Project M Recommended Ruleset

[TheGravyTrain]

So here are my initial impressions on how I would classify relevant stages in terms of small, medium and large. I think stage length is first and foremost what should be considered in this process.

Extra Small (112-120):
Yoshi's Story (112)
Wario Land (116)
Green Hill Zone (120)

Small (127-132)
Fountain of Dreams (127)
Castle Siege (131)
Metal Cavern (132)

Medium (137-139):
Battlefield (137)
Smashville (139)
Yoshi's Island (139)

Large (155-161):
Dreamland (155)
Norfair (156)
Lylat (160)
Delfinos' Secret (161)

Extra Large (171-173)
Final Destination (171)
Distant Planet (173)

Stupid Huge:
Pokemon Stadium 2 (188)

I was just going to have three categories (the medium in the middle, then everything smaller as "small" and everything bigger as "large". I decided to split them up with a much smaller gaps permitted. Just going off this data alone, if I had to make a list it would look something like this:

Starters:
FoD, BF, SV, YI, DS

Counterpicks:
WL, GHZ, PS2, FD

If I wanted to make it an 11 stage list, I would add Metal Cavern/Castle Siege and Lylat/Norfair. If I wanted to make it a 13 stage list, I would the one I didn't of each pair. My reasoning on the 11/13 additions is simple: there aren't really any other fair additions to the three mediums there. So, rather than try and expand the range that is medium to shoehorn some extras in there, just add another stage from the groups on each side. Idk what I would do for bans and I just wanna know what you think based on stage lengths. Ignore blastzone stuff for know (platform/wall criticisms are fine though).

*edit* got the data from here, I realize it is 3.6b, but according to the changelog there is nothing that has changed going into 3.6F.

 

[mimgrim]

Maybe instead of saying the stage number should be changed, you should realized that FD is a horribly polarizing stage and probably shouldn't be legal.

Except in doubles, it's fine in dubs.

That's nice and all, and while I do actually agree, think about it. No really think about it.

Most Smashers will probably get very upset over it's absence.

And, unfortunately, you have to take into account popularity when doing these things and FD is a really popular stage.

:/

...

Goddammit already. First I think CS is a small stage then I get told, by data provided, that it is actually medium and now I am once again being told it is a small stage (also mfw I found out Metal Cavern is one unit bigger then CS).

I have no ****ing clue what to see as small or medium stages anymore (mfw Lylat is actually a large stage and not medium like I thought). le sigh.

Also don't think you should ignore blast-zones like you have.

 

[4tlas]

While I agree that the stage size is more important than blastzone size, I hear many people STRONGLY disagree.

Note that the difference between Tiny:Medium and Medium:Huge is quite skewed. Not only are Tiny stages not nearly as tiny as Huge stages are huge, but I would also make the argument that Tiny stages balance out the cast better than Huge ones due to how space exacerbates the differences in mobility in an already movement-centric game. Therefore I would make the argument that starters should be Tiny Small Medium Medium Large. Furthermore, FoD and BF are very similar and I would avoid making them both Starters.

 

[mimgrim]

As much ******** as I do about DP/PS2 being so freaking similar.

I don't see the BF comparison to FoD all that much other then sometimes being tri plat (which can be applied to other stages and FoD, if I'm not mistake, starting layout is still slightly different form BF's, I think the platforms are higher and not as big(?) and combined with moving platforms and smaller size all keep it different enough from BF imo).

I'd need to hear a really good argument of how it is so similar to BF that you shouldn't run both in the same stage list and how having both requires you to waste 2 bans on the same stage (because I have never felt like I have ever had to waste 2 bans on the same stage with these 2).

 

[4tlas]

As much ******** as I do about DP/PS2 being so freaking similar.

I don't see the BF comparison to FoD all that much other then sometimes being tri plat (which can be applied to other stages and FoD, if I'm not mistake, starting layout is still slightly different form BF's, I think the platforms are higher and not as big(?) and combined with moving platforms and smaller size all keep it different enough from BF imo).

I'd need to hear a really good argument of how it is so similar to BF that you shouldn't run both in the same stage list and how having both requires you to waste 2 bans on the same stage (because I have never felt like I have ever had to waste 2 bans on the same stage with these 2).

Oh I don't think they are similar enough to avoid putting both on the same LIST, just both as starters seems out-of-whack to me. Remember FoD is the ONLY small stage in that suggested set of starters, so it would never be struck to unless one player wanted BF and the other wanted small (at which point striking to BF is probably close enough).

