Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Kneato]

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?

But what is the purpose in breaking the stage size distribution uniformity for the sake of keeping "Small", "Medium", and "Large" categories when the point of this system was to get rid of the need for those categories?

Anyways, scaling it up from Wario Land would make 1BZ, the most medium stage, 144 wide which is bigger than Yoshi's Island/Smashville's 141 and I don't think fairly represents what we'd want as the "true medium". That would also scale 1.25BZ up to 180 wide which is pretty big.

 

[DMG]

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.

The problem with going too small though is that skews more than just neutral. I don't think this analogy properly describes YS or WW: the way I'd describe it as both lowering the barrier of how many times you have to deal with projectile or pattern, AND skewing the RPS choices that come after that. Take rolling away to escape shield pressure: perform this in the middle of PS2 vs the middle of YS / WW. Stuff like that is pretty noticeable. Or how stage size impacts combos, tech chases, etc. I don't think it's accurate to portray some small stages as merely closing the gap for slow fatties and much faster foes by making neutral "end" quicker.


Medium stages are the way to go imo. Bowser Ganon etc won't get the same cheesy picks as before, but they also might not have to deal with a stage list flooded with PS2/DP/DL64/Delfino/Skyworld. If a character can't properly function on a stage size approximating BF, then something is wrong with their design or with other character designs imo.

 

[nimigoha]

Medium stages are the way to go imo. Bowser Ganon etc won't get the same cheesy picks as before, but they also might not have to deal with a stage list flooded with PS2/DP/DL64/Delfino/Skyworld. If a character can't properly function on a stage size approximating BF, then something is wrong with their design or with other character designs imo.

I like this.

 

[Kneato]

nimigoha Your post about a uniform size for S M and L stages got me thinking. For stage widths I don't think its a great idea. But for the sake of simplifying the BZ system, it might be good to apply that concept to BZ sizes.

A few reasons it may be a good idea.

Unlike width, BZ sizes aren't something that players "play around", it is a static value that either kills you or doesn't. Characters don't really favor a certain range of sizes, they just prefer either extreme of really big (if they have a good recovery) or really small (if they don't and are facing someone with a good recovery). Therefor I see little benefit to having a "spectrum" of BZ sizes.

Additionally, current BZ sizes cause some confusion. They are difficult for people to determine because they are not a physical object you can see during the match (like stage width is) and they are also not always correlated to camera size.

Finally, even with this simplified "Stage to Side" BZ sizing, we still get a wide variety of "Mid to Side" BZ sizes because stage width would still span a spectrum.

 

[DMG]

Well instead of extreme big or small blast zones, what about boundaries that are not so extreme but still have noticeable variance from the norm? If average ceiling is 100, and a character loves 80, his preference doesn't just stop there at the extreme end of 80. That character would likely prefer any ceiling height under 100. Anything from 80 to 99 would be an advantage. Characters may have a variety of preferences that simply aren't met by current stages (Dreamland with PS2 ceiling *or* a ceiling 5 points higher could favor Fox in some MU's more than PS2 as an example, but it's not out there so there's no variety when he just picks PS2 each time)


If you want to make BZ's more normalized, there's still healthy room for noticeably different BZ sizes. I'd hate to see all ceilings be 95-105, and all side blast zones 140-150 (not specific numbers, just using some for example). Or worse, if BZ size was strictly linked to stage size. If you also lean towards crafting a bunch of medium-ish stages and not dealing with the big/small paradigm for stage size, then BZ size can be a tool to give those stages decent variety to compensate for not going so big/small on stage size


If you took 5 BF's, shrunk or enlarged their stage size by up to 5% either direction, kept platforms relatively the same (you could shift lower platforms to match the stage size changes, or leave them alone), but had noticeably different BZ sizes, you could have legitimately useful and variable CP's despite almost being the same stage.

 

[4tlas]

The problem with going too small though is that skews more than just neutral. I don't think this analogy properly describes YS or WW: the way I'd describe it as both lowering the barrier of how many times you have to deal with projectile or pattern, AND skewing the RPS choices that come after that. Take rolling away to escape shield pressure: perform this in the middle of PS2 vs the middle of YS / WW. Stuff like that is pretty noticeable. Or how stage size impacts combos, tech chases, etc. I don't think it's accurate to portray some small stages as merely closing the gap for slow fatties and much faster foes by making neutral "end" quicker.


