Project M Recommended Ruleset

[4tlas]

Pools scales well too, as you can adjust pool sizes and pool cuts to keep the number of rounds low.

Assuming you have setups, yeah.

 

[Deleted member]

pools are meant to save time early into a tournament to eliminate the bottom 75% or so of players quickly. however, it is likely at least similar speed to do this again, since going from say 32 to 8 players could be done by say 4 separate pools in 2 hours, as opposed to a bracket that could also take 2-3 hours. its also easier to run to a schedule, since pools can have a designated time slot rather than people getting lost or going to get food while waiting for the next round or whatever they do when they get bored. once you get to the final top 8, it takes longer, but probably still not much and you get much more solid results for it. its an imperfect system, but i havent tried to optimize it yet either, just been something ive been thinking of. brackets are still fine for melee imo

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah, I just see a problem when looking at multi-game tournaments (not like PM is invited to those anymore though kappa) since a pool pretty much requires you to be at your station for a while, if you sign up for multiple games then things could get hairy.

 

[4tlas]

Ah eliminating the bottom 75% of players or so is a time saver in large brackets, which is what nimigoha meant by "scales well". We all agree. =)

 

[Cubelarooso]

Your stats barely deviate from their mean to the point where they might as well not be different at all (the difference between a Stage to Top of 196 and 204 is surviving 1 or at most 2 percent longer in most situations).

Yeah, that's the point. Ceiling height is an incredibly uninteractive element, while also being one of the most influential on balance. There's no need for any drastic difference in it, and the more difference there is the less survival can be considered a result of players' actions as opposed to stage fiat.

Additionally, the whole point of having a varied list of starters is to avoid homogeneity that favors some characters over others.
For example, almost every one of your stages has a High Vertical BZ (about Battlefield high). This inevitably skews the matchup against those characters who rely on vertical kills.

When the sizes are uniform, they can't favor any characters. If the matchup is changed on every stage, then the matchup itself is simply changed. It's not skewed, as there are no stages that move it from its (new) default position; that only what happens when extreme sizes are introduced.
That default position is not even significantly changed. The values chosen reflect the standards set by Melee and successive versions of PM, with particular emphasis on BF and SV ‒ widely regarded as the two most neutral stages. As such, characters' current designs already have this size as a baseline assumption. In the particular case of ceiling height, I rounded up from the 194-198 range that stagelists' averages fall into for two primary reasons: aesthetics, which does serve a practical purpose in being more memorable, thus giving more meaning to raw data of a single stage; and that kills off the top circumvent one of the core features of Smash, which, subjectively, makes them less desirable. But that's why it's a work in progress: if testing shows it makes things too slow, it can always easily be moved.

Size is almost always a binary decision, with the most extreme options being the most preferred. No character exceptionally dominates on medium stages. There are characters with attributes versatile and all-around powerful enough that stage size has little effect on their viability, and this would technically weaken them as they could no longer leverage this immunity against more specialized characters; but by their very nature such generalists do well on any stage, so their placement is secure regardless. While characters that "depend" on a certain size to win (1 out of 3 games, in the same way over and over, if the ruleset even allows them such a stage) would no longer have that option, they also are no longer crippled by the complementary size.

Both balance and variety are improved by the tighter ranges. With a clear-cut idea of the context in which characters will compete, the developers no longer need thoroughly examine every single possible combination of sizes to verify that the character can manage them all; nor must they then attempt to render enough tools that the character can at least try to manage that which it simply can't, yet without in turn making it overbearing on those that it already can can. Instead, the character need only work in a single size, and can easily be adjusted until it does.
This allows for a more diverse cast, as there are fewer sensitive variables to avoid upsetting when making something unique. This also allows for a more diverse stage selection, as they can be made with the intention to explore the sheer array of possibilities offered by the engine, without regard to mass appeal or the delicate "balance" of sizes. Similarly, players become freer in their own stage selection, able to experiment with the different layouts and mechanics and choose what they truly enjoy, rather than predefined decisions they must follow if they are concerned with winning.

I think as play becomes better, counterpicks are going to be more and more based on traits you [should] play on and less based on stages you like.

This is a very bad outcome for everyone. Less satisfaction for the players, less variety for the spectators, less interest for the game.
Not so sure on the "more and more," though. It seems to already have a vicegrip, from my perspective.

 

[JOE!]

