Official Stage Legality Discussion

[deepseadiva]

I can state any positive as a negative (you just got math'd)

Good for you.

the difference between the justice system and brawl is that in the justice system there is a "right" and in brawl there is just "preference"...

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[buenob]

It's impossible to prove a negative.

That's logic.

assuming that if I can state any positive as a negative, and it's impossible to prove a negative, then it's impossible to prove anything... since we both can't be right, one or the other statement must be false, and since mine is true, yours must be false... it's called proof by contradiction... it's called logic

and for the other statement... who's to say that "all brawl" isn't right? I know a guy who quit playing brawl because he thought the arbitrary rules we imposed were lessening the game, and since we didn't want to play all brawl, he decided that he'd rather spend his time doing other things (like working lol)... none of us are "right" because everyone is looking for something slightly different, there are only our opinions, which is why this debate keeps going -- because we keep wanting to show people with different opinions why we think what we do, in hopes to bring to light some new information or perspective which will bring their wants closer to our own...

 

[Sucumbio]

I wonder what people would do if Battlefield, FD, and Smashville didn't exist. (Take out Yoshi's and Lylat, too!)

LOL methinks the game would be far less popular as a tournament game. Maybe Sakurai should have done that, if he was so hell bent on making it non-competitive.

Perhaps this is how we could find our "middle ground"?

Perhaps... it'd be worth a look at anyway, to see just how differently win/loss records turn out for the brawl cast. But to find people willing to test this, idk... prolly find most people willing to do this in the MW region.

I wonder what OS has to say about this discussion. Certainly he's in the same boat, designing circuits and tournaments with liberal stage lists, even customs. Maybe he can shed some light on this, and suggest a sound strategy to resolve this. Or at least help in deciding what makes a neutral a neutral, in reality and in theory.

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

Why not?

Wow, you're so ****ing stupid.

Halberd should stay as a CP. It skews certain match-ups way too much.

 

[buenob]

lol fail troll fails at trolling...

 

[Silent crisis]

Why is Corneria Banned?

 

[Linkshot]

Corneria is banned because of wall infinites.

 

[Silent crisis]

Corneria is banned because of wall infinites.

Oh okay thanks..That Kinda Makes sence :-P

 

[PK-ow!]

Final Destination is Mr. Game & Watch's worst stage on lists that have Mario Circuit banned (which are all of them in recent memory) so it being her worst stage doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem on that front.

Of course, people not picking Frigate Orpheon is probably a pretty good argument that it's pretty close to starter grade, maybe the best argument. If a stage is legal and not picked, either the players are irrational or it doesn't really give them much of an advantage (or, rather, if it does, they fail at exploiting it and know it). When legal, a stage like Norfair gets picked all the time because it's actually a potent counterpick. The fact that PictoChat, Pokemon Stadium 2, Castle Siege, and Frigate Orpheon really don't get picked makes me ask some questions. Of course, too many players are irrational about stage selection anyway to really pursue this point; people CP Smashville all the time when I know Smashville isn't their most powerful stage nearly that often. Maybe we need to start holding tournaments where all the "normal" starters are counterpicks and the starter list we use is just a list of generally unpopular stages. I mean, really, just imagine the implications of this being the starter list:

Pokemon Stadium 2
Frigate Orpheon
PictoChat
Castle Siege
Brinstar

I'm not convinced, with stage striking rules in place, that it would be unfair.

For me, the issue is disentanglement of what about a character is countered by a stage, from what is simply flawed about a character, and nothing but.


One guy says Frigate doesn't have an edge, and this is harsh on certain characters. But, really, that's just an argument with a little premise, that ensures the conclusion: Characters aren't supposed to deal with non-existent edges. That begs the question against anyone who wants to say Frigate is fair. "Maybe your character should deal," is what they want to say, and if the opposing argument is as shallow as outlined, that's all they have to.

The flipside is what comes to the fore when the ICs and their love of flatness is discussed.


I'm really glad you exist, AmazingAmpharos.


Now, I've got to poke one hole in what you were saying: One reason players might not pick something that's an option is that it is neutral. Another possibility, though, is that they think their chances become more random. Honestly, I don't know how the Hell PS2 works, and I've sat down, fiddled, and tried to work out ice mechanics. I don't want anyone picking that ****, and the only reason I'm not CP banning it is my hope that the opponent won't-know-what-the-Hell-he's-doing harder than me (i.e., I have certain beliefs about my ability to disintegrate my character knowledge from rote stage techniques).

