Melee Stage Discussion (Sticky?)

[JPOBS]

provide a reason for why more stages = more depth

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That is not entirely true.

Well, yes it is, actually. I can very easily say that something has greater depth than something else just by counting the number of effectively different situations.

There may be a small amount of subjectivity, but it's negligible.

Also, like JPOBS said, what does it add? How does putting mute city in the stage list actually increase depth? Those stages were removed because those stages cause over-centralization not because "oh damn i lost there i say we all get together and agree to remove it"

I'd like to see your evidence that the removed stages cause over-centralization.

Do you have tournament results to show that Mute City resulted in a lower number of stages chosen/match-ups played/strategies used?

If so, can you say that the issue was the stages and not the lack of stage bans?

provide a reason for why more stages = more depth

Because they provide more effectively different situations...

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Mute City caused players to change characters simply because the stage was picked. QED Centralization.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Then they obviously should have banned it, rather than getting taken there and changing character.

How is a character change less deep anyway? It can change what was originally a Fox vs. Fox match into a Jigglypuff vs. Fox or Jigglypuff vs. Jigglypuff match. More match-ups being played = good.

 

[JPOBS]

Because they provide more effectively different situations...

All you've said is an equally as vague statement. something with a little more depth would be appreciated.

also

Mute City caused players to change characters simply because the stage was picked. QED Centralization.

Then they obviously should have banned it, rather than getting taken there and changing character.

For people who reside in the camp of "add more stages but give 2 bans", i present this concept:

If the solution to adding more stages is to give more bans, you have essentially solved nothing. If a stage is so bad that people will likely ban it automatically in all sets in tournament, then it should just be banned outright.

Assuming the striking system remained the same, you've accomplished nothing. People will still strike to BF (or what have you) and will almost always use their bans to get rid of floats/coneria/mute city/etc leaving the only playable stages as the neutral+current counterpicks.

and its because those stages are rightfully bad, tourny sets would stll be played mostly on neutrals.

It is at this point in the discussion where along came a spider...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I believe I refuted that stage ban argument a few pages ago, JPOBS.

Unless the stage will be banned in EVERY set, there is more depth

In regards to my "vague statement", I assumed that the meaning was obvious enough that I didn't need to elaborate: With more stages legal (that aren't over-centralizing), more situations are played out and become a part of the meta-game.

 

[JPOBS]

I believe I refuted that stage ban argument a few pages ago, JPOBS.

Unless the stage will be banned in EVERY set, there is more depth

In regards to my "vague statement", I assumed that the meaning was obvious enough that I didn't need to elaborate: With more stages legal (that aren't over-centralizing), more situations are played out and become a part of the meta-game.

i don't think you are getting it.

a stage like floats, green greens, mute city whathaveyou would be banned in all matchups where its likely to be played. based on the properties of the currently banned stages, they are bad enough that they are in all likelyhood, going to be the best go-to counterpick of whatever character wants to use it. I want to stress the importance of that last statement, so please read it again. and because these stages are almost clearcut the best stages for the appropriate characters in whaever matchup is under consideration, the opponent will almost always ban it.

Therefore, it would be banned in "EVERY" set where it would be useful. Having the stage lingering around in sets where it wouldn't be used, serves no purpose at all. so essentially, it should just be banned in the ruleset.

This is my last post on the topic cuz i don't think i have anything more to say. if you care to respond i will read it but probably be done with the topic regardless

 

[Divinokage]

It's not really strategy if you are forced to ban a gay stage just because you know the player's character. Through out much experience, there's certain strategies you simply cannot avoid.. Like let's say i'm off stage with Ganon vs Peach inside Mute City.. no matter which mindgame I try to use to recover I'm still going to get edgeguarded 100% which is dumb.. imo there should always be a way to avoid something and this is where the true depth gets created since you will have to be extremely creative to best an equally skilled opponent.

And then when you are at the stage selection screen with your opponent since you already banned Mute City then there could be another stage where you might feel uncomfortable in the matchup which makes it even harder to win.