Medium stages are the way to go imo. Bowser Ganon etc won't get the same cheesy picks as before, but they also might not have to deal with a stage list flooded with PS2/DP/DL64/Delfino/Skyworld. If a character can't properly function on a stage size approximating BF, then something is wrong with their design or with other character designs imo.

I agree with all of this, but I was making an argument against your previous post which said small stages should be banned outright. And I wasn't saying that that's ALL small stages do, but I think closing that neutral gap is critically important. Forcing opponents into disadvantageous neutral should be part of a position based game. I think Battlefield is a great neutral size, and smaller stages start to change the dynamic, but I think in a healthy way, since less neutral is both good and bad. Bigger stages than medium seem to just be bad, further exacerbating issues that are balanced on medium stages without any counter.

 

[DMG]

It's not all small stages, just WW/Yoshi Story I would universally consider banning. GHZ is very similar in stage width to both WW and Yoshi, but I would keep it legal. Metal Cavern could probably be legal if people weren't so icky about it etc. Small stages are less of a problem if they have reasonable blast zones or if their platform configuration isn't stacked so close. I'm not sure WW or Yoshi would be totally fine if you just improved their blast zones, but it certainly would be a step forward

 

[JOE!]

Something to note about all this stage list talk, consider the following:

We have 5 "nodes" for stages that can be tweaked/toggled to create the basis of a stage:

Blast Zone Width (S/M/L)
Blast Zone Height (S/M/L)
Stage Width (S/M/L)
Platforms (0/1/2/3/4)
Walled (No/Yes)

3x3x3x5x2 = 270 combinations

Then, if you want to include say:

Terrain (Even/Uneven)
Extra (Wind/Hittable/Hazard)

That goes up to 1620 stages or more. When we want to narrow this down to 10 stages, we're gonna have to trim down a lot of unwanted qualities.

 

[4tlas]

Something to note about all this stage list talk, consider the following:

We have 5 "nodes" for stages that can be tweaked/toggled to create the basis of a stage:

Blast Zone Width (S/M/L)
Blast Zone Height (S/M/L)
Stage Width (S/M/L)
Platforms (0/1/2/3/4)
Walled (No/Yes)

3x3x3x5x2 = 270 combinations

Then, if you want to include say:

Terrain (Even/Uneven)
Extra (Wind/Hittable/Hazard)

That goes up to 1620 stages or more. When we want to narrow this down to 10 stages, we're gonna have to trim down a lot of unwanted qualities.

Don't forget number of platforms is not the same as location of platforms, and the locations of the uneven terrain matters, and what types of extras are in (I think most people want zero, but personally I'm a fan), and platforms can move (YI ghosts count too), and so on.

 

[JOE!]

Location/Movement of plat I would honestly lump in with number of plats

 

[eideeiit]

Length of platforms is pretty important too.

Some IMO undesirable combinations:

Wide stage and high top platforms
0 platforms and wide stage
Radically different BZ width and height (ie. DL top, YS sides)

 

[DMG]

Any triple S or triple L stages would probably go as well. I can't imagine more than 1 stage combo involving 0 platforms, so if we settled on FD or a smaller FD, you could take 0 platform off the table.

270 would be weeded down fairly quick if you also exclude options after deciding on a set amount. Like only 3 small stages will be on the list, so if you decide on which 3 from the array of options, you obviously take out any combos involving small stages and the options for other stages narrows down. Same with walls or any other factor

 

[Kneato]

Something to note about all this stage list talk, consider the following:

We have 5 "nodes" for stages that can be tweaked/toggled to create the basis of a stage:

Blast Zone Width (S/M/L)
Blast Zone Height (S/M/L)
Stage Width (S/M/L)
Platforms (0/1/2/3/4)
Walled (No/Yes)

3x3x3x5x2 = 270 combinations

Then, if you want to include say:

Terrain (Even/Uneven)
Extra (Wind/Hittable/Hazard)

That goes up to 1620 stages or more. When we want to narrow this down to 10 stages, we're gonna have to trim down a lot of unwanted qualities.

I think that's what we are working on right now. What combination of these "nodes" will give us a varied and representative set of stages.

Also, S M and L aren't really discrete options. They are pretty subjective categories of a range of sizes. So that 270 is probably closer to 8 billion. But this is just splitting hairs, either way its too many stages and we need to narrow it down.

