• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

[Jan 3, 2015] Cincinnati Smash Revival Biweekly (Mason, Ohio)

sorasin

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Wet Dreamland
I like how "One word, Melee-Captain-kick-ass-BaldEagle-drive-a-big-truck-Falcon-Tournament. oneword." is currently winning.
 

Doublezz10

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
2
One of my friends and I will be coming for sure, maybe a couple more
Excited to compete for the first time in PM
 

qpMONKEYMIKEqp

Smash Cadet
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
38
Location
West Carrollton City, Ohio
I plan on bringing a wii with PM and a gamecube with melee. I dont have any CTS's though. or any other kind of display for them. Also i have another player coming so i will be bringing two other smashers with me.
 

PiBs

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
I plan on bringing a wii with PM and a gamecube with melee. I dont have any CTS's though. or any other kind of display for them. Also i have another player coming so i will be bringing two other smashers with me.
Sweet, looking forward to see you guys there this weekend. The setups will be great even if you can't bring any CRTs.
 

PiBs

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Due to the poll results, I will be adding PM doubles to the next CSR tournament this Saturday! Hope to see some sicknast kirby-everything action. Also if there is time we may do a $1 or $2 falcon-only singles or doubles bracket. I'l be sure to bring my laptop so I can efficiently run the 3 tournaments in time.
 

Overswarm

is laughing at you
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
21,285
Any chance you can bring your stage list down to one ban only

or this stage list with only 2 bans (added stages in bold):

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Stage Strike List:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling, medium stage)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling, smaller stage)
-
Fountain of Dreams (smaller medium stage, medium boundaries)
Battlefield (medium stage, medium boundaries)
Smashville (larger medium stage, medium boundaries)
-
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, larger stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling, medium stage)
 

PiBs

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Any chance you can bring your stage list down to one ban only

or this stage list with only 2 bans (added stages in bold):

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Stage Strike List:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling, medium stage)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling, smaller stage)
-
Fountain of Dreams (smaller medium stage, medium boundaries)
Battlefield (medium stage, medium boundaries)
Smashville (larger medium stage, medium boundaries)
-
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, larger stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling, medium stage)
No, adding stages would definitely make me keep it at 3 bans. But I don't like the added stages much, Metal Cavern especially. If I were to put it at 2 bans it would make me change it to a smaller stage list and I don't want to do that. PM has 3 stages to strike because there is so many repeat stages. For a counterpick stage you should get a stage that is better for you, but not completely overwhelming.
 

Overswarm

is laughing at you
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
21,285
No, adding stages would definitely make me keep it at 3 bans. But I don't like the added stages much, Metal Cavern especially. If I were to put it at 2 bans it would make me change it to a smaller stage list and I don't want to do that. PM has 3 stages to strike because there is so many repeat stages. For a counterpick stage you should get a stage that is better for you, but not completely overwhelming.
That.... doesn't make any sense. It's not the amount of stages it's the result of the stages. You currently have three small stages and three bans. You have nine medium sized stages. Which stage type can't be played? You don't even have three large stages to choose from in your list.

Your stage list is busted.


Hypothesis: Stages have more of an impact on gameplay than actual characters.

Proof: The tier list would be drastically different if the stage list was only "Dracula's Castle, Dreamland 64, Skyworld" and everyone got one ban. Ditto to "Green Hill Zone, Wario Ware, Yoshi's Story" and everyone got one ban.

Secondary Proof: Of the existing stagelist, certain stages are considered "counterpicks" by different characters, thus proving at least the belief they are better for some over others.

Result: Stage list determines character viability, thus stage list needs to be balanced for all character choices.
-----------------

Hypothesis: Certain stages can be "too good", or at least give a larger than average advantage, for one character in many matchups but fine for other matchups both with and without that character.

Proof: Ice Climbers on Final Destination in any game they are in, Bowser on Wario Ware, etc.

Result: Stage bans are important tools to prevent the removal of stages that are otherwise fine.

---------------------

Using the two above we can extrapolate that stage lists require little to no overlap to be optimal; otherwise you need a lot of overlap to maintain balance, but almost entirely lose your ability to ban via balance. If your stage list is 3 Battlefields, one FD, one Yoshis, the characters who are best on BF will be given an advantage and no number of bans will prevent this. A stage list of 3 BFs, 3 FDs, 3 Yoshis will give no advantages regardless of # of bans.

Apex ruleset is currently being used with 3 bans; obvious thing to look for is for excess of stages of a singular type. Apex uses the bottom two rows + Lylat.