I know Brinstar does not over-centralize any matchup but I know for a fact that 99% of the players are bad inside the stage so I can use that to get an auto-win which imo should not happen.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@JPOBS
You are assuming that the stage will either be "neutral" (not picked) or a "hard counter" (always banned) in a match-up, which isn't the case.

The stage can be a soft or medium counter in a match-up with different harder counters which would be banned first.

*Stuff*

Which is why there should be enough stage bans to make this a non-issue. It might be necessary to ban it in the Peach vs. Ganon match-up, but that's no reason for the Peach vs. Jigglypuff match-up to have less options.

------

Slightly off-topic, but in case people are wondering what my opinion on the Melee stage-list is...

LEGAL:
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams
Dreamland (N64)
Pokemon Stadium
Yoshi's Story
Final Destination
Rainbow Ride
Kongo Jungle (N64)
Mute City
Brinstar
Poke Floats
Kingdom
Kingdom II
Onett
Kongo Jungle
Green Greens

BANNED:
Corneria
Jungle Japes
Brinstar Depths
Flat Zone
Great Bay
Princess Peach's Castle
Icicle Mountain
Yoshi's Island
Yoshi's Island (N64)
Fourside
Big Blue
Temple
Venom

^Using Hybrid Full Stage List Striking (I can explain this if people aren't familiar).^

 

[Merkovski]

@Grim: Please explain Hybrid Stage List Striking.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sure thing:

Put simply, both players strike from the entire stage list just like with normal starter stage striking until you only have one stage left. You play on that stage for the first game, and the "counter-pick" stage list is made up of the last stages you struck before finding the starter stage.

If that doesn't make sense...:
Player 1 = 1
Player 2 = 2

1 strikes 5 stages
2 strikes 5 stages
*The remaining stages are counter-picks*
1 strikes 5 stages
2 strikes 5 stages
*The remaining stage is the starter*

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't think people are getting it.
If you're against two stage bans and more stages, then why have a stage ban at all?
And FD generally fits under the criteria of the best stage for one of the characters, so shouldn't that be banned as well?

 

[Merkovski]

@Grim: Thanks for explaining.

It's not a complicated process, but it is a bit tedious do go through for each set. Still doable.

The only complaint I have is Player 1's inherent advantage from the beginning, getting the first 5 bans. What if Player 1 watched Player 2's last set(s) and purposefully bans the stages #2 does best on? Is that even controllable?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The number of bans was an example, it wouldn't be 5-5-5-5.

And knowing what stages the other player is good on is unavoidable, and can be taken advantage of by both players.

 

[Lovage]

that stage list is gay as ****

i think our current ruleset is pretty fine except RC but oh well

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Lovage, no one cares about an unsupported opinion in discussion threads.

 

[Tirno]

It seems like you've defined depth in a way nobody cares about. There are two criteria I think people care about when judging stages (and rulesets in general):

1) Competitiveness: The more predictable the outcome of a match is, given the skill of the competitors, the more competitive it is.

2) Competitive depth: This I see as the minimum of viable options for both competitors, i.e. min(player 1 options, player 2 options). More situations don't add to this sense of depth unless they present a balanced set of options for both competitors.

So even though stages like MKII, for example, add "more effective situations", you're not going to persuade people to add it back unless you can argue that it doesn't detract from competitiveness and that the options it gives outweigh the options it takes away.

 

[Bones0]

I don't think people are getting it.
If you're against two stage bans and more stages, then why have a stage ban at all?
And FD generally fits under the criteria of the best stage for one of the characters, so shouldn't that be banned as well?

The goal of bans is to get the 3 (or 5) most fair stages to be played on during the set. If you have a stage list of 7 stages for a best of 3 set, you strike for the most fair stage, then you have counterpicks. If you let them pick their first best counterpick, the game wouldn't be as close as if you had each player ban a stage before the counterpick.

Assume there are 7 stages available (5 neutrals plus PS and KJ); 1-3 are in my favor (going from least fair to most), and 5-7 are in your favor (going from most fair to least).
We strike to stage 4 because it is the most fair for the matchup.
I win and ban stage 7 because it is the most radically in your favor. Now instead of having to play on a ridiculously unfair stage, it's only slightly in your advantage as you pick from 5 and 6.
You win on 5 or 6 and you ban 1.
We play game 3 on stage 2 or 3.

