Meta It's Time To Abandon 3 Starter Lists

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

I'm sorry, I just have a short temper when yet another top player says things that are just factually wrong about stages in support of a ruleset that's considerably worse.

 

[Raijinken]

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!

I'm sure he's the expert on circle-camping seeing as he won E3 with it.

But seriously. Applying identical reasoning from Luigi Player and Zero fairly to other stages literally leaves us Final Destination as the only "fair" stage.

Kinda reminds me of For Glory. And quite honestly, I'm starting to wonder if things wouldn't be easier if we'd just run FD/Omegas only, and actually let Sudden Death determine the winner when it happens. It would hardly be less fair than what we've got now, after all.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm sure he's the expert on circle-camping seeing as he won E3 with it.

But seriously. Applying identical reasoning from Luigi Player and Zero fairly to other stages literally leaves us Final Destination as the only "fair" stage.

Kinda reminds me of For Glory. And quite honestly, I'm starting to wonder if things wouldn't be easier if we'd just run FD/Omegas only, and actually let Sudden Death determine the winner when it happens. It would hardly be less fair than what we've got now, after all.

If I were a TO, I'd have a consistent little side event going where the stage list was FLSS from Mushroom Kingdom U, Mario Circuit, Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Woolly World, Orbital Gate Assault, Kalos Pokemon League, Gamer, Garden of Hope, and Windy Hill Zone. No Gentleman's. With any luck it would help people realize how the stages act and maybe gain an appreciation for how the likes of Wuhu Island are pretty tame in comparison.

(****, that's 10 stages. Need +3 or -1.)

 

[Raijinken]

If I were a TO, I'd have a consistent little side event going where the stage list was FLSS from Mushroom Kingdom U, Mario Circuit, Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Woolly World, Orbital Gate Assault, Kalos Pokemon League, Gamer, Garden of Hope, and Windy Hill Zone. No Gentleman's. With any luck it would help people realize how the stages act and maybe gain an appreciation for how the likes of Wuhu Island are pretty tame in comparison.

(****, that's 10 stages. Need +3 or -1.)

I totally agree. I ran a tournament a week ago, and aside from a handful who mostly played Smashville, there was a surprising bit of Kalos (gentleman's since I ended up removing it from my ruleset officially) and Gamer (same thing). But the winner went to Smashville every round as Custom Palutena and didn't drop a game all tournament.

 

[Infinite901]

If I were a TO, I'd have a consistent little side event going where the stage list was FLSS from Mushroom Kingdom U, Mario Circuit, Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Woolly World, Orbital Gate Assault, Kalos Pokemon League, Gamer, Garden of Hope, and Windy Hill Zone. No Gentleman's. With any luck it would help people realize how the stages act and maybe gain an appreciation for how the likes of Wuhu Island are pretty tame in comparison.

(****, that's 10 stages. Need +3 or -1.)

How about Port Town, Galaxy, and Wrecking Crew? /s

Since my friends (we play 3DS) seem to think that FD is the only stage, I've started doing random select (I set it to the legal 3DS stages) whenever I host. It's ridiculous how polarized people get by a single platform and some Shy Guys.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

How about Port Town, Galaxy, and Wrecking Crew? /s

Since my friends (we play 3DS) seem to think that FD is the only stage, I've started doing random select (I set it to the legal 3DS stages) whenever I host. It's ridiculous how polarized people get by a single platform and some Shy Guys.

I was actually thinking Wii Fit Studio, Coliseum, and Mario Galaxy.

 

[Ulevo]

Some things I want to note:

• People keep mentioning that Sheik really enjoys Smashville. And that's fine. But realistically the reason you're going to Smashville versus Sheik is because she does even better on Battlefield, where she can combo you off platforms that are always present, and kill you early with tippered up smashes if you land on a platform. Banning Smashville just ultimately means you're going to wind up on an even less favourable stage against her. This is not the consequence of the stage or stage list; Sheik is just a good character.

• I feel as though tournaments should either conduct themselves with 3 Stage Strike or Full Stage Strike.

Lylat Cruise's previous problems were fixed, and while that definitely means it should not be the subject for bans anymore, that does not mean it is starter material. The tilts do more than just inconvenience recoveries. They also help to block off projectiles, and give certain characters that are able to utilize a ground game versus an air game reliant on auto cancelled aerials a benefit. While it is seemingly minute, the way you play on Lylat is very different than how you play on any other stage in the game.

Town & City as well, while less offensive than Lylat, still has traits that have it heavily favor certain characters more than others, the low ceiling being the primary culprit. It is to the degree that a player should never opt to give this stage away to characters like Zero Suit Samus, Luigi, Meta Knight, or Rosalina over Smashville unless they simply do not know any better or have a character that benefits more.

Here's the problem. What purpose is there in having these included in a starter list if you can just include all the stages from the start? Most tournaments effectively use 9 stages: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, Lylat Cruise, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege. That's concise enough for players to be able to remember and reliably strike without having to resort to a list game one while still reaping the benefits of stage variety and reaching a stage that is fairest amongst the match up. If you're opting in to using a starter list, which should be including the fairest stages amongst the widest array of characters, there is no purpose beyond going past the initial three: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville. If you're choosing to include more than these three, you should be using the Full Strike System.

Your game one stage list should seek to provided the fairest game one, either by including only the most neutral stages to the widest array of characters, or by including the all of the ones available so that player choice can settle on a medium.

• @ Budget Player Cadet_ made note of how it gives a heavy advantage to the player choosing second. I disagree. No reputable tournament is going to allow or enforce players to choose their stages before their characters. The players already know which stage out of the primary three is least beneficial for their character, and most beneficial for their character. The order of choosing will not change this. If I as Olimar want to go to Final Destination, and my opponent as Sheik wants to go to Battlefield, is it really going to change the fact that we're ultimately going to Smashville just because one person gets to pick before the other? BPC even noted, contradictingly, that both players wind up on Smashville most of the time anyway. Most tournaments are using 5 Stage Strike due to the EVO ruleset, and Smashville still winds up being game one over 90% of the time.

• I feel that the only real reason you should be using a 'numbered' strike system as opposed to the Full Strike System is numbers. In other words, if you opt to use a lot of stages that are currently banned at most tournaments, i.e. Pokemon Stadium 2, Wuhu, Mario Circuit, et cetera, and your stage list is perceivably too large to expect players to remember on the fly without having to resort to a list every first game.

