Project M Recommended Ruleset

[4tlas]

In stages first, winner can swap characters after the stage. We agree this is too powerful.

In character first, winner can ban with full knowledge of character but not of stage preference. We agree there are no "problems" with this.

In the pooled system I suggested, winner can ban with very good knowledge of stage preference and therefore marginal knowledge of character preference. The point is to get both players to exhaust their power in stages. By creating a half-commit (the pool) from one player, we can afford to give them the "last pick". Someone has to have the last pick, and that person has the power.

You keep saying pool info is not as concrete as the character commitment the counterpicked has to make, but that's the whole point. Its some info to let them make a decision, so better than stage first where they have none. The pool commits the counterpicker to a few options beforehand, so they don't have the whole stagelist to choose from. The counterpicked can force the stage to be within certain parameters but does not know the actual stage, and thus cannot pick a character to perfection but can pick something that doesnt get destroyed if they have it. The counterpicker does know what character his opponent is playing but is stuck with few options for stages (that he chose beforehand), and gets to counterpick character and (somewhat) stage.

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?

As I explained in the original post to start this debate, people LIKE negating stage with a character swap. This is an attempt to find a system that doesn't lead to abuse but allows such an ability. So no, there is no "problem" with Character First, except that people want their secondaries incentivized with regards to stages and not just matchups. I don't think its necessary, but I enjoy the theorycrafting and I know a lot of other people like it.

 

[Kneato]

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.

Yoshi's Story, Dreamland, Yoshi's Island, Smashville as a counterpick. Skew towards smaller stages and bigger blastzones. Only two stages with narrow BZ's means they can be completely banned by winner.

I'd say nah.

 

[DMG]

I don't think the commitment to a few options is that meaningful. Out of 12 stages, the average character or player might be interested in 3-5 of those stages for some tangible advantage anyways. Forcing the Loser to consolidate his choices down to those 3-5 stages is not a real concession for him to make, he didn't lose anything significant to begin with. He certainly didn't lose those 3-5 stages that he would pick regardless of format.


While at the same time, the Winner is now put into a situation where his bans + character choice are made before the stage or opposing character is picked. How is Winner supposed to negate the stage pick with a character swap, if he doesn't know which stage or which character he is going up against? By telling him which 3-5 stages his opponent would have picked regardless of format? If Winner doesn't have another character to swap at all, how is he supposed to mitigate the blatant advantage of both stage + character being picked by Loser at the same time?


At least in characters first, if you're just a solo main and the inevitable CP is coming, you know exactly which character they pick and you can mitigate with informed bans. A DK main in pool picks, despite getting the knowledge about 3-5 pool stages, doesn't know which exact stage or which exact character combo you will go for. He still has to guess on his ban, there's no other way of putting it. Loser can switch his character or stage combo, based on your blind ban, and get a very strong outcome. I'd argue that Winner stage ban/s is effectively meaningless if you can swap char/stage combo around based on the varied stages in the pool (which is still possible in pool sizes as small as 3), similar to stages first format against solo main players.


Do characters first, and let players make informed decisions after that. Stage Bans and picks both with concrete info. That's an easy trade off compared to attempting to balance the ability of Winner to make a character swap based on stages. There's no fair way of implementing it, but you can make stage bans and picks 100% fair without compromising them as other formats have. Stages first has both players making choices blind, Pool stages has Winner making both of his choices blind or semi-blind, etc. The only blind decision in character first, is obviously character for Winner. That blind disadvantage is one inherent to basically any real CP process (double blind every match is not gonna happen), and after that there is 0% blind decision making for either player. I can't think of any improvement

 

[4tlas]

I don't think the commitment to a few options is that meaningful. Out of 12 stages, the average character or player might be interested in 3-5 of those stages for some tangible advantage anyways. Forcing the Loser to consolidate his choices down to those 3-5 stages is not a real concession for him to make, he didn't lose anything significant to begin with. He certainly didn't lose those 3-5 stages that he would pick regardless of format.


While at the same time, the Winner is now put into a situation where his bans + character choice are made before the stage or opposing character is picked. How is Winner supposed to negate the stage pick with a character swap, if he doesn't know which stage or which character he is going up against? By telling him which 3-5 stages his opponent would have picked regardless of format? If Winner doesn't have another character to swap at all, how is he supposed to mitigate the blatant advantage of both stage + character being picked by Loser at the same time?


At least in characters first, if you're just a solo main and the inevitable CP is coming, you know exactly which character they pick and you can mitigate with informed bans. A DK main in pool picks, despite getting the knowledge about 3-5 pool stages, doesn't know which exact stage or which exact character combo you will go for. He still has to guess on his ban, there's no other way of putting it. Loser can switch his character or stage combo, based on your blind ban, and get a very strong outcome. I'd argue that Winner stage ban/s is effectively meaningless if you can swap char/stage combo around based on the varied stages in the pool (which is still possible in pool sizes as small as 3), similar to stages first format against solo main players.

They are only interested in 3 stages if they have no secondary. Otherwise, as you said, they may have stages of all sorts that they are interested in. I suggested the numbers I did for a reason, and you seem to have extrapolated them to worse numbers. Limiting them to agreeing to a pool beforehand prevents a counterpick from getting too out-of-hand.

If I offer up a pool of 3 stages and I am considering a secondary, I will offer up either a stage for Character A, one for B, and one decent for both, or I will offer up 2 for A and 1 for B. Either way, the ban is pretty effective, and then you have a good guess as to what type of stage will be chosen, so you can swap as well (but if you swap to something too good on one of the stages, they'll pick the other stage). If I am not considering a secondary (or am sure I will swap), I will offer up 3 stages that are good and you get only 1 ban but can switch to a character that does decent on all 3 (hopefully).

