Project M 'fair' starter list

[Overswarm]

Do me a favor.


Starter: (2 smallish, 2 mid-long, 3 mid-plat of various sizes, 2 big)

Green Hill Zone
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
PS2
Smashville
FoD
Battlefield
Lylat
Dreamland 64
Skyworld

Do a stage-strike procedure with your character against other characters you typically face in your local environment. Strike in this order: 1, 2, 2, 2, 1.

Do you ever end up on a stage that is advantaged or disadvantaged for you?

If you have a situation where you aren't exactly sure or find the stages equal, you can type them as STAGE / STAGE.



The traditional 7 stage list of "bottom" row is pretty garbage. It has one large stage (Dreamland) and one small stage (Yoshi's), and FD and FoD are like poor-man equivalents that have issues in many matchups. If you like flat/plat stages that are medium sized you get a counterpick first round guaranteed. It's near impossible not to.

My list should prevent that from occurring and neither player, despite their character, should get a large advantage or disadvantage.

If you're mostly interested in "small" vs. "large", feel free to view the stages in this order:
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield
Lylat
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Skyworld
Dreamland 64

With the 3 in the middle being pretty close to one another. A "I want a small stage" character vs. "I want a large stage" character would end up between Battlefield, Lylat, and Smashville. More importantly, more specific looks at the stage list such as "I want to NOT start on a mid-sized stage, because that's where Link is best" or "Ness needs help with his recovery, so I want to strike all those stages" allows players to do such things. There are options.



Let me know if you find a hole.

 

[hotdogturtle]

It's already been established that "bottom row as starters" is not a real ruleset and anyone who uses it is a bad TO.

 

[Overswarm]

It's already been established that "bottom row as starters" is not a real ruleset and anyone who uses it is a bad TO.

http://smashboards.com/rulesets/project-m/

Tell them to fix that BS then.

 

[kaizo13]

"Stage lists for Project M tournaments can vary wildly from event to event. Tournaments can opt to use one of the below listed ones, or their own."

i don't see the issue

 

[shairn]

It's already been established that "bottom row as starters" is not a real ruleset and anyone who uses it is a bad TO.

Bottom row is essentially the melee neutral stages with PS2 and Smashville. PS2 is often considered one of the most neutral stages, and I fail to see what's so polarizing about Smashville.

 

[hotdogturtle]

Bottom row is essentially the melee neutral stages with PS2 and Smashville. PS2 is often considered one of the most neutral stages, and I fail to see what's so polarizing about Smashville.

The issue comes from the fact that they're using the 7 bottom row stages because they're conveniently grouped on the bottom row, not because they've actually given thought into which stages should be starters. Either they are under the false impression that the PMBR put them on the bottom row on purpose with competitive play in mind, or they're just being lazy (something which didn't exist in Melee for the sole reason that the stages were grouped in patterns other than rows, thanks Sakurai). This applies to the middle row as counterpicks as well, and we've actually seen that in action in one of the earlier 3.x versions of P:M when they switched the position of Pokemon Stadium 1 and Lylat, and many tournaments didn't adjust their stagelist at all, just kept the whole "middle row" as legal picks.

I was honestly surprised when they created the Ruleset page on Smashboards as well, because even at the time it was posted I don't think that that stagelist was as common as people think. Almost every major tournament that I've seen has used some sort of adjustments between the two rows.

It really bothers me that the only reason why this is even a problem in the first place is because of the way that the stages are layed out in rows. If they were in a circle or something, or some random pattern like Melee's stages, then people wouldn't have latched onto these particular stages the way they did.

 

[shairn]

1st page stages are all neutral to some degree, bottom row are the most neutral stages and just so happen to include the five melee starter stages. It's not much of a stretch to figure this was done on purpose.

 

[Exodo]

why not play in any stage... just adapt to it.

 

[DMG]

A lot of regions are shifting stage lists to look 50% like this. Most don't have 9 stages, but are starting to take FD off and replacing it with GHZ/WW/other stage. Most areas don't start with Skyworld or Lylat, so that usually leaves 7

At the very least, I'm glad that players seem to care about how starters function, instead of "well let's hope Dracula's/x stage works out!"