Anyways, here's a combination of nodes I've been working on that I think has merit:

Some tidbits:

• Every combination of BZ and Stage width is represented. SSS, SMM, SLL, MSS, MMM, MLL, LSS, LMM, and LLL
• Even distribution of stage widths. About 7 units difference between every stage, and ranges from just larger than Wario Land to between Delfino Secret and Final Destination.
• Each Stage to Side and Stage to Top has been normalize per size. SS is 130 to side like GHZ and 175 to top similar to Wario Land. MM is 145 to side like Castle Siege and 195 to top like Smashville. LL is 160 to side like Final Destination and 215 to top similar to Delfino's Secret.
• Mid to Side is still varied and ranges from 184.75, between Yoshi's Story and Fountain of Dreams , to 242.25, similar to Final Destination.
• There is one triplat per Small Medium and Large stages.
• Each stage size has a varied representation of plat numbers. S has 1, 3, and 4, M has 1, 2, 3, and Variable (like Delfino Plats) and L has 0, 2, and 3.
• 5 Walled and 5 Unwalled stages. Each stage size and BZ size has a walled and unwalled incarnation.

 

[JOE!]

Also, S M and L aren't really discrete options. They are pretty subjective categories of a range of sizes. So that 270 is probably closer to 8 billion. But this is just splitting hairs, either way its too many stages and we need to narrow it down.

Ive been thinking about this...

What is the merit behind blastzones that are like +/- 2-5 units odd amounts? Like, whyhave a stage at 199 ceiling then 201 ceiling, why not both 200? Etc

 

[Kneato]

Ive been thinking about this...

What is the merit behind blastzones that are like +/- 2-5 units odd amounts? Like, whyhave a stage at 199 ceiling then 201 ceiling, why not both 200? Etc

I don't really think there is one. It just happens since Brawl stages weren't designed with competitive stagelists in mind and PMDT has stuck to the original stage dimensions for a large number of stages.

That was mentioned a bit at the end of the last page. It was part of the reason in my list I made every stage width have a min difference from any other, and each BZ in a given category (SS MM or LL) has the same dimensions.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Finally, even with this simplified "Stage to Side" BZ sizing, we still get a wide variety of "Mid to Side" BZ sizes because stage width would still span a spectrum.

It's also worth noting that, even with simplified ceiling heights, we still get a variety of distances to top blastzones because of the spectrum of platform heights.
So the question becomes, "What is the merit behind blastzones that are different at all?"

 

[DMG]

Those differences may not feel like much, since a majority of kills probably land from main stage or lower platforms. Lower platforms are pretty similar in height for many stages. I'd rather shift the blast zones than rely on platform height variety

 

[JOE!]

It's also worth noting that, even with simplified ceiling heights, we still get a variety of distances to top blastzones because of the spectrum of platform heights.
So the question becomes, "What is the merit behind blastzones that are different at all?"

Different blastzones offer different KO and Survival opportunities. A ceiling difference of 10 units can mean the difference between death at 120% -> death at 150% for example. Side Blastzones are a little different in that past a certain point they don't matter too much due to recoveries having X distance to them, but the vast majority of KO moves happen off the sides in some fashion so the same logic applies.

What bugs me though is what difference does say, 1-2 units or other irregular stuff really make? And why are some stages uneven still? (WW and YS have 1 side closer than the other). Like, take ceiling height :

Spoiler

YS = 168
---
WL = 173
CS = 175
---
PS2 = 180
---
Norfair = 185
FD = 188
---
BC = 191
LY = 195
SV = 195
YI = 195
MC = 198.33
---
BF = 200
RF = 200
FoD = 202.5
GHZ = 204.75
DP = 205
---
SW = 210
DS = 211.25
---
DL = 250

There are so many little gaps, wouldn't it make more sense / be more uniform between MUs to have it like so?

Spoiler

YS = 175
WL = 175
CS = 175

(Very Small)
---
PS2 = 185
Norfair = 185
FD = 185

(Small)
---
BC = 195
LY = 195
SV = 195
YI = 195
MC = 195

(Mid-Low)
---
BF = 205
RF = 205
FoD = 205
GHZ = 205
DP = 205

(Mid-High)
---
SW = 210
DS = 210

(Large)
---
DL = 250

(XXL Supersize)

Likewise with side blast zones. The platforms will matter yes, but in terms of floor - ceiling, I feel there should be more uniformity so that a group of stages could be looked at knowing that the platforms/etc would matter much more.

 

[Cubelarooso]

A ceiling difference of 10 units can mean the difference between death at 120% -> death at 150% for example.

What competitive merit do different blastzones have?

 

[eideeiit]

They measure the skill of counterpicking, which includes awareness of the stages, the MU and the options you and your opponent prefer, I guess.