Here they are divided by size of blastzones, which we already know is a huge divider in character viability. Asterisks for stages with unique properties:

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 1 (low ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Looking at the above, 3 bans conveniently let a player completely eliminate a stage type. Don't like small? All 3 gone. Don't like large? All three gone!

You want a large stage with a low ceiling? All 3 (skylot, PS2, PS1) can be banned.

Want a medium-sized stage with platforms? You've got like 6 or 7 to choose from and no number of bans can prevent it. Obvious result is characters that require large/small stages will flounder while those that prefer medium sized stages will succeed.

The same stage list with only one ban results in a non-optimal, but more balanced, stage list. This unfortunately has the result of being more visibly swingy; Peach always gets her big stage, Bowser always gets his small, ICs always get their flat and clean. This can result in a lot of 2-1 sets that are less exciting than they seem.


Two main solutions to the issue:

One, reduce complexity in exchange for optimal stage balance. This is boring and I don't like it, but it's possible. It's what Apex tried to do and failed.

End result: A player would receive a choice between banning a stage their opponent is good on or a stage that their own character is bad on; occasionally this would overlap. Each player would be guaranteed one "extreme CP" per set in 2/3 and 3/5.

Potential stage list:
Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

This gives
two small stages (side)
three small stages (ceiling)
three large stages (ceiling)
two large stages (side)
two medium stages (ceiling/side)

The following stage strike list:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling)
Smashville (medium)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)

Allows for two characters of any kind to end without a distinct advantage. Bowser would want to strike PS2 and DL while Peach would want to strike Yoshis and Smashville. They'd end up on Lylat, which is advantageous for neither.

The above is boring, but effective in reducing overlap. You lose otherwise useful stages and, worst of all, lose "subtle advantages". Peach might be better on larger stages than on smaller ones in general, but she might do superbly well on a stage like Yoshi's Story against a character like Diddy that has an abuseable recovery and requires space to move around.



Better solution:

Add a few more stages, remove PS1 because of overlap, keep to one or two bans depending on your goal. Allow for diversity of stages to be "a thing" and inherent weaknesses of characters to be weaknesses. Bowser sucks on big stages, it doesn't mean that we should ban all big stages. Just means Bowser isn't up to snuff on big stages. Sucks for Bowser. Added stages below in bold.

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)


Stages not added because they don't add anything new / have hazards that people don't like:
Delfino
Halberd
Frigate
Castle Siege
Jungle Japes

Why add Cavern, Kongo, and Dracula?

Cavern grants a "small stage size", something currently lacking for all stages except those that also have small ceiling/sides.

Kongo gives a higher ceiling and a larger space to move around in, something lacking; only Skyloft is similar in this manner but has a short ceiling. Kongo is the counterweight to Skyloft.

Dracula's Castle is the closest thing we have to a DL clone, which is needed. Smashville / BF are basically clones, YI/WWare are clones, and DL / Dracula's allows for a slight clone of sorts.

Without those three stages, any one-ban structure results in characters who like small or large stages being at the mercy of their opponent, while those with medium stages as a preference have a buffet line to choose from. With a two-ban structure, you remove the "straight small/medium/large", but can get small/medium/large with slight tweaks to it (like larger ceilings or smaller sides or the like).

Best part of above stage list is that it is impossible to ban a single "type" of stage, but you can ban an individual stage.... and if you up the number of bans to "2", you only have a few problem scenarios.

If you have two bans and you want small stages (side AND ceiling) all around, your opponent would be able to choose to ban between:

Yoshi's Story
Wario Ware
GHZone
Metal Cavern
Fountain (kind of)

With two bans in a best of 5, you can ban yoshi's and wario for the "complete small" stages and then deal with either small side/big ceiling or larger side/small ceiling or small stage size / bigger blast zones depending on the player's character. You lose the "auto CP" with characters like Bowser.

Peach/Samus, my other extreme example characters are in a similar boat. They want large side and ceiling, their opponent will choose to ban between:

Dreamland 64 (high for both)
Dracula's Castle (highish for both, although ceiling is lower than DL)
Skyworld (lower ceiling, larger side)
Lylat Cruise (taller ceiling, lower side)
Skyloft (wider stage, lower ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (wider stage, higher ceiling)

Not quite as good as with small (we're missing a DL clone in the stagelist, while small has Yoshi/Wario), but still close enough.

With 2 bans in a 3 out of 5, the opponent can ban DL and Dracula's and the opponent has to pick one facet that they want. Larger sides, larger ceiling, wider stage.