Side note:

Why are stage blastzones so arbitrary? Like, you see "203 ceiling", "237 sides", "123 floor", etc. Why not have these more uniform like:

205 / 240 / 125, etc, instead of all these odd numbers. Combined with study on like, how much every unit of distance really matters and so on could help us understand what goes into stages competitively and so on.

 

[Deleted member]

Side note:

Why are stage blastzones so arbitrary?

because everyone in the dev team hates you and we all want you to go insane from squandering your knowledge alone to the smashboards trolls

 

[4tlas]

Cubelarosso brings up an interesting point with regards to medium stages rarely getting counterpicked. They usually only get counterpicked by characters that do well anywhere or by players who REALLY want the layout. It is also true that if the stagelist were more uniform that the characters could be balanced with that in mind.

I disagree that this is already the case though. The variety is also nice. Put the 2 together and I think that a stagelist that tries to balance (not necessarily by equalizing) the stage attributes but still have variety is the way to go.

 

[Kneato]

Side note:

Why are stage blastzones so arbitrary? Like, you see "203 ceiling", "237 sides", "123 floor", etc. Why not have these more uniform like:

205 / 240 / 125, etc, instead of all these odd numbers. Combined with study on like, how much every unit of distance really matters and so on could help us understand what goes into stages competitively and so on.

I'm not sure why sizes in this game are not clean numbers, but the numbers I came up with for my stage changes were based around average sizes and even distribution so they ended up being not clean as well.

For some perspective on what these numbers really mean though, Bowser is approximately 30 units wide. We should just measure everything in "Bowsers"

Also, anyone know where these measurement units came from? They don't match up to the brawlbox data for Blastzone sizes and it's pretty annoying to try and convert.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah but I think Kneato's altered stagelist still has a great level of variety, and it balances stage attributes.

Platform layouts will always mean there's a decent amount of variety. Get rid of boring triplat clones like YS and DL and have interesting triplat clones like FoD, BC, and DS.

Basically:

4 out of his 10 stages have moving platforms, all with unique patterns and axes.

Castle Siege has all kinds of stuff going on. Slant and platform height difference are very unique.

BC has an interesting height different between side and top platforms.

And the rest are 0 plat, basic 2 plat, basic 3 plat, and basic 4 plat.

There's plenty of stage variety, I don't think it's less interesting or watered down at all, and it balances attributes.

So like, even if people are playing on the stages in practice and not counterpicking it's still an interesting stagelist.

 

[JOE!]

because everyone in the dev team hates you and we all want you to go insane from squandering your knowledge alone to the smashboards trolls

Probably true lol

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Side note:

Why are stage blastzones so arbitrary? Like, you see "203 ceiling", "237 sides", "123 floor", etc. Why not have these more uniform like:

205 / 240 / 125, etc, instead of all these odd numbers. Combined with study on like, how much every unit of distance really matters and so on could help us understand what goes into stages competitively and so on.

205 and 125 are odd numbers too...



I found the door, I'll show myself out.

 

[Kneato]

So the feedback so far for the list I posted is that for the sake of consistency, FD and DS should be changed from LS and SL BZ's to LL and SS? Which would be which? I'm cautious about making any changes to FD as people would likely find them controversial.


I've also started brainstorming a different idea for a list and wonder what people think about it:

As a thought experiment, if we weren't constrained to using the current stages, what kind of list would we be working towards?

This is what I cooked up so far:

At first glance this looks like a collection of random arbitrary values for each stage. However, if we organize it a bit:

You realize that each element has a very even distribution, the minimum and maximum values for each based on the current stagelist's min and max values for that element.

My thoughts are, these stages fall within the same range of stages that are currently played (that is to say none of these are like twice the size of FD or have an upper BZ half the size of Wario Land). If we assume that our current stagelist is conducive to the playstyle of PM, we can assume the same of this stagelist to an extent.

This list also doesn't favor any particular size for any given element either. It is next to "perfectly balanced" in that regard. However, these are just numbers. Actual design would have a huge impact on this aspect.


Now I don't expect PMDT to completely overhaul there stagelist or anything by any means. The other list I posted with small changes to the current stagelist is much more reasonable and more likely to be something to push for. I just want to know what people think about this completely fabricated list.

 

[Kneato]

I went ahead and drew up some potential designs for each of the hypothetical stages. It makes visualizing all the numbers a little less abstract.

Each design has the correct proportions with a conversion of 1unit to 1px. Also, a Boozer has been included for scale.

 

[nimigoha]

I went ahead and drew up some potential designs for each of the hypothetical stages. It makes visualizing all the numbers a little less abstract.