 

[shairn]

A lot of regions are shifting stage lists to look 50% like this. Most don't have 9 stages, but are starting to take FD off and replacing it with GHZ/WW/other stage. Most areas don't start with Skyworld or Lylat, so that usually leaves 7

At the very least, I'm glad that players seem to care about how starters function, instead of "well let's hope Dracula's/x stage works out!"

How are GHZ/WW any less polarizing than FD? GHZ is almost FD but smaller and with closer blastzones while WW is the home of 30 second matches.

 

[DMG]

GHZ is not very polarizing, certainly less so than FD. Most of those things you listed are pros for the stage in comparison to FD. WW is bad (at the very least, I hate it!) but it's hard to say if it's as polarizing as FD. Plenty of matches don't go lopsided for either character, they will just both die 30% earlier than usual etc. Or how strongly do you quantify the advantage people like Zard/Bowser/DK/etc get vs strong FD characters?

Either way, the shift of making FD a non-starter is probably the correct one, and we can make plenty of decent stages to fill in spots.

 

[shairn]

From my experience whatever character is good on FD will be better on GHZ, seeing as the platform is irrelevent a lot of the time so the stages offer very similar advantages, except GHZ is deadlier. On FD, you can still play around characters like Marth because you have the room to do it and his advantages hinge on starting a juggle/getting a grab. Playing Bowser or Zard(Mostly Zard) in WW is awful because they control huge parts of the stage and can kill very early.

TBH I would personally limit starters to BF/PS2, winner of RPS picks.

 

[DMG]

That's not even a starter list at that point. The Shy Guy with flags from Mario Party could lift one up, and that's the stage you play on. Would not want.

 

[shairn]

It's all about the RPS mindgames.

Seriously though, most matches end up striking to either one of these two stages, so I don't think it would change much of anything.

 

[Overswarm]

If most matches end up striking to the same stages, that means your starter list is not properly set up.

That is literally all it means.

"Our starter list is Final Destination, Corneria, and Big Blue. We have noticed everyone has been striking to Final Destination with only a few non-FD matches per tournament, so our starter is now only FD"

Genius.

 

[shairn]

Aside from GHZ and the removal of FD, your starters is melee neutrals + two stages nobody ever wants to go on.
I'd be surprised if you had a vastly different experience. How often do people ever strike to Skyworld? It only makes sense that the two most neutral stages will be left standing at the end. Nobody would ban them instead of a stage that advantages their opponent.

 

[Overswarm]

Aside from GHZ and the removal of FD, your starters is melee neutrals + two stages nobody ever wants to go on.
I'd be surprised if you had a vastly different experience. How often do people ever strike to Skyworld? It only makes sense that the two most neutral stages will be left standing at the end. Nobody would ban them instead of a stage that advantages their opponent.

The goal isn't to have "the least amount of melee starters". The goal is to have the best starting stage possible for every matchup. I don't care if the starter list had Big Blue on it, if the final stage is fine by both players and not giving an advantage to either, that's awesome.

Green Hill Zone
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
PS2
Smashville
FoD
Battlefield
Lylat
Dreamland 64
Skyworld


There's no such thing as a neutral stage, but there is the possibility of having the right starter for any given matchup.

No one truly knows what those starting stages are for every matchup, that's why we stage strike. If we just did "random" and started on Skyworld, FD, etc., it could be disastrous (like it was in Melee; just ask Captain Falcon on FoD).

I have limited character knowledge in PM. I don't play characters like Zelda or Snake. That's why I made the post, to see if there's a possible issue with the list.

If you have one, please post the matchup and explain where the striking results in a poor stage choice so I can refine the list.

 

[shairn]

What I'm saying is not that we should avoid Melee neutrals - they're neutrals, so it doesn't matter. My point with that was that striking to Battlefield is the most common occurrence with these stages. I'm not the most experienced player myself, so instead I'd rather return the question to you: In which matchups would one character have a significant advantage in either Battlefield or PS2 which would warrant the inclusion of the other stages?

 

[DMG]

That's a really hard goal to strive for OS. At what point do you stop, even if that means losing stages that are totally fair for some MU's? There are at least some CP stages that might be a fair stage for a particular MU (or a couple), yet we keep them out for either impacting too many characters/MU's or impacting too strongly in the advantages/disadvantages. Do we branch out further to those stages, to accommodate a shrinking portion of MU's, or do we stick with a smaller set even if it means Ness vs Peach (or insert any MU/group of MU's) won't be able to technically be played on the most fair stage for the MU?