Now I agree that solo mains are more hampered with this system than character first. However they are hampered less than in stage first. I know many multi-mains that dislike character first, and many solo mains that dislike stage first. This seems like a nice compromise.

Most of your argument seems to boil down to "its not fair", but everyone has a different definition of fair.

 

[DMG]

Multi-mains and solo mains both benefit in character first though. The main disadvantage is that multi-mains can't switch characters to fit the stage, but we're basically reaching the conclusion that balancing this aspect of the CP process may not be feasible. Not letting Winner change mains to fit the stage, but giving him complete character knowledge, seems like the best solution.


Chars first
From Loser perspective:

Solo mains do not have to worry about picking a stage or pooling a stage, then having Winner switch and ruining the stage pick

Multi-mains get a pretty solid chance to CP characters, even if the other person has switched

Chars first
From Winner perspective:

Solo mains get the absolute knowledge of which CP character they need to worry about. Out of Falco, Diddy, Sheik, and MK, he chose x option and now your bans are informed and meaningful

Multi-mains can't switch characters to fit the stage, but they are also less likely to run into extremes if their own coverage isn't adequate (may not have a Ganon/Bowser for WW but the opponent does etc)


The downside that Multi-mains can't adapt to stage picks in char first may be a healthier development anyways. There's no room for surprise reversals, and for super stacked CP's by Loser, if you do characters first. That's a more stable CP process overall than anything else I've seen. The only way super stacking happens in char first, is if your character or MU is just truly that awful, and at that point no stage picking process would truly fix things for you aside from more ban power or switching characters.


Compromise between multi-mains and solo mains implies multi-mains don't get their own benefits to offside the potential losses from char first, which they definitely do.

 

[Strong Badam]

We can all agree that the stagelist at Tipped Off sucked, right? 3 stage strike system (lol), YS and DL64 legal. Awful.

 

[4tlas]

Multi-mains and solo mains both benefit in character first though. The main disadvantage is that multi-mains can't switch characters to fit the stage, but we're basically reaching the conclusion that balancing this aspect of the CP process may not be feasible. Not letting Winner change mains to fit the stage, but giving him complete character knowledge, seems like the best solution.


Chars first
From Loser perspective:

Solo mains do not have to worry about picking a stage or pooling a stage, then having Winner switch and ruining the stage pick

Multi-mains get a pretty solid chance to CP characters, even if the other person has switched

Chars first
From Winner perspective:

Solo mains get the absolute knowledge of which CP character they need to worry about. Out of Falco, Diddy, Sheik, and MK, he chose x option and now your bans are informed and meaningful

Multi-mains can't switch characters to fit the stage, but they are also less likely to run into extremes if their own coverage isn't adequate (may not have a Ganon/Bowser for WW but the opponent does etc)


The downside that Multi-mains can't adapt to stage picks in char first may be a healthier development anyways. There's no room for surprise reversals, and for super stacked CP's by Loser, if you do characters first. That's a more stable CP process overall than anything else I've seen. The only way super stacking happens in char first, is if your character or MU is just truly that awful, and at that point no stage picking process would truly fix things for you aside from more ban power or switching characters.


Compromise between multi-mains and solo mains implies multi-mains don't get their own benefits to offside the potential losses from char first, which they definitely do.

I agree with your analysis of Character First and always have, and I don't think there's any point in debating that further. My point is not that multi-mains are disadvantaged or inconsequential with Characters First, or even that that would be a bad thing. All I am saying is that people WANT to be able to negate stages with characters, and thus it is worthwhile to consider ways to do that. I have proposed something that I think does that, and I disagree with your analysis of its problems (it may have problems, but I don't think the things you proposed are it). Your argument otherwise still boils down to: character first is fairer. While I agree, most multi-mains will disagree, and that is why I want to come up with a "compromise".

 

[nimigoha]

We can all agree that the stagelist at Tipped Off sucked, right? 3 stage strike system (lol), YS and DL64 legal. Awful.

Add that to the current debate sparked by them using stage first leads to the TO11 ruleset just being bad in general.

 

[JesteRace]

Yoshi's Story, Dreamland, Yoshi's Island, Smashville as a counterpick. Skew towards smaller stages and bigger blastzones. Only two stages with narrow BZ's means they can be completely banned by winner.

I'd say nah.

Uhhh... what? I understand people's reluctance to have SV as a CP, but I feel that the neutrals should have symmetry. How is this skewed towards small stages? All the current stagelists are skewed towards large stages if anything. I even put the stage size by each stage to show that it's totally even across the board. Only 2 stages with narrow BZ's? All the small stages have narrow blast zones and so does PS2. Wtf?

While I'm at it, why do people hate stages like Yoshi's Story and Dreamland and why do people have such a hard-on for Delfino's Secret? Why is SV, which is a medium FD with a large moving platform that can carry very close to the BZ's, universally seen as neutral?

 

[nimigoha]

Uhhh... what? I understand people's reluctance to have SV as a CP, but I feel that the neutrals should have symmetry. How is this skewed towards small stages? All the current stagelists are skewed towards large stages if anything. I even put the stage size by each stage to show that it's totally even across the board. Only 2 stages with narrow BZ's? All the small stages have narrow blast zones and so does PS2. Wtf?

While I'm at it, why do people hate stages like Yoshi's Story and Dreamland and why do people have such a hard-on for Delfino's Secret? Why is SV, which is a medium FD with a large moving platform that can carry very close to the BZ's, universally seen as neutral?

Dreamland is a stupid stage. The blast zones are just ridiculous, they have no place in a balanced stagelist unless you want a walkoff to even that out. Aren't the BZ reduced in Smash 4?

YS is an unnecessary stage since WW is essentially the same thing, without a "random" element (not to derail the discussion but few people memorize Randall's timing and so him saving you is for all intents and purposes, pseudo-random in that you don't know when it will happen but sometimes it just happens) and with a unique platform layout. It even has walls.

