Official Stage Q&A and Discussion

[Kati]

I take it no one tried the orpheon edit.... but what about Bamsey's Kongo Jungle 64 with the lowered platforms? tbh I can't remember if it was Bamsey who made it. It was posted back in December on the smashmods boards.

 

[Phaiyte]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I can ha'dat?

 

[bubbaking]

It's kinda related, because we're also talking about how stages (and chars) should be struck, banned, and CP'd. Perhaps the name of this thread should be changed to something like "Official Stagelist/Ruleset Q&A and Discussion".

 

[thespymachine]

Honestly, you guys aren't even talking about stages anymore.

I believe we're still on subject. If PM provides a massive amount of neutral/competitive stages - compared to other smash games - reflecting on our current rulesets is necessary to make sure we make PM as friendly to a competitive environment as possible. We've only dealt with a handful of stages to play on in smash. A dozen (possible) neutrals is a huge change in pace.


With that said, I think Modified DSR should not be in use for PM tournaments, if any form of DSR is used. With so many stages to choose from (already), I think having to play on more stages forms more potential for adaptability (without creating ridiculous imbalances).

 

[Fox Hater]

We are talking about stages hehe, also offtopic anyone of you going to apex 2013... let me know so we get a chance to play

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Ok, for people who are confused, this is how set procedure works.

1. First, both players blind pick their characters. This doesn't usually happen, but what they're supposed to do, for fairness sake, is announce to a third party who they are going to play as. The third party then announces their characters choices. This is really a formality, and usually doesn't get done this way. It would slow down tournaments if TO staff had to be present for the start of every set like that.

2. Next, with knowledge of who is playing what character, the two players strike stages down from the legal stagelist (the starter list, in most rulesets) until only one remains. They play on that stage.

3. The winner of G1 announces his stage ban.

4. The loser, chooses a stage from the entire legal stagelist, except for his opponent's ban.

5. The winner, based on this new stage, can decide to switch characters at this point.

6. The loser, based on his opponent's character choice, can now opt to switch his character.

Game 2 proceeds, and steps 3-6 are repeated until a best 2/3 is met, or 3/5 in finals.


So as you can see, while the loser seems like he's counterpicking against the winner twice, in reality, the winner is being given plenty of opportunity to adapt to the stage counterpick. Therefore, he's really only getting counterpicked once, on his choice of character.

If somebody is able to use enough characters that they can successfully counterpick your character, and win, are they not the best, most versatile player? There's nothing wrong with this system.

 

[Fox Hater]

Ok, for people who are confused, this is how set procedure works.

1. First, both players blind pick their characters. This doesn't usually happen, but what they're supposed to do, for fairness sake, is announce to a third party who they are going to play as. The third party then announces their characters choices. This is really a formality, and usually doesn't get done this way. It would slow down tournaments if TO staff had to be present for the start of every set like that.

2. Next, with knowledge of who is playing what character, the two players strike stages down from the legal stagelist (the starter list, in most rulesets) until only one remains. They play on that stage.

3. The winner of G1 announces his stage ban.

4. The loser, chooses a stage from the entire legal stagelist, except for his opponent's ban.

5. The winner, based on this new stage, can decide to switch characters at this point.

6. The loser, based on his opponent's character choice, can now opt to switch his character.

Game 2 proceeds, and steps 3-6 are repeated until a best 2/3 is met, or 3/5 in finals.


So as you can see, while the loser seems like he's counterpicking against the winner twice, in reality, the winner is being given plenty of opportunity to adapt to the stage counterpick. Therefore, he's really only getting counterpicked once, on his choice of character.

If somebody is able to use enough characters that they can successfully counterpick your character, and win, are they not the best, most versatile player? There's nothing wrong with this system.

That could be argue also in other fighting games of the FGC. But they dont allow the winner to change characters.

I understand if smash wants to allow the winner to change characters, but we are doing it just because we want to be different, not because the Loser would be counterpicking "twice" the Winner ( being the case that the winner was not allowed to change characters )

Because in this scenario Im proposing

Loser chose either A or B

A: change stage.

Winner ban a stage ( one that he feels is going to make it a worse match up )
Then loser Picks ( Both players dont switch character ).

Winner does nt get counter picked twice.

But by allowing winner to change character he could be countering the looser's counterpick. So why have it anyway?

B: Loser changes characters:

Loser makes the call that he is going to change character
Winner bans a stage
Loser pick a stage
Winner changes if he desires
The loser changes character.

 

[thespymachine]

That could be argue also in other fighting games of the FGC. But they dont allow the winner to change characters.

I understand if smash wants to allow the winner to change characters, but we are doing it just because we want to be different, not because the Loser would be counterpicking "twice" the Winner ( being the case that the winner was not allowed to change characters )

...

I was under the impression that only Japan has a no-character-change rule, and that the US/North America allowed character changing but it is rarely done due to it being a bit more difficult to have two high caliber characters in games like SF.