I agree totally that they are different stages just due to different platform layouts. But they are often similar, and why use FoD when we can use GHZ, which is much more different? (You could also make the argument that GHZ is just a smaller SV due to the moving platform, but they move so differently I think it is not as good of a comparison)

 

[mimgrim]

Oh my mistake. I didn't realize you meant as having them on the same starter list and not on the same list. My b.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I am not saying we should ignore bz's, just that it is easier to have a discussion with a lot less variables than going all in with bz's in the mix. Hence just stage size. The FoD similarities are understandable, just didn't think CS/MC would pass as starters (though I did put so YI, so idk why that mattered to me). Also, interesting thought with skewing towards smaller stages, I will give that some thought. Oh, and the classifications are totally up for debate, that's just the best way to classify them imo.

 

[4tlas]

I am not saying we should ignore bz's, just that it is easier to have a discussion with a lot less variables than going all in with bz's in the mix. Hence just stage size. The FoD similarities are understandable, just didn't think CS/MC would pass as starters (though I did put so YI, so idk why that mattered to me). Also, interesting thought with skewing towards smaller stages, I will give that some thought. Oh, and the classifications are totally up for debate, that's just the best way to classify them imo.

On a similar note, a lot of PM's stages are very OPEN, not just large. This again exacerbates the difference between characters with inherent mobility and characters without. Pretend you are playing Ganon and look at all competitive-viable stages for an example. They pretty much all suck except for, like, 4. So you're only going to get 1 or 2 of those in a list and both are going to get banned... /cry

Something else to think about, and I agree the fewer factors we take into consideration at a time, the better. Starting with stage size is a good idea.

 

[Strong Badam]

Maybe instead of saying the stage number should be changed, you should realized that FD is a horribly polarizing stage and probably shouldn't be legal.

Except in doubles, it's fine in dubs.

Not particularly polarizing in a TON of matchups, and in those that it is, it's usually against a very good character, so them 'having' to ban it isn't much of an issue. Stage has no random elements, degenerative strategies, or uninteractive elements. Stage has no redundancy because no other stage features no platforms. I can't imagine any set of criteria that's well constructed that would not allow Final Destination on the stagelist.

 

[Kneato]

I mean, I would prefer to keep the rule-set the same throughout if possible instead but that could work.

But even a 10 stage list comes into problems itself on what to use.

The Small stages are easy, WW, GHZ, and FoD. All are mainly universally accepted stages to use in any list.

Medium stages are still a pain with the only easy ones being SV and BF. YiB and CS still have alot of dislike towards them (especially CS) and any other suggestion are hated even more (poor Lylat, so misunderstood).

Big stages we have FD and PS2 as easy acceptable ones. The last one will lead to some kind of dissent as I outlined before.

I also dislike this number because of how it affects big stages.

Mainly in regards to FD. As despite it being a large stage, it doesn't really act like one in the normal sense for characters who like large stages.

You say this as if having to make a list of even more stages would be any easier.

So here are my initial impressions on how I would classify relevant stages in terms of small, medium and large. I think stage length is first and foremost what should be considered in this process...

Both stage width and blastzone width are important and should be taken into account when deciding a stagelist. They shouldn't be combined into a single category of "stage size".

Characters who benefit from smaller blastzones don't necessarily also benefit from a small stage width and vice versa. Therefor, it is important to have our stagelist criteria require not only a good range of stage widths, but also blastzone sizes.
(Note by blastzone size I'm referring to horizontal blastzones. Although vertical blastzones matter too, they have a much smaller impact on matchups than horizontal blastzones and trying to uniformly balance 3 attributes across a stagelist would be very difficult.)

To cover all possibilities, a hypothetical 10 stage list would look like so:

Legend -
SW = Small Width
MW = Medium Width
LW = Large Width
SB = Small Blastzone
MB = Medium Blastzone
LB= Large Blastzone

Starters:
SWMB
MWSB
MWMB
MWLB
LWMB

Counterpicks:
SWSB
SWLB
MWMB
LWSB
LWLB

Starters are relatively average in terms of total size. Counterpicks are more extreme.
There are 3 SW, 4 MW, and 3 LW. There are also 3 SB, 4 MB, and 3 LB. This ensures that with 2 bans, no one attribute can be totally removed as a CP choice.

For reference, this is what we currently have to work with
EDIT: Outdated data

 

[Deleted member]

in a best of 5, you can assume the full five matches will be played, and that each player will have two bans so you need a minimum of nine stages. so long as there is at least nine, you have no real issues from a tournament standpoint. i think ten is fine.

 

[4tlas]

Not particularly polarizing in a TON of matchups, and in those that it is, it's usually against a very good character, so them 'having' to ban it isn't much of an issue. Stage has no random elements, degenerative strategies, or uninteractive elements. Stage has no redundancy because no other stage features no platforms. I can't imagine any set of criteria that's well constructed that would not allow Final Destination on the stagelist.