That philosophy probably fits better with striking from the entire legal stage list, not with using a subset group/starters

 

[Sour Supreme]

I thought this was a thread for how to easily setup forward airs (fairs).

Gotta say I was a bit disappointed.

 

[Comprehend13]

That's a really hard goal to strive for OS. At what point do you stop...

Striking from the entire stage list could potentially lead to a non-neutral start. The idea is to minimize the number of matchups which result in unfavorable starts for one player. You stop adding on stages when the increased time in stage striking becomes prohibitive...but since Overswarm's starter list has only a net gain of two stages I don't really think that is an issue.

...so instead I'd rather return the question to you: In which matchups would one character have a significant advantage in either Battlefield or PS2 which would warrant the inclusion of the other stages?

If you like flat/plat stages that are medium sized you get a counterpick first round guaranteed.

This is the general answer to your question.

 

[DMG]

Striking from the whole list probably wouldn't take a huge amount of time: we waste more time with hand warmups and getting people playing on time/not goofing around wasting time.

 

[Overswarm]

That's a really hard goal to strive for OS. At what point do you stop, even if that means losing stages that are totally fair for some MU's? There are at least some CP stages that might be a fair stage for a particular MU (or a couple), yet we keep them out for either impacting too many characters/MU's or impacting too strongly in the advantages/disadvantages. Do we branch out further to those stages, to accommodate a shrinking portion of MU's, or do we stick with a smaller set even if it means Ness vs Peach (or insert any MU/group of MU's) won't be able to technically be played on the most fair stage for the MU?


That philosophy probably fits better with striking from the entire legal stage list, not with using a subset group/starters

There's only two possible ways to make a stage list that isn't biased towards certain character types or playstyles.

The first is to simply ban stages not fit for competitive play and leave the rest. Players pick characters that do best in these environments. Some characters have a wide variety of possible stages while some have a small variety of possibly stages; not every character is equal.

The second is to deliberately trim down the stage list so that it is evenly distributed and its a fair shake for all characters. This is extremely difficult to do but can theoretically be done. So far it has yet to be attempted by anyone though.


For starter lists, you just pick an amount from the existing list that results in a good end stage. As for "when you stop", the answer would obviously be "when no one has to start on a stage they dislike in any matchup".

 

[GrosMinou]

I don't understand why its such a big deal to have "non-neutral" stages in the starters. Players should come prepared and know what stage they need to go / ban for each match-up.

Stage striking is part of the game itself. if you don't ban a stage you don't want to play on, it's your fault.

It doesnt matter if a certain stage is better for a character, because you should be aware of that and ban it from the start.

 

[Overswarm]

I don't understand why its such a big deal to have "non-neutral" stages in the starters. Players should come prepared and know what stage they need to go / ban for each match-up.

Stage striking is part of the game itself. if you don't ban a stage you don't want to play on, it's your fault.

It doesnt matter if a certain stage is better for a character, because you should be aware of that and ban it from the start.

I agree completely!

But let's do a thought experiment:

You are going to play Marth. You are playing against Fox. The starter list is Battlefield, Corneria, and Onett.

Fox strikes Battlefield.

What do you strike?

Is this a fair starting stage for you? Is there any situation in which Fox doesn't get a large advantage?


This is the main issue with stage striking. We originally used it in Brawl as opposed to Random because in Melee we saw that many sets were determined by stages like Dreamland or FoD coming up on random; certain characters couldn't handle it and some were advantaged. It was a huge win as Jiggs when you got Dreamland as your starter and many Falcon mains simply had to win two in a row after losing on FoD.

Stage striking removes that "I might get a bad stage at random". The list you are striking from must be appropriately balanced for every matchup for this to work. That's a hard thing to do!

The current lazy-mode "bottom row starters" has a really bad issue in that it caters to a specific character type -- specifically characters like Diddy or Link who like wide open space like PS2, Smashville, Dreamland, and FD, but also can do fairly well in stages like Battlefield. Because there are MORE advantaged stages for these characters than there are strikes, it results in a guaranteed "good" stage for those characters. This then improves their placement and usability in tournaments -- after all, they're guaranteed two counterpicks in this manner.