 

[JOE!]

What competitive merit do different blastzones have?

That is a good question to ponder, but I think it is far too baked into smash to totally homogenize both BZ size and even stage type.

 

[4tlas]

What competitive merit do different blastzones have?

They help enable different character archetypes within the meta. There is no skill tested by blastzones that is not also tested by other stage properties.

 

[Kneato]

What competitive merit do different blastzones have?

Certain sizes favor certain matchups. Puff will have a much better time against fox on a stage with a high blastzone rather than a low one. Having only one blastzone size to choose from will skew a ton of matchups.

 

[Cubelarooso]

I maintain the stance that that is the opposite of how diversity and balance work.
If a character can't function on a single standard blastzone size, then it certainly can't function on a broad range of blatzones.
Likewise, if a matchup is designed to be balanced in BF/SV dimensions, then it will remain so if every stage is adjusted to conform. Skew occurs when players are allowed to take it to a size that was never imagined to be fair.

More to consider:
Should a player be awarded a numerical advantage simply for making a selection on a menu? Is that any different than port priority?
In particular, does something whose purpose is to favor certain characters over others have any place in a starter?

 

[DMG]

Matchup issues will probably come up regardless of stage size. I think balancing characters in light of normalized stage or blast zone sizes IS easier, but it may be less satisfying or offer less depth somehow.


Blast zones don't appear to be something you can play around, since it's a line to decide if you live or die. At the same time, if you compared 2 stages which are otherwise cloned, but 1 has a modestly higher ceiling, that's a fairly mild advantage or disadvantage that I would feel comfortable adding. Bowser's viability on BF wouldn't drastically go down the tubes if there were 2 BF's and 1 had a higher ceiling, BUT imagine keeping BF the same and having no platforms instead. He'd probably take deal #1 and just deal with a ceiling difference.


Almost every other difference stage facet has huge underlying balance concerns, even with mild differences. Make a platform 5 units higher or lower could probably impact MU's more than raising or lowering the ceiling 5 points etc. Probably any aspect of platforms has a more likely possibility of favoring or disadvantaging some characters by a decent bit.


With that said, people seem to be fine with stages that involve different platform configurations or involve other features, as being included for starters. Going a bit higher or lower on ceiling, or a bit on left/right blast zones doesn't seem like a big deal. Diverse cast calls for diverse stages (to a certain point perhaps)


TL:DR


Some blast zone changes are less skewing than other variable aspects of stages that we currently find appropriate for legality (and some for starters)

 

[Deleted member]

tbh i wish WW had slightly larger side blast zones but i wouldnt change anything else

 

[Kneato]

Man, reading through the Reddit thread going on right now talking about stage vs character first is giving me an ulcer.

So many of these arguments have already been hashed out. My favorite one being "Character first punishes dual mains".

It doesn't punish dual mains, it just lessens the overwhelming advantage they had in stage first. Yes a counterpick is supposed to give the loser an advantage, but it's not supposed to give them overwhelming odds.

A Wario is playing a Roy. Wario wins first game.

Stage first: Wario bans two smaller stages. Roy gets an advantage by picking stage. Picks Final Destination. Wario only plays Wario so he doesn't change characters. Roy gains an advantage by being able to switch character with knowledge of the opponent's pick. Switches to Falco. The system gives Falco an overwhelming advantage by allowing him to not only choose a new character, but also potentially play their best stages, circumventing the ban process.

Character first: Wario stays Wario. Roy still has his advantage in character pick. Switches to Falco. Wario bans FD and SV. Falco still gets to choose the stage though, and gets an advantage from that. However, the ban process actually comes into play here and is not wasted by Wario. Falco still has the overall advantage but not an overwhelming one.

Bowser and Ganon were brought up a number of times in the thread as being reasons for Stage first. This is such BS. Bowser and Ganon having only a few good stages in the current list is a product of the combination of their limited movement (character design issue) and the uneven distribution of stages in our list. Why would we use a pick system that creates problems for the extremely matchup centric PM gameplay when we can instead, use the pick system that is both intuitive and healthier for the game, and either fix the handful of characters that perform poorly within the cast regardless of the pick system, or get working on making a stagelist that benefits all of the cast (which we are already working on).

The subreddit can really grind my gears sometimes.

 

[nimigoha]

I mean the post is currently way positive, people who agree are just uprooting and it's the few people who disagree that are arguing.