If this is the case, the first game should revolve around starters that cater the least advantage to the widest array of characters. Including Lylat Cruise and Town & City does not abide by this philosophy.

 

[NegaNixx]

Some things I want to note:

• People keep mentioning that Sheik really enjoys Smashville. And that's fine. But realistically the reason you're going to Smashville versus Sheik is because she does even better on Battlefield, where she can combo you off platforms that are always present, and kill you early with tippered up smashes if you land on a platform. Banning Smashville just ultimately means you're going to wind up on an even less favourable stage against her. This is not the consequence of the stage or stage list; Sheik is just a good character.

• I feel as though tournaments should either conduct themselves with 3 Stage Strike or Full Stage Strike.

Lylat Cruise's previous problems were fixed, and while that definitely means it should not be the subject for bans anymore, that does not mean it is starter material. The tilts do more than just inconvenience recoveries. They also help to block off projectiles, and give certain characters that are able to utilize a ground game versus an air game reliant on auto cancelled aerials a benefit. While it is seemingly minute, the way you play on Lylat is very different than how you play on any other stage in the game.

Town & City as well, while less offensive than Lylat, still has traits that have it heavily favor certain characters more than others, the low ceiling being the primary culprit. It is to the degree that a player should never opt to give this stage away to characters like Zero Suit Samus, Luigi, Meta Knight, or Rosalina over Smashville unless they simply do not know any better or have a character that benefits more.

Here's the problem. What purpose is there in having these included in a starter list if you can just include all the stages from the start? Most tournaments effectively use 9 stages: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, Lylat Cruise, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege. That's concise enough for players to be able to remember and reliably strike without having to resort to a list game one while still reaping the benefits of stage variety and reaching a stage that is fairest amongst the match up. If you're opting in to using a starter list, which should be including the fairest stages amongst the widest array of characters, there is no purpose beyond going past the initial three: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville. If you're choosing to include more than these three, you should be using the Full Strike System.

Your game one stage list should seek to provided the fairest game one, either by including only the most neutral stages to the widest array of characters, or by including the all of the ones available so that player choice can settle on a medium.

• @ Budget Player Cadet_ made note of how it gives a heavy advantage to the player choosing second. I disagree. No reputable tournament is going to allow or enforce players to choose their stages before their characters. The players already know which stage out of the primary three is least beneficial for their character, and most beneficial for their character. The order of choosing will not change this. If I as Olimar want to go to Final Destination, and my opponent as Sheik wants to go to Battlefield, is it really going to change the fact that we're ultimately going to Smashville just because one person gets to pick before the other? BPC even noted, contradictingly, that both players wind up on Smashville most of the time anyway. Most tournaments are using 5 Stage Strike due to the EVO ruleset, and Smashville still winds up being game one over 90% of the time.

• I feel that the only real reason you should be using a 'numbered' strike system as opposed to the Full Strike System is numbers. In other words, if you opt to use a lot of stages that are currently banned at most tournaments, i.e. Pokemon Stadium 2, Wuhu, Mario Circuit, et cetera, and your stage list is perceivably too large to expect players to remember on the fly without having to resort to a list every first game.

If this is the case, the first game should revolve around starters that cater the least advantage to the widest array of characters. Including Lylat Cruise and Town & City does not abide by this philosophy.

If my math theory isn't totally wrong wouldn't you objectively get the best medium (the most neutral) out of a larger pool of selection? Making 3 starters less neutral than 5, and 5 less neutral than 7 etc...

There aren't any perfectly neutral stages at any rate. Each one has it's own advantages and disadvantages, and none perfectly balance out. FD BF and SV are just the least intrusive and most tame. And if we can get a more correct answer from more stages than FLSS and Five Starter are both more correct than Three Starter.

If Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, Lylat Cruise, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege are our nine legal stages to FLSS then picking the middle of nine is more neutral than picking the middle of three as there are more outliers removed from the stage selection. If Pikachu for instance is outstanding on BF and SV it wouldn't matter what a Mario player chooses, he'd be at a disadvantage because FD is going to get striked every single time in a Three starter list, but in a five starter list they remove the outliers for Pikachu and go to let's say Duck Hunt, where it's significantly more neutral. (I actually don't know this match up)

tl;dr: While I agree that taking the largest pool of stages logistically possible gives us the greatest neutral outcome, 3 Starter Striking is rarely a neutral pick.

 

[Ulevo]

If my math theory isn't totally wrong wouldn't you objectively get the best medium (the most neutral) out of a larger pool of selection? Making 3 starters less neutral than 5, and 5 less neutral than 7 etc...

There aren't any perfectly neutral stages at any rate. Each one has it's own advantages and disadvantages, and none perfectly balance out. FD BF and SV are just the least intrusive and most tame. And if we can get a more correct answer from more stages than FLSS and Five Starter are both more correct than Three Starter.

If Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, Lylat Cruise, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege are our nine legal stages to FLSS then picking the middle of nine is more neutral than picking the middle of three as there are more outliers removed from the stage selection. If Pikachu for instance is outstanding on BF and SV it wouldn't matter what a Mario player chooses, he'd be at a disadvantage because FD is going to get striked every single time in a Three starter list, but in a five starter list they remove the outliers for Pikachu and go to let's say Duck Hunt, where it's significantly more neutral. (I actually don't know this match up)

tl;dr: While I agree that taking the largest pool of stages logistically possible gives us the greatest neutral outcome, 3 Starter Striking is rarely a neutral pick.

The problem with this is that typically Battlefield and Smashville are far tamer than whatever is left over in the picking order. If you ban those two and have a larger selection to choose from, you're going to wind up on something worse. This is why all of our matches always come down to either Smashville, Battlefield if both characters enjoy it, or Final Destination if both characters enjoy it.

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't work out in practice. These stages do not need to be perfectly neutral, but they are the most neutral.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Some things I want to note:

• People keep mentioning that Sheik really enjoys Smashville. And that's fine. But realistically the reason you're going to Smashville versus Sheik is because she does even better on Battlefield, where she can combo you off platforms that are always present, and kill you early with tippered up smashes if you land on a platform. Banning Smashville just ultimately means you're going to wind up on an even less favourable stage against her. This is not the consequence of the stage or stage list; Sheik is just a good character.

So... What are Sheik's best stages? Battlefield, Smashville, and...

...Huh, you know, reading this thread, it seems like it's just Battlefield and Smashville. Castle Siege, Lylat Cruise, and Town and City are perhaps noteworthy, but BF and SV really are her best stages. In fact, all but one of the 5 proposed starters rank among Shiek's best stages, with the last one being matchup-dependent. Where does she suffer? Stages with larger or smaller blastzones, stages that transform, stages with odd qualities.