How about having no elements makes it a boring stage that is dramatically different from all others? Coupled with its massive size, this stage is unique in the sense that it is so far removed from every other stage that it drastically alters gameplay. GHZ, SV, Norfair, and sometimes even DS already perform the function of mostly flat stages that are good for juggles but arent also exceedingly devoid of attributes making them a dramatic counterpick.

When this stage is good for a matchup it is the best which means its banned, and otherwise nobody cares. At least GHZ, SV, Norfair, and DS have slightly different layouts, sizes, and other features like walls that they might not get banned even if its a good counterpick, because the banner gets something out of it. FD is too extreme in all of its aspects.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Kneato
Just a few clarifications/questions.
1. Like I said to mimgrim, I was just trying to consider one aspect and explore that for a bit rather than try and mix in bz's atm. Just trying to show people what the data says in terms of stage size with the criteria as main platform width.
2. I am trying to make the best stage list with what we have rather than potential changes. Then, if there are holes, have a separate discussion with potential changes. As your data shows, we don't have enough variety to go with your approach, even though in theory it is the best.
3. Speaking of your data, where did you get it? According to SOJ's data I linked earlier, there seems to be some confusing situations. If you could clarify, these are some problems I noticed:
a. Castle Siege having large blastzones, but Smashville having medium blastzones. Castle Siege has bz of 210, while smashville has a side bz of 220. Smashville is also longer than cs, so even if it was measured differently (edge of stage to bz vs center to bz), it is still SV > CS, yet it is the other way around in your data.
b. What do the different colors mean
c. Similar to a, but how are the large stages organized at all??? From SOJ: DP (235), PS2 (235), DS (235), Norfair (225), LC (230), FD (246), DL (255). Even if you subtract half of stage length (so measurements are from the edge of stage rather than center stage), you don't get results that line up with your classifications. DP (148.5), PS2 (141), DS (150), Norfair (147), LC (150), FD (160.5), DL (177.5).

Anyways, I'll start thinking about blastzone stuff and will post later tonight.

 

[Kneato]

Kneato

Spoiler

Just a few clarifications/questions.
1. Like I said to mimgrim, I was just trying to consider one aspect and explore that for a bit rather than try and mix in bz's atm. Just trying to show people what the data says in terms of stage size with the criteria as main platform width.
2. I am trying to make the best stage list with what we have rather than potential changes. Then, if there are holes, have a separate discussion with potential changes. As your data shows, we don't have enough variety to go with your approach, even though in theory it is the best.
3. Speaking of your data, where did you get it? According to SOJ's data I linked earlier, there seems to be some confusing situations. If you could clarify, these are some problems I noticed:
a. Castle Siege having large blastzones, but Smashville having medium blastzones. Castle Siege has bz of 210, while smashville has a side bz of 220. Smashville is also longer than cs, so even if it was measured differently (edge of stage to bz vs center to bz), it is still SV > CS, yet it is the other way around in your data.
b. What do the different colors mean
c. Similar to a, but how are the large stages organized at all??? From SOJ: DP (235), PS2 (235), DS (235), Norfair (225), LC (230), FD (246), DL (255). Even if you subtract half of stage length (so measurements are from the edge of stage rather than center stage), you don't get results that line up with your classifications. DP (148.5), PS2 (141), DS (150), Norfair (147), LC (150), FD (160.5), DL (177.5).

Anyways, I'll start thinking about blastzone stuff and will post later tonight.

1. A lot of people have already been posting stagelists in this thread with balanced stage widths in mind. Less so with blast zone widths.

2. We don't have enough variety to make that kind of stage list, but there are enough PMDT members who lurk this thread that that could change in future patches. That's the advantage of a community developed game, we can identify problems, come up with solutions, and have a chance of getting those solutions actually in the game.

3. a. c. I believe my data sheet is actually outdated. I thought I was using JOE!'s data sheet but I just checked his and some of my data differs from his. I just updated my data and I'll have to redo the classifications. Good catch.

b. The different colors were just what the maker of the data sheet considered each stage to be among Starter, CP, and banned.

The blastzone width I consider as stage edge to blastzone. From mid to blastzone doesn't make as much sense as it technically measures stage width which is it's own category. Additionally, edge to blastzone is what actually has a large effect on the matchup (influences off stage recovery impact) rather than mid to blastzone (influences character weight impact).