Instead of playing 4 (fair), 7 (easy win for you), and 1 (easy win for me), we played 4, 6 (slightly in you favor), and 2 (slightly in my favor). It makes game 1 less of a set decider because people aren't expected to overcome the obstacles of an unfair stage. I'm not sure how it would affect certain matchup striking, but I also think it'd be worth to try 7 stages with 2 bans.



As far as FD goes, it is typically in favor of one player just like every other stage. That's the purpose of striking and bans is to get rid of stages that radically favor one player based on their character. I play Falco vs. Marth all the time and hate playing on FD, but I still consider it a competitively viable stage, it just doesn't fall in my character's favor. It is also worth mentioning that matchups change. YS used to be considered an amazing Marth stage, and while it's still very good, I've seen Fox and Falco players CP Marth to YS because the matchup has evolved so much.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I can't tell if Grim is trolling or not. Now that i believe his "discussion" is over, I bring back the post i made a few pages ago:

Stadium should replace FD in the striking. I posted about it a while back but didnt receive much attention. There are many ways of logic to the decision, I will try to explain some of them in this post.

Any spacie player who has struck vs a marth knows how advantaged he is. By striking dreamland, the marth's opponent is left with picking from marth's 4 CP stages. By changing FD to Stadium, marth now has 2 "bad" stages (though i dont think any stage in the current ruleset is that bad for him).

A similar scenario happens in every match-up with a CG on only one side, as a single grab leads to more guaranteed damage on FD than any other stage, forcing the opponent to strike the stage for that reason alone. The lack of platforms on FD makes it the most different stage of the 6. Match-ups with CGs on one side cause the striking system to break down, as the size and layout of the stage becomes irrelevant.

Another way to look at it is to organize the stages into categories.

Battlefield is, in many ways, the neutral ground for all categories. Stage size and blast zones are both moderate and the stage is static in every way (unlike the other 4, which all have a perk or variance). By organizing the 5 stages into 2 small & 2 big with 1 medium, it guarantees a more balanced stage strike environment.

Stadium being a currently CP stage (though considered neutral for far longer, and only taken off neutral because of numbers) is the logical rebuttal to this argument. The stage changes make it the least fair of the 6 stages in many people's minds. While this is an opinion based argument, I will go to say that it is not so important the balance of one stage as much as maintaining the overall balance of the strike.

Thoughts?

 

[Bones0]

I would be pretty satisfied with FD being considered a CP because chain grabs do kind of make it an instant ban in a lot of matchups, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. PS would probably be my first choice, but I've always felt that KJ is a more balanced stage, even with the quirky ledge and the occasional stalling. How many matchups is it actually valid for players to run away the entire time, and is it enough to consider it less balanced than PS with transformations?

 

[Smasher89]

I know i miss arguing against a few argument subjected to my last post, but will post this first.

Dream land 64 is in no way neutral.
This is why:
I counterpick DL64 against for example a peach player(this has happened a few times), peachplayer stays peach, I switch from ICs to jiggs, then win by timeout(camping top platform). And I only use jiggs for teams really.
Both players will probably(usually) lose 2 stocks each maximum, unless I'm given a free rest(win).
This works well against samus and probably other slow characters(ganon?) too.

This provides static results as long as I'm able to play that "boring" style(try it out, you´ll also win easy wins that way since theres no balance in that play), and is alot easier then it seems to be for Foxplayers to beat me(IC) on Corneria, even when I´m not in the lead. Shineinfinite is easy some of you say, it´s escapable on corneria due to how the wall tilts with smashDI, and wavedashing shine also needs the skill to adjust your position to mantain the infinite.

More stages and maybe an extra stageban (I support double stageban, when theres lots of stages on) really adds the strategic move called counterpicking, which gives deapth and a possibility to beat those campers by giving them a situation where their campingbased strategy isn't giving as much benifit.