This is what happened in Brawl, too - most of the top tiers basically got a free ride round one, with their favorite stages all being starters, because they similarly relied on a lack of disruption and relatively normal environments (with the obvious exception of Cancerknight). Ice Climbers was really the best example - incredibly strong in situations where nothing was doing anything, whereas other stages just ruined their gameplan. So what does this mean?

If this is the case, the first game should revolve around starters that cater the least advantage to the widest array of characters. Including Lylat Cruise and Town & City does not abide by this philosophy.

It means this isn't necessarily true. I'll get to your case for each of those in a second, but the problem remains that this game has something like 1400 matchups, with numerous phenomenally different characters, each with different qualities and preferences. We cannot reasonably assert that Smashville, Final Destination, and Battlefield (three stages which, I feel the need to point out, have each seen play as go-to counterpicks in various matchups or for various characters) automatically cater the least advantage to the widest array of characters.

Does adding LC and T&C improve on this in every matchup? Not necessarily; if your character loves FD, is meh about BF (and in FLSS would end up there), but hates SV, LC, and T&C, then adding those extra two in there might lead to more advantage for one character. However, the odds of this go down and down and down with every starter we add. With 5, it could get worse. With 7 it could as well. With 9? What are the odds that we're adding only the most biased stages for the matchup? Remember, FLSS is, at most, something like 17 (and that's really pushing it!), and that is inherently what delivers us "the most neutral", ergo the least advantage (we agree on this one, right? I think we agree on this one, I'm just not 100% sure). So at a certain point, adding more stages can't possibly get us further from there. Consider the following spread (A1=best for character A, B1=best for character B):

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
N
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1

Now for 3 starters, we have A8, N, and B8. Now we throw in two more, and we have A8, N, B8, A1, and A2. Obviously, we've shifted towards A's favor. How about with A1, A2, A3, A4, A8, N, B8? We've shifted further in the wrong direction. Throw in A5 and A6, though, for a 9-stage starter list, and it's already past the tipping point. With 13 legal stages (which is far more common), we're past the tipping point way earlier.

But now we throw in an extra variable - A8, N, and B8 may not be the most even spread for every matchup. We have to tailor our starter list to every matchup, not just one. And in that case, is the stage really the most balanced? I don't think we have enough data to justify that conclusion. I don't believe Smashville is the most balanced stage in the game, the way many other people do. I don't think FD, SV, or BF carves out any special place in the majority of matchups. Hell, with 13-stage FLSS, the number of times I see people starting on any of those is actually fairly low (with Battlefield being more common than either of the others, and T&C being by far the most common round one pick), indicating that it may not be the case in most matchups.

Meanwhile, do we know that it gets better when we add more? No. It could, as my example above showed, get worse. However, the worst-case, and this is really what I feel we should worry about, becomes less crippling. With every additional pair of stages, the worst-case gets milder, while the best-case doesn't change. How this looks in reality requires testing, but in theory, 5 should almost always be better than 3, 7 should almost always be better than 5, and 9 should almost always be better than 7. (Just be careful not to make an obvious and easily corrected mistake, like having 5 starter with Battlefield, Delfino, and Halberd on the list.)

Lylat Cruise's previous problems were fixed, and while that definitely means it should not be the subject for bans anymore, that does not mean it is starter material. The tilts do more than just inconvenience recoveries. They also help to block off projectiles, and give certain characters that are able to utilize a ground game versus an air game reliant on auto cancelled aerials a benefit. While it is seemingly minute, the way you play on Lylat is very different than how you play on any other stage in the game.

Okay, let's grant for the moment that Lylat works differently from other stages, and let's ignore for the moment that every stage has, large or small, differences, and let's shrug off the way the tilting and weird angles are similar on Castle Siege's third (and first, to a lesser extent) transformation. What does this mean for balance? You've shifted from talking about how stages effect matchups to how stages effect characters. But what does this mean? Are there a lot of characters who, in FLSS, would strike lylat fairly early (this seems like a good measure to me)? I don't think so. Peach probably would. I hear from Kunai that Toon Link would as well, as would Duck Hunt. But I'm almost willing to bet more characters in more matchups would strike FD early than LC. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one trying to differentiate here, and I don't think we have the data.

Town & City as well, while less offensive than Lylat, still has traits that have it heavily favor certain characters more than others, the low ceiling being the primary culprit. It is to the degree that a player should never opt to give this stage away to characters like Zero Suit Samus, Luigi, Meta Knight, or Rosalina over Smashville unless they simply do not know any better or have a character that benefits more.

So how come Town and City is seen as a huge boon to these characters, but we don't consider, say, FD a similar detriment to them? I feel like there's a bit of a double standard here (also, Luigi is not that great on T&C), especially when you consider how much quicker many of them are to strike FD than their opponents are to strike T&C. As I said earlier, T&C is a really common neutral in FLSS, largely in part because T&C's ceiling just isn't that low. It's 3 feet lower than FD, SV, PS2, and a number of others, which equates to a difference in kill % from the ground of about 3%. The advantage given to vertical killers really isn't as huge as many people make it out to be. Yet, somehow, this is treated as though the stage was a go-to counterpick for a whole bunch of characters who enjoy it more than Smashville but not significantly more than most of the rest of the stages.

• I feel that the only real reason you should be using a 'numbered' strike system as opposed to the Full Strike System is numbers. In other words, if you opt to use a lot of stages that are currently banned at most tournaments, i.e. Pokemon Stadium 2, Wuhu, Mario Circuit, et cetera, and your stage list is perceivably too large to expect players to remember on the fly without having to resort to a list every first game.

This should not be a problem. Print out the list. Put a ruleset printout on every setup (you really should do this anyways unless you're sure every player there is a tourney veteran, in which case why the hell isn't there any new blood at your tournaments? ), explain it to people, hell, maybe even print out little disposable lists (with 13 stages, you can fit something like 10 per DIN-A4 sheet of paper) for people to strike from and then discard each set. Encourage use of the Random Stage Select screen for striking.

 

[PUK]

I will make a bold claim and declare that most of the players can remember for 40 sec the 6 stages they stroke. Even drunked, and outside of France i believe it's not usual.

 

[Ulevo]

So... What are Sheik's best stages? Battlefield, Smashville, and...