In a "Peach vs. Bowser", Bowser would be able to take Peach to Green Hill Zone to circumvent Peach's horizontal recovery while losing the ability to kill off the top and Peach would be able to take Bowser to Skyworld (or Kongo Jungle) to be able to recover farther horizontally while being in danger from dying off the top.

So "small stage" and "big stage" characters with a single ban get a stage they are guaranteed to be good at and prefer while two bans results in a stage with one property they prefer. Either would be fine given the stage list above, just depending on your goal. The first encourages multiple characters, the second allows for less extreme advantages and encourages single character use.

What about medium-stage characters?

Diddy or Link both want space and the ability to move and set things up, while a character like Marth or Meta Knight would prefer to "zone" and have a nice platform and stage setup to allow for that.

Diddy vs. MK, neither would really want huge or small stages and would be CPing from medium if they wanted to focus on their ability to be aggressive.

MK wants to remove Diddy's "free reign" of bananas so he'd go to ban FD right away. At this point he gets to choose how to proceed. Smashville is good for both characters, PS2 leans towards Diddy but lets MK live a long, long time. Lylat is good for Diddy's bananas, but is set up perfectly for MK's followups. MK gets to choose what he wants: to live longer or have more aggressive potential. He chooses the latter and bans FD and PS2.

Diddy wants to have bananas but not let MK have a combo chain. He immediately would ban FoDreams. He could ban Lylat as it's great for MK followups, or he could get rid of Yoshi's Island Brawl to prevent MK from having a platform to tech chase to kills at higher %. Diddy bans YI Brawl.

MK vs. Diddy has FD and PS2 banned and then FoD and YI Brawl removed when both players are looking to pursue their own aggression and limit the others.

Even if they decided they wanted to limit how long their opponent could live instead, theirs no way either character could be without a counterpick that gives them some sort of non-extreme advantage.

Stage bans should be about preference first and foremost, not balance. If any matchup results in a player feeling that they're screwed and have a huge disadvantage and cannot do the same to their opponent, then its a bad stage list.


TL;DR

You have to have an even amount of stage properties so that you don't end up with too many of one type over another. The current stage list does not do this and with three bans it eliminates entire stage types as a whole. If you DO want to have a lot of similar type (and you will because PM has a lot of medium stages), you have to make them have important differences so that banning results in removing only one negative aspect for your character, not all of them. This means adding enough stages so that there are enough stages with contrasting aspects such as stage ceiling and side blast zones, stage size, platform layout/amount. This results in characters choosing between different advantages/disadvantages based on matchup with no 'auto cps'.

For Two bans the stage list would be the following (bold added, PS1 removed):

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Stage Strike List:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling, medium stage)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling, smaller stage)

Fountain of Dreams (smaller medium stage, medium boundaries)
Battlefield (medium stage, medium boundaries)
Smashville (larger medium stage, medium boundaries)

Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, larger stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling, medium stage)

(contrasting ceilings, constrasting stage sizes, FoD and Smashville's stage sizes a replacement for lack of optimal contrasting side blast zones)

Basically replacing FD with Lylat, because FD is a pure counterpick and there's nothing subtle about it and absoultely no contrast to it.

One ban is more difficult if you want to keep a large amount of stages and not allow more extreme counterpicks; it'd require removing stages like Battlefield, Wario Ware, Dracula's Castle, FD, and YI: Brawl simply to keep the math right.
 

PiBs

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
That.... doesn't make any sense. It's not the amount of stages it's the result of the stages. You currently have three small stages and three bans. You have nine medium sized stages. Which stage type can't be played? You don't even have three large stages to choose from in your list.

Your stage list is busted.


Hypothesis: Stages have more of an impact on gameplay than actual characters.

Proof: The tier list would be drastically different if the stage list was only "Dracula's Castle, Dreamland 64, Skyworld" and everyone got one ban. Ditto to "Green Hill Zone, Wario Ware, Yoshi's Story" and everyone got one ban.

Secondary Proof: Of the existing stagelist, certain stages are considered "counterpicks" by different characters, thus proving at least the belief they are better for some over others.

Result: Stage list determines character viability, thus stage list needs to be balanced for all character choices.
-----------------

Hypothesis: Certain stages can be "too good", or at least give a larger than average advantage, for one character in many matchups but fine for other matchups both with and without that character.

Proof: Ice Climbers on Final Destination in any game they are in, Bowser on Wario Ware, etc.

Result: Stage bans are important tools to prevent the removal of stages that are otherwise fine.