Each design has the correct proportions with a conversion of 1unit to 1px. Also, a Boozer has been included for scale.

I like those! Especially the one with the vertically moving two platforms.

 

[JOE!]

lol DS Plats

 

[Kneato]

One thing I think definitely should be changed in future releases of PM are the arbitrary camera limits on many stages. It makes it hard for players to compare and understand blastzone size.

I suggest every stage should have a uniform flat distance from camera to BZ. 60 seems to be where most stages already float around, so I guess that would be a good value to use.

 

[4tlas]

It seems (at least for the smaller stages) that you are trying to correlate stage size with blastzone size even if the ratio changes with each stage. By this I mean that the smallest stage has the smallest blastzones, then the next smallest has the next smallest, etc, even if the ratios of stage-blastzone are inconsistent.

 

[Kneato]

It seems (at least for the smaller stages) that you are trying to correlate stage size with blastzone size even if the ratio changes with each stage. By this I mean that the smallest stage has the smallest blastzones, then the next smallest has the next smallest, etc, even if the ratios of stage-blastzone are inconsistent.

I'm not sure what you mean. The second smallest stage (SMM) has the 4th widest Blastzones and average height Blastzones.

 

[4tlas]

I'm not sure what you mean. The second smallest stage (SMM) has the 4th widest Blastzones and average height Blastzones.

Perhaps I am missing something. I said "it seems" because that was the impression I got from your drawings. I have not looked at the new numbers since then.

 

[Cubelarooso]

There's plenty of stage variety, I don't think it's less interesting or watered down at all, and it balances attributes.

While I would argue that it's still quite watered down for my personal taste, the more objective point is that that the variety is inaccessible. The different layouts are all wrapped up with different sizes, and, for the most part, the latter dictates stage choice. Even in a friendly setting it's no fun playing on a stage that imbalances the matchup, but it's totally unacceptable when there are stakes.

For instance, suppose a player loves the leaves on Distant Planet. If DP's size is unfavorable for that player's character, then he won't choose it because it could make him lose, so the leaves effectively don't exist. If the size is favorable, then his opponent is bound to ban it - not because she's bad at using the leaves, but just to avoid a numerical disadvantage. Even if the size is neutral, there's likely another stage whose size is favorable, which he would pick in order to win. Even though he likes DP's variety, he doesn't get to play on it any more than anyone else. While the stages may be different within the entire list, it's watered down to only one or two real options. Variety becomes second priority.

This is exacerbated when we include extra elements with clear balance implications. Specifically: Final Destination. Platforms are very powerful tools; why do characters that like wide stages get the option of the only one with none? Why not have an FD with a high ceiling? If we're trying to "balance" the availability of polarizing elements, why do only some characters get a stage stacked so much? Conversely, if FD is the only "LSS" stage, how is that fair to characters that like that size, but need platforms?

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Cubelarooso

I highly doubt this change will ever happen, honestly. I get the point you are making and I am both intrigued and would give it more thought, but people are too accustomed to the way things currently are (from melee) for it ever to change.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah it's really just unfortunately a holdover from Melee.

For "real balance" we should have every platform layout at every size, so that it doesn't matter if your character's favourite platform layout is on their worst stage size for certain matchups.

But it's really unfeasible.

 

[4tlas]

For instance, suppose a player loves the leaves on Distant Planet. If DP's size is unfavorable for that player's character, then he won't choose it because it could make him lose, so the leaves effectively don't exist. If the size is favorable, then his opponent is bound to ban it - not because she's bad at using the leaves, but just to avoid a numerical disadvantage. Even if the size is neutral, there's likely another stage whose size is favorable, which he would pick in order to win. Even though he likes DP's variety, he doesn't get to play on it any more than anyone else. While the stages may be different within the entire list, it's watered down to only one or two real options. Variety becomes second priority.

DP would get used when one player likes a feature of it enough to not ban it and the other likes a feature of it enough to pick it. This happens all the time already. Not everyone values size above everything else.

 

[DMG]

The difference in banning vs picking though is that banning should be a much more binary choice. Eliminate the biggest threats. Where as in picking, you personally have the option of choosing to pick the "weaker" stage option for preference or minor trait reasons. Stages like DP getting through the ban phase probably would have more to do with lacking enough bans: you can't get rid of all walled stages vs Ike, so you get rid of the very small walled stages and then he picks DP.

