Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Kneato]

Minnesota PM has adopted the same stagelist as Nebraska. u/reebok1984 and I actually had some back and forth dialogue about it on r/ssbpm and I was able to successfully pitch the new list to our main PM TO. Hopefully we can start a movement!

I want to reiterate my support for the Nebraska stagelist.

I'm one of Ontario's major TOs (Summit, McSmashter) and I'll be running it at my next PM major.

EDIT For reference, the Nebraska stagelist is:

STARTERS:
Green Hill Zone (SSL1)
Battlefield (MMM3)
Smashville (MMM1)
Bower's Other Castle (MLM3)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (LMS2)

COUNTERPICKS:
Wario Land (SSS4)
Fountain of Dreams (SSL3)
Dreamland (LLL3)
Final Destination (LLS0)

Legend - (Width, Blastzone Width, Blastzone Height, # of Platforms)

STATS:

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah my only reservation is DL over Delfino but I can get over that.

Nebraska is by far the best stagelist I've seen.

 

[Kneato]

Yeah my only reservation is DL over Delfino but I can get over that.

Nebraska is by far the best stagelist I've seen.

If it gains traction, I forsee some regions swapping DL and DS. But honestly, that's fine and a ton better than every region have different list sizes, stages, and number of bans.

DL fits the "balance" better and is more familiar to many players, but has huge BZs and Whispy RNG. DS has more reasonable BZ's, but it has janky plats that slant and touch the floor, and hurts the overall list balance by having the wrong BZ dimensions and would make a majority of the stages be walled (impact questionable).

It's a pick your poison situation, but that is unavoidable now.

 

[JesteRace]

Thanks, dudes. I believe Heartland Smash Central (TO crew here in NE) will be putting a build together that will update the stage select screen to reflect the new list, including having the alternate Bowser's Castle as default so you don't have to hold L. I would message reebok about that.

 

[xquqx]

Thanks, dudes. I believe Heartland Smash Central (TO crew here in NE) will be putting a build together that will update the stage select screen to reflect the new list, including having the alternate Bowser's Castle as default so you don't have to hold L. I would message reebok about that.

I've already made a build that's this, if you want it. I went with DS over DL though, so I guess it might not be that useful.

 

[Darth Shard]

Thanks, dudes. I believe Heartland Smash Central (TO crew here in NE) will be putting a build together that will update the stage select screen to reflect the new list, including having the alternate Bowser's Castle as default so you don't have to hold L. I would message reebok about that.

I already have exactly such a build. The only thing is that it has the Minnesota Smash logo on the CSS and SSS.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xxg5yb6u92bnyf5/AADcHOY4G-DyQaGv_XdIrJAwa?dl=0

 

[JesteRace]

Oh. Cool. You guys are quick. Thanks.

 

[Kneato]

Did we do it guys? Did we finally find "the stagelist"?

Or is no one complaining here because they are too busy fighting on /r/ssbpm over the other thing going on.

 

[JesteRace]

I think we have. "We" being the few people who actually follow this thread and plan on running it at our tourneys. There's still a large amount of people who think PS2 is a medium stage. And don't understand running 2 bans in a 2/3 and 1 ban in a 3/5. Stuff like that. I was having a lot of hitbox chat arguments about it before the big news hit. So it's gonna take some work and convincing. But I also think, now more than ever, people will be open to a universal standard.

 

[4tlas]

I'm not a fan of this list, but my complaints got washed away and I don't care enough to bring them up again. And too busy with everything else to take the time to care.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

I think that, for sure, the stage list needs to consist of this format, and it seems like everyone in this thread would agree with this:

Starters:
-Small
-Medium
-Medium
-Medium
-Large

Counter picks:
-Small
-Small
-Large
-Large

Starting from this format, am I correct in assuming that this basic structure would be widely agreed upon for optimal balance?

(Personally, I think Nebraska's list works super well. I think Dreamland is a better choice than Delfino. The only thing I might argue for is substituting Bowser's for a different Medium stage, such as Lylat or YI or something. I need to do more research on this.)

 

[JesteRace]

I think that, for sure, the stage list needs to consist of this format, and it seems like everyone in this thread would agree with this:

Starters:
-Small
-Medium
-Medium
-Medium
-Large

Counter picks:
-Small
-Small
-Large
-Large

Starting from this format, am I correct in assuming that this basic structure would be widely agreed upon for optimal balance?

(Personally, I think Nebraska's list works super well. I think Dreamland is a better choice than Delfino. The only thing I might argue for is substituting Bowser's for a different Medium stage, such as Lylat or YI or something. I need to do more research on this.)