Regardless, in popular FGs, even if the winner couldn't change his character, it would still be equivalent to the current counterpick ruleset that Smash has, because it is only one counter.
Stage has no factor in 2D FGs (other than obnoxious, distracting backgrounds), so stages have no changed effect on matchups. In Smash, stages are diverse, and do change how matchups work, therefore - in order to keep one counter total, while incorporating the varied stages:
- Winner bans stage(s) [making the first counter not as strong]
- Loser chooses stage [first counter]
- Winner chooses character [balancing out first counter; back to even]
- Loser chooses character [ second counter; loser has one counter over winner]

Stages have a huge influence on how a matchup/character/player plays a game, which is not the case with FGs in general - which makes the counterpick system common in popular FGs a bad comparison.

-----

I watched Melee It On Me: Episode 3 - Reaching Our Apex yesterday, and Scar mentioned a counterpick system that he wants to discuss:

- Winner chooses character
- Loser chooses character
- Winner bans stage
- Loser chooses stage

His (basic) reasoning for it was two-fold:
1) He thinks that it would remove the potential of gimmick counterpick characters [his examples were ICs or Pika vs characters they were good against on FD - the loser would choose a stage, and the winner would choose a character completely unaware they were getting themselves into some bad luck; this was the weaker of reasons]
2) Allowing the winner to know what matchup he's dealing with allows him to make a more informed decision on his stage ban.

Essentially, it's attempting to give more balance - and less counterpickiness - in choosing the characters and stages in the rest of the set.
I don't know exactly how I feel about it. It seems there's an argument both ways.

 

[bubbaking]

I actually am a big pusher for blind picking the initial character selection in all the Smash games I play, 'cause I hate it when I choose a 'mediocre' character and my opponent picks the hardest possible CP that he could just for game 1.

So as you can see, while the loser seems like he's counterpicking against the winner twice, in reality, the winner is being given plenty of opportunity to adapt to the stage counterpick. Therefore, he's really only getting counterpicked once, on his choice of character.

If somebody is able to use enough characters that they can successfully counterpick your character, and win, are they not the best, most versatile player? There's nothing wrong with this system.

I don't really have much against this system, but I'm not gonna say that there's nothing wrong with it. The stage CP can still possibly set the winner up to be hit harder by the char CP. The classic Marth on Yoshi's Story is an example, and before anyone tells me that I can just ban YS, FoD is practically just as good for him and P:M will be having a MUCH greater selection of stages, so avoiding this extreme CP through banning isn't exactly possible. Playing against Jiggs on super large stages is another classic example. Unfortunately, there isn't really much that can prevent these situations (that we agree on).

Edit: Because of those problems I just listed, I REALLY like the system that CaKe just brought up. That would bypass all of those problems immediately.

 

[bubbaking]

Sorry for the double post, but it's been over two hours...

I really like this stage someone came up with.
[collapse=Bowser's Castle]

[/collapse]
I still have yet to know if it's compatible with P:M mechanics, though...

Edit: Apparently, it is.....

 

[Fox Hater]

Sorry for the double post, but it's been over two hours...

I really like this stage someone came up with.
[collapse=Bowser's Castle]

[/collapse]
I still have yet to know if it's compatible with P:M mechanics, though...

Edit: Apparently, it is.....

Good I think as long as these new stages dont include hazzards or random factors that would give advantage to some characters, I say keep them coming.

Also what scar proposes seems better that what we have. I guess people are already seeing how much allowing the winner to change characters nullifies the counterpick of the loser in some cases, but cant admit that the proble lies in allowing in the first place the winner to change at all.

Stage has no factor in 2D FGs (other than obnoxious, distracting backgrounds), so stages have no changed effect on matchups. In Smash, stages are diverse, and do change how matchups work, therefore - in order to keep one counter total, while incorporating the varied stages:

True that stages dont factor in 2D fighters. That is why in Melee they only play on neutral stages, meaning any character can overcome even a Hard Match Up on X neutral stage, therefore changing stages does not mean a counterpick. Hell it should even be called counterpicking when u change stages, that is something that the community named when it was growing up...
I use spacies and when I face a Jiggs or peach in DL64 i just adapt to the stage and change my strategy thats it.

Second that is why I proposed that the if the loser changes character then the winner can also changed Was I not clear about this??? caKe??

read this again and please tell me what you se wrong with it or where it is that you see the winner counterpicked twice

Loser chose either A or B

A: change stage.

Winner ban a stage ( one that he feels is going to make it a worse match up )
Then loser Picks ( Both players dont switch character ).

Winner does nt get counter picked twice.

B: Loser makes the call that he is going to change character ( I will implement Scar Idea so people can post their opinions)

Winner changes
Loser changes character.
Winner bans a stage ( In project M given that there are more stages, do you all think the winner should be allowed to ban 2 stages? )
Loser pick a stage

 

[DMG]

Preventing someone from changing characters should only happen if the stage list is cut down so massively that we only play on 1 stage the entire set. Because otherwise stages, even other neutral or tame CP's, influence MU's enough that the CPing process becomes even more polarizing than before if you cannot switch characters.