That wouldn't necessarily be indicative that you found the platforms on Distant Planent OK or preferable, and decided to keep a -8 stage unbanned because the platforms were +1 for you

 

[4tlas]

The difference in banning vs picking though is that banning should be a much more binary choice. Eliminate the biggest threats. Where as in picking, you personally have the option of choosing to pick the "weaker" stage option for preference or minor trait reasons. Stages like DP getting through the ban phase probably would have more to do with lacking enough bans: you can't get rid of all walled stages vs Ike, so you get rid of the very small walled stages and then he picks DP.

That wouldn't necessarily be indicative that you found the platforms on Distant Planent OK or preferable, and decided to keep a -8 stage unbanned because the platforms were +1 for you

There is the option to ban only the stages you actually expect your opponent to pick. The option exists to mislead your opponent. You can also (if stage picks first) ban for the expected character switch.

 

[JOE!]

I got lost somewhere here, what does "MMM" "SMM" "LLS" etc, stand for again? Mid-Size, Mid-Sides, Mid-Ceiling?

 

[Cubelarooso]

TheGravyTrain

That's a very negative point of view. It's already been shown that "because Melee" doesn't always hold up. We're making headway in other areas, from the introduction of character-first, to the downfall of YS/DL, to the changing of Melee characters. There's still varying amounts of resistance against it, but the momentum is in our favor.

We just have to make baby steps. If we can win an easier argument, like getting a list of balanced starters into use, or even simply bringing PS2 in line with BF/SV, then people will start to see how much better things could be. In fact, the decline in YS/DL usage and the slight reduction of PS2's width already mark wins. But kowtowing to the popular ill-conceived paradigm will merely make it harder.

nimigoha
Characters don't have favourite platform layouts; people do. That's the point: making it so people can enjoy the game, rather than perform it.

 

[4tlas]

I have never seen the word "kowtowing" in my life, but I can guess what it means from the excellent context you've provided. Thank you for teaching me something new today.

 

[Cubelarooso]

You should listen to politicians speak more.
Or probably I should do it less.
Or everyone.

 

[4tlas]

When it comes to listening to politics, less is more.

 

[Kneato]

I got lost somewhere here, what does "MMM" "SMM" "LLS" etc, stand for again? Mid-Size, Mid-Sides, Mid-Ceiling?

Sorry if I wasn't explicit with the meanings. You got it right though, first letter is stage size, second letter is blastzone width from stage edge, and third letter is blastzone height.

 

[nimigoha]

So character first?

Nullifying a stage pick with a character counterpick like Junebug did to Lz is silly.

Melee it doesn't really matter since the worst matchup is like Pikachu Sheik or maybe Fox Puff, the first one doesn't really depend on stage...

In PM we can go from a reasonable matchup Diddy vs GW on Yoshi's Story to Ganon vs GW...

Somehow this needs to be spread to TOs more, this game isn't Melee.

 

[4tlas]

As I mentioned several pages back, we tested "character first" and got feedback from our players. We run it now since overall the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, but one of the things that almost everyone agreed on was that NEGATING stages seemed reasonable. The part that many people disliked was REVERSING counterpicks and DOUBLING counterpicks.

I do completely agree that it is a better system, especially for PM. I don't think its so cut and dry though. Perhaps a system could be developed that satisfies everyone.

Edit: EVERYONE hated SECRET secondaries in stage first, though.

 

[DMG]

I don't think there's a better compromise system. The aspect of "Winner picks char, then Loser picks" is the one piece of the CP formula that doesn't have wiggle room imo. The optimal way of doing stage bans and CP's also probably rests on answering the character question beforehand: information to ban smartly and information to pick smartly. The only way to compromise is to alter the inherent flow of CP process. Someone has to go first on characters, someone has to go first on stage information, etc. You could try to make characters AND stages decided on at the same time. Only way I could envision this is:


1. Winner Ban first
2. Character Double Blind + Loser separately picks stage at same time (Winner doesn't know stage before locking in, Loser doesn't know Winner character before picking stage)

^^^ This doesn't sound good, but it's one of the very few different possible scenarios for CP process that has both players making decisions at the same time. Making decisions at different moments gives one player asymmetrical knowledge advantage, which is usually inherent in CP process and not necessarily a bad thing.


I think the char first format is probably the best format available if we also craft or believe in a stage list/ban amount that doesn't lead to unnecessarily difficult imbalances. That would address the argument of "I don't want to lock into Bowser/XYZ before stages are picked cause then it's gonna suck" etc.

