Project M Recommended Ruleset

[DMG]

That uh was the original DSR iirc. If a stage was played on during a set, neither player could re-pick it for the entire set regardless of win-lose status. Opponent beats you on FD, FD is removed for the entire set for both players.

Most common version is the Winner's version: any stage you have won on during the set is off limits to your picking. I think this version is 100% fine for PM due to our stage size.

Winner DSR helps balance some MU's where the player can't ban enough of the bad stages. Take Bowser vs someone strong on long stages who wrecks Bowser. Bowser can ban Delfino and maybe PS2 or something? This would leave FD or something similar open. No matter how you allocate your bans, if there's no DSR applied, the other person can keep CPing FD. If you switch bans next match to ban FD, then he gets to go after one of your prior banned stages that isn't banned anymore (say Delfino for example). With DSR, I get FD CP and from there I have to settle for a less lethal CP (which seems like a fair compromise if we value stage diversity + making CP process not entirely 80-20 MU swings repeatedly)

If characters are locked before stages, this is even more true because there's no guessing required on Bowser's opponent for what character he might pick. In traditional format, if I tried to abuse a Bowser player with a no DSR ruleset, he could simply switch characters after I picked stage. I keep trying to pick FD or Delfino, he switches characters. If he locks into Bowser first however, the ambiguity is gone and you can simply brute force the stage list multiple times.

 

[Narpas_sword]

That makes sense. Thanks for laying it out.

 

[DMG]

Europe has their own version of DSR, not entirely sure how it works but it sounded interesting. Was meant to be an improvement on modified DSR (which has been fairly unpopular over time)

 

[Cubelarooso]

I would have liked to see PM get another medium stage, that was different enough from BF/SV boundaries but still not really polarizing.

I think when PS2 and DP were both legal on starter list, that was the biggest joke.

Both of those would be solved if PS2 weren't polarized.


@ Narpas_sword
The point of any DSR is to mandate stage variety, in the interest (as with any rule) of both player enjoyment and result legitimacy.
We want a set to be an accurate measurement of players' relative skill at the game. We determine the accuracy subjectively: the more we agree that our system is fair, the fairer it is. Players are bound to find the system unfair when they can lose a Bo5 set while only losing on 2 or even just 1 stage. Without locking out stages already won on, we'd be sampling a smaller portion of the game as a whole, which leaves a larger portion for a players to feel they could have won on had they gotten the chance.
Players are also bound to find it unfun when they are forced to play a stage they have already lost, especially if it's one that they dislike in the first place. Even if they do win there, playing the same stages repeatedly can sometimes become tiresome for both players.
Locking every stage previously played on would sacrifice too much enjoyment for very little legitimacy. If a player would like to choose a stage he lost on that his opponent CP'ed, then I would think both players should find the stage enjoyable and agreeable as a metric. On the other hand, it's definitely painful for a player to grind out a win on a stage they detest, then be rewarded by having to play it again. In that sense, I could see how locking already-CP'ed stages might be desirable. But there's also the case of a player winning on the opponent's CP then trying to take them back again later, so maybe already-won locks shouldn't be given up.
A DSR that locks players out of any stage they have already CP'd or won on sounds best, but it also sounds kinda convoluted. Perhaps just locking already-played is the best, since its problem-case can be solved by Gentlemanning?
Of course, there's a delicate balance with rules of this sort, as often players have the most fun when they're preventing their opponent from having any.


Stage data is here. Should be fully correct for 3.6 post-beta, assuming nothing slipped through the patch notes.

 

[Bazkip]

Stage data is here. Should be fully correct for 3.6 post-beta, assuming nothing slipped through the patch notes.

Delphino's Secret

Whyyyyyyyy do people do this, it's spelled with an "f" not a "ph".
Have you scrubs not played Sunshine?

 

[Cubelarooso]

Don't make fun of me I'm illiterate.

 

[DMG]

I think PS2 is sorta polarized, but majority of Smashers don't seem to care. It's one of the most played starters and CP's. Smashville is the only other stage I see more of than PS2 tbh.


I also think PS2 being on starter list isn't so bad if the starter list is 1/3/1 based on stage size. If it's polarized for the MU at hand, you can use 1 strike and not be boned. However, most current lists only have BF and SV as the universal medium options, so there's an inherent imbalance on keeping small vs large stage equality. 2/2/1 or 1/2/2 is what commonly happens (1/2/2 is most common). In those cases, PS2 is likely to be polarized along with Delfino for the same character and that effectively wastes both strikes. I think this is unhealthy and it's been an issue for a long time.


