, and despite the fact that my various stage threads have literally done the work for them, it's apparently too much to ask for people to remember that T&C's platforms stick around for 30 seconds, or 3 back-and-forth cycles at 10 seconds per cycle, whichever you prefer. (Yet remembering when Randall comes around is apparently fine?)

</minirant>

 

[Luigi player]

Despite this, and despite the fact that my various stage threads have literally done the work for them, it's apparently too much to ask for people to remember that T&C's platforms stick around for 30 seconds, or 3 back-and-forth cycles at 10 seconds per cycle, whichever you prefer. (Yet remembering when Randall comes around is apparently fine?)

</minirant>

What, and you're expecting people to pay attention to something like that, during a hot stakes fight? Good luck finding people who can even do this without giving up attention to the "playing against your opponent" part.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What, and you're expecting people to pay attention to something like that, during a hot stakes fight? Good luck finding people who can even do this without giving up attention to the "playing against your opponent" part.

Go play street fighter then.

No, I'm serious. Quit smash, it is not the game for you. If I didn't like memorizing long combo strings, I would quit UMvC3, if I didn't like randomness I'd stop playing Mario Kart, and if I didn't think keeping track of some background noise, I wouldn't play Super Smash Bros. Any Super Smash Bros game. What kind of a statement is that? "You're expecting people to pay attention to a fundamental aspect of gameplay during gameplay?" Yes, we're expecting people to pay attention to things like that during a hot stakes fight. It's a large part of what makes Super Smash Bros unique and interesting compared to other fighting games. If I didn't personally know that you were one of the best players in Austria I'd assume you were some complete newbie who thought "Fox Only Final Destination" was ever anything other than a derogatory joke and who simply could not function on any stage more complex than Smashville.

Oh, and as for finding people who can do that? Me me me me me me me me and almost everyone else. I'm constantly astounded to hear statements like this from top players, because this is an extremely fundamental skill in Smash Bros and not being able to do it is like not knowing how to shorthop in Melee or not knowing how long it takes to charge as a Guile main in SF4. The idea of a top player being unable to do this just flabbergasts me.

 

[Luigi player]

Go play street fighter then.

No, I'm serious. Quit smash, it is not the game for you. If I didn't like memorizing long combo strings, I would quit UMvC3, if I didn't like randomness I'd stop playing Mario Kart, and if I didn't think keeping track of some background noise, I wouldn't play Super Smash Bros. Any Super Smash Bros game. What kind of a statement is that? "You're expecting people to pay attention to a fundamental aspect of gameplay during gameplay?" Yes, we're expecting people to pay attention to things like that during a hot stakes fight. It's a large part of what makes Super Smash Bros unique and interesting compared to other fighting games. If I didn't personally know that you were one of the best players in Austria I'd assume you were some complete newbie who thought "Fox Only Final Destination" was ever anything other than a derogatory joke and who simply could not function on any stage more complex than Smashville.

Oh, and as for finding people who can do that? Me me me me me me me me and almost everyone else. I'm constantly astounded to hear statements like this from top players, because this is an extremely fundamental skill in Smash Bros and not being able to do it is like not knowing how to shorthop in Melee or not knowing how long it takes to charge as a Guile main in SF4. The idea of a top player being unable to do this just flabbergasts me.

Just because you like playing Smash uncompetitively doesn't mean I have to quit Smash.

 

[MysteriousSilver]

Smashville's platform moves around too much, don't want to lose track of it during a fight and get Shiek fair'd to death, better ban Smashville.

 

[Raijinken]

Smashville's platform moves around too much, don't want to lose track of it during a fight and get Shiek fair'd to death, better ban Smashville.

That balloon interrupts half my attacks and messes with freeze frames. It's far too distracting, but just because people like playing Smash casually, I'm stuck attending tournaments with it legal. /s

I'm continually amazed at how deliberate people can be about ignoring their own blindness to the inconsistencies with legalizing Smashville but decrying all interfering elements on a stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just because you like playing Smash uncompetitively doesn't mean I have to quit Smash.

I'm just saying, you clearly don't want to play this game. You have no interest in one of the most fundamental things that differentiates it from every other fighting game, and you want to artificially limit the game to remove that feature (although you conveniently ignore that your favorite stage is one of the most obnoxious to keep track of and should be considered uncompetitive by your own criteria, as the two above posters pointed out). Hell, you even call it "uncompetitive". Hey, if you don't think Smash is competitive, don't play it competitively.

 

[Infinite901]

What, and you're expecting people to pay attention to something like that, during a hot stakes fight? Good luck finding people who can even do this without giving up attention to the "playing against your opponent" part.