 

[4tlas]

I don't think there's a better compromise system. The aspect of "Winner picks char, then Loser picks" is the one piece of the CP formula that doesn't have wiggle room imo. The optimal way of doing stage bans and CP's also probably rests on answering the character question beforehand: information to ban smartly and information to pick smartly. The only way to compromise is to alter the inherent flow of CP process. Someone has to go first on characters, someone has to go first on stage information, etc. You could try to make characters AND stages decided on at the same time. Only way I could envision this is:


1. Winner Ban first
2. Character Double Blind + Loser separately picks stage at same time (Winner doesn't know stage before locking in, Loser doesn't know Winner character before picking stage)

^^^ This doesn't sound good, but it's one of the very few different possible scenarios for CP process that has both players making decisions at the same time. Making decisions at different moments gives one player asymmetrical knowledge advantage, which is usually inherent in CP process and not necessarily a bad thing.


I think the char first format is probably the best format available if we also craft or believe in a stage list/ban amount that doesn't lead to unnecessarily difficult imbalances. That would address the argument of "I don't want to lock into Bowser/XYZ before stages are picked cause then it's gonna suck" etc.

I was going to suggest the same thing, but then I realized it doesn't do quite what I was suggesting. We're looking for:

• Some sort of advantage for the counterpicker
• Incentive to pick stages from a list for the sake of variety
• The ability to negate a stage counterpick without letting someone reverse or double down on a counterpick

I think the method to do this might involve using the pool bans. So it would go like this:

Loser offers up a pool of 3 stages
Winner bans 1 and picks a character
Loser picks the stage and character

Or something similar, with numbers tweaked.

 

[DMG]

Well characters first already addresses those 3 points.

1. Loser undeniably has some character CP advantage

2. Loser has access to the entire legal stage list, minus bans and DSR if applied

3. Winner can't easily reverse the CP since he is locked into characters, but he still has opportunity to mitigate the usefulness by making informed ban decision.


I think pooled bans, in the format you posted, would be too similar to stages first. For example, take a Loser who has more than 1 character choice with different stage preferences (Bowser Small, Sonic Big etc). Loser may have 4 "good" stages that are on both sides of the small/big spectrum, and obviously you can't ban everything.

In stages first, say I ban WW and GHZ because of Bowser. He picks PS2/Dreamland/whatever, intending to go Sonic.

If we are to do pooled bans instead, take your example of 3 stages 1 ban, or take say 5 stages 2 bans right? My opponents pool would look like this:

WW/GHZ/PS2 | Also possible is PS2/DL/GHZ (I get one ban)

WW/GHZ/PS2/DL/DP (I get 2 bans)


In either pool scenario, I'm stuck in the same spot. If I ban small stages, he picks big. If I ban big, he picks small. Reducing the stage list by doing pooled choices did not change my situation. In fact, despite giving Winner some information about the possible choices, that information isn't as helpful to mitigating a disadvantage as the ability to switch characters once a stage is picked.


Part of that assumes winner doesn't have a "reverse" CP quality character to switch to. Assume now that I have a Ganon, who's really good on the small stages like WW/GHZ:


In pooled bans, I ban the big choices and go Ganon. If you're left with GHZ and WW in your pool, that's equivalent to doing stages first, I ban big stages, you pick GHZ/WW, and I switch to Ganon. It's literally the same outcome, an outcome that people find undesirable and get salty about. "Why does he get a free CP when it's my turn?" Etc


I think the only way pooled bans ends up functioning differently than stages first, is if the pool size is large or the ban size is tiny. Example: 8 stages 2 bans, 5-6 stages 1 ban, etc. In this case, if I had a pocket Ganon or xyz character, I do not have sufficient power to just ban all the undesirable stages and then get a cheesy CP. This normally would be a positive aspect.


However on the flip side, I think if pool size gets too big or ban size too small, it may be unhealthy for Winner to decide bans + character choice before the opponent picks either. At a certain point, giving the Winner pooled stage information is a false benefit.


How? Well take stages first: Winner gets no stage information on bans (He has to ban before anything), but gets absolute stage information before picking character. In pooled stages with high pool count / low ban count, knowing which stages he would like to pick from isn't very powerful because you also have to pick character before Loser picks anything. In fact if your pool is large enough, it may include "filler" stages that absolutely serve no purpose of informing you.