---------------------

Using the two above we can extrapolate that stage lists require little to no overlap to be optimal; otherwise you need a lot of overlap to maintain balance, but almost entirely lose your ability to ban via balance. If your stage list is 3 Battlefields, one FD, one Yoshis, the characters who are best on BF will be given an advantage and no number of bans will prevent this. A stage list of 3 BFs, 3 FDs, 3 Yoshis will give no advantages regardless of # of bans.

Apex ruleset is currently being used with 3 bans; obvious thing to look for is for excess of stages of a singular type. Apex uses the bottom two rows + Lylat.

Here they are divided by size of blastzones, which we already know is a huge divider in character viability. Asterisks for stages with unique properties:

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 1 (low ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Looking at the above, 3 bans conveniently let a player completely eliminate a stage type. Don't like small? All 3 gone. Don't like large? All three gone!

You want a large stage with a low ceiling? All 3 (skylot, PS2, PS1) can be banned.

Want a medium-sized stage with platforms? You've got like 6 or 7 to choose from and no number of bans can prevent it. Obvious result is characters that require large/small stages will flounder while those that prefer medium sized stages will succeed.

The same stage list with only one ban results in a non-optimal, but more balanced, stage list. This unfortunately has the result of being more visibly swingy; Peach always gets her big stage, Bowser always gets his small, ICs always get their flat and clean. This can result in a lot of 2-1 sets that are less exciting than they seem.


Two main solutions to the issue:

One, reduce complexity in exchange for optimal stage balance. This is boring and I don't like it, but it's possible. It's what Apex tried to do and failed.

End result: A player would receive a choice between banning a stage their opponent is good on or a stage that their own character is bad on; occasionally this would overlap. Each player would be guaranteed one "extreme CP" per set in 2/3 and 3/5.

Potential stage list:
Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

This gives
two small stages (side)
three small stages (ceiling)
three large stages (ceiling)
two large stages (side)
two medium stages (ceiling/side)

The following stage strike list:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling)
Smashville (medium)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)

Allows for two characters of any kind to end without a distinct advantage. Bowser would want to strike PS2 and DL while Peach would want to strike Yoshis and Smashville. They'd end up on Lylat, which is advantageous for neither.

The above is boring, but effective in reducing overlap. You lose otherwise useful stages and, worst of all, lose "subtle advantages". Peach might be better on larger stages than on smaller ones in general, but she might do superbly well on a stage like Yoshi's Story against a character like Diddy that has an abuseable recovery and requires space to move around.



Better solution:

Add a few more stages, remove PS1 because of overlap, keep to one or two bans depending on your goal. Allow for diversity of stages to be "a thing" and inherent weaknesses of characters to be weaknesses. Bowser sucks on big stages, it doesn't mean that we should ban all big stages. Just means Bowser isn't up to snuff on big stages. Sucks for Bowser. Added stages below in bold.

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)


Stages not added because they don't add anything new / have hazards that people don't like:
Delfino
Halberd
Frigate
Castle Siege
Jungle Japes

Why add Cavern, Kongo, and Dracula?

Cavern grants a "small stage size", something currently lacking for all stages except those that also have small ceiling/sides.

Kongo gives a higher ceiling and a larger space to move around in, something lacking; only Skyloft is similar in this manner but has a short ceiling. Kongo is the counterweight to Skyloft.

Dracula's Castle is the closest thing we have to a DL clone, which is needed. Smashville / BF are basically clones, YI/WWare are clones, and DL / Dracula's allows for a slight clone of sorts.

Without those three stages, any one-ban structure results in characters who like small or large stages being at the mercy of their opponent, while those with medium stages as a preference have a buffet line to choose from. With a two-ban structure, you remove the "straight small/medium/large", but can get small/medium/large with slight tweaks to it (like larger ceilings or smaller sides or the like).

Best part of above stage list is that it is impossible to ban a single "type" of stage, but you can ban an individual stage.... and if you up the number of bans to "2", you only have a few problem scenarios.

If you have two bans and you want small stages (side AND ceiling) all around, your opponent would be able to choose to ban between:

Yoshi's Story
Wario Ware
GHZone
Metal Cavern
Fountain (kind of)

With two bans in a best of 5, you can ban yoshi's and wario for the "complete small" stages and then deal with either small side/big ceiling or larger side/small ceiling or small stage size / bigger blast zones depending on the player's character. You lose the "auto CP" with characters like Bowser.

Peach/Samus, my other extreme example characters are in a similar boat. They want large side and ceiling, their opponent will choose to ban between:

Dreamland 64 (high for both)
Dracula's Castle (highish for both, although ceiling is lower than DL)
Skyworld (lower ceiling, larger side)
Lylat Cruise (taller ceiling, lower side)
Skyloft (wider stage, lower ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (wider stage, higher ceiling)

Not quite as good as with small (we're missing a DL clone in the stagelist, while small has Yoshi/Wario), but still close enough.