...Huh, you know, reading this thread, it seems like it's just Battlefield and Smashville. Castle Siege, Lylat Cruise, and Town and City are perhaps noteworthy, but BF and SV really are her best stages. In fact, all but one of the 5 proposed starters rank among Shiek's best stages, with the last one being matchup-dependent. Where does she suffer? Stages with larger or smaller blastzones, stages that transform, stages with odd qualities.

This is what happened in Brawl, too - most of the top tiers basically got a free ride round one, with their favorite stages all being starters, because they similarly relied on a lack of disruption and relatively normal environments (with the obvious exception of Cancerknight). Ice Climbers was really the best example - incredibly strong in situations where nothing was doing anything, whereas other stages just ruined their gameplan. So what does this mean?



It means this isn't necessarily true. I'll get to your case for each of those in a second, but the problem remains that this game has something like 1400 matchups, with numerous phenomenally different characters, each with different qualities and preferences. We cannot reasonably assert that Smashville, Final Destination, and Battlefield (three stages which, I feel the need to point out, have each seen play as go-to counterpicks in various matchups or for various characters) automatically cater the least advantage to the widest array of characters.

Does adding LC and T&C improve on this in every matchup? Not necessarily; if your character loves FD, is meh about BF (and in FLSS would end up there), but hates SV, LC, and T&C, then adding those extra two in there might lead to more advantage for one character. However, the odds of this go down and down and down with every starter we add. With 5, it could get worse. With 7 it could as well. With 9? What are the odds that we're adding only the most biased stages for the matchup? Remember, FLSS is, at most, something like 17 (and that's really pushing it!), and that is inherently what delivers us "the most neutral", ergo the least advantage (we agree on this one, right? I think we agree on this one, I'm just not 100% sure). So at a certain point, adding more stages can't possibly get us further from there. Consider the following spread (A1=best for character A, B1=best for character B):

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
N
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1

Now for 3 starters, we have A8, N, and B8. Now we throw in two more, and we have A8, N, B8, A1, and A2. Obviously, we've shifted towards A's favor. How about with A1, A2, A3, A4, A8, N, B8? We've shifted further in the wrong direction. Throw in A5 and A6, though, for a 9-stage starter list, and it's already past the tipping point. With 13 legal stages (which is far more common), we're past the tipping point way earlier.

But now we throw in an extra variable - A8, N, and B8 may not be the most even spread for every matchup. We have to tailor our starter list to every matchup, not just one. And in that case, is the stage really the most balanced? I don't think we have enough data to justify that conclusion. I don't believe Smashville is the most balanced stage in the game, the way many other people do. I don't think FD, SV, or BF carves out any special place in the majority of matchups. Hell, with 13-stage FLSS, the number of times I see people starting on any of those is actually fairly low (with Battlefield being more common than either of the others, and T&C being by far the most common round one pick), indicating that it may not be the case in most matchups.

Meanwhile, do we know that it gets better when we add more? No. It could, as my example above showed, get worse. However, the worst-case, and this is really what I feel we should worry about, becomes less crippling. With every additional pair of stages, the worst-case gets milder, while the best-case doesn't change. How this looks in reality requires testing, but in theory, 5 should almost always be better than 3, 7 should almost always be better than 5, and 9 should almost always be better than 7. (Just be careful not to make an obvious and easily corrected mistake, like having 5 starter with Battlefield, Delfino, and Halberd on the list.)



Okay, let's grant for the moment that Lylat works differently from other stages, and let's ignore for the moment that every stage has, large or small, differences, and let's shrug off the way the tilting and weird angles are similar on Castle Siege's third (and first, to a lesser extent) transformation. What does this mean for balance? You've shifted from talking about how stages effect matchups to how stages effect characters. But what does this mean? Are there a lot of characters who, in FLSS, would strike lylat fairly early (this seems like a good measure to me)? I don't think so. Peach probably would. I hear from Kunai that Toon Link would as well, as would Duck Hunt. But I'm almost willing to bet more characters in more matchups would strike FD early than LC. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one trying to differentiate here, and I don't think we have the data.



So how come Town and City is seen as a huge boon to these characters, but we don't consider, say, FD a similar detriment to them? I feel like there's a bit of a double standard here (also, Luigi is not that great on T&C), especially when you consider how much quicker many of them are to strike FD than their opponents are to strike T&C. As I said earlier, T&C is a really common neutral in FLSS, largely in part because T&C's ceiling just isn't that low. It's 3 feet lower than FD, SV, PS2, and a number of others, which equates to a difference in kill % from the ground of about 3%. The advantage given to vertical killers really isn't as huge as many people make it out to be. Yet, somehow, this is treated as though the stage was a go-to counterpick for a whole bunch of characters who enjoy it more than Smashville but not significantly more than most of the rest of the stages.



This should not be a problem. Print out the list. Put a ruleset printout on every setup (you really should do this anyways unless you're sure every player there is a tourney veteran, in which case why the hell isn't there any new blood at your tournaments? ), explain it to people, hell, maybe even print out little disposable lists (with 13 stages, you can fit something like 10 per DIN-A4 sheet of paper) for people to strike from and then discard each set. Encourage use of the Random Stage Select screen for striking.

The reason I can say it's reasonable to assert that these are the most neutral is because every stage in the game is catered around their design, with a few exceptions, but the ones that emulate their qualities have additional characteristics that push them in to territory that favour other characters. You have stages that emphasize platforming, stages that emphasize flat space, and stages that try to find a balance in between. Duck Hunt for example emulates itself off of Final Destinations design. However, because of the other attributes it has, such as the walls at the ledges, the trees, the ducks that can block projectiles, et cetera, there is more involved within the stage that caters towards particular characters. Halberd is a more Smashville type stage, where it tries to meet a balance. However, its ceiling is the lowest in the game for a static blastzone, making it heavily favor certain characters. Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville keep their core designs with no other characteristics that might favor a select group of characters.

The only exceptions to this rule are stages that transform, which by design will have elements of all three stages depending on the transformation.

I would surmise that the closer you are to 3 Stage Strike for game one, and the more stages you have in Full Strike System, you have an U shape relationship where it is initially at a high point in balance, it dips down in to unfavourable as you begin to add stages and move away from 3, and eventually becomes fairer the more stages that are added at a certain tipping point. While it is hard to discern where this 'break even' point would lie, it would seem you agree with this notion. There will be specific exceptions, but I believe this would hold true across the cast.