I don't love Delfino but the platforms let you do all kinds of stuff.

Yoshi's Island has weird slopes and a sloping, moving platform and Shy Guys that make things weird. Why include this over Castle Siege which only has the slant?

 

[DMG]

I agree with your analysis of Character First and always have, and I don't think there's any point in debating that further. My point is not that multi-mains are disadvantaged or inconsequential with Characters First, or even that that would be a bad thing. All I am saying is that people WANT to be able to negate stages with characters, and thus it is worthwhile to consider ways to do that. I have proposed something that I think does that, and I disagree with your analysis of its problems (it may have problems, but I don't think the things you proposed are it). Your argument otherwise still boils down to: character first is fairer. While I agree, most multi-mains will disagree, and that is why I want to come up with a "compromise".

I don't think we can deliver what they want without impacting the rest of the process. I'd be more sympathetic to their concerns if char first was a format that only presented issues or disadvantages, instead of trade offs. Both sides arguably make trade offs in char first process, to deliver a more stable/reliable/informed process. The "price" for achieving that doesn't seem too hefty for anyone along the way, certainly wouldn't toss that away to please multi-main concerns for swapping. Maybe the trade off benefits for solo and multi-mains could be explained more thoroughly to them and they would accept char first? Not assuming you aren't trying to be thorough with your scene: takes a lot of effort going over rule changes and impacts before people process it well.


The bigger issue is tournaments still using stages first imo. I think more and more people have come to the conclusion that some alternative should be used. I'd convert tourneys to char first, then experiment or deliberate from there on improvements (not expecting improvements to be found but discussion doesn't hurt). Gonna see if I can find an avenue to get more people's attention on the issue.


Edit: What, they used 3 stage striking? People do know that's imbalanced for the person who has to strike first right? Who convinced them to do this lol

 

[4tlas]

Our scene does already use Character First, and I have received only minor backlash. I still receive feedback from well-informed and unaffected players who wish to see stage negation with character picks, which is why I want to see if we can come up with something better. Perhaps this isn't the time, though.

Anyone else have anything to say on the subject while we're on it?

 

[Bazkip]

Random characters random stage

The only true way to be fair

 

[4tlas]

Random characters random stage

The only true way to be fair

But actually. YOLO brackets for everyone!

 

[nimigoha]

True fairness is making everyone ASV every character for one stock each.

 

[JOE!]

But actually. YOLO brackets for everyone!

YOLO Bracket confirmed gahlike

 

[Kneato]

Uhhh... what? I understand people's reluctance to have SV as a CP, but I feel that the neutrals should have symmetry. How is this skewed towards small stages? All the current stagelists are skewed towards large stages if anything. I even put the stage size by each stage to show that it's totally even across the board. Only 2 stages with narrow BZ's? All the small stages have narrow blast zones and so does PS2. Wtf?

While I'm at it, why do people hate stages like Yoshi's Story and Dreamland and why do people have such a hard-on for Delfino's Secret? Why is SV, which is a medium FD with a large moving platform that can carry very close to the BZ's, universally seen as neutral?

My bad. I was looking a completely different stage list somehow. But yours still isn't great. Here's the data:

Your list skews towards small stages and narrow blastzones. There also seems to be very little middle ground in terms of blastzone height.

And its not that people hate YS or DL, it's that there are plenty of better alternatives, but because of the Melee player bias they still find their way into tournament stagelists, like TO11.

 

[JesteRace]

My bad. I was looking a completely different stage list somehow. But yours still isn't great. Here's the data:
View attachment 82232

View attachment 82233

Your list skews towards small stages and narrow blastzones. There also seems to be very little middle ground in terms of blastzone height.

And its not that people hate YS or DL, it's that there are plenty of better alternatives, but because of the Melee player bias they still find their way into tournament stagelists, like TO11.

Hmm. Okay then. Thanks for the data. It looks like removing Yoshi's Story would get rid of the skew towards small stages. The only thing is that now there's a skew towards high ceilings. Which... would be remedied by Delfino, right? Suddenly, it all makes sense. Well, sort of. I understand that if you run Delfino's instead of Dreamland, you get a more reasonable large stage to balance out your list, but so many people are running Delfino's and Dreamland in the same list.

So tell me if this looks better

Starters
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret

Counterpicks
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island

I know, this looks almost exactly like the stagelist in the OP. But 1. I wanted to arrive there from a balance viewpoint. 2. The OP has Distant Planet included, which is another unnecessary stage that skews the list again

Not that my state would ever run this particular stagelist. Lotta love for Melee stages here, not so much for Delfino and Wario Ware.

 

[DMG]

I think part of the problem is that WW and Delfino are not super like-able alternatives (although Delfino is super pretty now). WW as a replacement for Yoshi still has to be one of the most banned choices for being extremely lopsided (and it's not very suitable for Doubles either, should not be legal in PM Dubs).

Delfino is a less extreme DL, but it's still a huge stage. Huge stages have their own can o' worms

 

[Kneato]

Alright. I don't know about you lot but over the course of this thread's discussion I feel like a few things have been learned:

1. Everyone has a different opinion on which stages are "good" and "bad"

2. There are some objective factors to stage balance (stage width, bz sizes) while others are almost entirely subjective (platform numbers and positions)

3. The current stages don't give us enough to work with in order to "balance" the objective factors.

4. Because of 3. it is hard for us to make an argument that any one stagelist is decidedly better than any other (they are all kinda booty)

5. Because of 1. and 4. there is almost no chance of a community driven universal stage list with the current stages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we want a universal stagelist (which I think the benefits of are numerous), we really need something more to work with in terms of legal stages.