 

[Bones0]

I find it hard to believe anyone good could get timed out by a Jiggs on DL. They have to land eventually, and when you do you hit them. I'm sure it's insanely boring, but it doesn't sound broken at all. Maybe if you choose Ganon or Bowser, but in that case you should know large stages will make it insanely hard to not get camped anyway.

 

[Smasher89]

If you make it a race against the clock instead of a actual match against the other player(since in a way it isnt) it´ll be easier, peach doublejump+movement is to slow for her to get a single chance to hit Jigglypuff. Try it in tournament with that mindset and I´ll guarantie that you´ll win, and theres not a single thing the peachplayer can do except to hope landing a hit, by trying to approach your bair, or switching character.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

On the topic of anecdotal time-outs:

Cosmo had frequent near-time outs at SMYM12. He managed to play so defensive on stage that he got within 30 seconds of a time out against Rat and AnDaLe (and probably others). The reason those games didn't end in a time out is the opponents knew they had to do something fast and threw themselves wrecklessly at comso, who then got the last kill, ending the game. He also managed to time out Matt R's Fox.

No insane camping strategies, no planking. Just defensive play.

 

[Stevo]

is it really worth it to include Stage X if said stage would only be played in 0.05% of matches?

can't those 2 players just agree to play on that stage if/when they wanted to anyway?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It seems like you've defined depth in a way nobody cares about. There are two criteria I think people care about when judging stages (and rulesets in general):

1) Competitiveness: The more predictable the outcome of a match is, given the skill of the competitors, the more competitive it is.

2) Competitive depth: This I see as the minimum of viable options for both competitors, i.e. min(player 1 options, player 2 options). More situations don't add to this sense of depth unless they present a balanced set of options for both competitors.

So even though stages like MKII, for example, add "more effective situations", you're not going to persuade people to add it back unless you can argue that it doesn't detract from competitiveness and that the options it gives outweigh the options it takes away.

Except it isn't taking away any options... You have all of the options from other stages as well as the new options from, for example, MKII.

 

[Tirno]

Adding stages can take away options. However, I don't know the specifics of MKII, so let's use Mute City as an example. A lot of what makes Peach/Jiggs good on that stage is not the options it gives to them, but the options it takes from other characters. For example, characters cannot aim for the ledge, since there is no ledge. This is seen by most as bad for competition (and enjoyability) because it can turn a balanced matchup into something much more imbalanced.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That isn't removing options.

Adding in Mute City doesn't suddenly take away every other stage in the game. The lack of ledges removes options, I agree. That's what the other stages that do have ledges are for.

What you are suggesting right now is equivalent to banning Final Destination because it doesn't have platforms. No platforms = less options.

 

[Tirno]

What I'm suggesting is that an stage analysis that consists of "more stages = more options" isn't good enough to justify making a stage legal. You're not going to convince anyone unless you give actual reasons why the stage doesn't negatively affect the metagame.

Adding in Hyrule doesn't suddenly take away every other stage in the game. The camping removes options, I agree. That's what the other stages that don't have circles are for.

See how that argument doesn't work? Adding in stages can negatively affect the metagame. Hyrule's just an extreme case.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

1. Erm... that's not the way it works. Stages aren't bad until proven good, it's your job to show me why the stage DOES negatively affect the meta-game.

2. You're doing it wrong.

See, if Hyrule was legal it would take away depth because it would either
a) Be the only counter-pick ever played on
b) ALWAYS banned in EVERY match-up.

See the difference? Mute City is fine in the majority of match-ups.

 

[Tirno]

1. It is the way it works when the current standard is to have these stages banned and you're trying to convince people why it should be legal. Sorry, you're not going to change anything by bringing up burden of proof, ignoring precedent, and hoping for the best.

2. No, it would only be counterpicked if people were confident that they their opponent can't play Fox. Also, most banned stages are "fine in the majority of match-ups". The few in which they're not can swing the decision.

Seriously, this is Melee Stage Discussion. I'm just saying you should actually analyze and discuss the affect the stage has on the metagame rather than use repeat a flawed assumption that more options = better game.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

1. Erm... that's not the way it works. Stages aren't bad until proven good, it's your job to show me why the stage DOES negatively affect the meta-game.