I do not know what you find in your tournament organizing experiences, but in my experience at tournaments and in friendlies, Smashville is almost always picked regardless of what game one format is being used. I think through sheer statistical weight you could easily argue it is the most neutral over the widest array of match ups.

Regarding Town & City, I have the actual numbers. It equates to killing players roughly 5% sooner, not including the platforms. This might seem negligible, however when your combos stop working at certain %'s, the reduction in just 5% really helps a lot to secure kills.

I agree that print outs should be used at tournaments, but this does not mean it is necessarily going to be less time consuming or easier to manage. Using the random stage select screen I have found is the happiest medium, but it's not perfect. I like being able to see all the stages I have to strike while also being able to see all the ones I have left, so I can formulate in my head what the next best ban is. This is difficult to do with the layout, and I've found myself at times forgetting I or my opponent struck something because the visuals are in front of me but the visual cue of the stage I or my opponent struck is not because it's near the top or bottom of the list. There have been quite a few times where I have wound up playing on a stage I should not have simply because I screwed up the ban order due to inconveniences like this. While the burden falls on the player, it's sort of unacceptable from my point of view. The player should be there to play competitive Smash, not to see how close they are to having a photographic memory. The best solution to this would be to have a stage list printed out with a pen available for you to cross out every stage struck, but that's sort of avoided when you have the elegancy of 3 starters.

 

[Jaxas]

This should not be a problem. Print out the list. Put a ruleset printout on every setup (you really should do this anyways unless you're sure every player there is a tourney veteran, in which case why the hell isn't there any new blood at your tournaments? ), explain it to people, hell, maybe even print out little disposable lists (with 13 stages, you can fit something like 10 per DIN-A4 sheet of paper) for people to strike from and then discard each set. Encourage use of the Random Stage Select screen for striking.

Just a reminder: You can set up the Omega Random Stage Select as a reference to set up the main Random Stage Select before each game on the off chance that people forget.

It's even easier than people think!

EDIT:

There have been quite a few times where I have wound up playing on a stage I should not have simply because I screwed up the ban order due to inconveniences like this. While the burden falls on the player, it's sort of unacceptable from my point of view. The player should be there to play competitive Smash, not to see how close they are to having a photographic memory. The best solution to this would be to have a stage list printed out with a pen available for you to cross out every stage struck, but that's sort of avoided when you have the elegancy of 3 starters.

No offense, but...
How. The. ****.

Is remembering which stages were struck in the last 30 seconds considered that difficult? That it's actually an argument for(or against) anything?
I just don't understand. Scroll through the list and double-check if it's that hard, it takes like 3 seconds....

 

[Sixfortyfive]

No offense, but...
How. The. ****.

Is remembering which stages were struck in the last 30 seconds considered that difficult? That it's actually an argument for(or against) anything?
I just don't understand. Scroll through the list and double-check if it's that hard, it takes like 3 seconds....

If you favor a liberal stage list compared to typical tournaments, it's easy to see why this is an issue. Keeping track of a dozen or more stages to strike is kind of silly. Takes a lot more than 3 seconds to reset the random stage toggle after a match, too. (And that's assuming that that feature is even unlocked on the station you're playing on, which isn't a guarantee.)

We've been implementing the EVO stage list plus FLSS at our locals for a while now, and I've gotten a couple complaints about how it's too cumbersome with just 9 stages. This is coming from tournament regulars, too. I figure that it probably comes off even less elegantly to newcomers.

 

[Jaxas]

If you favor a liberal stage list compared to typical tournaments, it's easy to see why this is an issue. Keeping track of a dozen or more stages to strike is kind of silly. Takes a lot more than 3 seconds to reset the random stage toggle after a match, too. (And that's assuming that that feature is even unlocked on the station you're playing on, which isn't a guarantee.)

We've been implementing the EVO stage list plus FLSS at our locals for a while now, and I've gotten a couple complaints about how it's too cumbersome with just 9 stages. This is coming from tournament regulars, too. I figure that it probably comes off even less elegantly to newcomers.

I actually run weeklies with 12 stages (BF/FD/SV/T&C/Lylat/Wuhu/Skyloft/Duck Hunt/Kongo/Delphino/Seige/PS2/Halberd - I figured I'd run a massive stagelist so people can learn the stages in weeklies and not get cheezed by a lack of stage knowledge if they even show up in a bigger tournament) and FLSS; it was a bit slower at first but after the 2nd or 3rd week, striking is back to reliably finishing in under a minute (including selecting characters & customs).
People have memorized the stage list (or the visual pattern, which is even easier!) pretty quickly.

It's interesting, though - people who come from other cities generally have more trouble with it (at first; again, 2 weeks or so) while new players seem to pick up the stagelist by the end of the first few rounds of Swiss.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The reason I can say it's reasonable to assert that these are the most neutral is because every stage in the game is catered around their design, with a few exceptions, but the ones that emulate their qualities have additional characteristics that push them in to territory that favour other characters. You have stages that emphasize platforming, stages that emphasize flat space, and stages that try to find a balance in between. Duck Hunt for example emulates itself off of Final Destinations design. However, because of the other attributes it has, such as the walls at the ledges, the trees, the ducks that can block projectiles, et cetera, there is more involved within the stage that caters towards particular characters. Halberd is a more Smashville type stage, where it tries to meet a balance. However, its ceiling is the lowest in the game for a static blastzone, making it heavily favor certain characters. Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville keep their core designs with no other characteristics that might favor a select group of characters.

The only exceptions to this rule are stages that transform, which by design will have elements of all three stages depending on the transformation.

See, first off, you're comparing and contrasting only with the stages we list on our competitive stagelist. You're ignoring about 75% of the stagelist like that. Secondly, the only exception being stages that transform... That's another solid half of the stagelist. I think you're arbitrarily deciding "these stages are neutral" and then hindcasting from there. Yeah, BF, SV, and FD all generally resemble the typical mold, but I don't think it's fair to say that they are the mold.

I would surmise that the closer you are to 3 Stage Strike for game one, and the more stages you have in Full Strike System, you have an U shape relationship where it is initially at a high point in balance, it dips down in to unfavourable as you begin to add stages and move away from 3, and eventually becomes fairer the more stages that are added at a certain tipping point.

And do you have the data to back this up? I know that, for example, in most of my matchups as ZSS, I will strike FD and SV almost immediately, and battlefield is, at best, in the upper third. See, you're assuming that FD, BF, and SV are the intended design paradigm, and that everything else is less even... And then you're assuming on top of that that the designers didn't **** it up. I don't know that that's true. We could do some polling around the character boards, see how it actually turns out, but with over 1400 matchups, this is going to prove a lot of work. But I don't think that that's that much more important than the worst case.