So, you've got a confound in the point you were trying to make. It'll take a little more work, then, to get it to go through for Frigate Orpheon and PictoChat.


*~*~*~

I love the idea of PC as neutral. Seriously, if people tried their best, they'd work out how to make their flow work with all the potential stage switches. I think even now, I've unconsciously learned not to random jump around the sides as the few seconds run out, for fear of rockets and cars...


And at this point I honestly don't understand why Castle Siege isn't loved. The walk-off transformation can be camped out if you dislike your odds fighting on the ground that much - which you shouldn't unless your ground game is just weak - and the CG characters initially hate the statues and can be evaded.

Perhaps I'm understating one factor though - my area has become ultra conservative in the extreme, and I've barely played on Castle Siege in halfway serious matches ("serious" being "friendlies against the top finishers where I ask them to try").

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Wow, you're so ****ing stupid.

No he isn't. If anything, you're an idiot for actually thinking that he didn't know why a damage causing starter would be a bad thing.

He was simply asking why a starter couldn't be hazardous. It's assumed that starters should not actively cause damage, but he was essentially challenging that rule.

 

[yaya0]

What are the reasons for Mario Circuit being banned? At least make it counter/banned if you don't like it.

 

[fkacyan]

What are the reasons for Mario Circuit being banned? At least make it counter/banned if you don't like it.

Permanent walkoffs are cool.

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

What do you guys think of having 9 starter stages?

I think it's stupid.

 

[bobson]

Why do you think it's stupid?

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

Why do you think it's stupid?

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 4 we have now.

There are no other stages that are neutral worthy.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

Both 7 and 9 starters are superior to 5 starter stages. 7 is my preferred, but 9 isn't without merit over bland FD/BF/SV/YI/(ps1 vs lylat).

More stages are better.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Both 7 and 9 starters are superior to 5 starter stages. 7 is my preferred, but 9 isn't without merit over bland FD/BF/SV/YI/(ps1 vs lylat).

More stages are better.

This. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

Out of curiosity, what stages were you people thinking about adding to make 9 starters?

 

[Kinzer]

Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Pokemon Stadium I, Halberd, and Lylat Cruise.

Perhaps.

Edit: Unless a scene let's random decide stages, who exactly has 4 starters? If you're going by a striking system, there has to be an odd number for the amount of stages.

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Pokemon Stadium I, Halberd, and Lylat Cruise.

Perhaps.

Edit: Unless a scene let's random decide stages, who exactly has 4 starters? If you're going by a striking system, there has to be an odd number for the amount of stages.

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

You seem to be forgetting about the walk off in the 2nd phase of the stage, which has EXTREMELY small blast zones.

 

[Kinzer]

There was no need for a double post.

And the whole point of a 9-stage striking system is so that you can get rid of any stage you don't like.

The walk-off is so easy to avoid though, so many platforms and room everywhere else.

 

[Mr. Johan]

You seem to be forgetting about the walk off in the 2nd phase of the stage, which has EXTREMELY small blast zones.

Which what, stays active for 30 seconds at a time?

Just avoid the opponent if they camp near the walkoffs, and just wait until the scene changes.

 

[deepseadiva]

assuming that if I can state any positive as a negative, and it's impossible to prove a negative, then it's impossible to prove anything... since we both can't be right, one or the other statement must be false, and since mine is true, yours must be false... it's called proof by contradiction... it's called logic

I agree. Logic, along with deductive and inductive reasoning, does not exist.

and for the other statement... who's to say that "all brawl" isn't right? I know a guy who quit playing brawl because he thought the arbitrary rules we imposed were lessening the game, and since we didn't want to play all brawl, he decided that he'd rather spend his time doing other things (like working lol)... none of us are "right" because everyone is looking for something slightly different, there are only our opinions, which is why this debate keeps going -- because we keep wanting to show people with different opinions why we think what we do, in hopes to bring to light some new information or perspective which will bring their wants closer to our own...

What, no...?

These aren't "arbitrary" rules. This isn't a matter of "preference".

We start out with one concept: "Let's play this game competitively". Unfortunately this isn't a traditional fighter, we can't just pop in Brawl and jump into versus mode.

But of course, the inevitable question is, why not? Because, going back to the original concept, we're playing this game competitively. Which directly means we're in search of the best player.