Also, your B idea doesn't seem right because the way we do the process now is entirely better lol. In B, the winner has to pick his character BEFORE the stage is picked? That gives even more power to the person CPing. That's literally telling the winner to pick his character blind because he doesn't know what stage or character his opponent will pick. He shouldn't know what his opponent will pick, BUT he should know what the next stage will be before having to pick. The current system already tries to address how strong it can be to have both stage and character CP's, by letting the Winner switch first if he wants to. If he switches to a character that is good on the stage, then you shouldn't have CP'd it against him. If the winner switches to a character that counters yours, the loser can try to CP him back. If you really have nothing, and the winner just plays more characters than you, you can't blame the system for that aspect.

The current system is pretty good and is probably the best balance. Other systems either give the winner too much power, or make CPing even stronger (like your B idea). Our current system lets the Loser pick any stage he wants, besides what the opponent banned. This is good, healthy, and promotes stage diversity. To make it a bit more fair, the Winner can switch characters and even though he is allowed to switch, the loser has the final say. The Winner should have some disadvantage, and that disadvantage is the opponent's stage + picking characters first. That's the best you're gonna get, because otherwise the disadvantage might be only stage or might only be character OR it's similar to what we have but instead gives massive bans to the Winner through striking or more regular bans. Which would cut down on stage variety and would be more power to the Winner.

 

[bubbaking]

DMG, what do you think of that idea that scar proposed?

Edit: Oh, I didn't realize that Fox Hater's B was Scar's idea.

 

[DMG]

DMG, what do you think of that idea that scar proposed?

Was it the ban/strike then random idea? I don't like the idea of random for a CP, except when the stage list is literally cut down to like 3 stages. Is it just the strike --> random picking taking place, nothing changed about switchig characters? It would not really be that great to tell either side they might get boned by random (and again, a few bans/strikes wouldn't fix that unless the stage selection was tiny and fairly neutral. Even then, the differences between FD BF SV could make a difference in the particular MU and you're throwing dice). That's the main thing I see: regardless of how well crafted it is, someone on either side could get boned by random. Which is a big reason people strike for Game 1 instead of accepting random.

I don't see anything wrong with just striking from the full legal list until a stage is mutually agreed on.

For CP's the issue is that this is literally giving the Winner the ability to ban half of the stage list. Strikes and bans, from his perspective and for CPing, are basically the same. The regular system with 21 stages, he bans a stage or two. The striking system with 21 stages, he strikes 10 stages. You can't pick them, so they are effectively bans. If you want to give the Winner that kind of influence over the next stage, be my guest because as you can guess people will use that to massively mask CP flaws their character could have stage wise, or strike the same things so you'll never see x MU on y stage even if it's the 3rd or 4th go to option for the MU.


Striking would be ok, if the stage list was really tiny. But if that's the case, given the stages will hopefully be as neutral as possible and given any concerns over DSR if the stage list is 5-7, you would just have the normal system with or without bans and let the loser CP wherever like normal. Outside of that, it gives the opponent X strikes, which effectively count as bans. Any system with striking, is effectively giving the other guy bans. Ban 1 stage, then strike 3, then opponent picks from the rest? Basically 4 bans. 21 stages, winner only gets 5 strikes and loser gets more influence? Still basically 5 bans lol.

Edit: I haven't gone back and read all the posts, but the new proposed system B is slightly worse than what we have now imo. Aided with no information, the Winner is supposed to pick a character when both the opponent can pick stage and character? At least we give him the stage info and say good luck lol. Being forced to pick your character before the other guy, and before the stage is announced, is a pretty hefty disadvantage. If you know the stage, you can try to switch to a character that's generally good on the stage, try to think of what his counter character is and switch to something safer, or play a secondary who might not be great on the stage but will do a bit better overall on the stage than your prior character.

Knowing what your MU is gonna be can still end up worse than knowing what stage you will be on. Just for example, take Samus vs Falcon (Samus being the winner of game 1 with whatever character). Say she generally loses on most stages, 2 stages in particular are absolutely horrible for her. The other important bit of information is say Samus has 2 different counters, Falcon and Marth. The stages they like are different: Marth has 2 close up stages he ***** her on, Falcon has 2 bigger stages he beats her on bad.

In the current system, say she bans one of those horrible stages. The other one is open and the Loser picks it. Knowing the stage and MU will be bad if he goes Samus, the winner can try to pick a different character. Say he doesn't, goes Samus. Loser picks Falcon and wins.

In the other system, you're asked to pick a character. Anyone. Say you pick Samus. WELL Bingo he counters immediately with Falcon, because he knows you can only ban 1 of those stages. You ban one of them, doesn't matter, he picks the other you lose. That's a pretty damn hard CP right out of the gate.

Now say Samus is only really bad on one stage in the MU. In the current system, you ban it. He tells you the stage, and you STILL have the option of avoiding a not fun MU if you want. If you don't want Samus vs Falcon, you can try to pick a character that's decent on the stage and weather whatever he throws at you. If he wants to CP Marth, he has to pick the stage first and give you the opportunity of "seeing" what he will.