If the opponent has no reason to pick FD due to stronger stages, but he only has 3-4 "good stages" and needs more choices to fill the pool because the pool is 6 stages large, having that stage information given to you is meaningless. FD being in the pool doesn't help you make an informed ban decision, it's entirely filler. If the information becomes meaningless, or appears to be a false choice out of many options, then it no longer serves as a sufficient counter balance for the change of making Winner decide everything ahead of time. This is a more negative outcome for Winner, and more easily allows the Loser to Double Down on CP advantage.


TL:DR


Pooled stages in your format would either be too similar to stage first (which people have come to dislike), or it would lead to a much easier opportunity for Loser to Double Down on advantage (which goes against point #3 of what you want from a CP process).

 

[4tlas]

It took me a few read-throughs to understand your point, and I think you confused yourself. I'm going to quote the bits where I think it is easy to see the confusion.

"In fact, despite giving Winner some information about the possible choices, that information isn't as helpful to mitigating a disadvantage as the ability to switch characters once a stage is picked."

Of course not, and that's the point. Letting them switch characters after stages is TOO powerful, but some information may be appropriate.

"I ban big stages, you pick GHZ/WW, and I switch to Ganon. It's literally the same outcome, an outcome that people find undesirable and get salty about. "Why does he get a free CP when it's my turn?"

Wrong order. It should go: I ban big stages and switch to Ganon. You have a character good on GHZ/WW as well, while Ganon is probably not as good on BOTH of them as the character you had in mind. After all, you chose to include both in your pool. So pick the stage that isn't as good for Ganon (GHZ). I have negated the counterpick but have not overturned it.

Re: character first, you said "Winner can't easily reverse the CP since he is locked into characters, but he still has opportunity to mitigate the usefulness by making informed ban decision."

Except we purposely give them a number of bans to force the same amount of counterpick strength every time, and there is still no incentive to use other characters (which is the fourth point I forgot to mention).



The system I suggested, in its worst case, causes a counterpick reversal or double-down because of faulty pool selection or banning. The counterpicker indicates what types of stages he might choose. The counterpicked gets to influence which stages are available and picks a character, picking something that does well on both remaining stages (if its only good at one, the counterpicker won't pick that one). If the counterpicker has no character swap, then the stage is good for both characters and the stage pick has been successfully negated. If the counterpicker has a character swap, the best they can do is moderately strengthen their counterpick, since they had to show their hand to the counterpicked and hopefully they banned well.

 

[DMG]

The last part about moderately strengthening their CP is a bit wrong though. That's absolutely not the best case scenario for Loser. If Loser has a character swap, he doesn't have to commit to it before stages in pooled pick. This non-committal is inherently powerful and even if Winner has foreknowledge about the character swap or all secondaries, he still can't put that information to great use if Winner is committing to character before stages + opponent char. "I may not be able to ban enough stages to cover the range of characters he plays, despite his choices being limited to pooled picks". This puts more power into the hands of Loser because he's choosing 2 important CP factors after the opponent has exhausted all his power.


Not that Winner should be able to ban everything, but the point being when Loser has character ambiguity and stage ambiguity (pooled picks are not concrete, you have wiggle room to pick anything left) still on the table, Winner can't make decent decisions on character and stage bans. If he can't accomplish that, then it's fair to say the door will open for really big CP's.


The commitment to giving the opponent stage information, by doing pooled picks, is not on the same level as the commitment to picking character before stages. It's also not a fair counter balance for making Winner go first so early in the process. It's fundamentally stripping him of some reasonable ability and power to deal with CP's. Essentially giving him a movie trailer preview of stages, is a tool that's weaker than his drawback of going first very early.


In stages first, Winner can swap characters to one that fits the stage.

In characters first, Winner can ban intelligently because Loser character pick is locked in for stage process.

In pooled picks, Winner can ban stages while blind to opponent char, pick his character first while blind to opponent char and semi-blind to stage, and PRAY from this point that his choices mattered.


I don't see any reasonable explanation where pooled picks (assuming the format where Winner has to go first and exhaust ban + char pick) functions better or healthier than characters first. The question I guess should be asked, is what unfavorable situation happens in characters first, that is properly addressed by doing pooled picks in that manner?

 

[JesteRace]

Neutrals
Yoshi's Story: Small
Green Hill Zone: Med-Small
Battlefield: Medium
Pokemon Stadium 2: Med-Large
Dreamland: Large

Counter picks
Wario Land: Small
Fountain of Dreams: Med-Small
Smashville: Medium
Yoshi's Island: Med-Large
Final Destination: Large

Discuss.