While it is hard to discern where this 'break even' point would lie, it would seem you agree with this notion. There will be specific exceptions, but I believe this would hold true across the cast.

Not really. I agree that it can get worse in specific matchups, but I believe that there is reason to believe that in the majority, this simply is not the case. What's more, the worst case is always better - so while in some cases, it'll get worse, it'll never be as bad as the worst case scenario for some matchups were before.

I do not know what you find in your tournament organizing experiences, but in my experience at tournaments and in friendlies, Smashville is almost always picked regardless of what game one format is being used. I think through sheer statistical weight you could easily argue it is the most neutral over the widest array of match ups.

Maybe. It may also be a cultural thing - many people just say "**** striking, Smashville?" despite the fact that it's downright awful for them in the match. From my experience, when people actually strike it out, Smashville is not very common. But that might just be my region, I don't know.

 

[NegaNixx]

The reason I can say it's reasonable to assert that these are the most neutral is because every stage in the game is catered around their design, with a few exceptions, but the ones that emulate their qualities have additional characteristics that push them in to territory that favour other characters. You have stages that emphasize platforming, stages that emphasize flat space, and stages that try to find a balance in between. Duck Hunt for example emulates itself off of Final Destinations design. However, because of the other attributes it has, such as the walls at the ledges, the trees, the ducks that can block projectiles, et cetera, there is more involved within the stage that caters towards particular characters. Halberd is a more Smashville type stage, where it tries to meet a balance. However, its ceiling is the lowest in the game for a static blastzone, making it heavily favor certain characters. Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville keep their core designs with no other characteristics that might favor a select group of characters.

The only exceptions to this rule are stages that transform, which by design will have elements of all three stages depending on the transformation.

I would surmise that the closer you are to 3 Stage Strike for game one, and the more stages you have in Full Strike System, you have an U shape relationship where it is initially at a high point in balance, it dips down in to unfavourable as you begin to add stages and move away from 3, and eventually becomes fairer the more stages that are added at a certain tipping point. While it is hard to discern where this 'break even' point would lie, it would seem you agree with this notion. There will be specific exceptions, but I believe this would hold true across the cast.

If FD and BF are the archtypes that stages try to find a balance between, that automatically takes away from them being the most neutral. They're at the ends of the bell curve.

The Alpha and Omega are not the most balanced. And Smashville is not an extremely balanced stage as well as has been talked about, so it's not in the very middle.

It's more like Battlefield Being 9/9
Final Destination Being 1/9
Smashville Being 7/9

A balance between those three is not 5 which it would be expected if they were the Triforce of neutrality. Adding in more stages has the ability to get us closer to that 5 average that we're looking for.

Side note: In my opinion the most balanced stage is Pokemon Stadium 2's Standard Form. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Since it got mentioned, the following stages all transform:

Mushroom Kingdom U
Delfino Plaza
Mario Circuit
Skyloft
Port Town Aero Dive
Woolly World*
Halberd*
Orbital Gate Assault
Kalos Pokemon League
Pokemon Stadium 2
Coliseum
Castle Siege
Flat Zone X
Town & City
Wii Fit Studio
Wrecking Crew*
Pilotwings*
Wuhu Island

*May be stretching it slightly depending on how you look at it, but close enough for me at least.

Anyway that's 18 (14?) stages that transform. A pretty respectable number. Now, some shouldn't be allowed for unrelated reasons (camping on Pilotwings, for instance) but the numbers suggest that transforming stages are not all that uncommon.

 

[Ulevo]

You know every time this topic comes up people always blab about how Smashville is not the most balanced stage.

So what is? Give it to me.

Side note: In my opinion the most balanced stage is Pokemon Stadium 2's Standard Form. But that's neither here nor there.

That's sort of a cop-out unless you're using the 5+ man version of the stage which is entirely another topic. Most people do not use this in tournaments, nor do people have this in mind when discussing Smashville's neutrality or lack thereof.

Since it got mentioned, the following stages all transform:

Mushroom Kingdom U
Delfino Plaza
Mario Circuit
Skyloft
Port Town Aero Dive
Woolly World*
Halberd*
Orbital Gate Assault
Kalos Pokemon League
Pokemon Stadium 2
Coliseum
Castle Siege
Flat Zone X
Town & City
Wii Fit Studio
Wrecking Crew*
Pilotwings*
Wuhu Island

*May be stretching it slightly depending on how you look at it, but close enough for me at least.

Anyway that's 18 (14?) stages that transform. A pretty respectable number. Now, some shouldn't be allowed for unrelated reasons (camping on Pilotwings, for instance) but the numbers suggest that transforming stages are not all that uncommon.

I'm talking about legal ones. Why even mention Orbital Gate Assault and friends?

Delfino Plaza
Halberd
Castle Siege
Town & City

Those are the current ones. And it's worth noting that of those, only Castle Siege and Delfino change drastically per transformation. Halberd is very similar throughout both transformations and so is Town & City.

 

[Infinite901]

You know every time this topic comes up people always blab about how Smashville is not the most balanced stage.

So what is? Give it to me.

None of them.

 

[Ulevo]

None of them.

This is dumb. I said most neutral. Not the neutral.

 

[Infinite901]

This is dumb. I said most neutral. Not the neutral.

In this case it may actually be a language limitation. Smashville probably has the most MU's where it's the best stage. However, in an all-around term it can't be called "most neutral" because that will vary greatly depending on the matchcup. So I mean, in a way, yes it's the most balanced, but in the way that it has more matchups in which it is the most balanced. Overall, no stage can be called "the most balanced" because that will vary immensely.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Followup question, why must there be a singular stage that is "the most neutral?" What purpose does it serve?

Consider that any ruleset that doesn't limit players to exactly one stage already implicitly acknowledges that no one stage is balanced across all matchups, hence variety in stages.

 

[NegaNixx]

There are 1326 (if my math is right it probably isn't) match-ups in this game, I doubt Smashville is neutral for 50% of those.

That's sort of a cop-out unless you're using the 5+ man version of the stage which is entirely another topic. Most people do not use this in tournaments, nor do people have this in mind when discussing Smashville's neutrality or lack thereof.

I was just saying that the layout seems extremely balanced in that section, not the stage in it's entirety. but as I said, it was a side not, and is neither here nor there, as it is not available on its own.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

There are 1326 (if my math is right it probably isn't) match-ups in this game, I doubt Smashville is neutral for 50% of those.