In the other system, once you lock in Samus you are basically lost. If he CP's with Falcon, you ban 1 big stage he picks the other you lose. If he CP's Marth, you ban 1 small stage he picks the other you lose. THAT will be the issue with that system: being able to lock in the character CP and also get the stage has a huge impact. Being asked to pick Samus before the stage is selected is basically suicide. Knowing that you ARE in a bad MU might let you ban a really bad stage ahead of time, but it also opens up the door to CP's that don't need particular stages like MU's that suck regardless that you can't avoid now, and it does nothing for MU's that have multiple bad stages. In the current system, if the opponent doesn't pick one of those stages it's a safer signal that now you can pull out this character. Having to pick beforehand would be a nightmare and would drastically change who is viable and who would be picked in the CP process to be as safe as possible.

 

[bubbaking]

Actually, Scar's (not Scarr's) idea was for winner to pick char, then loser picks char, THEN winner bans a stage, and then loser CPs a stage. It minimizes stage CP gimmicks that would allow the loser to get potential extreme CPs on his opponent.

Edit: I talked about the situation with John12346 and we came up with some case-by-case irl scenarios where scar's system would have been beneficial over the system we have now:

1. MD/VA regional Melee tourney I went to - I won a match against a Jiggs main so I banned DL64. The opponent CP'd Yoshi's. Suspecting Fox, I picked Samus (my spacee CP) and the opponent CP'd Marth instantly, even though he had given no indication of having a Marth before. I won the set (I'm really good against Marth) but the potential of being destroyed because of the CP order was still there. With Scar's system, it would have been clear that the match would be between Samus and Marth, so I could have used my stage ban appropriately.
2. A match in John12346's Brawl pool at Apex 2012 he witnessed that barely denied someone the chance to move on - Player A had won and banned a stage (arbitrary). Player B chose FD. Player A went Fox (his main). Player B suddenly went ICs (didn't go ICs at ANY other time during the entire time of pools sets) and creamed the Fox main. With the order switched to Scar's method, the MU would have been already established and an extreme stage CP gimmick could have been avoided (provided the Fox main banned FD).

We came up with more, but those two get the point across. As our system is now, players have the potential to 'option select' their opponents with the stage CP. Just select an extreme stage that the opponent doesn't ban and react to his char choice. Imagine what a Fox main who also secondaries Sheik and/or Marth could do on Yoshi's or what a Samus main who secondaries Jiggs could do on DL64. It's better to know the MU beforehand so that stage choices can be made more wisely (from BOTH parties) and legitimately that clearly show that the CP was done smartly with some premeditation without trying to abuse crazy stage gimmicks and their associated 'pocket chars'.

 

[DMG]

Except having the character CP locked in before stage is arguably even worse. There are MU's where the stage doesn't matter or there are too many bad stages. Being able to ban 1 bad stage for that CP, is still ignoring that the person is outright getting CP'd character wise immediately. That's a potent advantage when you're still given the ability to freely pick the next stage. In fact, that's a greater advantage than we give already. The examples you give are that it was unforseen, unpredictable. What's wrong with that? The disadvantage is what, by picking the stage first you can "corral" the person into a select few characters? CPing characters first arguably does that even worse. Guaranteeing Fox vs IC's is a worse overall situation than possibly having Fox on FD vs IC's WHEN he was given the chance to not go Fox on the stage. He could have gone Diddy Snake etc, he was given a chance to avoid it. The proposed system is basically guaranteeing you will get CP'd character wise, in exchange for "possibly" taking out a bad stage for the MU that you might not have picked earlier. Even then, it might not. You might have banned the "right" stage because he was gonna CP you with Falcon regardless. Only now, it's not the threat of getting a bad MU on a bad stage, but getting a bad MU period always because you're picking characters first.

Take Fox vs IC's. Say Fox has more than just FD as a bad stage in the MU. If we do this system and you pick Fox, good luck man. Being able to ban FD, when he has SV or x stage still open, doesn't matter much lol. We just now guaranteed that Fox vs IC's happened, and couldn't even prevent a bad MU for the stage from being picked. If Fox has any good or evenish stages in the MU, the opponent still picks whatever. Say he has 2 sets of counters, figures the Fox has someone else. He has to decide whether to go for FD to get the IC strong CP, or go for say BF because of idk just say Sheik or something. He has to choose the stage first and then align his CP to that, instead of getting the CP and aligning his stage to that. I think getting the guaranteed CP on the person, and then shifting the stage, is stronger that picking the stage and shifting character. You may get similar situations from both systems of a nasty CP, but the current system has a more meaningful "answer" to it imo.

 

[bubbaking]

Well, there is honestly a serious problem with any CP system we could come up with (including the current one that we use). Just to be clear, this is the system I was quoting + reasoning:

I watched Melee It On Me: Episode 3 - Reaching Our Apex yesterday, and Scar mentioned a counterpick system that he wants to discuss:

- Winner chooses character
- Loser chooses character
- Winner bans stage
- Loser chooses stage

His (basic) reasoning for it was two-fold:
1) He thinks that it would remove the potential of gimmick counterpick characters [his examples were ICs or Pika vs characters they were good against on FD - the loser would choose a stage, and the winner would choose a character completely unaware they were getting themselves into some bad luck; this was the weaker of reasons]
2) Allowing the winner to know what matchup he's dealing with allows him to make a more informed decision on his stage ban.