That's where the additional medium starter would come into play and help reduce the current dilemma. Right now, majority of places are either using an list with a small/big imbalance, or they are using one of the semi-controversial medium offerings (Yoshi Brawl being a common example). While Yoshi or something similar may work, it would be preferable to have a more universally accepted medium stage in place of regions debating whether they want to try Norfair/Yoshi B/CS/FoD/ etc as a starter.


This is all assuming we want to keep big or small stages on the starter list at all. I'd be a proponent of crafting 5 or 7 medium-ish stages with different boundaries + platforms. Stages without as much polarization, but different enough qualities or attributes that your strikes still matter (not 5 BF similar stages with no appreciable difference in blast zones)

 

[4tlas]

Note that changing Dave's Stupid Rule to "no repeats period" might result in some odd scenarios where you lose a specific matchup on a stage but now change the matchup and want to go back but can't because your opponent "beat you to picking it", which seems dumb.

 

[DMG]

Yeah it doesn't make as much sense to ban any played stage. Tying it to Winning on the stage makes sense: you aim to increase diversity under the scope of preventing repeat abusive CP situations. Diversity in a PM stage list can probably flourish well enough without the most restrictive DSR version.

You do get some more diversity with original DSR, but it's forced in ways that we probably don't have to force for a healthy game. If a person has only lost on the stage in question during the set, it doesn't appear to be that unhealthy to allow the person the right to pick that stage as often as they want UNTIL they win or lose the set. Guy can't find a win on FD? Let him CP it for the entire set and lose if that's what he wants.

 

[Kneato]

Ok I'm not sure if this has been gone over yet as I'm still reading through this thread but I'm really glad the current proposed ruleset has Character picks before stage bans and picks for the following reasons:

I've had a theory I've been mulling over about how I think the metagame will develop over time, likely after PMDT releases the "Gold Version". This theory has a number of implications that I think should affect the ruleset and character design. This may sound a bit ranty but everything ties back to one idea:

Project M has a massive diverse cast of characters, and the development philosophy aims to have them all be viable.

First off, lets discuss this development philosophy. I believe that in order for the game to have a true semblance of balance, no one character should have positive matchups on a vast majority of the cast, and no one character should have a negative matchup on a vast majority of the cast. If these characters exist, we would have both "best" and "worst" characters in the game, which should not be the case for a balanced cast. I can't say for sure if this aligns with the PMDT's design plan as I am not a member, but I believe it is the right direction for the game. (Currently I don't think we've reached that point as DDD, DK, Ganon, and 3.6beta Bowser all had negative matchups against most of the cast and Fox, Falco, and Metaknight had for the most part positive matchups against most of the cast. But this is a different discussion.)

Lets base the rest of this discussion on the assumption that a balanced cast with everyone viable is what the PMDT's goal is, and they will achieve it by the final version of PM. If this is true, it leads me to theorize that character match ups will play a massive role in shaping the meta. I believe that in the absence of characters with good matchups across the board, and all characters having at least a few poor matchups, top players will begin to dual main. We already see that in Melee and to a bigger extent in PM, but I think this will become standard for most players. Players that have strictly one main will struggle in tournaments when they undoubtedly face other players who can and will play characters who have a large advantage over their own.

Now I also believe this has implications for the Ruleset. The current most popular system has stages being banned and selected before the characters are chosen. I think this system is already flawed and it will pose bigger issues as more people start playing multiple characters.

Lets give an example to illustrate the issue with the current system. Player A, Captain Falcon, and player B, Wario, just played their first match. Player A won, so he bans two stages he thinks would be good for Wario and Wario picks Final Destination. Player A then confirms he is staying Captain Falcon. Wario then switches to Falco. The system has allowed Player B to trick player A into playing against Falco on Final Destination.

This system gives the loser of the previous match, what I see, as too large of an advantage as it makes the winning player decide on his bans almost blindly. I believe this is partly responsible for why the player of the first match wins the set so often.

Stage picks and bans should be done in response to character choice. So why choose characters after stages? As I said before, this problem will become MUCH larger if maining multiple characters becomes commonplace.

The easiest way to fix this issue is to simply do character picks first followed by stage bans and picks. I don't see any issues this would cause, and it would also simplify the system in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.