I think I skimmed this topic a little bit in a previous post about potential changes to current stages to make an objectively better stagelist. I think one problem we had though is that in using current stages as templates, we include people's subjective opinions on whether certain stages are "good" or "bad" and also we include platform placement and layout which are more subjective criteria.

I think we need to be more abstract when talking about what a good stagelist would be. Rather than talking about specific stages, here is what I think a balanced stagelist should look like at a meta level based on only objective criteria.

If we can get a stagelist that looks like this, I think we would have a solid basis for a 2 ban system CP system. Everything else (blastzone combinations, platform numbers, heights, positions ect) can be argued about after.

 

[CORY]

WW as a replacement for Yoshi still has to be one of the most banned choices

i can safely say the only time i've played ww in tourneys is against ike, another ganon, or bowser (sometimes...).

#sadboyz

 

[nimigoha]

Alright. I don't know about you lot but over the course of this thread's discussion I feel like a few things have been learned:

1. Everyone has a different opinion on which stages are "good" and "bad"

2. There are some objective factors to stage balance (stage width, bz sizes) while others are almost entirely subjective (platform numbers and positions)

3. The current stages don't give us enough to work with in order to "balance" the objective factors.

4. Because of 3. it is hard for us to make an argument that any one stagelist is decidedly better than any other (they are all kinda booty)

5. Because of 1. and 4. there is almost no chance of a community driven universal stage list with the current stages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we want a universal stagelist (which I think the benefits of are numerous), we really need something more to work with in terms of legal stages.

I think I skimmed this topic a little bit in a previous post about potential changes to current stages to make an objectively better stagelist. I think one problem with that though is that in using current stages as templates, we include people's subjective opinions on whether certain stages are "good" or "bad" and also we include platform placement and layout which are more subjective criteria.

I think we need to be more abstract when talking about what a good stagelist is. Rather than talking about specific stages, here is what I think a balanced stagelist should look like at a meta level based on only objective criteria.

View attachment 82255

If we can get a stagelist that looks like this, I think we would have a solid basis for a 2 ban system CP system. Everything else (blastzone combinations, platform numbers, heights, positions ect) can be argued about after.

I'd look at the walls on your list again, 3 Medium walled but only 1 Small and 1 Large? I'd start the pattern on Yes, so you have 3 walled starters. If the only options for a walled starter are mediums, isn't that less "balanced" than having one of each? Then when CP open up you have the full range minus bans.

Just a nitpick to make it better for game 1 IMO.

I agree with your stance. Even tweaking blast zone sizes with our current stages isn't enough to get here, we'd need to alter walls. We have no small wall-less stages atm. Changing physical attributes of the stage itself seems very controversial and wouldn't be met well I think, despite the merits.

The stages we have already have so much identity.

Like it would make sense to change WL to have no walls. There, Smalls are done. But then for Larges... PS2 is the obvious starter but giving it walls? Again, too much identity right now.

Tricky business. At what point do we just say "**** it" and accept that we'll never make a truly balanced list?

 

[zen-bz-]

Why do people dislike YS so much? It seems like it could make a fine legal stage. Then again I don't know too much about balance so if someone could explain to me why apart from "WW exists" that'd be awesome.

 

[zen-bz-]

Also, I know I'm getting to the topic of game design here, but for DL64, if the screen could STOP SHAKING SO MUCH FOR WIND that'd be cool. It distracts me so much when I play on it that I can barely land anything. Some people might be fine, but honestly for me I can't stand it shaking that much, or at all for that matter.

 

[DMG]

Yoshi and WW are so small that with a PM cast involving faster, stronger, and more ranged characters, you may not have a very deep neutral game. Without enough room to maneuver, decisions and what might be the "correct" action to take get watered down to more binary factors such as character traits, instead of player decision making.


Honestly I would consider having neither legal. The only benefit WW seems to bring, is to force stage bans to help Bowser Ganon etc get some meaningful stage advantage on other stage choices (like GHZ, FoD, etc)


However my point of view would be tweaking a lot of existing stages atm and taking them another direction. Aside from possibly FoD, I'd revert vertical shifting platform stages to something different or I would only have maximum platform heights on vertical shifting stages be linked to some fairly common waveland height (Mario, Ganon, etc). I'd also take some banned stages and tweak them to be diverse medium stage offerings, because I think starter balance should focus more on medium stages with different traits.


BF
SV
BF with walls, higher ceiling, no top platform
FD-like stage shrunk to something a bit smaller/bigger than BF/SV, but wider side blast zones
Rumble Falls shrunk down
etc


I think if you can serve up an offering of medium stages with different traits (all blast zone sizes, platform configuration, wall configuration, etc), you'll find an easier time with balancing the starter list.

 

[Kneato]

I'd look at the walls on your list again, 3 Medium walled but only 1 Small and 1 Large? I'd start the pattern on Yes, so you have 3 walled starters. If the only options for a walled starter are mediums, isn't that less "balanced" than having one of each? Then when CP open up you have the full range minus bans.

Just a nitpick to make it better for game 1 IMO.

I agree with your stance. Even tweaking blast zone sizes with our current stages isn't enough to get here, we'd need to alter walls. We have no small wall-less stages atm. Changing physical attributes of the stage itself seems very controversial and wouldn't be met well I think, despite the merits.

The stages we have already have so much identity.

Like it would make sense to change WL to have no walls. There, Smalls are done. But then for Larges... PS2 is the obvious starter but giving it walls? Again, too much identity right now.

Tricky business. At what point do we just say "**** it" and accept that we'll never make a truly balanced list?

I thought about the wall thing too but if we do a 50/50 split on walled and unwalled stages, it will be wonky either way because of the uneven number of S M and L stages (3 4 and 3 respectively). If I did "start the pattern on yes" that would leave us with only 1 unwalled small stage and 1 unwalled large stage.

I think a different solution would be having only 4 walled stages total, 2 Starters and 2 CPs.