I'm surprised you don't pay attention to that, it seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Malex]

What, and you're expecting people to pay attention to something like that, during a hot stakes fight? Good luck finding people who can even do this without giving up attention to the "playing against your opponent" part.

"Attention" is a resource that is used in almost every competition. From slow paced (chess) to fast pace (Starcraft).

Smash related example: Bizarro flame knows Happy Cloud's position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4lUV8HW_2Is#t=675

 

[MysteriousSilver]

Hey, there's no need to get vicious over this, though. We have different ideas about what Smash should be, and some of those differences can't really be reconciled, so we need to hash out the answers as best we can. But someone can like Smash for it's freedom of movement, edgeguarding game, reading DI etc. without having to like the stage layouts too. I disagree, personally, but it's a valid opinion.

 

[Luigi player]

Smashville's platform moves around too much, don't want to lose track of it during a fight and get Shiek fair'd to death, better ban Smashville.

Cannot keep track? It's always moving the same and all the time.
That's different (and much better to see/get a feeling for) than compared to "having to count seconds /look at the timer a few times".

I'm just saying, you clearly don't want to play this game. You have no interest in one of the most fundamental things that differentiates it from every other fighting game, and you want to artificially limit the game to remove that feature (although you conveniently ignore that your favorite stage is one of the most obnoxious to keep track of and should be considered uncompetitive by your own criteria, as the two above posters pointed out). Hell, you even call it "uncompetitive". Hey, if you don't think Smash is competitive, don't play it competitively.

I said you'd have to keep track of all those things while thinking about your opponent, and it's probably not even possible to have full focus on both things. I like to artifically reduce the games stages to make it a better game competitively, yes. Though if I'd make a stagelist it'd probably have all usual ones + wuhu island and kongo jungle (with 2 bans though). I'm not even against having them legal. I'm just saying why some stages are better than others. Or in the actual case of my post, just telling that it's distracting of the actual combat with your opponent a little if you want to count / look at the timer all the time, so it makes sense that people don't do that.

 

[Malex]

I said you'd have to keep track of all those things while thinking about your opponent, and it's probably not even possible to have full focus on both things. I like to artifically reduce the games stages to make it a better game competitively, yes. Though if I'd make a stagelist it'd probably have all usual ones + wuhu island and kongo jungle (with 2 bans though). I'm not even against having them legal. I'm just saying why some stages are better than others. Or in the actual case of my post, just telling that it's distracting of the actual combat with your opponent a little if you want to count / look at the timer all the time, so it makes sense that people don't do that.

Depends on how you define a competitive game. The point of the thread is to challenge the current norm of "3 stage starter" by showing that there are other ways that are more "fair."

As declared in the OP, second stage strike gets an advantage in "3 stage starter" and, arguably, hurts characters. Now, to be "good" at competitive smash, I am limited to characters that perform decently on two out of the three starters. Why? Because if I play a character who only has advantage on one stage, it will be banned.

If the stage list is opened up to more stages, rather than banning to my "second worst" I can ban both of them, and suddenly, more characters are viable. Now, you may want to argue that certain stages shouldn't be allowed, you yourself said that there are other stages should be allowed. And if the stage is legal on any game of the set, it should be legal on the first game.

 

[Raijinken]

Cannot keep track? It's always moving the same and all the time.
That's different (and much better to see/get a feeling for) than compared to "having to count seconds /look at the timer a few times".

As ParanoidDrone pointed out, the platforms in T&C move the exact same way every time, in a predictable cycle, with predictable gaps. Just like Smashville's.

Speaking of unpredictable, nowhere even in ParanoidDrone's stage research, can I find someone saying that the balloon's spawn time is not random (for either Animal Crossing stage).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

As ParanoidDrone pointed out, the platforms in T&C move the exact same way every time, in a predictable cycle, with predictable gaps. Just like Smashville's.

Speaking of unpredictable, nowhere even in ParanoidDrone's stage research, can I find someone saying that the balloon's spawn time is not random (for either Animal Crossing stage).

That's because I honestly have no idea if it is random or not. (Although I thought I did mention it somewhere. Am I going nuts?)

EDIT: Reading comprehension fail? I think you mean that everyone seems to agree the balloon spawns randomly.

 

[Raijinken]

That's because I honestly have no idea if it is random or not. (Although I thought I did mention it somewhere. Am I going nuts?)

EDIT: Reading comprehension fail? I think you mean that everyone seems to agree the balloon spawns randomly.

I meant I can't verify one way or another with Google or players I know have stage research knowledge, short of extensive testing myself, if those are predictable or random.