TLDR; Lots of characters means lots of different matchups. Balance should mean there are no characters with all good or all bad matchups. I think most people will main multiple characters to cover their inevitable poor matchups. This makes the current problematic system of stage picking before character picking even more of an issue. Therefor, I think the order of the two should be swapped.

 

[Kneato]

We've been over this a lot man =/

Tossing in a 'this happen in this scenario' is a really terrible way of looking at the process as a whole.
Both methods have their niche 'this might happen' situation.

On the flip side of "It mostly negates advantage a player has for mastering multiple characters." is "mastering multiple characters completely negates the stage counter-picking process"

You need to look at the process as a whole.

Multiple times i outlined advantages of the Character>Stage system.
Next to no advantages outside of nice situations were presented for Stage>Character Method.

Here are the key advantages to Character>Stage picking.

- It is intuitive: it follows the menu order.
- It is consistent with the order of the first game.
- It's less likely to require LRAStarts when someone accidentally forgets to go back to pick characters.
- It takes less time: Counter-picking the stage with the knowledge of the character = no guessing.
- Knowing the opponents possible characters is no longer needed. (this is how it should be)

This is a more concise, pros cons version of my lengthy reasoning. Glad there is a more widespread support for this thinking.

I still disagree with the characters first selection for counterpicks. It mostly negates advantage a player has for mastering multiple characters.

It doesn't negate the advantage. It just doesn't overly reward a player for doing so. If you have multiple characters, you are still able to switch to whichever of your characters has the best matchup. But you shouldn't be able to do that AND take the opponent to a stage that overly favors your character and circumvents the point of the bans process.

 

[JOE!]

Here is a spreadsheet with 20 relevant - semi relevant stage blastzones and stage widths:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LJ2IRbVIcEYajsqt95JMQOPKKpsqfDzo5ZgfJvbdlg4/edit?usp=sharing

I'll be making the full app later, but at least here is some data

 

[Kneato]

Here is a spreadsheet with 20 relevant - semi relevant stage blastzones and stage widths:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LJ2IRbVIcEYajsqt95JMQOPKKpsqfDzo5ZgfJvbdlg4/edit?usp=sharing

I'll be making the full app later, but at least here is some data

So this has discrepancies with the one I've been referencing (sorry I don't have a public link, this is my copy)

Is your data accurate? Or is the one I'm using inaccurate?

EDIT: Never mind, I don't think I understand what "Min to Top" means in my dataset. I assumed it was top blast zone to bottom but that doesn't make sense because "Stage to Top" and "Stage to Bottom" don't add up to it.

 

[JOE!]

Mine is accurate as of 3.6, that list still has skyloft lol

 

[Bazkip]

Mine is accurate as of 3.6, that list still has skyloft lol

Skyloft is in 3.6 though

I mean yeah it's a page 2 alt that absolutely nobody would consider to be a legal stage anymore so it's inclusion in that list is a bit stange, but it doesn't mean that list is outdated. Delfino's Secret and Wario Land are also on the list which they wouldn't be if it was old data.

 

[JOE!]

Don't know what to tell you then since I spent a good few hrs in brawl wall/brawl box measuring.

 

[Kneato]

Don't know what to tell you then since I spent a good few hrs in brawl wall/brawl box measuring.

After looking at both data sets though, they match up. I just didn't understand "Min to Top" on mine. I figured out that it means the distance between the highest platform and the upper blast zone.

So there isn't any issue. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Kneato]

I'm not one for all the subjectiveness in this thread so I took a crack at making a stage list using the actual numbers we have available.

This list may seem a bit out there at first but I have reasoning for it which I will provide below.

Starters:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Other Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counter Picks:
Wario Land
Norfair
Dreamland

Statistics:

Stats Explained:
As you can see, with just 8 stages, this stagelist provides a good mix of nearly every stage property a player could want. More stages would only make it more difficult to keep a good balance of all these qualities.