Because walls are still relatively new to the series and we don't have a complete grasp on their effect on the game yet, I think it may be a good idea to keep a majority of the stages "classic" and unwalled.

This gives us:
2x S Unwalled 1x S Walled
2x M Unwalled 2x M Walled
2x L Unwalled 1x L Walled

 

[nimigoha]

But my point is that you only have Medium walls in Starters.

If you want just 4 walled stages total, make Starters Walled Small, Non-walled Medium, Walled Medium, Non-walled Medium, Walled Large, then have a Walled Medium for CP and all other CPs non-walled.

Technically if both players want to start on a walled Small stage in your list they can just gentleman to the CP but that's messy.

Also thoughts on where the walls would go? I'm thinking on the Medium blast zone stages. It's tidy.

Having 3 Walled Starters and only 1 Walled CP instead of 2 and 2 seems imbalanced toward Starters but you have to remember that balance of Starters is more important than balance of Counterpicks (as long as overall list balance is the same) because CPs include Starters. That was a terrible way of putting it but I can't articulate my idea very well right now.

Starters:
Small Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Small BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Large BZ
Large Wall, Medium BZ

CPs:
Small No Wall, Small BZ
Small No Wall, Large BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Large No Wall, Small BZ
Large No Wall, Large BZ

All Medium BZ stages have walls, all walled stages have Medium BZ, Starters have a walled stage for each stage size.

 

[JesteRace]

Starters:
Small Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Small BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Large BZ
Large Wall, Medium BZ

CPs:
Small No Wall, Small BZ
Small No Wall, Large BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Large No Wall, Small BZ
Large No Wall, Large BZ

All Medium BZ stages have walls, all walled stages have Medium BZ, Starters have a walled stage for each stage size.

This seems perfect, tbh. We just need to have stages that fit this. GHZ fits Small Wall, Medium BZ and Delfino fits Large Wall, Medium BZ right? What else already fits?

Edit: Bowser's Castle would fit great for Medium Wall, Medium BZ... right?

 

[Kneato]

But my point is that you only have Medium walls in Starters.

If you want just 4 walled stages total, make Starters Walled Small, Non-walled Medium, Walled Medium, Non-walled Medium, Walled Large, then have a Walled Medium for CP and all other CPs non-walled.

Technically if both players want to start on a walled Small stage in your list they can just gentleman to the CP but that's messy.

Also thoughts on where the walls would go? I'm thinking on the Medium blast zone stages. It's tidy.

Having 3 Walled Starters and only 1 Walled CP instead of 2 and 2 seems imbalanced toward Starters but you have to remember that balance of Starters is more important than balance of Counterpicks (as long as overall list balance is the same) because CPs include Starters. That was a terrible way of putting it but I can't articulate my idea very well right now.

Starters:
Small Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Small BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Medium No Wall, Large BZ
Large Wall, Medium BZ

CPs:
Small No Wall, Small BZ
Small No Wall, Large BZ
Medium Wall, Medium BZ
Large No Wall, Small BZ
Large No Wall, Large BZ

All Medium BZ stages have walls, all walled stages have Medium BZ, Starters have a walled stage for each stage size.

The problem with that is A) Now out of the 5 starters, a majority have a stage element we don't fully understand and could have a large impact on matchups ie counterpick material and B) you no longer have an unwalled large or small stage starter.

Even though I listed three "mediums" as starters, "medium" represents a spectrum of stage sizes. To clarify, one of those mediums would be on the small end of medium stages and the other on the large. Meaning the two walled starters would be a Medium Smallish stage and a Medium Largish stage.

This is one of the problems we keep having, the definition of small, medium, and large. We have spent a lot of time trying to "balance" the stage sizes, when the difference between a "small" and a "medium" could be 1 unit. I think we need to figure out a different classification system for stage size.

Just to clarify, I'm going to use BF as a standard "Medium" size. Wario Ware is about .79BF while Final Destination is about 1.25BF.

This **** is getting so confusing, I regret everything.

 

[4tlas]

Yoshi and WW are so small that with a PM cast involving faster, stronger, and more ranged characters, you may not have a very deep neutral game. Without enough room to maneuver, decisions and what might be the "correct" action to take get watered down to more binary factors such as character traits, instead of player decision making.


Honestly I would consider having neither legal. The only benefit WW seems to bring, is to force stage bans to help Bowser Ganon etc get some meaningful stage advantage on other stage choices (like GHZ, FoD, etc)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I think small is far, far better for neutral game, because it evens out the discrepancies between super fast or ranged characters and slow stubby ones. It turns "I have to get past the projectiles or advance/retreat pattern 5 whole times just to get to the RPS of attack/block/grab" into "I have to get past it 2 times and then do RPS" which means more of the gameplay is two players battling it out rather than one character countering another.

I would recommend purposely skewing towards small stages in a stagelist. This is part of what I wanted to talk about before trying to envision a "perfect" stagelist.

Also, since we seem to be trying to throw in the towel on viable stagelists with our current pool of stages, I will just go ahead and propose that stagelist I've been thinking of. I was going to wait until I got a chance to try it in practice at SG so I could have some hard data, but the ship is sailing right now.

Starters:
GHZ
FoD
BF
SV
PS2

CPs:
WL
Lylat
SW
DS
DL

Within the starters, this gives us:

2 small, 2 medium, 1 huge stage (which is the best we can do imo when we need BF, SV, and PS2 due to...)

