Official Stage Legality Discussion

[T-block]

Well why do we ban mushroomy kingdom, other than the walls? The scrolling is very easy to keep up with.

I'm assuming you're talking about Mushroomy Kingdom 2 here. Apart from cave of life issues on the bottom, I suppose you could say "low ceiling" is the issue if play is taken to the top. But when you listed "abnormally low blastzones", something tells me Mushroomy Kingdom 2 is not what you had in mind. Why does it get its own listing if it only applies to one stage?

 

[moomoomamoo]

You're honestly just trolling at this point. If you're not going to at least try to argue SENSIBLE points, why are you still here?

If you have time to complain, you should have time to quickly explain why such a non-sensible point doesn't add up. Trolling or not, it's just a 'simple' and, to your knowledge, a dumb question. Wouldn't answering it be more affective than just insulting people?

 

[Raziek]

If you have time to complain, you should have time to quickly explain why such a non-sensible point doesn't add up. Trolling or not, it's just a 'simple' and, to your knowledge, a dumb question. Wouldn't answering it be more affective than just insulting people?

I'm through dealing with him, so I refuse to answer things he clearly knows are wrong and has argued against thousands of times already. He's wasting our time, and my patience is growing thin. Anyone with more than 3 working brain cells can clearly see Mushroomy Kingdom is not fit for competitive play.

 

[moomoomamoo]

I'm through dealing with him, so I refuse to answer things he clearly knows are wrong and has argued against thousands of times already. He's wasting our time, and my patience is growing thin. Anyone with more than 3 working brain cells can clearly see Mushroomy Kingdom is not fit for competitive play.

Maybe so. Let's assume that he is just messing with us and knows perfectly well that Mushroomy Kingdom is not fit for competitive play. Why not just answer the obvious question. Instead of calling him out on not knowing anything, it would be better to answer him fully and discredit him for his lack of knowledge. The sooner all the nonsense is cleared up there won't be room for dumb questions like that.

I still believe that my earlier idea would be best for this kind of discussion. Where each stage is listed in either OP or somewhere with detailed examples and reasons (and hopefully videos) for every stage explaining why they are in the positions they are in. This way we can avoid repetitive questions, dumb questions, and focus easier on what is important. If we don't do this. 'Dumb' questsions like "Why can't we use Mushroomy Kingdom" will pop up as a reasonable question.

 

[Linkshot]

Mushroomy Kingdom 1-1 (selectable by holding X or Y when choosing it) is a very valid stage.

1-2 is lulllllllllllls

 

[ADHD]

You're honestly just trolling at this point. If you're not going to at least try to argue SENSIBLE points, why are you still here?

READ THE POSTS BEFORE IT.

Duh!

@ T-Block, high or low, I meant the ceiling being low. Even just if one stage@ I tried to list all reasons.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, I consider "random" the most fair thing in the universe because the PRNG doesn't care who is playing or what characters they select; you get what you get, regardless of outside interference. I consider that fair. But that's neither here nor there. You guys want me to fix this stage problem right now? Because I can. And it will surprise you at how easy and simple it is.

So, we have the stage striking procedure, right? In theory, players strike their worst stages first, and gradually work towards a stage that is most fair for both players. So...

-----------------------------------------------------
First stage stricken || Stage selected for match 1
(Least even) (Most even)

...would generally be the spectrum, right? That ALSO means that we are, effectively, ordering the stages in order of Least even -> Most even. Which means that if the last stage is the most fair, then the second to last stage is the second fair, and the third to last stage is the third fair.

So... eliminate the stage counterpick system ENTIRELY and choose all three (or 5) matches before round 1 using the striking procedure. Simply play the matches in reverse order (the last stage is the first round, the second to last is the second round, etc.).

The only caveat is if players change characters between matches, in which case, re-strike from all non-banned stages (including stages banned by the players for that set). It's not that hard. No starter or CP, just ban ONLY what needs to be banned, and strike from the whole pool. If players don't switch characters (and most don't in our metagame, since our ruleset for the last 2 years has promoted knowing a single character over knowing multiple characters), the tournaments will go faster, guaranteed.

I'm going to keep posting this until it gets a legitimate response.