I do like Lylat. But it's actually pretty wide. It's dubious to call it medium. I loooooove Yoshi's Island. Lovelovelovelove it. However, it is almost exactly the same size as Smashville and offers little to add to the balance of the stagelist. The important thing about Bowser's Castle is that it has large blast zones. This is necessary for balance because it gives us an even amount of small, medium, and large BZ's (3 each) and it also gives us a neutral stage with large BZ's.

Edit: You are correct on the format, btw. The reason 9 stages, 2 bans is so good is because you get 3 options of each size for each category, and you can never entirely get rid of one option, making the banning and CP process much deeper and promotes critical thinking.

Edit2: Another thing I think people should take note of with this list is the relative balance of platform layouts. What I mean is you get 3 stages that are flat or quasi-flat with a ton of open space (GHZ/SV/FD), 3 stages that have a good amount of open space but also have platform layouts that routinely breakup the action (FoD/BC/PS2), and 3 stages that have heavy platform usage that outweighs the open space available (WL/BF/DL). Each type of platform layout also has a small, medium, and large stage that fits it. Again, not perfect, but relatively balanced.

TL;DR: Tell everyone. Nebraska stagelist is godlike.

 

[Kneato]

I do like Lylat. But it's actually pretty wide. It's dubious to call it medium. I loooooove Yoshi's Island. Lovelovelovelove it. However, it is almost exactly the same size as Smashville and offers little to add to the balance of the stagelist. The important thing about Bowser's Castle is that it has large blast zones. This is necessary for balance because it gives us an even amount of small, medium, and large BZ's (3 each) and it also gives us a neutral stage with large BZ's.

Edit: You are correct on the format, btw. The reason 9 stages, 2 bans is so good is because you get 3 options of each size for each category, and you can never entirely get rid of one option, making the banning and CP process much deeper and promotes critical thinking.

Edit2: Another thing I think people should take note of with this list is the relative balance of platform layouts. What I mean is you get 3 stages that are flat or quasi-flat with a ton of open space (GHZ/SV/FD), 3 stages that have a good amount of open space but also have platform layouts that routinely breakup the action (FoD/BC/PS2), and 3 stages that have heavy platform usage that outweighs the open space available (WL/BF/DL). Each type of platform layout also has a small, medium, and large stage that fits it. Again, not perfect, but relatively balanced.

TL;DR: Tell everyone. Nebraska stagelist is godlike.

Lylat is as wide as Delfino's Secret. Strictly a large stage.

Additionally, I think the categorization of platform layouts is largely subjective, but the one clear benefit of this list is one true triplat for every size (FoD for Small, BF for Medium, DL for large)

 

[Kneato]

Ok so aside from that specific stagelist.

Can we discuss the format?

Starters:
Small
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large

Counterpicks:
Small
Small
Large
Large

I think it provides a number of advantages.

• First and foremost, when trying to make a universal stagelist, we are trying to make something that a majority of TO's will agree on. Trying to keep the number of stages to a minimum, without hurting stage variety, decreases the likelihood of a stage that people don't like being included. The more stages on a stage list, the bigger the chance someone will have a problem with a stage.
  
• Why 9 and not 10? 9 is divisible by 3 and it just so happens that we have 3 major categories for the 3 major features of stages: Small Medium and Large for Width, BZ Width, and BZ height respectively. 9 stages lets us give an equal representation for each category of each feature. 6 stages and 12 stages would do the same but both are problematic. A 6 stage list wouldn't allow for any bans in some situations and hurts stage variety. A 12 stage list would increase likelihood that people won't agree with included stages, and the ban system is guaranteed to be unfair; 2 bans not being enough to give adequate advantage to the banner against some characters, while 3 bans completely shuts out other characters (ganon).
• 3 of each category with 2 bans means that no one category can be completely banned.

I think even if some people have issues with the Nebraska list (as I've said before, I personally think it's a great list) the benefits of this format are clear.

 

[4tlas]

I think that, for sure, the stage list needs to consist of this format, and it seems like everyone in this thread would agree with this:

Starters:
-Small
-Medium
-Medium
-Medium
-Large

Counter picks:
-Small
-Small
-Large
-Large

Starting from this format, am I correct in assuming that this basic structure would be widely agreed upon for optimal balance?

If we could get it, yes. However I think it will also be agreed upon that we need Battlefield, Smashville, and Pokemon Stadium 2 due to their average qualities in stage size and/or layout.