2 stages that are quasi-flat, 1 that is tri-plat, 1 with centered platforms for each half of the stage, and 1 with different layouts which sometimes favor open-space and sometimes closed-space. Platforms are all somewhere in the non-extreme
1 walled stage and 1 semi-walled stage, no anti-walls (ledges that kill you)

The 2 small stages have very similar blastzones but with very different layouts, as do the 2 medium stages. One player might ban to them for size while the other will ban to them for layout. PS2 is the huge stage but has the closest blastzones, and that dichotomy may get it picked


Within the counterpicks, this gives us:

1 tiny (WL), one medium-large (Lylat is slightly wide but the layout makes it play cramped), one tiny-large (Skyworld has large blastzones but the main platform is tiny), one large (DS), and one large-huge (Dreamland has the biggest blastzones but the stage itself isnt that large)
^ That gives us overall: 1 tiny, 1 tiny-large, 2 small, 2 medium, 1 medium-large, 1 large, 1 huge-small, 1 large-huge, which I think is pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Within counterpicks, we have 2 walled and 2 anti-walls (Lylat and Skyworld ruin people's recoveries). I think its fine to have 2 (so, bannable) stages that ruin recoveries. Overall this gives us 3 walls, 2 anti-walls, and 5 sorta-walls? This is a category I think could be improved to 4 walls, but it doesn't seem too bad.

For platforms, theres 2 stages with cramped low platforms (WL & Lylat) but one is horizontal and the other is vertical. Theres a stage with wide open tri-plat, and theres a stage with wide open tri-plat where the platforms are offstage. Then theres another transforming stage, which favors someone different all the time.
^ That gives us overall:

4 quasi-FDs (DS often is, Skyworld's main platform is completely open - its not called the spacie slayer stage for nothing, GHZ, SV, even DL can serve that purpose somewhat)

3 stages for top platform camping (BF, Skyworld, DL), and 2 where you can occasionally, which isn't really much "camping" (FoD, DS)

1 sloped stage (Lylat)

4 stages with moving parts that can favor different characters at different times (FoD, SV, GHZ, DS)

1 cramped vertical (WL) 1 cramped horizontal (Lylat) 1 sometimes cramped (FoD)

1 super open (DL) 1 open but small (GHZ) 2 sometimes open (DS and SV) 1 sometimes open but small (FoD)

2 stages with consistent, average distance between stage elements (BF and PS2)


Note that there is no FD on this list. However, there are 4 stages that do most of what FD does but aren't also one of the most extreme stages for size. If FD were small-medium I would put it in somewhere, but as-is its ludicrously polarizing.

Please give me some feedback.

 

[nimigoha]

You keep saying that walls are new or not fully understood, when Melee's stagelist has Yoshi's, FD, and FoD. DL is has a decent amount of wall as well.

Your BF metric is showing that we now have a spectrum of sizes rather than distinct classes. Do we want this or do we want uniform sizes in each category, or do we want more distinction between classes?

S: 0.7BF, 0.75 BF, 0.8BF
M: 0.95 BF, 1BF, 1BF, 1.05BF
L: 1.2 BF, 1.25 BF, 1.3BF

All S: 0.8 or 0.75 BF
All M: 1 BF
All L: 1.2 or 1.25 BF

Or your BF metric system.

Which is "more balanced"? If we go with varying sizes in each category, do we stick the smaller BZ on the smaller stages in the category? Would having the same stage size but varying blast zones be better?

With every post we just come closer and closer to creating the perfect homogenized stagelist, I love it. Then we'll move on to platforms and everything will be ****ed.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I think small is far, far better for neutral game, because it evens out the discrepancies between super fast or ranged characters and slow stubby ones. It turns "I have to get past the projectiles or advance/retreat pattern 5 whole times just to get to the RPS of attack/block/grab" into "I have to get past it 2 times and then do RPS" which means more of the gameplay is two players battling it out rather than one character countering another.

I would recommend purposely skewing towards small stages in a stagelist. This is part of what I wanted to talk about before trying to envision a "perfect" stagelist.

Also, since we seem to be trying to throw in the towel on viable stagelists with our current pool of stages, I will just go ahead and propose that stagelist I've been thinking of. I was going to wait until I got a chance to try it in practice at SG so I could have some hard data, but the ship is sailing right now.

Starters:
GHZ
FoD
BF
SV
PS2

CPs:
WL
Lylat
SW
DS
DL

Within the starters, this gives us:

2 small, 2 medium, 1 huge stage (which is the best we can do imo when we need BF, SV, and PS2 due to...)

2 stages that are quasi-flat, 1 that is tri-plat, 1 with centered platforms for each half of the stage, and 1 with different layouts which sometimes favor open-space and sometimes closed-space. Platforms are all somewhere in the non-extreme
1 walled stage and 1 semi-walled stage, no anti-walls (ledges that kill you)

The 2 small stages have very similar blastzones but with very different layouts, as do the 2 medium stages. One player might ban to them for size while the other will ban to them for layout. PS2 is the huge stage but has the closest blastzones, and that dichotomy may get it picked


Within the counterpicks, this gives us:

1 tiny (WL), one medium-large (Lylat is slightly wide but the layout makes it play cramped), one tiny-large (Skyworld has large blastzones but the main platform is tiny), one large (DS), and one large-huge (Dreamland has the biggest blastzones but the stage itself isnt that large)
^ That gives us overall: 1 tiny, 1 tiny-large, 2 small, 2 medium, 1 medium-large, 1 large, 1 huge-small, 1 large-huge, which I think is pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Within counterpicks, we have 2 walled and 2 anti-walls (Lylat and Skyworld ruin people's recoveries). I think its fine to have 2 (so, bannable) stages that ruin recoveries. Overall this gives us 3 walls, 2 anti-walls, and 5 sorta-walls? This is a category I think could be improved to 4 walls, but it doesn't seem too bad.