There are 52 characters, counting the Mii Fighters separately. Given that a matchup between A and B is equivalent to a matchup between B and A, we can add 52 (Mario vs. everyone including himself) + 51 (Luigi vs. everyone including himself minus Mario) + 50 (Peach vs. everyone including herself minus Mario and Luigi) + ... + 1 (Mii Gunner vs. himself).

That number is 1378 according to WolframAlpha.

If you remove the mirror matches then you get 1326. Your math is right.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You know every time this topic comes up people always blab about how Smashville is not the most balanced stage.

So what is? Give it to me.

I have no idea, but let's not go shifting the burden of proof here, eh? The claim that Smashville is the most balanced stage is simply not justified - neither by matchup data, nor by stage striking data, nor by anything else. We also know that it is explicitly a counterpick for at least two top tier characters, which, all things considered, is far more significant than if it's the most balanced stage in the world for a few hundred low tier matchups.

That said, the question is problematic in and of itself, because settling for "most balanced in the most matchups" when we actually have a method for determining "most balanced" for each individual matchup while accounting for player preference just seems silly.

 

[NegaNixx]

There are 52 characters, counting the Mii Fighters separately. Given that a matchup between A and B is equivalent to a matchup between B and A, we can add 52 (Mario vs. everyone including himself) + 51 (Luigi vs. everyone including himself minus Mario) + 50 (Peach vs. everyone including herself minus Mario and Luigi) + ... + 1 (Mii Gunner vs. himself).

That number is 1378 according to WolframAlpha.

If you remove the mirror matches then you get 1326. Your math is right.

Thank you for the confirmation .

 

[KuroganeHammer]

There are only 3 neutrals in this game, they are BF, FD and SV.

If you so desperately wanted a 5 stage starter, you'd have Lylat (not neutral) and T&C (also not neutral) added.

5 stage is viable, but it's also just bad, really.

 

[Luigi player]

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.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that something that moves all the time, always the same and is easily seeable most of the time has the same "predictability" as something that always changes after some time + has gaps?

That obviously can't be the case.

Any change throws off way easier than if there wasn't one. The gaps can throw off any timefeeling even more.

I'm not sure how people think humans work. You guys are always saying how easy everything is...
As for me, if I don't look at the timer or count in my head (which isn't always the correct timing) I will be off with for example the Klap trap rhythm in Jungle Japes ~+-2 seconds probably. Thinking about somthing (counting) or looking at the timer takes away time and concentration that you lose for a moment against your opponent. In SVs case, you always see the platform early enough which is the main point, and you can almost always guess where it could be positioned at the moment. It's nothing too surprising and again, easily seeable. And you never have to think about that anything could suddenly change or waste concentration on looking at the time / counting it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Dude, this game doesn't have MVC's pace.
Looking at the timer takes a fraction of a second, and then it comes to YOU, the player, to rethink of your strategy to minimize/maximize the outcome. So, if it's too difficult to do, it all comes to YOU, the player, who has the mental strength to do so or not.

 

[Luigi player]

Dude, this game doesn't have MVC's pace.
Looking at the timer takes a fraction of a second, and then it comes to YOU, the player, to rethink of your strategy to minimize/maximize the outcome. So, if it's too difficult to do, it all comes to YOU, the player, who has the mental strength to do so or not.

Thanks for telling me, though I only play Smash Brothers as far as fighting games go. It still takes away time. Yes, it's short time, but it can definitely still count. If you're the ultimate superhuman that can do everything at the same time without losing anything that's just you. In other fighting games you at least don't have any platforms coming by that always change.

My point is just that it's not the same and not as easily manageable as SVs platform, which should be easily imaginable.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that something that moves all the time, always the same and is easily seeable most of the time has the same "predictability" as something that always changes after some time + has gaps?

That obviously can't be the case.

Yeah, you're right, Town and City is way more predictable.

Half the time, the smashville platform is offscreen, whereas with Town and City, you almost always have a frame of reference. Check out this set. Notice how often the Smashville platform is not onscreen? Contrast to this game on T&C, where it's almost always completely clear where the platforms are. Now add to that the fact that there are no round numbers; you can't say, "ah, it's been 10 seconds, it's now back where it started" (with T&C, it's precisely every 30 seconds; with smashville it's something like 8, which is kind of annoying to memorize).

Look, I'm sorry, but just because you can bring in your own personal bias and you know Smashville by heart because you never play on anything else doesn't mean that it's somehow easier to predict what Smashville is doing than T&C. Hell, predictable is the wrong word - they're both completely non-random stages.

I'm not sure how people think humans work. You guys are always saying how easy everything is...

Maybe, just maybe, it's because we aren't you? Maybe we all think kind of differently? Maybe the stage with one thing to keep track of that works on an irregular timer is harder for us to keep track of than the stage with a handful of far easier-to-see things on a regular timer?

Thinking about somthing (counting) or looking at the timer takes away time and concentration that you lose for a moment against your opponent.

Welcome to Super Smash Bros, a game where you have to consider multiple variables, and sometimes you have to split your concentration between worrying about your opponent and worrying about your surroundings. This is like playing Marvel and complaining that thinking about assists takes away time and concentration that you lose for a moment against the main character on the screen - you are ******** about something fundamental to gameplay. Deal with it!

In SVs case, you always see the platform early enough which is the main point,

That's just not true, I'm sorry. See, this is where this bias is. You think it's trivial to figure out where that platform is, because to you it is, and by comparison, to you, T&C is hard to keep track of. But on T&C, you can see it so much better. This may apply to you; you might find keeping track of SV easier, but given that people are disagreeing with you, maybe it's time to think that it might be a subjective, personal thing. Personally, I find SV harder to keep track of than T&C, Castle Siege, and Pokemon Stadium. But that's me.

There are only 3 neutrals in this game, they are BF, FD and SV.

If you so desperately wanted a 5 stage starter, you'd have Lylat (not neutral) and T&C (also not neutral) added.

5 stage is viable, but it's also just bad, really.

Thank you for your unqualified and unsupported opinion. That's totally what we need in this thread.

 

[Luigi player]

rofl are you ****ing kidding me? "on no it's not on screen I have no idea where it is", yeah right. you can guess where it is easily. you don't have to predict it 100 %, unless you're planning something 1000 steps ahead where you need the platform at an exact point. everytime you'd interact with the platform you see it quite some time before.