Small - Castle Siege width and smaller
Medium - Metal Cavern width to Bowser's Other Castle width
Large - Kongo Jungle width and larger

Narrow Blastzones - Distant Planet width and smaller
AVG Blastzones - Skyloft width to Smashville width
Wide Blastzones - Lylat Cruise width and larger

Low Ceiling - Castle Siege height and smaller
AVG Ceiling - Between Castle Siege and Battlefield height
High Ceiling - Battlefield height and larger

Why 8 Stages?
We have, out of all smash games, the biggest list of viable competitive stages available to us to craft a stagelist from. I believe that rather than trying to use as many of them as possible in a list and ending up with a bunch of questionable and somewhat janky stages being played on competitively, we should take advantage of the fact that we can actually be picky. We could instead create a lean list, where every stage is strictly good, and each brings a certain unique element to the table with little overlap between purpose of each stage.

8 stages I think is the golden number. 5 starters and 3 counterpicks.

Most people already accept Battlefield, Smashville, and PS2 as good starters. Because PS2 is such a wide stage I suggest it should be considered the large starter. That means a small stage is still needed and one more medium stage for an odd number of starters to keep the 1-2-1 striking system.

I believe only 3 counterpick stages are necessary. A small, medium, and large stage. Any more seems superfluous and I don't believe there are enough jank free stages to add more anyways.

Additionally, 8 stages justifies a 1 ban counterpick system. This simplifies the ban process and helps save time.

Why is stage X missing?
I mentioned jank earlier but didn't define it. What I consider jank is an element of the stage that instead of being utilized by players, is rather only tolerated. Slants, hazards, and transitions are all good examples of these. Slants I consider jank as players don't pick a stage to utilize the feature, they mostly tolerate the fact that it angles attacks and disrupts movement.

Yoshi's Story - Shy guys, slanted edges, overly small blastzones, and arguably Randall all add up to a stage I don't see fit for the list when there are plenty of other alternatives. Especially the fact that it is just another tri plat.

Lylat Cruise - The edges and plats are slanted and the ledges battlefield players.

Yoshi's Island - The entire stage is slants.

Fountain of Dreams - The platforms that lower into and rise out of the ground often disrupt movement.

Final Destination - The complete lack of platforms and large size makes this a very polarizing stage, giving certain characters overwhelming advantage and almost always requiring the use of a ban for those matchups.

Why did you choose X stage?
Bowsers Other Castle - With PS2 taking the spot of the large starter stage, another mid sized stage was needed with a good amount of platform coverage.

Norfair - Serves as the "mid sized" counter pick stage. While technically the stage is too wide for this category, it's total blast zone width is actually almost identical to Battlefield. It also adds the element of moving platforms to the stagelist and is the second 2 platform stage to complement PS2.

Dreamland - This stage has the only instance of jank I can see in the whole stagelist. The wind. However, with Distant Planet being too similar to PS2, this was the best alternative for a large stage.

Last Notes:
I am more than happy to hear what you guys have to say about this list. I used the statistics we have available and tried to craft a list that everyone could be equally okish with (because it seems there will never be a list everyone unanimously likes) based on numbers rather than feelings. That said, I'm not a top player or anything so there could well be major issues with this list and I am open to any and all criticism.

Even if this list is completely rejected, I hope it at least throws some new ideas into the pot and helps revitalize the discussion on the stagelist.

 

[4tlas]

Honestly I think that's a pretty good list. I don't like the use of Norfair over other stages. I feel that the stage essentially plays like FD plus potential for platform camping. Polarizing in all the ways FD is, and then some. I find it unfortunate that players have trouble with Lylat's and Skyworld's edges. Nevertheless, I would suggest using Skyworld over Norfair. The side platforms provide an interesting dynamic and an alternative recovery option for players concerned with the ledges. If you want moving platforms (I do) then I would then say to use Delfino over Dreamland.

 

[Deleted member]

the problem with 8 stages is that after 2 bans, you can only have 4 stages left to play a best of 5. you need at least 9 stages. i think my list was good at ten, but i could see as many as twelve without introducing new problems.

 

[Strong Badam]

and Dreamland is really really horrible and indefensible

 

[Bazkip]

the problem with 8 stages is that after 2 bans, you can only have 4 stages left to play a best of 5. you need at least 9 stages. i think my list was good at ten, but i could see as many as twelve without introducing new problems.

He said one ban, not two.

 

[4tlas]

I'm not sure how Umbreon's math worked even assuming 2 bans. And if we run an 8 stage list we could also say no bans in a Bo5. Other rules can be considered to make a smaller stagelist work, so its still something to consider.

 

[Deleted member]

with PMs MU heavily metagame, going to one or zero bans would have a hugely detrimental effect on tournament play. i think its safe to say that two bans isnt going anywhere.