For platforms, theres 2 stages with cramped low platforms (WL & Lylat) but one is horizontal and the other is vertical. Theres a stage with wide open tri-plat, and theres a stage with wide open tri-plat where the platforms are offstage. Then theres another transforming stage, which favors someone different all the time.
^ That gives us overall:

4 quasi-FDs (DS often is, Skyworld's main platform is completely open, GHZ, SV)

3 stages for top platform camping (BF, Skyworld, DL), and 2 where you can occasionally, which isn't really much "camping" (FoD, DS)

1 sloped stage (Lylat)

4 stages with moving parts that can favor different characters at different times (FoD, SV, GHZ, DS)

1 cramped vertical (WL) 1 cramped horizontal (Lylat) 1 sometimes cramped (FoD)

1 super open (DL) 1 open but small (GHZ) 2 sometimes open (DS and SV) 1 sometimes open but small (FoD)

2 stages with consistent, average distance between stage elements (BF and PS2)


Note that there is no FD on this list. However, there are 4 stages that do most of what FD does but aren't also one of the most extreme stages for size. If FD were small-medium I would put it in somewhere, but as-is its ludicrously polarizing.

Please give me some feedback.

If you want to make a universally run stagelist with Lylat AND Skyworld, without FD and with FoD as a starter, you're going to have a bad time. Lylat is like the most hated stage ever.

Dreamland is still stupid, it's too big. Wind is pointless. So "because Melee" and doesn't have a place in a "balanced" list.

 

[Kneato]

...
Your BF metric is showing that we now have a spectrum of sizes rather than distinct classes. Do we want this or do we want uniform sizes in each category, or do we want more distinction between classes?

S: 0.7BF, 0.75 BF, 0.8BF
M: 0.95 BF, 1BF, 1BF, 1.05BF
L: 1.2 BF, 1.25 BF, 1.3BF

All S: 0.8 or 0.75 BF
All M: 1 BF
All L: 1.2 or 1.25 BF

Or your BF metric system.

Which is "more balanced"? If we go with varying sizes in each category, do we stick the smaller BZ on the smaller stages in the category? Would having the same stage size but varying blast zones be better?
...

Could you clarify what you meant here? With your three different systems? I'm not sure I understand.

Based on what I THINK you are saying, I think a spectrum (IE Small stages being .8, .85, .9, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2) is WAY better than a uniform size value per categories (IE all Small stages being .85, all Medium stages being 1, all Large stages being 1.15)

You keep saying that walls are new or not fully understood, when Melee's stagelist has Yoshi's, FD, and FoD. DL is has a decent amount of wall as well.

Out of all of those though, the only TRULY walled stage is Yoshi's and the blastzone floor is so high that it isn't a fair representation of the walled stages we are considering now.

And there is still plenty we don't know about them. Can you easily tell me what the effect across matchups would be if every stage was walled? Could anybody? Probably not in good faith because we don't understand them well enough yet. But if I was to ask you the same thing about making every stage Large you probably would have a better time because we have a good understanding about stage sizes.

Just a few posts ago I shared the insight that walls have a bigger impact on stages with wider blastzones because narrow blastzones have characters outright dying more and gives them less chances to recover and interact with said walls. And a few people mentioned they never thought of that.

I think its just something that needs more time.

 

[4tlas]

If you want to make a universally run stagelist with Lylat AND Skyworld, without FD and with FoD as a starter, you're going to have a bad time. Lylat is like the most hated stage ever.

Dreamland is still stupid, it's too big. Wind is pointless. So "because Melee" and doesn't have a place in a "balanced" list.

I have ZERO interest in "because Melee", and I actually find it extremely insulting that you would imply I do, because I hate that logic as well.

Your argument AGAINST Dreamland seems to boil down to "because not Melee". Why is it TOO big? If the Wind is pointless, doesn't that make it inconsequential?

And yes I understand that most people will not "like" this list, which is why I wanted to wait for hard data.

Furthermore, I don't WANT to make a universally run stagelist. I don't like the idea of a universally run stagelist; we've been over this already. But this thread is about a "recommended ruleset", and we are trying to discuss having a BALANCED list not a LIKED list.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I was just throwing down three different systems, you got it. Uniform in each category, variation creating a very even spectrum (although 2 1BF stages), or variation creating a spectrum that has clear divisions between categories.

I'm not sure I agree, since now that all the small stages are different you have to assign blast zones. If you give the smallest small the small blast zones, it's a very very different stage than the largest small with large blast zones.

Whereas if all the smalls were the same size stage, you can pick your small according to blast zone size and the stage size you get will be consistent regardless of your pick.

I just like homogenizing the crap out of everything though.

**** this let's just slap walls onto Battlefield and delete every other stage.

4tlas Sorry for implying it was all "because Melee".

My argument isn't "because not Melee". It's "jesus christ why do those blast zones exist". They're such an enormous outlier from anything else. If we're looking for balance then IMO you'd need a stage to counter it which by my extremely rough guess would be like taking the BZ of WW and scaling it down by like 25% which is also preposterous.

It's a really funky stage that gives characters with extreme survivability (e.g. Samus and DDD) an advantage larger than I'd like a stagelist to give.

 

[4tlas]

4tlas Sorry for implying it was all "because Melee".

My argument isn't "because not Melee". It's "jesus christ why do those blast zones exist". They're such an enormous outlier from anything else. If we're looking for balance then IMO you'd need a stage to counter it which by my extremely rough guess would be like taking the BZ of WW and scaling it down by like 25% which is also preposterous.

It's a really funky stage that gives characters with extreme survivability (e.g. Samus and DDD) an advantage larger than I'd like a stagelist to give.

I don't feel the same way, but I understand this argument. My opinion is that we are trying to come up with a ruleset that encompasses "playing PM in a competitive manner", and Dreamland's blastzones are a part of PM that could qualify as competitive. Thus, that extreme trait is valid and in fact must be included in order to represent all of PM.