Now even here, we reach another question, what does "the best player" mean? Best in a free for all? Best in lightning spicy curry mode? No, we simply mean, who's the most adapt at winning - this is most easily determined when taking away as many crutches the game offers. But this is Brawl, so the game is going to offer many, many crutches; specifically because it was tailored that way and tilted toward a casual audience. We are not that casual audience, so we have to strip away these crutches.

Okay, let's strip away the 2 minute matches in favor of stocks. The crutch there could be gaining a slight lead with a laser at the beginning of the match and then stalling for only two minutes.

Okay, let's strip away the janky stages like Wario Ware. The crutch here though is not that a player could rely on the minigames to win, but that the crutch inhibits us from our search of the best player. Likewise with items.

And so on and so on till we reach a game that reasonably provides us the best modes to efficiently search for the best player. These are real, definite rules. Nothing random or biased (or at least hypothetically free from bias) - this is the game we have to play, not the game we "want" to play.

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 4 we have now.

There are no other stages that are neutral worthy.

lol

Four?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Blastzones are NEVER a reason to affect a stage's position on the Starter/CP/Banned List.

It affects all characters the same %. If a stage is 25% smaller blastzone wise, everyone KOs 25% sooner.

 

[Linkshot]

You forgot about Halberd. I'd dump Siege for that anyday.

 

[Kinzer]

You forgot about Halberd. I'd dump Siege for that anyday.

Who is that directed towards?

Not me I hope. :X I mentioned Halberd.

 

[deepseadiva]

Blastzones are NEVER a reason to affect a stage's position on the Starter/CP/Banned List.

Maybe not the starter part.

The stages with smaller blastzones have an inherent bias against the lighter characters.

 

[buenob]

meno -
lol well played with the first statement

as for the rest, well, i said "he quit because of the arbitrary rules", not "me" lol... I absolutely believe the same as you, but it's an extreme example of what's going on with these debates, and I felt it to be a strong supporting argument...

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Maybe not the starter part.

The stages with smaller blastzones have an inherent bias against the lighter characters.

Not necessarily.

Often lighter characters have trouble KOing (Sonic, Shiek, Jigglypuff, etc) have trouble KOing. While they themselves are KOed sooner, they also can KO sooner.

It works both ways. Any bias against the lighter characters would be less the bias of FD + Falco/ICs/Diddy/D3

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Remember you stage strike after character selection.

If they pick a matchup with a long chaingrab other than ICs chaingrab (since that is instant death on any stage unless the stage does something to interrupt), obviously Castle Siege gets struck. Now count the number of matchups that applies in, really.

King Dedede vs about 2/3 of the cast.

Yoshi against something like 10 characters.

Marth vs Ness and Lucas (still better for them than FD though).

I'm not going to do the real match, but my very rough estimation is that it constitutes about 3% of matchups, 5% at most factoring in some CGs I doubtless just forgot. That means in 95-97% of matchups, the walk-offs on Castle Siege hold no dread to you. You should know your character(s) and know if you're in a matchup where you have to fear that.

Note that Ice Climbers alone are about 3% of matchups, and that's the number that Final Destination is hopelessly unfair in. Before you even consider other issues with FD, it already is close to the league of Castle Siege in terms of matchups that are kinda stupid on it (worse since at least 2/3 of the time on Castle Siege in cg to walk-off matchups you don't have to worry whereas against ICs on FD you're in a horrible situation 100% of the time).

If you for some reason fear walk-off camping (it's not a good strategy), you don't have to approach it either. Just wait. The stage will change.

Castle Siege is not a significant trouble-maker on a starter list. It's IMO overall less of a trouble-maker than Final Destination regardless so if you think FD should be a starter I'm not sure why you'd have objections to Castle Siege.

---

About small blast zones:

They favor characters with higher base knockback as opposed to knockback growth, and they usually aren't similarly small in both directions so they favor different types of killing. For instance, Green Greens has a low ceiling (as in legitimately low, not Halberd's "barely low that people act like is really low"). If you stage center-stage, you don't have to worry too much about small blast-zones on the left and right. That is amazing for vertical killers. This includes heavy Snake, but it also includes light Mr. Game & Watch. It definitely does not include Meta Knight (who sucks on Green Greens).

However, a stage might have closer horizontal blastzones and farther vertical ones. PictoChat has a slightly above average ceiling but is also a really long stage so near the edges of it it's not very far to the blast-zones. Guys like Sonic and Diddy Kong like this a little more than usual, though of course PictoChat gives us continual amazing fairness with drawings that give a lot of play to the vertical killers (since on top of the drawings, you're obviously closer to the upper blast zone).