EDIT - Updated data, here's what it looks like now:

As expected, we have a good variety of large stages, an ok variety of medium stages, and our small stages are lacking. If we were to try to take the stages we have now and make a list based on balancing BZ and widths it would look like:

STARTERS:
SWMB -
MWSB -
MWMB - Smashville
MWLB - Battlefield
LWMB -

CP:
SWSB - Wario Land/Fountain of Dreams
SWLB -
MWMB - Castle Siege/Yoshi's Island
LWSB - Distant Planet
LWLB - Final Destination


If we assume that no new competitive stages will be added, I propose the following changes to the stages in order to balance the current list.

GHZ - Increase the blastzones to medium
FoD - Increase the blastzones to large

Bowser's Other Castle - Remove chains that obscure vision on ledge. Slightly lower all platforms. Fix bugs (Ledge getup, falling through stage etc). Decrease the blastzones to small.

PS2 - Increase blastzones to medium
Delfino's- Decrease blastzones to small

These changes would make the spread looks like this:

And the stagelist would look like this:

STARTERS:
SWMB - Green Hill Zone
MWSB - Bowser's Other Castle
MWMB - Smashville
MWLB - Battlefield
LWMB - Pokemon Stadium 2

CP:
SWSB - Wario Land
SWLB - Fountain of Dreams
MWMB - Castle Siege/Yoshi's Island
LWSB - Delfino's Secret
LWLB - Final Destination

 

[Kneato]

Sorry for the doublepost but image limit.

I'm actually pretty happy with this stagelist with the modified stages. The stats on it are some of the best I've seen in this thread. Would you guys get behind this? Any major issues?

Again this is a stagelist based on HYPOTHETICAL changes PMDT could make to the current stages stats.

STARTERS:
Green Hill Zone (Increased BZ)
Bowser's Other Castle (Decreased BZ, bugs fixed, adjusted platforms)
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2 (Increased BZ)

CP:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams (Increased BZ)
Castle Siege
Delfino's Secret (Decreased BZ)
Final Destination

 

[Bazkip]

Make Castle Siege'a base platform flat and it's perfect. But otherwise I don't think it should be a legal stage.

 

[Kneato]

Make Castle Siege'a base platform flat and it's perfect. But otherwise I don't think it should be a legal stage.

For now the only alternative is Yoshi's island which I find infinitely worse. Take your pick.

Also I used to think Castle Siege was garbage until I played on it in 3.6. It's really not bad and arguably a good Ganon stage I think. Though it's medium width, the low plats and slant design make it feel much smaller.

 

[Cubelarooso]

The colors represent the physical location of the stage on the select screen. (Which, in my experience, effectively determine the legality of a stage.)

I disagree with the idea that vertical blastzones have a much smaller impact. The location of the looming hazard that will actually kill you is a pretty big deal.
Ceiling height is arguably less important than side distance and stage width, but it's on the same order of magnitude and is notably even more noninteractive (one might be able to practice and improve one's recovery/edgeguarding or movement/spacing to slightly mitigate the effects of the other two; with kills off the top, you're just either dead or not-dead). Ignoring any of the three is a terrible mistake that could dramatically affect playability. The difficulty of making a list of compellingly distinct stages while also controlling for three polarizing variables is simply a fact that must be confronted.

 

[DMG]

I'd like to see different ceiling sizes, since even if horizontal blast zones are similar between stages, you could compensate for this by having different stage lengths (you could interpret this as 50 / "X" units from edge to blast zone for both stages, or 120 / "X" units from center stage to blast zone being the same for either stage. Having the same values, but inherently giving chars different death %'s based on relative position. Kills from center being the same, but from the edge different. Kills from edge the same, but center kills different etc)

Vertical diversity IF you keep values relatively the same is only accomplished if there's some notable facet like platform height differences or main stage slants that are way noticeable. BV and SV could have like the same ceiling and effectively the only difference would be situations involving the top BF platform

 

[Kneato]

The colors represent the physical location of the stage on the select screen. (Which, in my experience, effectively determine the legality of a stage.)

I disagree with the idea that vertical blastzones have a much smaller impact. The location of the looming hazard that will actually kill you is a pretty big deal.
Ceiling height is arguably less important than side distance and stage width, but it's on the same order of magnitude and is notably even more noninteractive (one might be able to practice and improve one's recovery/edgeguarding or movement/spacing to slightly mitigate the effects of the other two; with kills off the top, you're just either dead or not-dead). Ignoring any of the three is a terrible mistake that could dramatically affect playability. The difficulty of making a list of compellingly distinct stages while also controlling for three polarizing variables is simply a fact that must be confronted.

I'm arguing that getting a perfect balance of all three elements (stage width, bz width, and bz height) is much more difficult than balancing two, and out of all three of those, vertical height has the least impact on a matchup.

Horizontal BZs though do have a much bigger impact and require a balance because the advantages/disadvantages of character recoveries and off stage game can be completely altered by the size of the horizontal BZ. Also characters horizontal kill power and fallspeed/weight.