With PM specifically, my opinion there doesn't hold as much weight as I think it does with any other game we might invent a competitive ruleset for. After all, we can change the game to be a different PM and represent THAT instead, and PM in particular is striving to be "balanced". However, I still think that trying to represent the game in its current form is better than trying to force it into what we think it should be, at least when it comes to the ruleset. This is also why I didn't want to jump right into proposing how to change the game without discussing a vision for it first.

 

[nimigoha]

That's a fair point. I think what I want is more uniformity, which may or may not mean balance. If we alter the stages to make them uniform, then we can step back and look at characters and matchups in a more clear-cut environment and then alter things from there while keeping some form of uniformity.

I have no idea how many other players share this vision though, like how many would want a very uniform list or if most are just like "not a huge deal to me".

It's really all up to the DT, I'm unsure that they would consider altering things like BZ and stage size to create a more uniform list. It could be seen as taking flavour away from the game, I think, which isn't a good idea.

 

[Kneato]

Yeah I was just throwing down three different systems, you got it. Uniform in each category, variation creating a very even spectrum (although 2 1BF stages), or variation creating a spectrum that has clear divisions between categories.

I'm not sure I agree, since now that all the small stages are different you have to assign blast zones. If you give the smallest small the small blast zones, it's a very very different stage than the largest small with large blast zones.

Whereas if all the smalls were the same size stage, you can pick your small according to blast zone size and the stage size you get will be consistent regardless of your pick.

I just like homogenizing the crap out of everything though.

**** this let's just slap walls onto Battlefield and delete every other stage.

4tlas Sorry for implying it was all "because Melee".

My argument isn't "because not Melee". It's "jesus christ why do those blast zones exist". They're such an enormous outlier from anything else. If we're looking for balance then IMO you'd need a stage to counter it which by my extremely rough guess would be like taking the BZ of WW and scaling it down by like 25% which is also preposterous.

It's a really funky stage that gives characters with extreme survivability (e.g. Samus and DDD) an advantage larger than I'd like a stagelist to give.

So I think uniformity helps to a certain extent. Currently, we have a stagelist where we are forced to categorize two different stages as "small" and "medium" even though they are only 1 unit different in size, just because we have to draw a line somewhere between the categories.

My idea of having the semi-uniform BZ system (IE Small stages being .8, .85, .9, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2) is so that between any category, there is a sizable gap in stage size (.05BZ or approximately 7 units).

However, I feel like having every category consist of strictly 1 size might being going a bit far. A major reason we have a stagelist and ban system is to provide a wide range of options to players. I can think of a few negative impacts of doing this off the top of my head:

1. We don't know what the "ideal" size for a Small, Medium, or Large stage is. Honestly I don't think there even is an "ideal". Some characters and playstyles may prefer a bigger "small" than the small we chose all stages to be. This gives them a disadvantage compared to other characters who work better with the "small" we chose.

2. This sounds like it would hurt the ban system. Say you and I are playing and I don't want you to take me to a large stage. I ban two large stages. But now there is yet another large stage the exact same size you can still pick. My bans for that reason were pointless then. In a spectrum, I could have at least weakened your pick with my bans, by banning the two LARGEST stages, and you picking the smaller Large stage.

Having at least a 10 stage list in the first place was to help with these sorts of issues.

 

[nimigoha]

So I think uniformity helps to a certain extent. Currently, we have a stagelist where we are forced to categorize two different stages as "small" and "medium" even though they are only 1 unit different in size, just because we have to draw a line somewhere between the categories.

My idea of having the semi-uniform BZ system (IE Small stages being .8, .85, .9, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2) is so that between any category, there is a sizable gap in stage size (.05BZ or approximately 7 units).

However, I feel like having every category consist of strictly 1 size might being going a bit far. A major reason we have a stagelist and ban system is to provide a wide range of options to players. I can think of a few negative impacts of doing this off the top of my head:

1. We don't know what the "ideal" size for a Small, Medium, or Large stage is. Honestly I don't think there even is an "ideal". Some characters and playstyles may prefer a bigger "small" than the small we chose all stages to be. This gives them a disadvantage compared to other characters who work better with the "small" we chose.

2. This sounds like it would hurt the ban system. Say you and I are playing and I don't want you to take me to a large stage. I ban two large stages. But now there is yet another large stage the exact same size you can still pick. My bans for that reason were pointless then. In a spectrum, I could have at least weakened your pick with my bans, by banning the two LARGEST stages, and you picking the smaller Large stage.

Having at least a 10 stage list in the first place was to help with these sorts of issues.

That's a really fair point, I wasn't considering bans.

What about having a 0.1BF gap between categories.

 

[Kneato]

That's a really fair point, I wasn't considering bans.

What about having a 0.1BF gap between categories.

That would be a little tricky. Off the bat it sounds like changing from

Small stages being .8, .85, .9, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2

to

Small stages being .75, .8, .85, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.15, 1.2, and 1.25

The gap between Medium to Small would be 130 to 116 and Medium to Large would be 144 to 158. Could just be my opinion but these seem a bit big and I don't see reason not to have stages between these sizes. .05BZ (7 units) to me differentiates stages enough to make each size feel unique.

Also this would make the smallest stage about 103 wide (Wario Land is 108) which is a bit extreme. The largest would be bumped up to almost the exact size of FD, which some people have issues with as being polarizing when that size is combined with no plat.

 

[nimigoha]

That would be a little tricky. Off the bat it sounds like changing from

Small stages being .8, .85, .9, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2

to

Small stages being .75, .8, .85, Medium being .95, 1, 1.05, and Large being 1.15, 1.2, and 1.25

Which would make the smallest stage about 103 wide (Wario Land is 108) which seems a bit extreme. The largest would be bumped up to almost the exact size of FD though which isn't bad.

But then we could evaluate the use of BF as a standard, perhaps it's too small to be the 1.0?

I think the width of WL is good, make that the 0.75X and then scale the rest of the stages to that. Which would make Battlefield a bit larger I think?