Essentially, it's attempting to give more balance - and less counterpickiness - in choosing the characters and stages in the rest of the set.
I don't know exactly how I feel about it. It seems there's an argument both ways.

I can definitely see what you're saying, and I can see what Scar was saying.

True that stages dont factor in 2D fighters. That is why in Melee they only play on neutral stages, meaning any character can overcome even a Hard Match Up on X neutral stage, therefore changing stages does not mean a counterpick. Hell it should even be called counterpicking when u change stages, that is something that the community named when it was growing up...

Lolz! Melee is not only played on "neutral stages". Pokemon Stadium is very clearly a CP because of all those ridiculous transformations and how much it favors the spacees (and select other chars in certain MUs). You already know that I strongly disagree with making PS the ONLY available CP in Melee, but there's no doubt that PS is indeed a CP. Personally, I think FD, YS, and DL64 all have certain aspects that are also CP-worthy.

I use spacies and when I face a Jiggs or peach in DL64 i just adapt to the stage and change my strategy thats it.

The spacees can adapt to any stage in Melee against practically every character. They're like MK in vBrawl. They kinda break the stage CP system, no matter how you try to cut it, and I'm a little disappointed that the only CP left is arguably their best collective CP. The spacees already beat both Jiggs and Peach and this is the one case where changing the stage probably won't change that.

 

[Fox Hater]

Well yeah in my case that I main spacies maybe it doesnt hurt a lot like you say. Still if it were by me I would still prefer the actual rules, they benefit me. I like variety in smash and I respect character loyalty, Of course this is their choice and they have to deal with it.

But I dont really se the logic in allowing the winner to change character if the loser is not going to change characters too.

Its the looser's turn to change strategies, so how does game 1 is going to help the guy who lost, create a new strategy if the winner is allowed to change character and by doing so the loser is the one that ends up fkd. Lets say the winner changes character, all that the loser studied in the first match its gone, so why are we giving him the courtesy in the first place?, if the winner can just break it by changing characters. I feel that only if the loser is going to change character then the winner should be allowed because if not then it will be a double counter pick


There is no other fighting game that allows this ( allowing the winner to change character ). Rules are meant to be changed and I think as a growing community with a new game, we can discuss and come up with various solutions to make the best balanced rules. anyone who wants to keep finding alternatives can also PM me if they want.

In the past we thought the rules were balanced and then we ended up taking one stock ( yes back in 2004 we played with 5 stocks )

And then we thought our stages were legit and then we began banning stages. Hell even recently back in 2009/10 we banned Brinstar and Mute City and Rainbow Cruise because we kept learning.

So my questions still the same,

if the looser is not going to change characters, why allow the winner to change?

Im sure we can come up with something together if we wanted to.

I hope I expressed myself perfectly my english is not perfect and I hope that some of you I get to play you at apex

 

[Burnsy]

Has anyone had any strange glitches occur to them on Castle Siege?

I was introducing someone to the game at my local tourney last night, and they fell right though the floor just as the castle portion loaded after the transition from the lava stage ended. They were in the middle of the stage and everything. Super embarrassing, I reminded them it was a demo and all that jazz.

I didn't see exactly what they were doing so I'm not sure yet how to replicate it, but I remember reading a post on smashmods right after 2.5 was released that someone was having issues with getting insta-SD'd during/after this transition (Lava->Castle). They may have been referring to what I saw.

Anyways, this should be investigated because if it's easy enough for it to happen on accident it could break castle siege as a tournament legal stage.

 

[standardtoaster]

that's a glitch from brawl :/

 

[bubbaking]

Yes, that happened in vBrawl as well. In addition, idk if the PMBR fixed this (or if they're even aware of it) but there's a hole in PS1 in vBrawl. While Super DDD Jumping under the overhang of the left ledge, I went straight through the floor and teleported into a grounded state on the other side.

 

[thespymachine]

But I dont really se the logic in allowing the winner to change character if the loser is not going to change characters too.

The logic is, in this case, that you're hindering the winner's ability to form a new strategy on their own when you don't allow them to change their character ever.

A likely scenario would be that the player who won felt that his opponent was starting to learn him really well at the end of the match, so to keep his opponent off him for at least another match he changes his character.
Or, the winner isn't feeling the character they won with - like they aren't in tune with the character, and would feel more comfortable in the next match with a different character.
Or, if we go by your Option A, the winner really dislikes playing as their previous character on the stage selected by the loser.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

To be clear, I was never saying that we should stage strike on CPs.

I was saying that in the first match, when you're restricted to striking from the starter list only, it's stupid that you can't also strike from the "counterpick only stages". The separation of the "starter" list and the "counterpick" list is dumb.

 

[thespymachine]

To be clear, I was never saying that we should stage strike on CPs.

I was saying that in the first match, when you're restricted to striking from the starter list only, it's stupid that you can't also strike from the "counterpick only stages". The separation of the "starter" list and the "counterpick" list is dumb.

This was brought up on Melee It On Me - Episode 3 as well.
I can't remember what the arguments were, but I like the idea. I can see some MUs being more even on CP stages than 'neutrals.'