EDIT: ****it, BPC. ^_-

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1) Randomness--and I mean true randomness-tripping randomness--so I don't know why Green Greens is considered acceptable when we ban WarioWare for that same reason.

Only a valid reason if the randomness is both beyond reasonable reaction speed (every "random" event in stages like Norfair, PTAD, or Pictochat is in fact well within the reaction speed of any smasher worth his stuff) and not effectively avoidable (you can easily avoid the dropping blocks on Green Greens by either just whacking your way through the stack with armor, going around the bottom, or just being careful when you cross). The only stage that is banned due to randomness alone is wario ware, and it is the only stage that does not follow these guidelines.

2) Abnormally terrible blastzones.

Not a valid reason; it requires a justifiable broken strategy. Or rather, it would be a valid reason if any stage in the game had such horrid blastzones. SMW1-2 has its own issues beyond that.

3) Walk-offs and walls that are too abusable, such as bridge of Eldin or SM.

Again, not in and of itself a valid reason-the reason we ban these stages is because of the degenerate strategies.

4) Unbeatable circle camping!

See 3.

Essentially, every stage that is banned with a good reason can be summed into one of three groups:
-Ridiculously overcentralizing strategy (circle camping, straight walkoffs, fin camping, etc.)
-stupidly skill-mitigating randomness (wario ware only!)
-Not anything like brawl under any other conditions (Mario Bros only, and this one is contestable!)

 

[ADHD]

BPC, so then under what jurisdictions do we ban stages?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC, so then under what jurisdictions do we ban stages?

"Ridiculously overcentralizing strategy". The other two literally only apply to one stage each, so let's put them aside. The question here is "what is ridiculously overcentralizing". The fact that top diddies and snakes can beat top MKs on RC, Brinstar, and Norfair means it's very unlikely that it's ridiculously overcentralizing. And no other stage is that good for MK, really. Right? What other stages are banned because of MK? Skyworld?

However, we have to remember, we're not unbanning anything. We're always the ones banning something to make the game more fair. And if a strategy is not clearly overcentralizing (DDD on onett is about where I'd draw the line; that is, onett is still probably fine, anything more potent for a character is gonna get risky), the stage does not deserve a ban. In fact, what's the overcentralizing strat on Mario Bros? Totally not kidding.

 

[Jack Kieser]

BPC, ignore the troll and respond to the post that matters. ^_-

 

[ADHD]

BPC, ignore the troll and respond to the post that matters. ^_-

You think I'm trolling.

Why you mad?

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

BPC, by your ideas, then I guess you think that every stage is legal?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC, by your ideas, then I guess you think that every stage is legal?

By default? Yes. Practically? No. Competitive brawl is completely impossible with every stage legal. It literally cannot work. So we have to ban the stages that make the actual options you have in the game close to zero (Any stage with a solid circle), and we have to ban the stages where we get completely inconsistent results (wario ware). We have to ban stages where you can get the lead and gain a ridiculous positional advantage that you can almost never lose if you play smart (Corneria's fin, under the main platform on DP) (this one is arguable). But beyond that... As said, I draw the line right after Onett.

Kieser, I said I agreed with your post, except that time constraints make it an issue. We already have the issue of time when striking once from 15-17 stages; you want to do that up to 3 times per match?

 

[Jack Kieser]

It's not like people won't get used to it; after a while, the common matchups will burn through the process, making the same series of strikes repeatedly. Besides, if time is really that big of an issue, have the first few rounds of striking let you strike 2-3 stages at once, so you can get through all of the crap decisions quickly, letting you spend more time on the REAL decisions.

I'm not really worried about time, since that's a problem that's easily circumvented. I'm more worried about it being an actual, competitively viable option, as opposed to banning everything in sight.

 

[moomoomamoo]

That doesn't make much sense, the rate of striking doesn't actually increase or decrease the process. If players were striking one stage at a time to four at a time, it wouldn't actually make the decision any faster. The order of which the stages are striked in terms of players doesn't truly affect the time it takes for each decision made. Your system may influence a more fair process in terms of stage selection, but in no way does this guarante faster matches.