With 2 bans in a 3 out of 5, the opponent can ban DL and Dracula's and the opponent has to pick one facet that they want. Larger sides, larger ceiling, wider stage.

In a "Peach vs. Bowser", Bowser would be able to take Peach to Green Hill Zone to circumvent Peach's horizontal recovery while losing the ability to kill off the top and Peach would be able to take Bowser to Skyworld (or Kongo Jungle) to be able to recover farther horizontally while being in danger from dying off the top.

So "small stage" and "big stage" characters with a single ban get a stage they are guaranteed to be good at and prefer while two bans results in a stage with one property they prefer. Either would be fine given the stage list above, just depending on your goal. The first encourages multiple characters, the second allows for less extreme advantages and encourages single character use.

What about medium-stage characters?

Diddy or Link both want space and the ability to move and set things up, while a character like Marth or Meta Knight would prefer to "zone" and have a nice platform and stage setup to allow for that.

Diddy vs. MK, neither would really want huge or small stages and would be CPing from medium if they wanted to focus on their ability to be aggressive.

MK wants to remove Diddy's "free reign" of bananas so he'd go to ban FD right away. At this point he gets to choose how to proceed. Smashville is good for both characters, PS2 leans towards Diddy but lets MK live a long, long time. Lylat is good for Diddy's bananas, but is set up perfectly for MK's followups. MK gets to choose what he wants: to live longer or have more aggressive potential. He chooses the latter and bans FD and PS2.

Diddy wants to have bananas but not let MK have a combo chain. He immediately would ban FoDreams. He could ban Lylat as it's great for MK followups, or he could get rid of Yoshi's Island Brawl to prevent MK from having a platform to tech chase to kills at higher %. Diddy bans YI Brawl.

MK vs. Diddy has FD and PS2 banned and then FoD and YI Brawl removed when both players are looking to pursue their own aggression and limit the others.

Even if they decided they wanted to limit how long their opponent could live instead, theirs no way either character could be without a counterpick that gives them some sort of non-extreme advantage.

Stage bans should be about preference first and foremost, not balance. If any matchup results in a player feeling that they're screwed and have a huge disadvantage and cannot do the same to their opponent, then its a bad stage list.


TL;DR

You have to have an even amount of stage properties so that you don't end up with too many of one type over another. The current stage list does not do this and with three bans it eliminates entire stage types as a whole. If you DO want to have a lot of similar type (and you will because PM has a lot of medium stages), you have to make them have important differences so that banning results in removing only one negative aspect for your character, not all of them. This means adding enough stages so that there are enough stages with contrasting aspects such as stage ceiling and side blast zones, stage size, platform layout/amount. This results in characters choosing between different advantages/disadvantages based on matchup with no 'auto cps'.

For Two bans the stage list would be the following (bold added, PS1 removed):

Small:
Yoshi’s Story (Melee)
Wario Ware
Green Hill Zone (medium ceiling, small side)
Metal Cavern (small stage, medium side blast zones)

Medium:
Smashville
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams (side blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Norfair (ceiling blast zones are closer than normal, but still medium)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling)
Kongo Jungle (high ceiling)
Final Destination (It is flat with large stage)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, large stage)
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl) (Lowish Ceiling)

Large:
Dreamland (64)
Dracula's Castle (lowish ceiling, far side)
Skyloft (low ceiling)
Skyworld (large ceiling, slightly large side blast zones)

Stage Strike List:
Dreamland (64) (large side/ceiling, medium stage)
Yoshi’s Story (Melee) (small side/ceiling, smaller stage)

Fountain of Dreams (smaller medium stage, medium boundaries)
Battlefield (medium stage, medium boundaries)
Smashville (larger medium stage, medium boundaries)

Pokemon Stadium 2 (lowish ceiling, larger stage)
Lylat Cruise (high ceiling, medium stage)

(contrasting ceilings, constrasting stage sizes, FoD and Smashville's stage sizes a replacement for lack of optimal contrasting side blast zones)

Basically replacing FD with Lylat, because FD is a pure counterpick and there's nothing subtle about it and absoultely no contrast to it.