In a perfect world we'd simply say "This is the preferred starter for this matchup" and go there, but we don't know the right answer to those questions. So what we have to do instead is refine the starter list until no one gets an advantage or disadvantage.

 

[GrosMinou]

Your exemple is not correct, because there is only 3 stages, and only 1 of them is good for marth.

but the current starter stage list has 7 of them. none of which give HUGE advantage to any character, execpt for stage boundaries (stage layout relatively the same).

Give me an exemple of a stage striking, with the 7 actual starters, that no matter what character X ban gives a unfair advantage to character Y.

Sure, stage can be a LITTLE more advantageous for a character than it is for another, but, IMO, it never gives an UNFAIR advantage.

 

[Overswarm]

Your exemple is not correct, because there is only 3 stages, and only 1 of them is good for marth.

but the current starter stage list has 7 of them. none of which give HUGE advantage to any character, execpt for stage boundaries (stage layout relatively the same).

Give me an exemple of a stage striking, with the 7 actual starters, that no matter what character X ban gives a unfair advantage to character Y.

Sure, stage can be a LITTLE more advantageous for a character than it is for another, but, IMO, it never gives an UNFAIR advantage.

Stages don't have to be good for a character. I could have 11 stages I'm okay on, 1 I'm good on, and 5 I'm bad on, but as long as I'm striking at least 5 stages I'm guaranteed to be on the "okay" stages. Since I'm striking (N-1)/2, of the imaginary 17 stage list I would get rid of 8 stages, so 5 I'm bad on and 3 I'm okay on for preference. My opponent would be able to strike 8, the one I'm good on and 7 based on his preference. As long as it wasn't a case of my opponent being granted a good stage, all's gravy.

So with this stagelist:
Yoshi's
FoD
Battlefield
Smashville
PS2
Dreamland
Final Destination

Striking in 1, 2, 2, 1 order

Bowser vs. Diddy Kong

Bowser has an advantage in this matchup on Yoshi's and it's closer to even on FoD due to the relatively small size of the stage. Battlefield would be a slight disadvantage, but we'll consider it close to even.

Bowser strikes Final Destination because screw that.
Diddy Kong strikes Yoshi's and FoD because he wants to remove stages that Bowser can abuse his power on; he wants range
Bowser strikes Dreamland and either PS2 or Smashville (both are horrible for this matchup); we'll say PS2.
Diddy Kong strikes Battlefield because Smashville is way better

End stage: Smashville, one of Diddy Kong's best stages.

Smashville is far better for him than Dreamland, but Bowser suffers tremendously on Dreamland in the Diddy matchup. Diddy can easily edgeguard Bowser's recovery resulting in Bowser's death, while Diddy's wonderful recovery allows him to recover even after being faired out of his up+b. More importantly, Bowser can't kill super early off the top, which is a game changer for him.

Bowser is forced to strike FD and Dreamland because of faults as a character that are exacerbated in this particular matchup, leaving his only other strike to be PS2 or Smashville. Both are Diddy CPs.



With my stagelist:
Green Hill Zone
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
PS2
Smashville
FoD
Battlefield
Lylat
Dreamland 64
Skyworld

Bowser strikes Dreamland 64 because screw that
Diddy Kong strikes Yoshi's Island and Green Hill Zone because Bowser
Bowser strikes PS2 and Smashville because they're Diddy's primary CP stages
Diddy Kong strikes Fountain of Dreams --

Diddy then gets to strike Battlefield, Lylat, or Skyworld. All 3 have different advantages for Diddy -- Battlefield gives him the flat/plat, Lylat gives him the length he likes, Skyworld gives him the stage size that allows him to recover frequently.

Bowser then gets to strike one from Battlefield, Lylat, or Skyworld, depending on what was struck by Diddy. All 3 have different advantages for Bowser. Battlefield gives many opportunities for Bowser u-airs and is relatively small in stage length. Lylat let's Bowser not worry much about bananas and is set up perfectly for Bowser's defensive play. Skyworld gives Bowser multiple recovery options and lots of easy fairs on the side platforms.