Though if I were to argue that your system isn't more fair than the current one, I'd have to do some tests first. In theory, despite how long it can take for this system to function, your system might work better. In the assumption that this is true, I believe that it would be wise to focus on this idea and try to figure ways to shorten the process.

 

[DMG]

The 1 big issue about striking from the entire legal list of stages is that there are more stages inherently favoring MK than there are those that hinder. Which means even if you strike down to 5/whatever stages, MK is basically gonna start on a stage that gives him 6:4 against the entire cast regardless of the matchup. MK can strike stages like FD, SV (or keep this stage if he can scrooge against IC's and Diddy/others), YI/other starter he isn't bad on but wants out of the way, and then Matchup specific stages that he needs gone. Falco would lose Japes and maybe Pictochat, Snake would lose Halberd, Diddy would lose Pictochat/similar stage, etc. The little incentive there is to play a non MK character Game 1 would be gone.

 

[Linkshot]

Protip MK's bad matchup was supposed to be thrown items but we banned those.
Stop whining and play Super Smash MK.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, DMG, listen carefully.

If we played with no stages banned, how many stages would MK have a theoretical advantage on? Knowing his mechanics and the mechanics of Brawl, it's a likely supposition that (over-centralizing tactics aside), he'd have an advantage on a majority of stages. This is supported by the fact that he has a legitimate advantage on a majority of stages even after we ban the broken ones. We can suppose that, in the grand scheme, having stage advantages on a majority of stages is simply a part of MK being MK; it's as much a part of his mechanics as any of his moves.

Now, we have 3 choices when making a game system to play with:

* A system which artificially increase his advantages
* A system which artificially decreases his advantages
* A system which keep his advantages intact

An example of the first system is one which has Brinstar as a starter, while an example of the second would be a system which bans Brinstar altogether. However, I would ALSO argue that our current CP system does that, because we only allow a player to ban one stage per set, and MK, unlike other characters, has multiple amazing stages; MK has less to lose by having one of his stages banned from the set than another character. If we banned no stages per set, this would not be the case, because MK would (theoretically) always have his best CP available, but the opponent would as well (the relative gains per individual CP being irrelevant in this case, as they are an inherent part of each character, mechanically).

Now, look at the system I'm proposing. I argue that it is ACTUALLY the most fair, because of the inherent mechanics of striking. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, time, and the amount I have to type, that Brawl has 5 stages, all legal (A-E). It's MK versus Megaman. MK has 2 stages he's amazing on (A, B), one stage he's very good on (C), and 2 stages he's better than average on (D, E). Megaman, as the typical Brawler, has one stage he's amazing on (D), 1 stage he's better than average on (B), two stages he's average on (C, A), and one stage he's bad on (E).

MK will ban (in order) MM's best stage (D) and the stage he's better than average on (B).
MM will ban (in order) the stage MM is bad on (E) and one of MK's best stages (A).
This leaves them playing on stage C, a stage MK is very good on and a stage MM is average on. This is the most fair outcome, because the outlier stages are taken out and because MK has more stages he's good on, so he should get some sort of advantage.

If we have a system that either artificially increases OR reduces advantages (OR the number of advantageous positions), we are changing the balance of the game, many times without REASON (because of MK was worth changing the balance of the game, we'd just ban him). The system I'm proposing ALWAYS results in the least skewed results for stages, which give player skill the LARGEST amount of influence in the outcome of the match. Our current CP system allows for lesser skilled players to win a match by stage selection alone, whereas my proposed system negates that chance entirely by forcing (intelligent) players to fight on the least biased of stages for BOTH characters, but preserves the inherent advantages given to characters by their mechanics (not in intensity of advantages, but in number).

 

[ADHD]

We should reward MK for being the best in the game?

 

[Life]

Yes.

10yes.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

We should reward MK for being the best in the game?

1. Yes.
2. We don't. He does himself. Maybe you're still missing something-we aren't saying something along the lines of "MK is the best in the game and therefore should automatically start on his best stages". We're saying "MK is the best in the game but we should not make sure that he starts on his worst stages game one".

 

[Linkshot]

If you want to balance the metagame you might as well just play bBrawl.
This is vBrawl, where we put up with what was handed to us.