Also, if you actually watch the vids you linked me you SHOULD notice that you don't see many of the TaC platforms as well most of the time! But you're really obviously being superbiased here, like always.

Look, I'm sorry, but just because you can bring in your own personal bias and you know Smashville by heart because you never play on anything else doesn't mean that it's somehow easier to predict what Smashville is doing than T&C. Hell, predictable is the wrong word - they're both completely non-random stages.

That's not bias, it's logic and a REALLY REALLY obvious thing. If you don't get that, play some Sudoku or something.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because we aren't you? Maybe we all think kind of differently? Maybe the stage with one thing to keep track of that works on an irregular timer is harder for us to keep track of than the stage with a handful of far easier-to-see things on a regular timer?

a thing that moves always the same, in a set manner, is always there, and never changes anything is harder to "predict" than something that always moves, has more transformations, sometimes goes away and then comes back, just because these have a set timer (also, are you sure the SV platform isn't always moving at the same pace? maybe it has a set timer as well?! (at least that would make sense, but who knows; oh, I just looked in ParanoidDrones SV stage research thread, who would've guessed. "Platform starts on right side, takes 20 seconds to make a full round trip.")), yeeeeahh .......not really.

your whole point is basically the set format, which the smashville platform has as well, and the timer on which you can think about to guess when something comes, but that doesn't work on the smashville platform? Do you not see the bad logic there?

 

[Ulevo]

I have no idea, but let's not go shifting the burden of proof here, eh? The claim that Smashville is the most balanced stage is simply not justified - neither by matchup data, nor by stage striking data, nor by anything else. We also know that it is explicitly a counterpick for at least two top tier characters, which, all things considered, is far more significant than if it's the most balanced stage in the world for a few hundred low tier matchups.

That said, the question is problematic in and of itself, because settling for "most balanced in the most matchups" when we actually have a method for determining "most balanced" for each individual matchup while accounting for player preference just seems silly.

Not justified? It's rather convenient you shift the data available under the rug, particularly when the limited data we have points to Smashville being the most neutral.

This is relevant, because it helps to justify whether or not using 3 Stage Strike is worth it or not, particularly over 5.

And you can't just throw out all the data, then turn around and say that 'welp it's a counterpick for the best character in the game and maybe one other so that's more important than how it impacts the rest of the cast and their matchups.' This is especially silly when you consider it's not their best stage and it's usually played on because the alternatives are banned.

We're lacking data on all available matchups, yes. But at least my theory has a logical and credible understanding. You do not ignore findings just because you don't have all the available answers, you make do with what you have. That's how science in the real world works, that's how this should work also. Fact is, the stage played the most within any format with any list is Smashville, and I'm willing to put money on the fact that if you got all the best players in to one room and asked them individually what the fairest/most neutral/most balanced stage was, they'd say Smashville.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not justified? It's rather convenient you shift the data available under the rug, particularly when the limited data we have points to Smashville being the most neutral.

What data? The data from 3 starter lists is useless; we have one stage with loads of platforms, one stage with no platforms, and one sort of in the middle, and the one in the middle gets picked a lot. No surprise there; this is one of the main critiques of 3 starter, that Smashville is almost a foregone conclusion. What's more, the sheer amount of "Smashville?" "Okay" should probably be seen as a little bit of a problem. Do we have extensive data from 5 starters or more? Do we see a similar pro-smashville bias within the region (this can't come from the data, mind, it has to be read from the attitudes of the players there)?

We're lacking data on all available matchups, yes. But at least my theory has a logical and credible understanding. You do not ignore findings just because you don't have all the available answers, you make do with what you have. That's how science in the real world works, that's how this should work also.

And when someone points out severe methodological flaws in science, they aren't simply ignored. Using strike data at all is problematic because so much of the world has swallowed, hook line and sinker, this baseless idea that Smashville is the most neutral stage, and who would strike the most neutral stage? Using design philosophy when we have neither access to the original philosophy nor any indication that it actually works as intended is also very flawed.

Fact is, the stage played the most within any format with any list is Smashville, and I'm willing to put money on the fact that if you got all the best players in to one room and asked them individually what the fairest/most neutral/most balanced stage was, they'd say Smashville.

Have you seen Zer0's video on the legal stages? It's awful. This player, while clearly really, really good at the game, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to, say, how T&C works and how you can play there. Or hell, just look at, I dunno, Luigi Player. He's legitimately one of the better players in Europe. Being a top player is no guarantee that you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to ruleset design; I thought we would have figured this out by now, given the cluster**** that Brawl was.

Oh, and for the record? According to the Shiek boards, Smashville is her best stage, matched only by Battlefield. It's not just some potential "maybe if everything else is banned" pick. For Pikachu, it's probably top 3, after Wuhu and Lylat, maybe top 4 if Kongo is legal.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Thank you for your unqualified and unsupported opinion. That's totally what we need in this thread.

Sorry buddy!

 

[Pazx]

There are only 3 neutrals in this game, they are BF, FD and SV.

If you so desperately wanted a 5 stage starter, you'd have Lylat (not neutral) and T&C (also not neutral) added.

5 stage is viable, but it's also just bad, really.

Are you gonna attempt to back that statement up at all?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Oh, and for the record? According to the Shiek boards, Smashville is her best stage, matched only by Battlefield. It's not just some potential "maybe if everything else is banned" pick. For Pikachu, it's probably top 3, after Wuhu and Lylat, maybe top 4 if Kongo is legal.

That's likely because these characters dominate in the neutral position and therefore benefit the most from as little deviation as possible. :/

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Are you gonna attempt to back that statement up at all?

Lylat ledges are even jankier than prepatch, the edges are normal when the ship isn't tilting, but as soon as they tilt, they become worse than prepatch when recovering.

T&C isn't a neutral either because of it's absurdly low ceiling and the fact that the platforms can kill you if you land on them and fail to tech, or if you get grabbed on them, or... things!

They're just garbage stages.

 

[webbedspace]

I sort-of agree that Town and City's low ceiling is a bit of a sore point, but it is hardly any less "absurd" than Smashville's narrow sides combined with Smashville's moving platform (Helicopter Kick KOs at 45%, anyone?).

Platform-kills, however, are so utterly infrequent and avoidable that bringing them up is grasping at straws. Having watched about, let's say 150 streamed matches on T&C since release, I've only seen the platforms score a kill... twice. One of which was due to the landing lag of Luigi's missed up-b, a move that is normally a massive punish anyway.