 

[Kneato]

with PMs MU heavily metagame, going to one or zero bans would have a hugely detrimental effect on tournament play. i think its safe to say that two bans isnt going anywhere.

But how.

I may be in the minority here but I agree with the logic behind FLSS (even though I don't like the system/implementation at all). One of the main goals if FLSS is to pick a mostly neutral stage for every match, regardless of winner or loser.

If I am missing something major, please let me know, but I don't see the reason in giving the loser of a match an advantage for the next match. In our current system, that just gives the winner of the first match a large chance of taking a set.

In the example you gave earlier, last game of a Bo5, with 8 stages and 1 ban, the loser has 5 stages to choose from.With 2 stages struck because of DSR plus 1 ban, combined with the fact that my list has no more than 3 stages with any given element, at the very least we can expect a stage to be picked that is mostly neutral for the matchup. And in a last game scenario, that's what you want, a fight where neither side has an advantage or disadvantage, and the outcome of the entire set is based on how well each person plays.

On a different note, as this proves:

Honestly I think that's a pretty good list. I don't like the use of Norfair over other stages. I feel that the stage essentially plays like FD plus potential for platform camping. Polarizing in all the ways FD is, and then some...

and Dreamland is really really horrible and indefensible

There simply aren't enough really good stages to make a large list. Definitely not 12, and I argue 10 may be too much as well. Even when trying to make an 8 stage list, with solid stats and even distribution of stage elements, people will have issues with at least some picks, and the more stages you have, the more problems people will have.

Compared to Melee, this 8 stage list has 2 more stages, nearly every stage is actually good/jank free, and every character has a stage or two that complements their playstyle.

That said, Strongbad, what replacements/changes would you make to get rid of Dreamland. It was the one stage I didn't entirely like on the list, but not much else fit the role of large counterpick.

How about Sector Z :^)

EDIT: Doh Delfino's Secret. I think it may be more agreeable than Dreamland (though it has some slanted platforms, I think that's arguably less jank than wind is). I'll see what it looks like in the list.

 

[JOE!]

The slanted plats on Delfino are temporary tho

 

[Kneato]

The slanted plats on Delfino are temporary tho

Yea which makes them not a major issue. Less disruptive than Dreamland wind for sure.

So here is what the list looks like with Delfino over Dreamland. It is rather good, doesn't change too much in terms of feature distribution, the only issue I see is there are now 4 walled stages, but I don't know how big of a problem this really is.

Starters:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Other Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counter Picks:
Wario Land
Norfair
Delfino's Secret

Statistics:

 

[JOE!]

Still have DL there instead of Delfino

 

[Kneato]

Still have DL there instead of Delfino

My bad. I had the new stats for Delfino's but just didn't change my list.

 

[Kneato]

I have another radical idea. No super cool 70's "radical dude" radical, but rather, people may throw poop at me for suggesting it radical.

Some people have issues with MDSR. It sound like the complaints center around the fact that an opponent can choose a stage that is advantageous to them as long as they previously lost on it.

Rather than stages that were won on being struck, why not just give strikes as extra bans to the winner of the last match?

To put it simply, eliminate Modified Dave's Stupid Rule and instead, the banning player will always have X + Y bans, where X is the base amount agreed on by the community (2 for a 10 stage list and 1 for an 8 stage list for example) and where Y is the number of games the opponent has already won.

Potential benefits: Give the banning player more flexibility with bans. Eliminates the "oh which stages did you win on" confusion that often happens late into a set.

Potential downsides: ?

EDIT: This is a bad idea and I should feel bad

 

[mimgrim]

with PMs MU heavily metagame, going to one or zero bans would have a hugely detrimental effect on tournament play. i think its safe to say that two bans isnt going anywhere.

It depends on the stage ratio.

Can you ban all small stages on the list with just 2 bans? If yes then 2 bans is too much or you don't have enough small stages.

Can you ban all big stages with just 2 bans? If yes then see above.

In the case of the list in the OP then you can ban both WW and GHZ which are the only 2 small stages on this list (an argument could be made for FoD being a small stage but not really as it is more medium sized, which I believe @ JOE! has proved?) meaning characters who like small stages get scrwed over by the list harder.

Meanwhile the list has like 4 big stages compared to the 2 small stages which shows a heavy bias for characters that like big stages (along with a bias towards characters who like the PS2 layout with both DP and PS2 being in the list) which is also not good.