Vertical BZs only affect the advantages/disadvantages of characters vertical kill power and fallspeed/weight.

As long as we manage to balance a list based on stage and bz width, and we have some variety of bz heights, I think the list will be fine. Anyways, unless the PMDT specifically alters stage BZs to help us craft a better list, balancing all three aspects will be nigh impossible.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Please stop using the term "balancing." It already has a different meaning in competitive discussion that is about as far removed as one may get.
I'm arguing that, while accounting for all three is nigh impossible, accounting for only two is nigh useless. It is because ceiling height has fewer factors (importantly, fewer that are player dependent, so there is even less of a defense against it) that it is so dangerous. Even if one thinks it's less important than the other two, it's still an absurdly powerful weapon, so its distribution needs to be carefully monitored.

 

[nimigoha]

Sorry for the doublepost but image limit.

I'm actually pretty happy with this stagelist with the modified stages. The stats on it are some of the best I've seen in this thread. Would you guys get behind this? Any major issues?

Again this is a stagelist based on HYPOTHETICAL changes PMDT could make to the current stages stats.

STARTERS:
Green Hill Zone (Increased BZ)
Bowser's Other Castle (Decreased BZ, bugs fixed, adjusted platforms)
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2 (Increased BZ)

CP:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams (Increased BZ)
Castle Siege
Delfino's Secret (Decreased BZ)
Final Destination

View attachment 74792

View attachment 74793

Your data is on point, your analysis is on point. With the suggested changes, you've made a very well-rounded stagelist that I think would be excellent to incorporate.

Going through the changes, the only thing I could see presenting an issue is the FoD change because people will complain that it's now different from Melee as if that's relevant to anything. Maybe having current one as an Alt stage and Increased BZ as the standard?

I really like it and think that the changes would be great.

I also think in your colour lists you should go with the standard Green Starter Yellow CP colour code because I am confused. Why are Smashville and BF different shades of blue?

 

[Kneato]

Your data is on point, your analysis is on point. With the suggested changes, you've made a very well-rounded stagelist that I think would be excellent to incorporate.

Going through the changes, the only thing I could see presenting an issue is the FoD change because people will complain that it's now different from Melee as if that's relevant to anything. Maybe having current one as an Alt stage and Increased BZ as the standard?

I really like it and think that the changes would be great.

I also think in your colour lists you should go with the standard Green Starter Yellow CP colour code because I am confused. Why are Smashville and BF different shades of blue?

That's a dataset that I copied from elsewhere and I didn't change the color scheme.

And if we have PMDT willing to changes stages for the sake of a well rounded and balanced stagelist, what I suggested is only one of a ton of potentially viable stagelists. I'm sure someone else here could draw up a list with hypothetical stage changes that works even better than mine.

 

[JOE!]

In regards to ceiling heights, the numbers really do matter with them.

A difference of like, 200 - 203 can be a 10-20% damage difference vertically on most characters due to the way ceiling KOs work. As you are sent upwards, gravity tugs you down at your gravity stat per frame until you reach your terminal velocity downwards. For example, Captain Falcon has a Gravity of 0.13 and a terminal velocity of 2.9, so every frame he is in the air he gets 0.13 added to his downward velocity until he moves 2.9 units per frame.

Say he gets Usmashed by Pikachu at 100% on Battlefield, which would cause 248.45 Knockback vertically. Now, BF has a ceiling that is 200 units tall, meaning the 248.45 knockback he is taking should KO him, especially with 99 frames of hit stun! Roughly, his Gravity stat would be subtracted from the KB amount (vertically) per frame, so you would end up with: Frame 29 of hitstun he has sustained 198.16 Knockback, and continuing to fall he would even hit the ground (floor) again while in hit stun at frame 97. So if it took Falcon 29 frames to reach the blast zone, he is alive and well and even if he didn't he may still be safe depending on if his velocity at the time was +2.4! You see, in order to actually die off the top your character must be in hit stun and moving at +2.4~ units/frame upwards. Due to this, Falcon could be at a height of say, 215 on battlefield and still be living in hit stun if he passed the blast zone even at a velocity of +2.39.

How that relates to ceiling height is this: a height that is 3 units higher means a character may get an extra frame or two to slow down their ascent, and thus let gravity work it's magic on getting them below that ~2.4 threshold for death. At 110%, Pika vs Falcon would deal 264.3 knockback and would have Falcon be at 202.41 units by frame 33. He has 33 frames to either travel that distance or to decelerate below the threshold, and those 1-2 extra frames could mean the difference between life and death.

 

[Kneato]

In regards to ceiling heights, the numbers really do matter with them.