One ban is more difficult if you want to keep a large amount of stages and not allow more extreme counterpicks; it'd require removing stages like Battlefield, Wario Ware, Dracula's Castle, FD, and YI: Brawl simply to keep the math right.
I don't like the stages affecting the core gameplay. I would rather every game be fought on a medium sized stage for equal play to both players. However players still can play on these stages and do, the blastzones are not everything to a player and things like platforms, shifting platforms, flatness, and stage width are all accountable to players too. Also people generally prefer some stages over others. For example, when I play I will usually ban Lylat because I generally do not like playing on the stage, even though it is fine for my character.
 

Overswarm

is laughing at you
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
21,285
I don't like the stages affecting the core gameplay. I would rather every game be fought on a medium sized stage for equal play to both players. However players still can play on these stages and do, the blastzones are not everything to a player and things like platforms, shifting platforms, flatness, and stage width are all accountable to players too. Also people generally prefer some stages over others. For example, when I play I will usually ban Lylat because I generally do not like playing on the stage, even though it is fine for my character.
There is no such thing as "core gameplay". If every stage was the size of Wario Ware and there was only one Smashville, it doesn't mean Wario Ware is "core gameplay".

Different characters require different attributes. Your current stage list completely elminates certain attributes.

Why do you even have any stage other than Smashville at all? Why do you have Yoshi's/WWare/Dreamland legal if they're "affecting core gameplay"?
 

sneakytako

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,817
Location
Cincinnati OH
Is someone going to address this, or am I going to have to rebuttal? I'm kinda of tired of being the only one to argue against OS.
 

qpMONKEYMIKEqp

Smash Cadet
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
38
Location
West Carrollton City, Ohio
There is no argument, This is their tournament the rules are the rules. Keep the rules. I thought they going off of APEX rules anyway? Why would you want to go off of any other rule set anyway? If pros are using those rules i want to play with those same rule sets.
 

qpMONKEYMIKEqp

Smash Cadet
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
38
Location
West Carrollton City, Ohio
Due to the poll results, I will be adding PM doubles to the next CSR tournament this Saturday! Hope to see some sicknast kirby-everything action. Also if there is time we may do a $1 or $2 falcon-only singles or doubles bracket. I'l be sure to bring my laptop so I can efficiently run the 3 tournaments in time.
Wohoo =] cant wait!
 

sneakytako

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,817
Location
Cincinnati OH
Apex Ruleset isn't some final say on what all tournaments should be, it's a stupid standard that is really rampant for TOs that are too lazy to find out what a the real stagelist should be. It's totally fine if people want to voice their opinion on how bad the current stagelist is, other big tournaments are moving away from the Apex stagelist.
 
Last edited:

Doctor X

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Is someone going to address this, or am I going to have to rebuttal? I'm kinda of tired of being the only one to argue against OS.
The problem, as I'm sure you've begun to realize by now, is that arguing against OS is really more about endurance than anything else. It's not about who is actually correct so much as who cares the most, and since that was one of the longest posts I've seen him make in a long time, I'm not so sure that you, me, or anybody else is really up to the task of arguing back until he gives up.

Of course, he won't settle with this, but as far as anybody else who is on the fence about this is concerned this is all I feel needs to be said:

Stage bans should be about preference first and foremost, not balance. If any matchup results in a player feeling that they're screwed and have a huge disadvantage and cannot do the same to their opponent, then its a bad stage list.
This is a contradiction. OS's post is overwhelmingly concerned with character balance. If a in individual player "prefers" to have a a certain kind of stage available for counterpick, it should be because their characters have an advantage on that kind of stage. To imagine this as somehow distinct from the concept of balance is nonsense.

If by "preference" he's referring to overall community preference, or the preference of the TO who is making the rules, then really nothing else he said applies. As he said, Colin, you have two options:

  • Roll back the number of bans and potentially deal with boring, auto-win counterpicks producing 2-1 sets where only the first game matters.
Or:​
  • Leave the number of bans and make less sweeping adjustments whenever need for them becomes apparent.
Seeing as Overswarm may very well be the only person in the entire community who would prefer the first option, I'd say you're pretty safe with the second.

@OS:

We've done a lot to build up the community and encourage traveling and competition with surrounding cities-- no thanks whatsoever to your general negativity, doubt, and direct attempts to discourage me, personally, all done from the sidelines. You don't come to our events-- or any events at all. You have very little concept of what goes on outside of your own house, which is the only place you can be arsed to play at. To be perfectly honest I might never talk to you about smash if I didn't live with you.

This scene exists not because of you, but in spite of you, and as such I'd appreciate it if you stopped talking to people as if they were yours to order around. I know they'd appreciate it, too.
 
Last edited:

PiBs

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
The problem, as I'm sure you've begun to realize by now, is that arguing against OS is really more about endurance than anything else. It's not about who is actually correct so much as who cares the most, and since that was one of the longest posts I've seen him make in a long time, I'm not so sure that you, me, or anybody else is really up to the task of arguing back until he gives up.