....

@ Kneato you should consider FD over Nofair, as much as I hate to say it. It is less polarized then Nofair overall while serving the overall same niche (and doing it better at that).

 

[Narpas_sword]

In the case of the list in the OP then you can ban both WW and GHZ which are the only 2 small stages on this list (an argument could be made for FoD being a small stage but not really as it is more medium sized, which I believe @ JOE! has proved?) .

GHz and fod are, for all intents and purposes, the same size.

 

[Kneato]

It depends on the stage ratio.

@ Kneato you should consider FD over Nofair, as much as I hate to say it. It is less polarized then Nofair overall while serving the overall same niche (and doing it better at that).

The only issue with that right now is that Norfair is actually the "Medium" counterpick stage because it has rather small blastzones and is on the lower end of the large stage spectrum. FD is unarguably a "Large" stage.

 

[mimgrim]

GHz and fod are, for all intents and purposes, the same size.

Oh right. I forgot GHZ was more of a medium stage as well. x_x

Hell re-looking at JOE's data in the spreadsheet looks like I've also been wrong about CS being a small stage as well.

Only true small stages of those 20 stages seem to be WW and YS. (unless I'm looking at the data wrong and GHZ and FoD are actually small stages at which point I say welp I goofed up).

 

[Kneato]

Oh right. I forgot GHZ was more of a medium stage as well. x_x

Hell re-looking at JOE's data in the spreadsheet looks like I've also been wrong about CS being a small stage as well.

Only true small stages of those 20 stages seem to be WW and YS. (unless I'm looking at the data wrong and GHZ and FoD are actually small stages at which point I say welp I goofed up).

It depends on your definition of size. If you are talking about stage width, GHZ, WL, and YS are all small. If you mean total blast zone width... still the same

I don't know where FoD and GHZ being the same came from, WL and GHZ are closer in stage width (116 and 120) than GHZ and FoD are (120 and 127). Though GHZ blast zones ARE closer to FoD's, it is still significantly smaller (9 units)

 

[Kneato]

As it stands, this is the 8 stage list:

Starters:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Other Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counter Picks:
Wario Land
Castle Siege
Final Destination

This is alright. The only instance of jank is now the slant in the middle of Castle Siege, but I believe that is easier to play around than stages with slanted edges. However, the list is overly populated by wide blastzone stages, and the average vertical blastzone height is a little low. It would be basically perfect if Castle Siege had the blastzones of Metal Cavern (*cough* PMDT plz *cough*)

So far though it seems that no one has any major issues with any stages that are not the medium or large counterpick.

 

[4tlas]

I was going to say that if you want a small stage with medium blastzones, I'd take Metal Cavern over Castle Siege. They both have the "annoying" slant and lip on one side, but Metal Cavern doesn't have walls and the one platform in the middle is both more conducive to fair use (and usefulness) as well as actually being a unique layout. Since you want the blastzones of Metal Cavern anyway, why do you suggest Castle Siege?

 

[Kneato]

I was going to say that if you want a small stage with medium blastzones, I'd take Metal Cavern over Castle Siege. They both have the "annoying" slant and lip on one side, but Metal Cavern doesn't have walls and the one platform in the middle is both more conducive to fair use (and usefulness) as well as actually being a unique layout. Since you want the blastzones of Metal Cavern anyway, why do you suggest Castle Siege?

The pros I see in having CS over MC are:

- The two platform layout of CS keeps the platform distribution even across the stage list. One of each extreme (4 platforms and 0 platforms) and 2 of every other category.

- There is one uniformly slanted segment of ground on CS. Most of the stage for MC is slanted and irregular which makes it more likely to hinder gameplay. What I mean by this is that there are a number of points on MC where moving a fraction of a unit to the left or right can completely change the angle of a move. On CS there are only two such points: the top of the ramp and the bottom of the ramp.

 

[Bazkip]

CS and MC are both bad
Just put in Fountain.

Also @SOJ please add some visual indication when the platforms are gonna come out of the ground on Fountain and Delfino and they're perfect and we'll love you forever

 

[Narpas_sword]

I'm having a hard time supporting that 8 stage list due to my character bias.

Those tend to be the stages I can go to after people strike against me (usually striking delfino and dp)

Now they can strike the better of what would normally be left.
Without fod, I'm then left with nothing good for samus.