 

[MysteriousSilver]

Cannot keep track? It's always moving the same and all the time.
That's different (and much better to see/get a feeling for) than compared to "having to count seconds /look at the timer a few times".

It's always moving, and where it is at any given time has major implications about how threatening certain options are. It is absolutely something that a player needs to keep track of in certain matchups. Whether or not it's as easy to keep track of as T&C's transformations is only a matter of degrees.

I think that anyone who plays on T&C quite a bit wouldn't even have to count seconds or look at the timer; one gets a sense of how long the platforms are going to be out.

 

[Raijinken]

It's always moving, and where it is at any given time has major implications about how threatening certain options are. It is absolutely something that a player needs to keep track of in certain matchups. Whether or not it's as easy to keep track of as T&C's transformations is only a matter of degrees.

I think that anyone who plays on T&C quite a bit wouldn't even have to count seconds or look at the timer; one gets a sense of how long the platforms are going to be out.

That's completely true of any stage without actually random elements. To an extent, it's even true of random ones. Once the Halberd claw starts moving around, you can get a sense of when it's going to strike and who needs to be careful.

It literally makes no sense to argue that T&C's motion is more attention-requiring than Smashville's. There's no justification for that claim.

 

[Delvro]

I'm agree that 3 starter lists are really bad because it gives such a big advantage to the player striking second. 5 starters would be a lot better.

There seems to be a secondary debate here about whether or not some stages should be banned. I feel that the decision of whether or not to ban a stage is entirely different than the decision of whether or not it should be a counterpick. I know some of you feel differently so let me try to explain my thoughts.

So here are qualities that most often lead to the banning of a stage:
*Propensity for degenerative gameplay (usually due to size, walls, or walk-offs)
*Lack of warning or predictability (not necessarily randomness) of changes to the environment and hazards
*Lethality and frequency of hazards
When some threshold of these three qualities is reached, we ban the stage.

The decision to make a stage a starter or a counterpick should not be based on the above factors, given that a stage is not banned. The starter stages should be ones that have a propensity for even -- or at least not lopsided -- matchups. That's why it's called a "neutral" stage, it's one that doesn't particularly strongly benefit or hurt any or many characters. So it is a decent, if not perfect, measure of that character's "average" capability. Based on this criteria, I actually felt that in Brawl, FD should have been a counterpick due to the immense benefit that chain-grabbers got on that stage versus any other one.

Some people propose that the whole list of stages should be available from the beginning and that starters should not exist. I'm not against that idea in theory but it's a bit cumbersome in practice to strike 15 or so stages for your first match.

 

[Malex]

I'm agree that 3 starter lists are really bad because it gives such a big advantage to the player striking second. 5 starters would be a lot better.

There seems to be a secondary debate here about whether or not some stages should be banned. I feel that the decision of whether or not to ban a stage is entirely different than the decision of whether or not it should be a counterpick. I know some of you feel differently so let me try to explain my thoughts.

So here are qualities that most often lead to the banning of a stage:
*Propensity for degenerative gameplay (usually due to size, walls, or walk-offs)
*Lack of warning or predictability (not necessarily randomness) of changes to the environment and hazards
*Lethality and frequency of hazards
When some threshold of these three qualities is reached, we ban the stage.

The decision to make a stage a starter or a counterpick should not be based on the above factors, given that a stage is not banned. The starter stages should be ones that have a propensity for even -- or at least not lopsided -- matchups. That's why it's called a "neutral" stage, it's one that doesn't particularly strongly benefit or hurt any or many characters. So it is a decent, if not perfect, measure of that character's "average" capability. Based on this criteria, I actually felt that in Brawl, FD should have been a counterpick due to the immense benefit that chain-grabbers got on that stage versus any other one.

Some people propose that the whole list of stages should be available from the beginning and that starters should not exist. I'm not against that idea in theory but it's a bit cumbersome in practice to strike 15 or so stages for your first match.

I was under the impression that we stopped calling them neutral stages because they weren't fair. By limiting which stages are allowed, we are giving an advantage to characters that perform well on those stages. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the decision to do so, but it is definitely not neutral.

 

[Delvro]

That's absolutely true, they're not neutral in that no stage can be truly neutral to all characters. Partly because neutral isn't really defined well. But we can have a stagelist with a subset of starter stages, where these starter stages are neither highly desirable nor undesirable for most of the cast.

Succintly, a stage should be a starter if it's rarely chosen as a counterpick.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Some people propose that the whole list of stages should be available from the beginning and that starters should not exist. I'm not against that idea in theory but it's a bit cumbersome in practice to strike 15 or so stages for your first match.