Of course, he won't settle with this, but as far as anybody else who is on the fence about this is concerned this is all I feel needs to be said:



This is a contradiction. OS's post is overwhelmingly concerned with character balance. If a in individual player "prefers" to have a a certain kind of stage available for counterpick, it should be because their characters have an advantage on that kind of stage. To imagine this as somehow distinct from the concept of balance is nonsense.

If by "preference" he's referring to overall community preference, or the preference of the TO who is making the rules, then really nothing else he said applies. As he said, Colin, you have two options:

  • Roll back the number of bans and potentially deal with boring, auto-win counterpicks producing 2-1 sets where only the first game matters.
Or:​
  • Leave the number of bans and make less sweeping adjustments whenever need for them becomes apparent.
Seeing as Overswarm may very well be the only person in the entire community who would prefer the first option, I'd say you're pretty safe with the second.

@OS:

We've done a lot to build up the community and encourage traveling and competition with surrounding cities-- no thanks whatsoever to your general negativity, doubt, and direct attempts to discourage me, personally, all done from the sidelines. You don't come to our events-- or any events at all. You have very little concept of what goes on outside of your own house, which is the only place you can be arsed to play at. To be perfectly honest I might never talk to you about smash if I didn't live with you.

This scene exists not because of you, but in spite of you, and as such I'd appreciate it if you stopped talking to people as if they were yours to order around. I know they'd appreciate it, too.
I really like the stage list at the moment, but I will talk to players Saturday and see what they want. The stages I could see adding is Dracula's Castle and removing Lylat.
 

kodeyluigi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
132
There is no such thing as "core gameplay". If every stage was the size of Wario Ware and there was only one Smashville, it doesn't mean Wario Ware is "core gameplay".

Different characters require different attributes. Your current stage list completely elminates certain attributes.

Why do you even have any stage other than Smashville at all? Why do you have Yoshi's/WWare/Dreamland legal if they're "affecting core gameplay"?
Dude.....stop b****ing. Wow!
 

qpMONKEYMIKEqp

Smash Cadet
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
38
Location
West Carrollton City, Ohio
I really like the stage list at the moment, but I will talk to players Saturday and see what they want. The stages I could see adding is Dracula's Castle and removing Lylat.
I do like Dracula's castle. In all reality though I think that what was put in place is fine. I am all for people voicing their opinion but its something that really isn't that big of a deal at all. I just want to join the community and be with other smashers to test my self.

Thanks for having this tournament in the cinci/dayton area!
 

SoulPech

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
4,387
Location
Columbus/ NW Ohio
It looks like Columbus will be lacking like the last one. If I go, I will be bringing myself and Fizzle. Also, I voted for PM Doubles to happen.
 

sneakytako

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,817
Location
Cincinnati OH
OK, I've waited for this to kind of play out, but no one has any real arguments so I'm going to jump in.

First of all, I agree with a majority of what OS is saying, especially THIS:

TL;DR

You have to have an even amount of stage properties so that you don't end up with too many of one type over another. The current stage list does not do this and with three bans it eliminates entire stage types as a whole. If you DO want to have a lot of similar type (and you will because PM has a lot of medium stages), you have to make them have important differences so that banning results in removing only one negative aspect for your character, not all of them. This means adding enough stages so that there are enough stages with contrasting aspects such as stage ceiling and side blast zones, stage size, platform layout/amount. This results in characters choosing between different advantages/disadvantages based on matchup with no 'auto cps'.
Dr X, the way hes referring to preference is player preference, not community preference. For example lets use the melee stagelist as an example. Against peach her two best CPs by far is Dreamland and FoD. Usually most players would opt to ban Dreamland, since it is very hard to kill her there. However, a character like puff or samus may opt to ban FoD instead because they are also good on Dreamland. Another example would be characters/players who are bad on FoD may opt to play on Dreamland. A falcon player may ban FoD because that stage is terrible for Falcon, or a falco player may opt to ban FoD because they feel very uncomfortable playing there. This is the kind of preference OS is referring to.

That being said, I do have a few areas I do disagree with. The biggest offender is how Lylat and FoD are classified under the same 'medium stage' category. They do not compare in stage size; lylat is a bigger in every aspect by a far margin (physical stage size, side blast zone, ceiling blast zone are all way bigger). Either FoD needs to be classified as a small stage or lylat needs to be classified as a large stage, or both.