Within those 3 stages for the matchup, it becomes about personal preference between them. Personally I'd absolutely hate playing against a Diddy on Battlefield, so I'd get Lylat or Skyworld. I like Skyworld for Bowser because recovering to the side platforms then getting hit results in my being able to gain enough height to recover safely. For most Bowser plays they'd hate something like Skyworld; they're more 'hit hard and fast' so they'd want Battlefield or Lylat. BF for smallness, Lylat for its optimal platform setups and awesome ledge-cancels (did you know Bowser can ledge cancel dair to nair? :B)


So there's an example. I can do that with Bowser and Diddy because I know those characters well.

Bowser wouldn't want to counterpick to Battlefield, Lylat, or Skyworld. Why would he? Those stages aren't great for Bowser; there are way better options.

Diddy wouldn't want to counterpick Battlefield, Lylat, or Skyworld. Why would he? He's got Smashville, PS2, Dreamland, and FD to CP from! Even with the ridiculous 3 bans that most tournaments have it results in, Diddy is guaranteed an advantageous stage in a 2/3.

That's a sign that the stagelist works, at least for this matchup. Neither character would want to go to this stage as a CP.


If you have your own characters that would strike to something else, by all means let me know the matchup and strike order.

 

[GrosMinou]

ok, and then try to make it so all 1681 matchups are fair.

What I am trying to say is that no 7 starters will make it so EVERY matchup will start on a even stage for both characters. doesnt matter the match-up.

Also, the Specific matchup you chose is in favor of Diddy, no matter the stagelist, thats why the striking on the 7 original starters look so bad.

If you were to pick a match-up like Diddy Vs. Mario, the counterpick is less of a problem, because neutral stages aren't "bad" for either of those characters.

 

[Vashimus]

ok, and then try to make it so all 1681 matchups are fair.

820.

Subtract 41 (mirror matches) and divide by 2 (duplicates -- Mario vs. Link and Link vs. Mario counts as one matchup, not two)

 

[GrosMinou]

My bad. I didnt took the time to think about about.

Maths..........

**** you.

 

[Oracle]

Imo, the key is to have starter stages with differences, but not differences that are so big that they will inevitably skew matchups. When two players strike to a stage, its supposed to be both od thwm saying "ok, out of the available stages" this is the one that gives the smallest amount of advantage to one of our characters". If you have a stage with significant differences, like fd , then it will inevitably favor whatever character has better vertical juggles or cgs by a huge amount; and when you can picj a stage fkr g1 where neithwr player has a big advantage, why wpuld you ever choose fd? Thus, fd not being chosen very often is a symptom of it having a polarized characteristic (no platforms) that makes it very unlikely for matchups to be even. You want the srages to be different, but not too different. Ps2 and battlefield have lots of differences, but is a character thats better on ps2 really that much better than they are on bf? Whereas on the flip side, a char like dk is obviously waaaaay better on fd than any of the other starters, so it will always be banned and thus wastes a spot on the cp list. Having less polarizing aspects in the starters prevents this from happening

 

[Overswarm]

ok, and then try to make it so all 1681 matchups are fair.

What I am trying to say is that no 7 starters will make it so EVERY matchup will start on a even stage for both characters. doesnt matter the match-up.

Also, the Specific matchup you chose is in favor of Diddy, no matter the stagelist, thats why the striking on the 7 original starters look so bad.

If you were to pick a match-up like Diddy Vs. Mario, the counterpick is less of a problem, because neutral stages aren't "bad" for either of those characters.

That's why I didn't pick Diddy vs. Mario or matchups like that. I don't care about a starter list if it results in two players saying 'yeah this is fine'. That's what I'm looking for! Why would I bring up Diddy vs. Mario and say "See? It's fine!" when I'm looking for negative things?

I just showed you a matchup that is worse off with the bottom row as starters. Show me one with my list. That's what the thread is about.

It's not about debating the "bottom row starter list". I already know that one sucks and results in skewed matchups. I'm looking to see if my list solves that issue.

 

[Oracle]

I think soon im gonna start replacing dreamland with distant planet as a starter. Distant planet offers slightly larger blastzones and a large stage without ridiculous increase in blastzone size like dreamland has. Distant planet is actually slightly shordter in length than ps2!