It merely sounds cumbersome. Let me give an example.
Assuming both players have knowledge of their characters and their own preferences for stages(otherwise stage striking is basically irrelevant since it any stage will adds to the player's learning process), in a 3 starter list you go into the match knowing that you have 3 options:
a)The stage you want to play on. (your favourite or best stage for the matchup[from the allowed stages])
b)The stage you don't want to play on.(Your least favourite or worst for the matchup[again from the allowed stages])
c)The stage you would accept playing on should your option in a become unavailable.
Now this scenario generally plays out as going to smashville because smashville is generally option "c" for both players otherwise stage striking is simple and quick. Both players strike anything in their "b" category for both players until a result is attained.
Any increase of the list of legal stages still results in you going into the match with those same 3 options except options "a" and "b" include multiple stages. The additional stages only offer you the option of varying your definitions of your personal "a" and "b" choices more to suit your matchup vs the opponent more.
If that is cumbersome then any and every time you have ever had bought fast food it was cumbersome. You had those same exact 3 choices there as well.
a) things you want to eat.
b) things you don't want to eat.
c) things you will accept eating should the options in a be unavailable.
Fact: Stage striking simply is this simple.

 

[Raijinken]

That's absolutely true, they're not neutral in that no stage can be truly neutral to all characters. Partly because neutral isn't really defined well. But we can have a stagelist with a subset of starter stages, where these starter stages are neither highly desirable nor undesirable for most of the cast.

Succintly, a stage should be a starter if it's rarely chosen as a counterpick.

How (or who) do we decide what's "highly desirable" for most of the cast? Right now a lot of people (disregarding whether or not they prefer Starter/CP or FLSS or the number of Starters) are familiar with, comfortable on, and generally just like Smashville. But it's also an extremely biased pick for at least three very high-tier characters (Diddy, Sheik, and Ness). Is the ratio supposed to be out of the full roster, or out of the "popular" pro picks? 3/52 clearly isn't an issue, but 3/10 is pretty significant from a skewing stance.

Basically, I'm still concerned that having starters at all will still impart undue bias (because again, why should a stage be fair on round 2 but not round 1) in the stage selection. While obviously most people won't bother legalizing things like Pac-Land because "it's the most fair in that everyone hates it equally" (for a theoretical stage/reasoning example), what you're suggesting will still have significant bias at some level or another. I think that can be reduced by extending the selectable stage list (that's what the striking is for, after all), but the larger the "starter" list, the longer it takes to strike through, and the more you may as well just make the jump to FLSS for the balance it offers.

It merely sounds cumbersome. Let me give an example.
Assuming both players have knowledge of their characters and their own preferences for stages(otherwise stage striking is basically irrelevant since it any stage will adds to the player's learning process), in a 3 starter list you go into the match knowing that you have 3 options:
a)The stage you want to play on. (your favourite or best stage for the matchup[from the allowed stages])
b)The stage you don't want to play on.(Your least favourite or worst for the matchup[again from the allowed stages])
c)The stage you would accept playing on should your option in a become unavailable.
Now this scenario generally plays out as going to smashville because smashville is generally option "c" for both players otherwise stage striking is simple and quick. Both players strike anything in their "b" category for both players until a result is attained.
Any increase of the list of legal stages still results in you going into the match with those same 3 options except options "a" and "b" include multiple stages. The additional stages only offer you the option of varying your definitions of your personal "a" and "b" choices more to suit your matchup vs the opponent more.
If that is cumbersome then any and every time you have ever had bought fast food it was cumbersome. You had those same exact 3 choices there as well.
a) things you want to eat.
b) things you don't want to eat.
c) things you will accept eating should the options in a be unavailable.
Fact: Stage striking simply is this simple.

This this this. If you know all, say, 15 stages in the list, you only have to know your top eight at the absolute most (until the second round when a player gets bans, which is why knowledge is power). You can strike the others in any order you desire, it literally makes no strategic difference (it's not like Dota where your opponent gets their picks in between some of your strikes). And if you don't know enough about stages to make a snap judgement that "Oh, I love Halberd, but Diddy loves it more, maybe I should go to my second-best", well, you simply need to work on your matchup and stage knowledge. The problem does not lie in the number of stages to be considered.

 

[Delvro]

When I say that having the entire stage list as starters, I was more thinking about how the process itself is cumbersome, not about learning how to play on many different types of stages. What might happen is some players will forget which stages are struck, take a long time each striking step, etc. I know it's easy to keep track of by going to the stage list but players don't always do what you want or expect as a TO. I don't really know what would happen because I've never been to a tournament where the entire stage list was available.