But yeah, "punishing dual mains" isn't really a thing. If you pick your mains to cover each others matchup spreads, you're advantaged against a solo main, I don't care if it's on Smashville or Warioland.

 

[TheBearsFist]

This is the stagelist we are running at my tournaments at the moment.

Striking is 1-2-1, winner bans 3.
Characters are chosen first then stages.

Starters
Green Hill Zone
Pokemon Stadium 2
Battlefield
Smashville
Delfinos Secret

Counterpicks.
Yoshi's Island
Yoshi's Story
Warioland
Final Destination
Dreamland

I tried to have 3 "types" of each stage aka wide, thin, low ceiling, wide blast zones, dynamic platforms and small blast zones.

At the current moment characters such as bowser and ganon are generally left with neutral picks only. I feel however that 2 bans would give characters like Falcon much more advantage stagewise.

Thoughts?

 

[DMG]

I don't think you can run that format if 3/5 set counts are used and if you use DSR. In 3/5 set count with 6 total bans, that leaves 4 stages to use for the set. That starter list skews a bit towards big stages: PS2 and Delfino are very long.

General guideline for stage ban count (if using DSR) is something like this:

7-9 stages = 1 ban per player
10-12 = 2 ban per player
13+ = 3+ ban

You try to leave 6 stages available after bans. It's also possible at 7 stages to not have stage bans but most stage lists are way above 7 anyways. You can go lower if you take off DSR, but DSR serves a decent purpose and I would not remove it lightly.

 

[nimigoha]

The PS2 effect.

People underestimate how long it is. The camera/blastzones must have something to do with it, because it's always classified by the unaware as Medium...

If you step back and think about it in terms of characters it's actually quite easy. Falco using Side B to catch ledge from on stage needs to be on the Poke Ball border. Even FD it's closer to the center. And on Battlefield, he needs to be on the other side of the center of the stage from the ledge you're going to. More obvious when you think of it like that.

I'd like a small 2 platform stage.

 

[JesteRace]

PS2 is literally the widest legal stage atm. The side blast zones and low ceiling are the only reason it's considered medium.

 

[Kneato]

PS2 is literally the widest legal stage atm. The side blast zones and low ceiling are the only reason it's considered medium.

Which is why we need to try to get people to differentiate stage size from blastzone size. It's already led to quite a bit of confusion.

I don't think you can run that format if 3/5 set counts are used and if you use DSR. In 3/5 set count with 6 total bans, that leaves 4 stages to use for the set. That starter list skews a bit towards big stages: PS2 and Delfino are very long.

General guideline for stage ban count (if using DSR) is something like this:

7-9 stages = 1 ban per player
10-12 = 2 ban per player
13+ = 3+ ban

You try to leave 6 stages available after bans. It's also possible at 7 stages to not have stage bans but most stage lists are way above 7 anyways. You can go lower if you take off DSR, but DSR serves a decent purpose and I would not remove it lightly.

For the record, in a 3/5, DSR at any point can only strike 2 stage (if it were to strike 3, that means the opponent won on three stages and the set is over) so with his list there would only be 5 total bans. And what is the reasoning for specifically 6 stages available after bans? I definitely don't think a 10 stage list should be running 3 bans, but I don't see a huge issue with a 9 stage list running 2 bans.

I think ban numbers should be tailored around not being able to completely ban any one category of stage. For example, in a 9 stage list, you could have 3 small, 3 medium, and 3 large stages. 2 bans means that the counterpicker still can choose the size category he wants, just not the exact stage he wants from it.

 

[JesteRace]

9 stages, 2 bans is perfect for a 2/3 you just have to make it 1 ban in a 3/5. In a game 5 scenario, you will have won on 2 stages, so they're banned. If your opponent gets 2 bans, you're left with the 2 stages your opponent won on, the 2 stages you've been banning for the set, and just 1 other stage.

Link vs. Marth for example
In a 2/3, 2 bans is fine cause I ban WL and FoD and he can still take me to GHZ. He can ban DL and FD and I can still take him to PS2 (these stages are just an example).
In a 3/5, if he gets 2 bans, once we get to Game 5, where do I take him? Where does he take me? Neither one of us has a solid CP. In a 3/5 there needs to be only 1 ban so players still have 2 solid CP's if needed.

 

[Kneato]

This is the stagelist we are running at my tournaments at the moment.

Striking is 1-2-1, winner bans 3.
Characters are chosen first then stages.