 

[bubbaking]

You'd need to have a fairly small number of CPs available for striking then, or else the chance of the 1st match taking place on a CP instead of a neutral is great. And we can't say "OK, these stages are good for 1st game striking, and these ones aren't, but they're good for CPs". That would be like designating three kinds of stages: neutrals, neutral CPs, and CPs. There really is no good system guys. TOs should experiment with what seems best (meaning people should actually host tourneys ).

One more reason I think the winner should be allowed to change chars is that sometimes when I'm sandbagging/having fun, I just change characters for the heck of it. I can play a good number of chars, so why not use multiple of them in a set (granted it won't hurt you drastically)?

 

[thespymachine]

You'd need to have a fairly small number of CPs available for striking then, or else the chance of the 1st match taking place on a CP instead of a neutral is great. And we can't say "OK, these stages are good for 1st game striking, and these ones aren't, but they're good for CPs". That would be like designating three kinds of stages: neutrals, neutral CPs, and CPs. There really is no good system guys. TOs should experiment with what seems best (meaning people should actually host tourneys ).

One more reason I think the winner should be allowed to change chars is that sometimes when I'm sandbagging/having fun, I just change characters for the heck of it. I can play a good number of chars, so why not use multiple of them in a set (granted it won't hurt you drastically)?

What makes it wrong for the first match to be on a CP?
We have the player-agreement rule that allows a stage that's banned (or otherwise unable to be picked because of other rules) to be picked if both players agree. With that you could have a CP as the first stage.

As I stated earlier, I can see CPs being used a a neutral ground for certain matchups - or to save a 'neutral' stage for later counterpicking.
I don't think playing on a CP for the first match is a big deal at all, is all.

 

[bubbaking]

Well, yeah, if both players agree to it, then the first match could be had on a CP. That's the Gentleman's Clause. If both players agree, the first match could be had on Fourside for all anyone cares. We're mostly discussing rules to be placed in effect for those situations when both players don't agree on a common stage. If both players agree, they could use their own weird striking system, but most players who want to win won't agree on things like that. That's why we don't have CP striking.

Edit: I'll tell you right now. I probably wouldn't agree to a CP on the first match, and I'm a crazy person who's willing to let people take him to RC, Poke Floats, and other wonky stages for the sake of 'fun and different'. I could care less if a CP brings about "neutral ground" for a certain MU. Argue that the specific CP should be a neutral or else it shouldn't be included at all. We can't start playing the game of "which CPs are OK for the first match?" It's either all of them or none of them. As I said before, if it's all of them, then we'll need a smaller number of CPs.

 

[thespymachine]

If all non-banned stages are allowed in stage striking, and the last stage left is a CP, are the two players not agreeing to play on a CP?
If both players don't want a CP as a first stage, they strike it out.

 

[DMG]

Not necessarily true. If the stage list has more CP's than neutrals, one person could strike all neutrals and you would be forced to play on a CP even if you were trying to strike all CP's. Ending up on Kongo 64 because my opponent struck FD SV BF etc and I was forced to strike Delfino Norfair Castle Lylat xyz stage, doesn't mean I really had much of a choice.

If the number of CP's is much smaller, then it might be ok. Would still be annoying having to "waste" a strike on a CP stage that neither of you might actually want to play on for the first game.

 

[bubbaking]

Yoooooo, how about this guys? For the first match, both players blind pick their chars and tell a 3rd party, like usual. However, they do NOT reveal their char selections until after (neutral) stage striking. Thoughts?

 

[DMG]

That's less information for both sides. I understand the character part, but why should the stage part be blind?

 

[bubbaking]

To try to bring about an emphasized focus on trying to play on a stage that simply benefits your char without specifically aiming to 'gay out' the opposing player's char. Thinking about it more, I can see where problems would arise with this. I was just throwing it out after it popped up in my head.

Edit: To clarify, when I thought of this, I was thinking of certain stage striking situations involving specific chars. For instance, against Marth, most chars have to worry about striking both Yoshi's and FoD while Marth has to worry about only striking DL64, so in the end Marth is being favored by the stage striking system and gets to have a more direct hand in what stage ultimately gets played on. Melee has 5 neutral stages, and from what I'm seeing, P:M will probably have only 2 more, so it's very possible that this kind of situation would arise again, but with more chars.

If all non-banned stages are allowed in stage striking, and the last stage left is a CP, are the two players not agreeing to play on a CP?
If both players don't want a CP as a first stage, they strike it out.

It's not an "agreement" if there is a rule holding the players in place, which is why we have to be so careful with what rules we impose on our players. If both players 'agree' to that striking system with another set of rules already in place, then sure, let them have their fun. However, if the rules themselves bring about this weird method and wonky CPs are arrived upon for the first match, bitterness could ensue.

 

[thespymachine]

Not necessarily true. If the stage list has more CP's than neutrals, one person could strike all neutrals and you would be forced to play on a CP even if you were trying to strike all CP's. Ending up on Kongo 64 because my opponent struck FD SV BF etc and I was forced to strike Delfino Norfair Castle Lylat xyz stage, doesn't mean I really had much of a choice.

If the number of CP's is much smaller, then it might be ok. Would still be annoying having to "waste" a strike on a CP stage that neither of you might actually want to play on for the first game.