I think it's worth trying out at least. See what happens and what the problems, if any, are having the entire stage list open for the first match.

Now, with regards to who decides what's "highly desirable" for most of the cast... the community does of course. If Diddy, Sheik, and Ness are so good on the stage that it's hurting the competitive viability of the rest of the cast, then why not make it a counterpick? Myself though, I'm not yet convinced that Diddy, Sheik, and Ness are so great on that stage. I think they're just great characters in general. Do you really see Diddy players counterpicking Smashville often? What about Sheiks? Nesses? Everyone has a different experience, but I see Diddy players taking me to Battlefield more often than Smashville when they lose their first match.

 

[Raijinken]

When I say that having the entire stage list as starters, I was more thinking about how the process itself is cumbersome, not about learning how to play on many different types of stages. What might happen is some players will forget which stages are struck, take a long time each striking step, etc. I know it's easy to keep track of by going to the stage list but players don't always do what you want or expect as a TO. I don't really know what would happen because I've never been to a tournament where the entire stage list was available.

I think it's worth trying out at least. See what happens and what the problems, if any, are having the entire stage list open for the first match.

Now, with regards to who decides what's "highly desirable" for most of the cast... the community does of course. If Diddy, Sheik, and Ness are so good on the stage that it's hurting the competitive viability of the rest of the cast, then why not make it a counterpick? Myself though, I'm not yet convinced that Diddy, Sheik, and Ness are so great on that stage. I think they're just great characters in general. Do you really see Diddy players counterpicking Smashville often? What about Sheiks? Nesses? Everyone has a different experience, but I see Diddy players taking me to Battlefield more often than Smashville when they lose their first match.

I don't see Diddy picking Smashville, no, but there's plenty of gifs and clips around (maybe even in this thread, I forget since all the stage discussion threads kinda blend together for me) showing that Sheik and Pikachu and Ness can fair you off the side with extreme simplicity if that platform's in the right place. Smashville for those three is a bit like Halberd for Diddy: You shouldn't let them go there if you have any choice in the matter.

 

[Luigi player]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLRAFrLmT8#t=12m38s

Zeros viewpoint. ^^

 

[Infinite901]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLRAFrLmT8#t=12m38s

Zeros viewpoint. ^^

No offense, but I've always kinda hated Zero.

His argument against T&C was that you can circle camp, but guess what? Fast characters can camp on ANY stage! (maybe not FD) But guess what? That's why circle camping is f*ing BANNED!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, Zero's opinion is just... wrong. His arguments about T&C are so ludicrous that it begs the question if he's ever actually spent any time playing there. "You can platform camp. Oh, and the platforms go away and you can die. Oh, and it's random. Oh, and the ceiling is super low". Plus one top player who knows very little about stages and how they work. Like, everything is wrong. Characters who hate platforms should ban it? It's one of Mac's better stages, considerably better than Smashville. Oh, it's good for some and bad for others? Congrats, you just described every stage in the game (including Smashville and FD). Ugh, come on. @ Luigi player , do you seriously think that's an opinion worth taking seriously?

 

[irokex13]

Yeah, Zero's opinion is just... wrong. His arguments about T&C are so ludicrous that it begs the question if he's ever actually spent any time playing there. "You can platform camp. Oh, and the platforms go away and you can die. Oh, and it's random. Oh, and the ceiling is super low". Plus one top player who knows very little about stages and how they work. Like, everything is wrong. Characters who hate platforms should ban it? It's one of Mac's better stages, considerably better than Smashville. Oh, it's good for some and bad for others? Congrats, you just described every stage in the game (including Smashville and FD). Ugh, come on. @ Luigi player , do you seriously think that's an opinion worth taking seriously?

Honestly, you would go much, much farther in your discussions and get so much more accomplished if you didn't present your arguments/responses in such a crappy manner. There's so much hostility and general obnoxiousness in your posts that even if I agree with some of your points, I don't want to side with you because of your tone. Even if you're in a crappy mood when talking to people, the reasonable thing to do would be to talk to them how you would want to be talked to. Just saying.

Now on the topic of Smashville, the 0-death fair strings are being greatly exaggerated, as I believe you can DI away to escape early or tech the platform if they screw up the combo. I've never had this happen to me while fighting a Sheik/Ness/Pikachu, but I have been killed by T&C's leaving platform. However I don't think that is enough of a reason to make T&C a counterpick stage. I would be perfectly fine with adding T&C and Lylat to the starter stages.