Mute City- Centralizes the metagame to peach and puff and forces many players to change characters simply because of the stage. In laymens terms: Its too good for puff and peach.

It is not "fine", as you keep trying to assert.

 

[Smasher89]

Adding stages can take away options. However, I don't know the specifics of MKII, so let's use Mute City as an example. A lot of what makes Peach/Jiggs good on that stage is not the options it gives to them, but the options it takes from other characters. For example, characters cannot aim for the ledge, since there is no ledge. This is seen by most as bad for competition (and enjoyability) because it can turn a balanced matchup into something much more imbalanced.

Thas´s something that is left for the players playing to decide (Ken still dominated this stage for a reference, even though peaches/puff picked it)

Taking away options from the opponent that does not ban the stage being picked is actually a good thing, unless you want a 8min campwar based metagame with a few players actually playing fast and fun.

Watch this set:
Match One Pepito vs Tero(first match isnt as needed as the other two)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR2lvFLozaA

Match 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHfcafE9ig

Match 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfVnPbPsMBU


Proof that clever counterpicking pays of, as long as the player has his own reason(quite obvius why the pick was as it were in tha last match, don´t you think, even though it should be "disadvantaged" to pick the stage.

 

[AnDaLe]

On the topic of anecdotal time-outs:

Cosmo had frequent near-time outs at SMYM12. He managed to play so defensive on stage that he got within 30 seconds of a time out against Rat and AnDaLe (and probably others). The reason those games didn't end in a time out is the opponents knew they had to do something fast and threw themselves wrecklessly at comso, who then got the last kill, ending the game. He also managed to time out Matt R's Fox.

No insane camping strategies, no planking. Just defensive play.

Yup, "the best defense is always a good offense" =)

 

[Lovage]

1. Erm... that's not the way it works. Stages aren't bad until proven good, it's your job to show me why the stage DOES negatively affect the meta-game.

cuz they ****ing suck my **** LOL

come on bro this games like 10 years old we know which stages blow by now

 

[Stevo]

batolfeeld only

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Firstly, in regards to the burden of proof: Status quo means nothing if there is no backing. If I created a law that everyone had to wear fuzzy hats on Wednesday, that doesn't mean it is your job to prove that we SHOULDN'T enforce that rule, no matter how long the rule has been around for.

Second, stages: There are 4 kinds of stages.

1. Uncompetitive Stages
Example: Temple
These are stages that can't determine the better player, normally because they are severely lacking in depth (there's a reason why they don't have Tic-Tac-Toe tournaments). Though it can also be due to randomness, like Jungle Japes.

2. Broken Stages
Example: Great Bay
These are stages that aren't necessarily bad in EVERY match-up, but have certain tactics which take very little skill to use (circle camping, Fox's shine infinites/0 > deaths) and affect the majority of match-ups. Having a stage like this legal will lead to one of the following:
a) The player who won the previous game bans this stage (every game)
b) The player who won the previous game switches to the character that can best abuse the broken strategies on this stage.

Though these stages ARE fine (albeit pointless) if there are enough stage bans (because the player can simply use a stage ban on the stage and then use the other stage bans on stages that are bad for them).

3. Polar Stages
Example: Mute City
These stages are broken in certain match-ups, but require knowledge or character skill to win on those match-ups (for example, picking Fox on Great Bay is an auto-win, even for a player who doesn't know how to use Fox. This does not occur with Puff on Mute City).

These stages are fine though as long as there are enough stage bans.

4. Fair Stages
Example: Battlefield
This shouldn't need explaining. These are stages which aren't uncompetitive or broken in any way.

Can you think of any reason to ban the polar stages when a simple stage ban solves the problem just as well?

I don't even know why I'm arguing this though, I don't even support the current counter-pick system where this is an issue.

 

[AnDaLe]

Dang... I never thought of that. Grim knows his ****!

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why have stage bans at all when you can just only play on the good stages? Does adding stages actually add depth?

 

[TheGoat]

cuz they ****ing suck my **** LOL

come on bro this games like 10 years old we know which stages blow by now

qft, but why is kingdom II banned? Cuz it's too small?