It's not an "agreement" if there is a rule holding the players in place, which is why we have to be so careful with what rules we impose on our players. If both players 'agree' to that striking system with another set of rules already in place, then sure, let them have their fun. However, if the rules themselves bring about this weird method and wonky CPs are arrived upon for the first match, bitterness could ensue.

In a case where there are more CPs than NTs (NT = neutral?), it could be a problem if one player is striking NTs and the other is striking CPs. I'm still not seeing a problem, because this is an extreme and rare case, and even so the player striking CPs would be striking ones they wouldn't want to go to and still end up at a CP they wouldn't mind (which is what would happen if both players were striking stages they didn't want, and they the NTs happened to be struck out).

It could go on a case-by-case basis, as it does now. Now, not often, but it still happens, players just go random with the first stage - or, instead of striking, one asks the other if they mind playing on a certain stage and the other agrees to play there. Point: striking gets skipped, sometimes.
With this, the players can agree to do NTs only or all legals stages when they strike.

I know that, if this was Melee, and I played my main (Falcon) and was against a Marth, Yoshi's, FD, and FoD would be stages I wouldn't ever want to play them on. Having a bunch of other stages to strike from would greatly improve the balance of the MU.

This is all null is the PM developers produce a solid 7 NTs or more, making CPs pretty much pointless, in my understanding.


I understand the arguments against, and understand why people wouldn't want to play on a CP first game. It seems to be a matter of taste and circumstance. As a new, static rule, it's not good - but as an 'extended' Gentlemen's Rule (case-by-case) seems okay.

------

I think we should discuss what makes a stage 'neutral,' 'counterpick,' and 'banned.'
Are there any basic threads on SWF on this topic?

 

[DMG]

Banned is kinda obvious. Massive flaws or issues that are hard to regulate without banning (Temple is massive and it's hard to enforece "don't run away" because of how unclear that kind of standard is).

Counterpicks are stages with (usually) unique features that tend to give groups of characters noticeable advantages. The advantages you obtain may not be as clear cut, and tend to be more powerful than the advantages you gain on neutrals (individual MU's can prove this wrong obviously). For example, your character may like platforms in general, but the layout or size can change this dynamic. Or a stage may have a lot of "platform" room but very little main stage room. Terrain slopes or differences that can vary and favor campers or aggressive characters. Certain hazards or stage changes would also fit into this category.

Neutrals are more aligned and tend to be fairly similar with minor differences. A lot of neutrals have platforms, and the same 3 platform layout. Yoshi, BF, Dream Land, FoD from Melee all have that setup (with the only stage deviating from that being FD, and the argument over whether that's a neutral or CP still goes on). Even though there are differences between each stage, they are pretty similar overall. Outside of MU's, qualities you expect and find from neutrals are fairly static stages (FoD platform movements don't entirely fit this, but the stage as a whole fits) with tame features or differences. That doesn't mean that each stage is a carbon copy of say BF, but just that deviations from each other tend to be minor or don't tend to impact MU's in the same kind of way that CP's do.

 

[bubbaking]

It could go on a case-by-case basis, as it does now. Now, not often, but it still happens, players just go random with the first stage - or, instead of striking, one asks the other if they mind playing on a certain stage and the other agrees to play there. Point: striking gets skipped, sometimes.
With this, the players can agree to do NTs only or all legals stages when they strike.

But what if both players don't agree to this? Will they be forced to strike from both neutrals and CPs and possibly end up with a CP stage, especially if there are more CPs than neutrals?

I understand the arguments against, and understand why people wouldn't want to play on a CP first game. It seems to be a matter of taste and circumstance. As a new, static rule, it's not good - but as an 'extended' Gentlemen's Rule (case-by-case) seems okay.

I could see this being done as an "extended Gentlemen's Rule".

 

[thespymachine]

Banned is kinda obvious. Massive flaws or issues that are hard to regulate without banning (Temple is massive and it's hard to enforece "don't run away" because of how unclear that kind of standard is).

Counterpicks are stages with (usually) unique features that tend to give groups of characters noticeable advantages. The advantages you obtain may not be as clear cut, and tend to be more powerful than the advantages you gain on neutrals (individual MU's can prove this wrong obviously). For example, your character may like platforms in general, but the layout or size can change this dynamic. Or a stage may have a lot of "platform" room but very little main stage room. Terrain slopes or differences that can vary and favor campers or aggressive characters. Certain hazards or stage changes would also fit into this category.

Neutrals are more aligned and tend to be fairly similar with minor differences. A lot of neutrals have platforms, and the same 3 platform layout. Yoshi, BF, Dream Land, FoD from Melee all have that setup (with the only stage deviating from that being FD, and the argument over whether that's a neutral or CP still goes on). Even though there are differences between each stage, they are pretty similar overall. Outside of MU's, qualities you expect and find from neutrals are fairly static stages (FoD platform movements don't entirely fit this, but the stage as a whole fits) with tame features or differences. That doesn't mean that each stage is a carbon copy of say BF, but just that deviations from each other tend to be minor or don't tend to impact MU's in the same kind of way that CP's do.