 

[Jack Kieser]

..................................Linkshot, you ARE talking about OUR community, right? Because if so, color me thoroughly confused. <_<

 

[Linkshot]

Correction.
We shouldn't be using the stages to try and balance the characters.
Anybody that thinks stages don't influence the tier list just needs to look at G&W's placing over the years.
He was high, maybe even Top, in a liberal stagelist.
As we tightened more and more, he dropped considerably.
G&W needs dynamic stages to perform.

My point is that if your goal with banning stages is to give more character balance, just go play bBrawl.
vBrawl is not and will never be a balanced game in any way, ESPECIALLY not by banning stages.

 

[AvaricePanda]

so I was reading some long post a few pages back, and I stopped and stared at a statement that looked like,

"Melee is more tech skill based while Brawl is more psychologically based,"

in regards to why Melee has more non-intrusive stages and Brawl should have more dynamic ones.

and I pretty much died.

I have a serious question though: what are you guys trying to do? Are you just trying to convince more people to use the more controversial stages?

 

[Linkshot]

"baww I can't shinespike on Poke Float because Slowpoke and Weezing will save you BAN IT"

That's the message I'm getting.

 

[sunshade]

so I was reading some long post a few pages back, and I stopped and stared at a statement that looked like,

"Melee is more tech skill based while Brawl is more psychologically based,"

in regards to why Melee has more non-intrusive stages and Brawl should have more dynamic ones.

and I pretty much died.

I have a serious question though: what are you guys trying to do? Are you just trying to convince more people to use the more controversial stages?

I don't know about the others but I personally just want there to be standard for if something is banned or unbanned.

The best standard in my opinion would be "if its not broken don't ban it". If something is not broken then it is beatable and I don't see the point in banning it. If it is broken then it will break the game and needs to be removed.

None conventional tactics or less enjoyable to watch tactics however are often called gay or dumb or whatever else and are banned for it. I find this to be silly at best.

As for stages being controversial as you said, I don't see the issue with a stage being controversial. If a stage is janky that just means you need to adjust your play style, if its unreasonable to expect an adjustment then the stage is banned but the only stage that reaches that point is Mario Bros.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Personally? My goal is to get people to critically think about our rulesets and the ways in which we craft our game, both practically and philosophically. Not not just go, "Well, Norfair is banned in this tournament", but to ask WHY Norfair is banned and to decide for themselves if the policy is competitively valid or not.

That, plus what sunshade said.

 

[ADHD]

Personally? My goal is to get people to critically think about our rulesets and the ways in which we craft our game, both practically and philosophically. Not not just go, "Well, Norfair is banned in this tournament", but to ask WHY Norfair is banned and to decide for themselves if the policy is competitively valid or not.

That, plus what sunshade said.

I don't think you finished your intentions; you want them to state why norfair is banned, critique the response in a biased way because you want Norfair. You're not one to merely poke at subjects and influence people to see things under a different light.

 

[Jack Kieser]

ADHD, you've never met me in person before. How do you know what kind of guy I am? Incidentally, my double major is going to be in Philosophy / Sociology, so I am the kind of guy to poke to make people see things in a different light.

It just so happens that my background in science, logic, and philosophy allows me to be right a lot, since I think things through so much; if I get others to think, they'll come to my conclusions naturally. ^_-

And, I don't want Norfair. I want a non-retardo stage list. I also don't want to be a part of a degenerate community.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have a serious question though: what are you guys trying to do? Are you just trying to convince more people to use the more controversial stages?

Define controversial. Onett is controversial. DP is controversial. YI(M), PTAD, Pictochat and co are NOT controversial stages.

We want people to actually treat stages as if they were a part of brawl, not some annoying distraction. We want them to stop and treat stages with the same scrutiny you would treat, say, a character when talking about banning. We want people to stop neutering brawl because they think that any stage with any obstacles at all are unfair. That's what we want. Stages are obviously an integral part of brawl. It's time that we stopped looking at the game through this tunnel vision where the only part that matters is 1v1, no stage interference, no items. Almost every other way to play brawl demands more than that-why should the competitive version, the one that is supposed to be the most demanding, be the easiest way to play?