Since Pokemon Stadium is so huge, and there is no other medium stage, I think it might be reasonable to run

-Small
-Small
-Medium
-Medium
-Huge

for starters.

 

[trash?]

I doubt modded stages will ever be allowed on a major basis, for basically the same reasons as "newPMDT" patches. stages are a far bigger deal than ppl make it out to be, and I'd consider new stages to be no less of a dealbreaker than character changes

this is a good thing tho, because now there's no balances to mess up data. what you collect right now will still be 100% useful years from now, and all the variables involved are set in stone for good, meaning getting mass-adoption for a universal stage list has become a much, much easier task

 

[Kneato]

If we could get it, yes. However I think it will also be agreed upon that we need Battlefield, Smashville, and Pokemon Stadium 2 due to their average qualities in stage size and/or layout.

Since Pokemon Stadium is so huge, and there is no other medium stage, I think it might be reasonable to run

-Small
-Small
-Medium
-Medium
-Huge

for starters.

Bowser's other Castle and Yoshi's Island are the same size as Smashville. Out of the two, BoC is much more starter material, which was the reasoning for it being included as such in my stagelist and Nebraska's.

 

[4tlas]

Bowser's other Castle and Yoshi's Island are the same size as Smashville. Out of the two, BoC is much more starter material, which was the reasoning for it being included as such in my stagelist and Nebraska's.

I'm pretty sure nobody would consider Yoshi's Island a starter, though I agree with Bowser's Castle.

I worded my argument poorly. What I meant was that PS2 is so huge that SMMMH isn't even, and it may be worth considering SSMMH. If you want 3M, then TinyMMMH would be even but I think the tiny stage would almost always get banned since it wouldn't even have the "fair" layout people pick PS2 for.

 

[ECHOnce]

I'm from a scene that is stubbornly sticking to keeping YS, but also doesn't want to get rid of WW.

I love the Nebraska stagelist. What are everyone's thoughts (out of whoever's here) on a variation to this "accepted" build having YS and WW take up one slot? Arguing as Devil's advocate platform layouts, slanted edges, and Randall make a huge difference between the two. Would the size similarity be enough to justify squishing them into a single slot for banning, over worries about its unprecedence? (since size seems to heavily have an influence over this stagelist.) EDIT: Drawing this idea from preliminary S4 stagelists, which allowed omega stages to be used interchangeably with the regular FD, despite differences in walls, stage lengths, etc.

Also, not gonna be that guy who asks people to rehash arguments from past discussions. But I would greatly appreciate it if anyone remembers a general time period where 3-starter stagelists may have been discussed (e.g. the Tipped Off stagelist, with SV/BF/PS2 as starters). I can dig through pages and search from there.

 

[Kneato]

I'm pretty sure nobody would consider Yoshi's Island a starter, though I agree with Bowser's Castle.

I worded my argument poorly. What I meant was that PS2 is so huge that SMMMH isn't even, and it may be worth considering SSMMH. If you want 3M, then TinyMMMH would be even but I think the tiny stage would almost always get banned since it wouldn't even have the "fair" layout people pick PS2 for.

So I don't know if a "balance" of size in terms of numeric value and averages is really what the aim has been of the recent lists. It's more balance of general stage types, being small, medium, and large almost entirely for banning purposes, and working around the 2 ban system.

I'm from a scene that is stubbornly sticking to keeping YS, but also doesn't want to get rid of WW.

I love the Nebraska stagelist. What are everyone's thoughts (out of whoever's here) on a variation to this "accepted" build having YS and WW take up one slot? Arguing as Devil's advocate platform layouts, slanted edges, and Randall make a huge difference between the two. Would the size similarity be enough to justify squishing them into a single slot for banning, over worries about its unprecedence? (since size seems to heavily have an influence over this stagelist.) EDIT: Drawing this idea from preliminary S4 stagelists, which allowed omega stages to be used interchangeably with the regular FD, despite differences in walls, stage lengths, etc.

Also, not gonna be that guy who asks people to rehash arguments from past discussions. But I would greatly appreciate it if anyone remembers a general time period where 3-starter stagelists may have been discussed (e.g. the Tipped Off stagelist, with SV/BF/PS2 as starters). I can dig through pages and search from there.

The a major issue with having YS in place of WL in the Nebraska build (besides being a jank stage imo ) is it's addition would overpopulate the list with tri-plats. Right now there is one for each size category. YS would hurt stage variety in both the small category and the whole list.