Also I don't agree with removing FoD from OS's first proposal. FoD is one of the most unique stages imo, like the example I gave peach who generally favors a large stage can have advantage on such a small stage.

Also, **** drac's castle. That stage looks like you could camp the **** out of the top of that stage way harder than dreamland. That stage is pretty much everything wrong in brawl personified. I support metal cavern and halberd as potential new stages.
 
Last edited:

Doctor X

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Dr X, the way hes referring to preference is player preference, not community preference. For example lets use the melee stagelist as an example. Against peach her two best CPs by far is Dreamland and FoD. Usually most players would opt to ban Dreamland, since it is very hard to kill her there. However, a character like puff or samus may opt to ban FoD instead because they are also good on Dreamland. Another example would be characters/players who are bad on FoD may opt to play on Dreamland. A falcon player may ban FoD because that stage is terrible for Falcon, or a falco player may opt to ban FoD because they feel very uncomfortable playing there. This is the kind of preference OS is referring to.
How is this distinct from balance.
 

sneakytako

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,817
Location
Cincinnati OH
Because it's a player's preference to choose one stage or the other, because there is more than one unfavorable option.

Balance would mean that there is X unfavorable option(s), and the obvious choice would be to use X ban(s) on those stages.
 
Last edited:

Unit583

Smash Rookie
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
19
Location
NKY
NNID
protoman64
Curses! 64's losing to PM! That's the only event where I could place in the money! And thanks for the advice, too.
 

Doctor X

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Because it's a player's preference to choose one stage or the other, because there is more than one unfavorable option.

Balance would mean that there is X unfavorable option(s), and the obvious choice would be to use X ban(s) on those stages.
Wat.

No, seriously, wat. Where does any of this come from.

Balance is not a binary concept. It is possible for a match to be more balanced or less balanced, just as it is possible for a stage to be more unfavorable or less unfavorable. If I've got 5 stages that are unfavorable, but I only have 3 bans, I can rank those 5 stages from least unfavorable to most, and ban the top 3. Now I'm playing on the 4th most unfavorable stage, instead of the first.

The purpose of stage bans is thus to balance the matches following the first. If counterpicks are allowed to be too powerful, any matches after the first become meaningless auto-wins. That's why OS mentioned those boring 2-1 sets. He's aware of the problem and the reason stage bans were created, but for some reason wants to muddle it in an argument over semantics. Instead of saying the word "balance" we should say the word "preference." Never mind that the word "preference" is so much more easily confused with other concepts, and never mind that the distinction is almost entirely meaningless, as player preferences follow balance concerns unless the player is new and/or stupid.

That's why all of his examples of player preferences-- and by extension, yours-- cite balance concerns that arise from character traits interacting with stage properties. You realize how silly that is, right? Stop being silly, please.
 

sneakytako

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,817
Location
Cincinnati OH
Wat.

No, seriously, wat. Where does any of this come from.

Balance is not a binary concept. It is possible for a match to be more balanced or less balanced, just as it is possible for a stage to be more unfavorable or less unfavorable. If I've got 5 stages that are unfavorable, but I only have 3 bans, I can rank those 5 stages from least unfavorable to most, and ban the top 3. Now I'm playing on the 4th most unfavorable stage, instead of the first.

The purpose of stage bans is thus to balance the matches following the first. If counterpicks are allowed to be too powerful, any matches after the first become meaningless auto-wins. That's why OS mentioned those boring 2-1 sets. He's aware of the problem and the reason stage bans were created, but for some reason wants to muddle it in an argument over semantics. Instead of saying the word "balance" we should say the word "preference." Never mind that the word "preference" is so much more easily confused with other concepts, and never mind that the distinction is almost entirely meaningless, as player preferences follow balance concerns unless the player is new and/or stupid.

That's why all of his examples of player preferences-- and by extension, yours-- cite balance concerns that arise from character traits interacting with stage properties. You realize how silly that is, right? Stop being silly, please.

Meh semantics indeed. Balance is definitely important and inclusive, but it's good to have a player have options based on their own preference rather than being forced into bans from MU data. Ranking 5 stages from bad to worst usually ends up being preference after the first or second choice, which is why he's saying that 3 bans is too much. Having players eliminating all unfavorable stages takes away from the CPing element of the game, and arbitrarily makes characters that are good on medium size stages better.
 

cjugs

Smash Ace
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
521
Location
Where amazing happens
Hey guys I live right down the road and was wondering if there will be doubles events as well? Plus, do I have to pre reg or can I sign up the day of? I might gave a few friends interested if there will be a decent turnout
Salt are you not going to go to the kentucky tourny then?
 
Top Bottom