For example. Which is easier-dealing with one opponent who is trying to kill you, or dealing with 3 opponents that are trying to kill you plus random stage hazards (pictochat/norfair), plus randomly spawning items? Obviously a 4-way with items is not quite fair competitively, what with people ganging up on people who are good, but the point stands-it's HARDER. It's more work for the player, more to worry about. "Can I throw out this fsmash as Ike here and punish this guy's shieldbreak, or will it get me punished by that marth who is just in tipper range WAITING for me to do that?" "Should I try to keep this guy away from the items, or abuse the items myself?" et cetera. Free-for-alls are clearly bad. Team mode is a step in the right direction, as is ISP. Expanding stagelists also belongs to this, but is backed up by Sirlin's principles to the extent where it doesn't really need it.

I don't think you finished your intentions; you want them to state why norfair is banned, critique the response in a biased way because you want Norfair. You're not one to merely poke at subjects and influence people to see things under a different light.

Biased way? Where are we biased? It may be opinion against opinion, but what is the respective backup for the opinions? Oh right...
You: MORE opinions, that go against our main backup, which is bad news for you because...
Us: The tenants of competitive gaming that have been used since... 20 years ago? Oh and educated opinions.

Also, yes, I main MK, AA mains G&W, you can see a little bias there. But guess what? You main DIDDY. There's about 2 chars that get nuked harder by this change (ICs and Falco). And, btw, so does AZ-so much for bias, eh? Plus, there's no advantage for us when you legalize stages like PTAD or Onett, mostly because they are considerably worse counterpicks than our good stages (which are both legal at every tournament, essentially).

The starter stage enlargement is beneficial for us, admittedly, but really... come on, how are you even arguing against larger starter stages again? "Waaah I don't get to start on one of my best stages on the game that is supposed to start on a fair stage." Lovely. Yes, MK starting on Lylat Cruise or Castle Siege instead of Battlefield or Smashville is a real game-breaker for you guys. If it is, consider playing characters that suck less.

 

[ADHD]

Biased as in not staying back and simply trying to force new ways of thinking from a neutral standpoint, when you obviously want the stage legal.

As for this "if it's part of the game, it should be involved" idea, who is anyone to draw a line? What makes Icicle Mountain not to be involved? It's part of the game, and I could argue that more skill is involved in adapting to the scenery and avoiding the fish. You have to reestablish some more boundaries as to what you're saying.

 

[Kole]

everywhere i look it's ADHD vs. BPC/Jack Kieser

god****

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Biased as in not staying back and simply trying to force new ways of thinking from a neutral standpoint, when you obviously want the stage legal.

So all liberal thought processes are biased now? I think I'm not getting what you're saying.

As for this "if it's part of the game, it should be involved" idea, who is anyone to draw a line? What makes Icicle Mountain not to be involved? It's part of the game, and I could argue that more skill is involved in adapting to the scenery and avoiding the fish. You have to reestablish some more boundaries as to what you're saying.

It's part of the game. If you do not absolutely have to ban it, you don't. The fish is not the issue with Icicle Mountain, nor is the lack of ledges, or the movement. It's the loop. Circle camping basically makes every matchup in the game 50-50, 99-1, or 1-99-it's ridiculously unhealthy for the metagame, and HAS to be banned in order for competitive smash to function at all. Our hands are tied on some elements-sometimes, we just have to ban something. There's no choice. I like to equate banning stages with loops/other extremely degenerate strategies to banning Akuma in SF2T-how far did having Akuma reduce your options?

everywhere i look it's ADHD vs. BPC/Jack Kieser

god****

Lol

 

[Raziek]

This is a bit late, since I had a rather large smashfest/birthday shindig at my place, but I'll give a quick response to Jack's concept of striking and using the remaining 3 stages for the match.

Honestly, my real only problem with that is that it takes the power out of counterpicking. Yes, it is more fair, but at the same time you effectively neuter the strategic aspect of the system, and you also basically eliminate every polarizing stage, whether they were legal or not. Unless it's a ditto, two characters will almost always end up on "middle ground stages", instead of powerful, polarizing CPs like Norfair or FD.