A difference of like, 200 - 203 can be a 10-20% damage difference vertically on most characters due to the way ceiling KOs work. As you are sent upwards, gravity tugs you down at your gravity stat per frame until you reach your terminal velocity downwards. For example, Captain Falcon has a Gravity of 0.13 and a terminal velocity of 2.9, so every frame he is in the air he gets 0.13 added to his downward velocity until he moves 2.9 units per frame.

Say he gets Usmashed by Pikachu at 100% on Battlefield, which would cause 248.45 Knockback vertically. Now, BF has a ceiling that is 200 units tall, meaning the 248.45 knockback he is taking should KO him, especially with 99 frames of hit stun! Roughly, his Gravity stat would be subtracted from the KB amount (vertically) per frame, so you would end up with: Frame 29 of hitstun he has sustained 198.16 Knockback, and continuing to fall he would even hit the ground (floor) again while in hit stun at frame 97. So if it took Falcon 29 frames to reach the blast zone, he is alive and well and even if he didn't he may still be safe depending on if his velocity at the time was +2.4! You see, in order to actually die off the top your character must be in hit stun and moving at +2.4~ units/frame upwards. Due to this, Falcon could be at a height of say, 215 on battlefield and still be living in hit stun if he passed the blast zone even at a velocity of +2.39.

How that relates to ceiling height is this: a height that is 3 units higher means a character may get an extra frame or two to slow down their ascent, and thus let gravity work it's magic on getting them below that ~2.4 threshold for death. At 110%, Pika vs Falcon would deal 264.3 knockback and would have Falcon be at 202.41 units by frame 33. He has 33 frames to either travel that distance or to decelerate below the threshold, and those 1-2 extra frames could mean the difference between life and death.

I understand how BZ height and vertical knockback plays out. You could make the same case for horizontal BZs. And in both cases, good DI will save a player just as well as 3 extra units.

I'm not saying BZ height doesn't matter. We need a good distribution of short, medium, and tall heights.

What I'm saying is, when players are making their stage bans/picks, more often their choice is decided by the stage and blastzone widths rather than BZ height. Of course there are a number of characters with strong vertical kill options, but it is more common for matchups to be decided by a combination of offstage game, recovery, and horizontal kill power. This is just my experience though.

But given that, when we make a stagelist of course we will try to have a good distribution of all three elements. Without PMDT intervention though, that won't be possible, and some imbalance of BZ heights seems less detrimental than imbalance in stage or BZ widths.

 

[JOE!]

Playing Charizard, I often base my stage picks onc eiling height to determine how quickly I can convert KOs. And versus some characters, like Fox, how long I can survive vs their Vertical KOs being mid-weight for vertical survival myself.

 

[Kneato]

Playing Charizard, I often base my stage picks onc eiling height to determine how quickly I can convert KOs. And versus some characters, like Fox, how long I can survive vs their Vertical KOs being mid-weight for vertical survival myself.

Which is why I said more often. I know there are MUs that rely on vertical BZ. Anyone playing against fox, a big part of Pikachu and snake's game etc etc.

Look I never said ignore vertical BZs. If you look at the hypothetical stage list I posted earlier it has a good distribution of vertical BZs.

I'm saying I think more MUs rely on stage and BZ width than BZ height, so more emphasis should be put on a good balance of them in a stage list.

 

[nimigoha]

Kneato can you alter the stage sizes and make the new files available to try? I'd like to give your stages a go.

 

[Kneato]

I have rather limited experience with altering stages, but I think that's within the realm of doable for me. If anyone else is interested, I could give it a shot this week.

UPDATE: I have altered the stage list modifications to also balance vertical blast zones. Green Hill Zone's BZ was lowered from large to medium and Castle Siege's BZ was raised from small to medium.

I've also started the process of editing the stages. I will share the build and post the complete change list here once I've finished.

 

[Kneato]

Sorry for the double post. I asked in the custom content boards but while I wait for an answer, I figured I'd ask here too in case anyone knew.

How does one move a model around in a stage (like a platform)? Is there any way to do it via brawlbox? I can move the platform collisions just fine but I can't figure out how to move the model itself.

 

[Bazkip]

Was talking with Kneato about GHZ about how I don't like that the platform is only really present at the bottom of it's arc, and he suggested that the chain be shortened and the anchor point be lowered so that it'll be in position to come into play far more frequently. I think that'd make for a much better stage.

 

[Kneato]

For anyone waiting on it, I finished making the custom build with all the stage edits I proposed. I'll upload it and do a writeup explaining the changes tomorrow when I have some free time.