Starters
Green Hill Zone
Pokemon Stadium 2
Battlefield
Smashville
Delfinos Secret

Counterpicks.
Yoshi's Island
Yoshi's Story
Warioland
Final Destination
Dreamland

I tried to have 3 "types" of each stage aka wide, thin, low ceiling, wide blast zones, dynamic platforms and small blast zones.

At the current moment characters such as bowser and ganon are generally left with neutral picks only. I feel however that 2 bans would give characters like Falcon much more advantage stagewise.

Thoughts?

Besides bans, many of us here are rather against Yoshi's Story and Dreamland for the reason that there are better alternatives and they mostly get included in lists because of the Melee effect. I also personally think Yoshi's Island is garbage for a number of reasons.

Bowser's other Castle is almost the exact same width as Yoshi's Island. I'd replace Island with it in your situation. The current platform height is annoying, and the side BZ's are deceivingly wide, which keeps it in the "CP" category, but it's still better than Island. If the plats get lowered a bit and the side blasts get fixed, I fully support it being a Starter. I have been playing with it like that on my custom build for a while and it feels great.

 

[JesteRace]

I think Bowser's Castle is fine as a starter as is. The platforms keep it from being too much like Battlefield and the blast zones being large aren't a big deal if the rest of the stage list balances this out. Here's the starters my state are running on our brand new stagelist.

Green Hill Zone- Small stage, Small BZ, High Ceiling
Smashville-Medium stage, Medium BZ, Medium Ceiling
Battlefield-Medium stage, Medium BZ, Medium Ceiling
Bowser's Castle-Medium stage, Large BZ,
Medium Ceiling
Pokemon Stadium 2-Large stage, Medium BZ, Low ceiling.

It's not perfect, because we don't have that capability currently, but there's 1 small, 1 large, and 3 medium in each category. Thoughts?

Edit: If you are curious, the CP's are Fountain of Dreams, Wario Land, Final Destination, and Dreamland. Delfino can be put in place of Dreamland and get basically the same balance without the obnoxious ceiling, but our state despises Delfino.

 

[DMG]

JesteRace touched up on it, but I'll have vvvvv all this still:


With DSR, in 10 stages 3 bans and 3/5 game format:

4 stages are left after bans
I win on 2 stages, DSR removes them for me
Opponent wins on 2 other stages, DSR removes them for his picking

For Game 5, assuming different stages were picked each time, then no matter who's turn it is to pick there's not a great selection left over. Say it's my turn, so here are my choices:

- I pick one of the stages that I chose to ban (Probably not a good idea)

- I pick one of the stages that my opponent has already won on (^^^^^^^)


The reason most rulesets aim for at least 6 stages left after bans, is so that for Game 5 situations with DSR involved, the person picking has at least 2 choices which are not related to banned stages or opponent won stages. If you run 5, you leave them with 1 alternative and that alternative may not give a benefit. In fact it's possible that lone stage left could benefit the opponent more than you, which doesn't substantially improve on the scenario ^^^^^ up there as described.

Now it's still possible that even with 2 stages left over for Game 5, that the person picking doesn't have a suitable stage (suitable meaning at least an evenish offering that doesn't strictly hurt the picker or benefit the opponent). But it's much less likely to occur than leaving 1 stage, so that's generally the minimum threshold people aim for.

 

[TheBearsFist]

At the moment we run a modified DSR where its only the last stage you won on that you can't pick.

I agree that 3 bans may be too much and the list favours larger stages but honestly after running it for two weeks when compared to our previous 13 stage list its actually pretty good.

 

[DMG]

Modified DSR would satisfy that, although PM allows for a stage list size large enough to not need a modded DSR imo. Modded DSR is to free up stage picks for Melee, regular one might be preferred. Doesnt impact anything til 3/5 either way I guess

Im still interested in modifying stages to go more medium, might be better fix to stage balance that the current ban dilemma (do you let people ban out all bowser stages or let some exist after bans?)

Starter lists are also very variable across regions due to small big bs. 1/3/1 isnt possible atm but its muy bueno instead of 2/2/1 or the ever common 1/2/2. Id love to address that one patch

 

[JesteRace]

Modified DSR would satisfy that, although PM allows for a stage list size large

Starter lists are also very variable across regions due to small big bs. 1/3/1 isnt possible atm but its muy bueno instead of 2/2/1 or the ever common 1/2/2. Id love to address that one patch

Well, it'd be easier if people weren't so stubborn about the "standard" 3. This is why we're going with Bowser's Castle as a neutral in my state. It seems like the only way to have a semblance of a balanced game 1 process with what's available imo.