From a balance perspective I agree with it, but it doesn't fall within my competitive ideals for the game.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Biased as in not staying back and simply trying to force new ways of thinking from a neutral standpoint, when you obviously want the stage legal.

LOLOLOLOL, man, ADHD, you really outdid yourself this time. Read that again: it's a contradiction. There's no such thing as trying to force alternate thinking from a neutral standpoint, you know, since you want the thinking to be different.

As for this "if it's part of the game, it should be involved" idea, who is anyone to draw a line? What makes Icicle Mountain not to be involved? It's part of the game, and I could argue that more skill is involved in adapting to the scenery and avoiding the fish. You have to reestablish some more boundaries as to what you're saying.

Do you even READ our posts? It's really easy: something is banworthy when it degenerates gameplay enough to mitigate player skill. Summit (since Icicle Mountain is a Melee stage) has circle camping, which is a degenerate strategy. Also, the fish OHKO's, so matches could revolve around getting easy fish kills (could be degenerate, maybe). Lava? Doesn't mitigate player skill, since it only comes up periodically, and it gives you PLENTY (in some cases, up to 5 whole seconds) of warning; in addition, frame-trapping your opponent into lava is a legit strat, and matches don't revolve around it (even though it is important). No ban.

For a "top player", you're really bad at this.

EDIT @ Raziek: Yeah, that's kind of the point. I'm arguing that our current counterpicking system is a BAD system, one worth getting rid of. If our aim is to see who is the more skilled player, why on EARTH would we want to give the loser an advantage? More than that, why would we want players to be able to take each other to stages that FURTHER mitigate their skill? We WANT players to fight on the most even terms possible, but there are SO many matchups in this game, that it's literally impossible to predict which stages are the most fair for each and every matchup in the game, because it's likely that the fair stages are different for each matchup. So... let the system itself find it our for us through statistics and probability. After a long enough period, everything normalizes, and we find the (in this case) 3 most balanced stages for each matchup, ensuring that no one player gets a RIDICULOUS advantage over his opponent for no good reason.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Don't make this personal guys.

 

[Raziek]

EDIT @ Raziek: Yeah, that's kind of the point. I'm arguing that our current counterpicking system is a BAD system, one worth getting rid of. If our aim is to see who is the more skilled player, why on EARTH would we want to give the loser an advantage? More than that, why would we want players to be able to take each other to stages that FURTHER mitigate their skill? We WANT players to fight on the most even terms possible, but there are SO many matchups in this game, that it's literally impossible to predict which stages are the most fair for each and every matchup in the game, because it's likely that the fair stages are different for each matchup. So... let the system itself find it our for us through statistics and probability. After a long enough period, everything normalizes, and we find the (in this case) 3 most balanced stages for each matchup, ensuring that no one player gets a RIDICULOUS advantage over his opponent for no good reason.

I guess the issue comes with a difference in philosophy. In my ideals, being able to play on all of the legal stages is a valid evaluation of skill, so I would prefer to see all of them matter, not just a tiny select subset.

 

[ADHD]

LOLOLOLOL, man, ADHD, you really outdid yourself this time. Read that again: it's a contradiction. There's no such thing as trying to force alternate thinking from a neutral standpoint, you know, since you want the thinking to be different.

For someone that seems so intelligent you shouldn't make a dumb post like this. You can play on neither side, but try to question their reasoning and expand into newer areas of thought.

Do you even READ our posts? It's really easy: something is banworthy when it degenerates gameplay enough to mitigate player skill. Summit (since Icicle Mountain is a Melee stage) has circle camping, which is a degenerate strategy. Also, the fish OHKO's, so matches could revolve around getting easy fish kills (could be degenerate, maybe). Lava? Doesn't mitigate player skill, since it only comes up periodically, and it gives you PLENTY (in some cases, up to 5 whole seconds) of warning; in addition, frame-trapping your opponent into lava is a legit strat, and matches don't revolve around it (even though it is important). No ban.

For a "top player", you're really bad at this.

If you take a moment to reread everything, you're being the one bad at this. You can't be a smartass if you make yourself look like an idiot.
BPC's strong point was that "if it is part of the game, we should deal with it." There are clearly loopholes around it.