 

[Kneato]

The build is done. You can download it here

I've modified each stage select image to indicate the stage and blastzone size of each particular stage. This makes it easier for players to identify which stages they want for picks/bans and will help push more strategic informed decisions for that part of matches. If this pack actually gets popular and there is demand for it, I'll create a pack that doesn't include the modified stage select images.


Changelist

Green Hill Zone: Increased horizontal BZs from 130 to 146 (small to medium). Decreased vertical BZ from 205 to 197 (large to medium).

Bowser's Other Castle: Decreased horizontal BZs from 169 to 132 (large to small). Decreased vertical BZ from 191 to 180 (medium to small). Lowered top platform from 34.6 to 32. Lowered side platforms from 31.1 to 27.

Pokemon Stadium 2: Increased horizontal BZs from 141 to 146 (small to medium). Increased vertical BZ from 180 to 191 (small to medium).

Fountain of Dreams: Increased horizontal BZs from 136 to 158 (small to large).

Delfino's Secret: Decreased horizontal BZs from 155 to 140 (large to small).

Castle Siege: Increased vertical BZ from 175 to 192 (small to medium).


Here are the current stats of this stagelist:

As you can see, this list is very well balanced. There is good representation for every stage element you could want. For horizontal BZs, vertical BZs, and stage widths there are 3 smalls, 4 mediums, and 3 larges in each category. This means in a 2 ban system, no one stage element can be completely removed as an option via banning. Additionally, the skew is very low (skew is the total difference between mean and medium of each element for all stages. Put simply, this is how much the stage list favors either the large or small side of the spectrum for any element).

For an idea of the list as a whole, here are all stages and their properties:

The starter stages are comprised of relatively simple stages with middle-of-the-road sizes. The counterpicks have more extreme sizes, more complicated stage features, or both.


Try it out and let me know what you guys think. If there are bugs or things to be improved, tell me and I'll try to fix them.

 

[nimigoha]

The build is done. You can download it here

I've modified each stage select image to indicate the stage and blastzone size of each particular stage. This makes it easier for players to identify which stages they want for picks/bans and will help push more strategic informed decisions for that part of matches. If this pack actually gets popular and there is demand for it, I'll create a pack that doesn't include the modified stage select images.


Changelist

Green Hill Zone: Increased horizontal BZs from 130 to 146 (small to medium). Decreased vertical BZ from 205 to 197 (large to medium).

Bowser's Other Castle: Decreased horizontal BZs from 169 to 132 (large to small). Decreased vertical BZ from 191 to 180 (medium to small). Lowered top platform from 34.6 to 32. Lowered side platforms from 31.1 to 27.

Pokemon Stadium 2: Increased horizontal BZs from 141 to 146 (small to medium). Increased vertical BZ from 180 to 191 (small to medium).

Fountain of Dreams: Increased horizontal BZs from 136 to 158 (small to large).

Delfino's Secret: Decreased horizontal BZs from 155 to 140 (large to small).

Castle Siege: Increased vertical BZ from 175 to 192 (small to medium).


Here are the current stats of this stagelist:
View attachment 79965

As you can see, this list is very well balanced. There is good representation for every stage element you could want. For horizontal BZs, vertical BZs, and stage widths there are 3 smalls, 4 mediums, and 3 larges in each category. This means in a 2 ban system, no one stage element can be completely removed as an option via banning. Additionally, the skew is very low (skew is the total difference between mean and medium of each element for all stages. Put simply, this is how much the stage list favors either the large or small side of the spectrum for any element).

For an idea of the list as a whole, here are all stages and their properties:
View attachment 79967

The starter stages are comprised of relatively simple stages with middle-of-the-road sizes. The counterpicks have more extreme sizes, more complicated stage features, or both.


Try it out and let me know what you guys think. If there are bugs or things to be improved, tell me and I'll try to fix them.

So many balanced attributes. Platforms, walls, blast zones...

PMDT please. There's a difference between making things bland and solid balance/homogenization and I think these modifications hit the damn spot.

 

[4tlas]

I don't like this idea, but I am very glad that you went ahead and created it. I think it could be further refined, and that is one thing that testing may help accomplish.

 

[nimigoha]

Why not though? It gives counterpicking more balance. Like I think yeah, it's a big change, but it's something that people would get used to and it doesn't really ruin any kind of stage identity.

Kneato you should post this on the subreddit to gauge the response, I think people would be open to it.

 

[4tlas]

Why not though? It gives counterpicking more balance. Like I think yeah, it's a big change, but it's something that people would get used to and it doesn't really ruin any kind of stage identity.

Kneato you should post this on the subreddit to gauge the response, I think people would be open to it.

Its progress, I suppose. The thing that I don't like is that it is incomplete. For example, the walled stages have not been balanced properly: the smaller stages have walls and the larger ones do not. This intertwines wall and size in exactly the way that this list is trying to avoid.