 

[Kinzer]

Niddo, I'll have you know that Sonic is in the dead-center of the heavyweights and the lightweights. @.@

Anyway yes. Stage boundaries are not a reason for a stage to be decided counterpick or banned (maybe neutral but whatever). Lightweights have the problem of dying really early, it's the players decision to play them in the first place.

 

[deepseadiva]

Not necessarily.

Often lighter characters have trouble KOing (Sonic, Shiek, Jigglypuff, etc) have trouble KOing. While they themselves are KOed sooner, they also can KO sooner.

It works both ways. Any bias against the lighter characters would be less the bias of FD + Falco/ICs/Diddy/D3

Not really...

Everyone gains the advantage of killing earlier, but only the lighter characters gain the disadvantage of dying sooner. The heavier characters also live longer.

Blastzone sizes have serious enough effects on matches to place them closer to the CP category. Comparisons to the biases FD offers are debatable, since that itself could be CP worthy.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Its very easy for the majority of characters to avoid walkoff's by camping since it doesn't last forever like certain stages.

I would be personally completely for stages like Siege to be neutrals.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Heavy characters die sooner on small blastzones too. It's an easy thing to look into as well. Take something like Mario up smash versus Bowser or versus Squirtle. Squirtle dies a lot earlier on Green Greens, but he also dies a lot earlier on Jungle Japes. In fact, just have fun killing a Bowser who is good at center stage control on Jungle Japes; he takes so long to die off the top because of the combination of huge blastzone and huge weight. On the other hand, while Squirtle might die at some kinda stupid percentages on Green Greens, Bowser barely even feels like a heavyweight. It balances out.

I am remembering one factor though, and that's that large blastzones do favor momentum canceling (how could I forget as a G&W main?). Then you notice, though, that the character who far and away benefits most from this (G&W) also is a very strong vertical killer so low ceilings aren't exactly a problem for him. In fact, as a G&W main, my least favorite ceiling height is mid-size; G&W is kinda goofy like that.

Also, as I recall, Sonic is actually heavier than average but barely. The actual dead middle of weight falls in the three way tie between Ness, Lucas, and Pit. I think Sonic is heavier than those three, but he's barely heavier (like 1 place heavier on the weight list). I was referring to Sonic liking PictoChat because Sonic, in my experience at least, has a much easier time scoring kills horizontally instead of vertically. It's more about how you attack than your character's physics. The physics really don't matter much at all in terms of stage preference.

I'd like to point out that among starter candidates, ceiling heights are very uniform. From the "main ground", the ceiling is literally identical in height on Final Destination, Battlefield, Lylat Cruise, Smashville, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Castle Siege form 1, and Delfino Plaza. Halberd's ceiling is lower than average, but the difference isn't that big. Pokemon Stadium (1 and 2) as well as PictoChat have microscopically higher ceilings than average. Castle Siege form 2 has a fairly high ceiling (but nothing really radical), and Castle Siege form 3 has a microscopically smaller ceiling than average.

More information on ceiling height can be found here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=156908

In terms of horizontals, it's kinda difficult to measure, but all the potential starter stages seem pretty close. It's more about where on the stage you stand with being near the ledge (especially on long PictoChat) puts you pretty close to death.

None of this is really very character biasing, and remember melee where you had Dreamland 64 and Yoshi's Story both as starters when they had really radically different sizes and failing to recover was common so it really did matter (characters like Peach and Jigglypuff gain a lot from the big stages in that game).

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

The stage list is perfect just the way it is, yo.

 

[Sucumbio]

"hear you nothing that I say?"

the starter list is too short. there isn't enough striking room. with 9, 1 strike each on ban each:

FD/BF/SV/YIB/LC/PS1/DF/HB/CS

or 7

FD/BF/SV/YIB/LC/PS1/HB

I've seen 3D gain a stock on one of the delfino walk-offs... and on cs... it's rare in comparison, but it does happen, and is enough to make me strike/ban against a D3, but then I have to contend FD... so this is why I may prefer the 7 list, or maybe two strikes w/9? but then you're down to afterwards... this math hurts my brain

 

[InfiniteBlaze]

EDIT: ahhh crap just forget i made this post

You guys seem to have to heart set on vouching for more stages. I guess I can't change your minds.

 

[deepseadiva]

FD/BF/SV/YIB/LC/PS1/HB

Halberd?

Between Halberd, Delphino, and Castle Siege, we don't choose Halberd as the 7th stage, do we?

 

[bobson]

How's Halberd worse than those two?