 

[Overswarm]

I think soon im gonna start replacing dreamland with distant planet as a starter. Distant planet offers slightly larger blastzones and a large stage without ridiculous increase in blastzone size like dreamland has. Distant planet is actually slightly shordter in length than ps2!

You starter list should have more extremes, not less, if you want a balanced starting stage. What you don't want is a LOT of extremes embodied by a single stage. If you take away stages with large blast zones then characters that prefer large blast zones are being punished.

 

[-Fatality-]

How about this? Super simple, works for Doubles too.
Starters:
Warioware
Battlefield
Smashville
PS2
Skyworld
No Counterpick exclusive stages.
2 Stage strikes each for G1, 1 ban in 2/3 sets, no bans in 3/5 sets.
All of the stages have different layouts from each other, making for nice variety, none of them have ANY random elements, and none of them are so different that they'd lend themselves to polarizing gameplay.

 

[Deleted member]

the initial premise of a starter stage (once called "neutral") is to have the least polarity as possible at the beginning of the set. I propose that we only have Smashville, Battlefield, and Pokemon Stadium 2 as the only starters and give each player one stage strike. I think we can all agree that stages like Final Destination, Dreamland 64, Yoshi Story, Fountain of Dreams, etc. clearly offer match-up biases that should not be present during Game 1.

 

[Paradoxium]

the initial premise of a starter stage (once called "neutral") is to have the least polarity as possible at the beginning of the set. I propose that we only have Smashville, Battlefield, and Pokemon Stadium 2 as the only starters and give each player one stage strike. Simple.

AGREED

I don't understand why Final destination or Green Hill Zone should be starters when they give an obvious advantage to certain characters. There is no need to add more stages to the starter list, if there are only 3 neutral stages than there should only be 3 starters.

 

[DMG]

WarioWare probably should not be a starter for doubles. Heck, I'm not sure we should even have that legal for teams, with the amount of cluster f***

 

[GP&B]

the initial premise of a starter stage (once called "neutral") is to have the least polarity as possible at the beginning of the set. I propose that we only have Smashville, Battlefield, and Pokemon Stadium 2 as the only starters and give each player one stage strike. I think we can all agree that stages like Final Destination, Dreamland 64, Yoshi Story, Fountain of Dreams, etc. clearly offer match-up biases that should not be present during Game 1.

I'm actually okay with this

 

[Overswarm]

the initial premise of a starter stage (once called "neutral") is to have the least polarity as possible at the beginning of the set. I propose that we only have Smashville, Battlefield, and Pokemon Stadium 2 as the only starters and give each player one stage strike. I think we can all agree that stages like Final Destination, Dreamland 64, Yoshi Story, Fountain of Dreams, etc. clearly offer match-up biases that should not be present during Game 1.

This is some backwards stuff.

The "neutrals" in Melee were decided because people thought they were the "most fair" -- people were wrong about it, too. They didn't realize that their stage choices actually limited some characters while helping others for a long time. Eventually people starting seeing huge polarization with characters like Jigglypuff, Peach, Captain Falcon, Marth, etc., depending on stage while some other characters (see: Fox) didn't seem to have many, if any, 'bad' stages from that group. It started to dawn on people towards the end of Melee's lifespan to the point where people would random and comment immediately on the stage. They weren't "neutral", they were just called that.

When Brawl came out, people were smart and the MW and West Coast both started immediately stage-striking. I think UTDZac was the first on west coast? The stage lists differed and we eventually settled on a stage list that had 9 stages that was pretty fair.

Later on dumb people moved it to 7 and sometimes even 5 starters and got really confused when Falco, ICs, and Olimar started rising up in rankings. Turns out getting two guaranteed counterpicks is awesome.

The reasoning for stage-striking was to guarantee that neither character had an advantage or disadvantage in the first game of the set.



I don't know how, but you have somehow learned nothing about the impact a stagelist has in over a decade of playing Smash.

Do you seriously think that Smashville, Battlefield, and PS2 don't give an advantage to certain characters?

WTF does this do to characters that want small or large stages when facing someone who wants a medium-sized stage?

I'm actually okay with this

Then you should rethink it, because it's one of the most awful things a TO could do.