Alright, so a general definition of a banned stage would be "any and all stages that hinder competition - through the direct effects it has on the characters (ie, ungrabable ledges, inescapable damage effects, etc), secondary effects that can't be enforced (or extremely difficult to enforce) through established rule(s) (ie, 'don't run away,' 'stay in middle of stage,' etc), or [insert more examples]."

 

[#HBC | Joker]

i'm not really following the "but what if they strike all the neutrals and force you to fight on a CP" arguement. If it's a CP that's bad for your character, you should have struck it. The very fact that it's a "cp stage" does not make it autobad for your character, and if you play a character who is really terrible on lots of legal stages, then you were gonna get effed over by a CP at some point in time, and you need to play a better character/learn to deal with your weaknesses.

 

[bubbaking]

There literally can be more CPs that are bad for a char than there are neutrals. That's why they're CPs, and the fact that the PMBR made so many of them competitive for us means that is more than likely to be possible for certain chars. This "CP striking allowed for 1st match" rule would only be feasible if the number of CPs available for the entire set was cut down tremendously. Consider the spacees who do well on pretty much any stage, bar a random few. Well, if CPs are legal 1st match, then those "random few" are guaranteed to be struck and you're forced to fight them on a CP that favors them no matter what you do. Might as well restrict striking to neutrals to keep it fair.

Edit: And I'd much rather get "effed over" by a CP during the 2nd or 3rd game when I've had a choice to ban a stage, and also to switch characters. The first match has characters blind-picked before stage striking. In other words, I could be playing a char who does fine on neutrals but gets screwed over once you start putting these CPs into play at a time when I have nothing to say about it. Therefore, this system would also only work if char selections were done AFTER stage striking. I don't like being locked into a char selection and then being totally screwed over for it.

 

[thespymachine]

i'm not really following the "but what if they strike all the neutrals and force you to fight on a CP" arguement. If it's a CP that's bad for your character, you should have struck it. The very fact that it's a "cp stage" does not make it autobad for your character, and if you play a character who is really terrible on lots of legal stages, then you were gonna get effed over by a CP at some point in time, and you need to play a better character/learn to deal with your weaknesses.

There literally can be more CPs that are bad for a char than there are neutrals. That's why they're CPs, and the fact that the PMBR made so many of them competitive for us means that is more than likely to be possible for certain chars. This "CP striking allowed for 1st match" rule would only be feasible if the number of CPs available for the entire set was cut down tremendously. Consider the spacees who do well on pretty much any stage, bar a random few. Well, if CPs are legal 1st match, then those "random few" are guaranteed to be struck and you're forced to fight them on a CP that favors them no matter what you do. Might as well restrict striking to neutrals to keep it fair.

Edit: And I'd much rather get "effed over" by a CP during the 2nd or 3rd game when I've had a choice to ban a stage, and also to switch characters. The first match has characters blind-picked before stage striking. In other words, I could be playing a char who does fine on neutrals but gets screwed over once you start putting these CPs into play at a time when I have nothing to say about it. Therefore, this system would also only work if char selections were done AFTER stage striking. I don't like being locked into a char selection and then being totally screwed over for it.

I, obviously, agree with PrivateJoker.
Spacies don't have bad stages, only stages that change how a MU affects them - a good strategy in CP striking for a spacie main would be to get rid of the stages that would be bad for the current MU, then strike to get a stage for personal taste.
Not every character is like this, that's true. The worse the character the more/harder the CPs are. But our goal by establishing rules isn't necessarily to 'balance' out the game, especially in order to make bad characters more viable.

The fact that CP striking has been brought up and being discussed really got me thinking that if CP striking was standard there wouldn't be any stages considered 'neutral' or 'CP' anymore, they would just be part of "The Stage List." In addition, Project M brings in a unique situation where, in my opinion, there are a bunch of stages that are borderline neutral and CP (ie, Norfair, Smashville, FoD, Melee Yoshi's, etc).
This is why I wanted to discuss what it means for a stage to be 'neutral,' 'counterpick,' and 'banned.' Creating/finding definitions for these will make the future processes easier.
And, essentially, I think the only categories that should be considered are 'banned' and 'useable.'


I really want to move this along so I'm going to throw out my definition for a 'neutral' again, and you guys can take it, leave it, chew it up, spit it out, whatever.

1) Defining what "Neutral" and "Counterpick" are
I've always been under the mindset that a Neutral was a stage that was static, symmetric, and geometric type of stage.

[By "static" I mean "what the characters can interact with and/or get interacted by stays the same throughout the entirety of the game" so there are no 'interruptions' to or drastic changes in how the players are playing (ie, not like SV's or YI's moving/rotating platforms); by "symmetric" I mean "equa-distance and size of all interactive parts of the stage" in order keep play concentrated on center-stage (ie, not like Corneria or the landscapes changes on PS1); by "geometric" I mean "straight, flat, and squared surfaces to interact with" (ie, not like YS's and YI's edges that dip down).]

 

[Kati]

Small questions:

What do you guys think of GHZ as a starter? and assuming that all of the stages on the first page were fair game, how many bans would be allowed? I've only ever used the group ban system.