Furthermore, not all stats are created equal. Large stages with small blastzones still have larger blastzones than small stages with small blastzones. I also can't tell by the information posted whether they have larger blastzones than small stages with medium blastzones, large blastzones, or any other stage size with any blastzones.

Another thing is that layouts have not been taken into account very well. # of platforms and walls are one thing, but where the plats are and the amount of space that leaves open/closed is VERY important! There's quite a lot of open space on this list, and if you look at stages that are "medium", "small", or "large", and then look at how their layouts block off or open up space, then the list isn't even anymore. I don't have a problem with it not being perfectly even, but trying to pass it off as such and purposely changing the stages to try and accomplish it is not something I approve of. If we want to do it, we should do it right. That's what my point was.

 

[nimigoha]

That's a fair point. I just think that's it's progress and a first step down a road of "do we want to do this?".

The thing is, normalizing can only go so far. I think it would be really cool to make like 60 stages of every possible permutation (blast zone is 3, stage width is 3, walls is 2, platforms you could have like 3 or 4 layouts) but it's laughably not feasible for a tournament setting.

I agree that this new list isn't perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Currently the stage list is imbalanced with regard to being able to choose both stage size and blast zones.

(Also FD is kinda walled, though it would be good to have a small stage without walls...)

I'd really like to see people give this a shot.

 

[4tlas]

That's a fair point. I just think that's it's progress and a first step down a road of "do we want to do this?".

The thing is, normalizing can only go so far. I think it would be really cool to make like 60 stages of every possible permutation (blast zone is 3, stage width is 3, walls is 2, platforms you could have like 3 or 4 layouts) but it's laughably not feasible for a tournament setting.

I agree that this new list isn't perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Currently the stage list is imbalanced with regard to being able to choose both stage size and blast zones.

(Also FD is kinda walled, though it would be good to have a small stage without walls...)

I'd really like to see people give this a shot.

Absolutely, which is why I said I'm glad this was made so that we can try to refine it.

Personally I would prefer to make do with the stages we have, because it is impossible to get a consensus on how the game SHOULD play. For example, I think this list favors open space too much. But not everyone will agree with what qualifies as too much. I think ledges that screw over recoveries is a part of the game and is a counterpick-worthy trait, while people that get screwed by them are likely to think otherwise. If this is the majority we theoretically should not include such stages for the sake of their enjoyment, but is it fair from a game design perspective? That further favors characters with certain types of recoveries. And so forth.

Who are we to design the game with that in mind? To dictate that this is a fair list? If we are going to change the current stages and alter EVERYONE's game with this list, we should make sure we have a good reason to. That we can find game design justifications for the traits we give these stages. I would rather work with the game we have though, because that provides justification for a lack of perfection.

tl;dr: If we can make stages from nothing we should be able to make a perfect list, but that means we have to agree on what "perfect" is beforehand. I'd rather work with the game we have rather than try to invent the game we want with so many cooks involved.

 

[Cubelarooso]

If we're just posting our own stages now, then I'll do my part

Download link

| Stage Width | Mid to Side | Stage to Side | Stage to Top | Min to Top | Stage to Bottom | Low Plat Height | Low Plat Size | High Plat Height | High Plat Size Battlefield | 136 | 218 | 150 | 204 | 150 | 125 | 27.2 | 37.6 | 54.4 | 37.6
Smashville | 140 | 223 | 153 | 199 | 170 | 120 | 28.9 | 47.7 | - | -
Pokémon Stadium M | 150 | 223 | 148 | 196 | 170 | 120 | 25.7 | 27.5 | - | -
D.I.Y. Studio | 130 | 217 | 152 | 200 | 151 | 115 | 24.8 | 43.3 | 48.9 | 21.7
eShop | 144 | 219 | 147 | 201 | 150 | 120 | 28.3 | 31.3 | 51.3 | 26.0

| Stage Width | Mid to Side | Stage to Side | Stage to Top | Min to Top | Stage to Bottom | Low Plat Height | Low Plat Size | High Plat Height | High Plat Size Median | 140.0 | 219.0 | 150.0 | 200.0 | 151.1 | 120.0 | 27.20 | 37.60 | 51.30 | 26.00
Mean | 140.0 | 220.0 | 150.0 | 200.0 | 158.2 | 120.0 | 26.98 | 37.47 | 51.55 | 28.42
Standard deviation | 6.81 | 2.53 | 2.28 | 2.61 | 9.86 | 3.16 | 1.545 | 7.445 | 2.233 | 6.726

Thread providing more details

There's a big difference between a balanced stagelist and a stagelist with similar amounts of unbalanced elements.