I think the issue with 3 starters, or any small subset of stages, is that the less stages you have, the less variety and the more likely you are going to hurt some character's viability by not giving them good options. It's been a while so I don't remember what other's were saying about that but that's my personal opinion.

 

[JesteRace]

A perfect distribution of stage sizes is no longer possible, so we gotta work with what we got.

And Randall messing tethers up is argument enough to never include YS on any list.

 

[Samwisely]

Yo, MN TO here, Darthshard just linked me to this post.

We're going with the Nebraska list at any tournament I run in MN. We've currently decided on two bans in a bo3, and one for a bo5, with bans persisting throughout the set. One ban in a bo5 means that with smart banning, your opponent cannot bring you to the absolute worst stage in the MU, but still has a stronger counterpick than in a bo3. This encourages a quick, smart ban process. Melee doesn't include bans in their bo5's due to running out of stages. With a nine stage list, we won't have any problems like that.

 

[JesteRace]

Yo, MN TO here, Darthshard just linked me to this post.

We're going with the Nebraska list at any tournament I run in MN. We've currently decided on two bans in a bo3, and one for a bo5, with bans persisting throughout the set. One ban in a bo5 means that with smart banning, your opponent cannot bring you to the absolute worst stage in the MU, but still has a stronger counterpick than in a bo3. This encourages a quick, smart ban process. Melee doesn't include bans in their bo5's due to running out of stages. With a nine stage list, we won't have any problems like that.

That's exactly what we do. In a best of 5, each player potentially needs 2 solid CP's, so it just makes sense to run 1 less ban in a best of 5 no matter what your stagelist is. Super hype to see an MN tournament with this list too haha.

 

[Samwisely]

Super hype to see an MN tournament with this list too haha.

I actually didn't know you guys were going to run this stage list. I messaged Darth Shard and some others in a group chat to nail down a MN stagelist, since I wasn't happy with the one I was previously running. We all agreed on a nine stage list, and then started figuring out what stages it would be from there. Logic and data won out. And then he messaged me the next day saying you guys just announced the same one, haha.

 

[4tlas]

So I don't know if a "balance" of size in terms of numeric value and averages is really what the aim has been of the recent lists. It's more balance of general stage types, being small, medium, and large almost entirely for banning purposes, and working around the 2 ban system.

I agree that the recent lists have not been considering this as an issue. That's why I'm bringing it up so we can talk about it. This is the first response I've gotten, and what you've said is that we haven't talked about it yet.

A perfect distribution of stage sizes is no longer possible, so we gotta work with what we got.

And Randall messing tethers up is argument enough to never include YS on any list.

Could you consider that Randall messing up tethers is a consequence of tether recoveries, just as weird ledges affect all non-tether recoveries?

 

[JesteRace]

Hahaha dang Sam, that's a crazy cool coincidence that we both came to the same list the same way around the same time.

Atlas, I can understand wanting the big stages to be just as big as the small stages are small. But having the numerical data match up like that, in my opinion, isn't as important as having an equal amount of small/medium/large in each category. It would be awesome if both goals could be accomplished, but with development halted, that will never be possible.

 

[4tlas]

Atlas, I can understand wanting the big stages to be just as big as the small stages are small. But having the numerical data match up like that, in my opinion, isn't as important as having an equal amount of small/medium/large in each category. It would be awesome if both goals could be accomplished, but with development halted, that will never be possible.

Thank you for responding. I'd still like to talk about the subject.

Having an equal amount of small/medium/large is probably more important, since number of stages affects the banning process. However, it is possible to get both by changing the banning process along with stagelist size.

For example (and no, I havent thought about all the consequences of this, that's why we're talking about it) we could run 6 starters and have bans occur in a 1-3-1 format, where one player gets an extra ban but the other gets to get the ban that chooses the stage. Or 3-2. Winner of RPS chooses between getting the extra ban or getting to choose the stage. Is this something we could consider?

I assume then we would do starters as TSMMLH, and have only 3 counterpicks.

Edit: I haven't explained why I think balancing overall stage size is important. If the stagelist had an equal number of small and large stages, but the large stages were larger than the small stages small, then we would be favoring large-stage characters just as if players ended up on large stages more often due to picks and stagelist size.

 

[nimigoha]

I really don't think an even number of starters is a good idea. Mostly just precedent, but right now we (and Melee, again precedent) have a system with equal bans and one person (the winner of RPS) gets the "deciding" ban.

If I get 3 bans agains Bowser or Ganondorf (the characters I like to think about when balancing stagelist for size since IMO they struggle the most with larger stages, but of course there are others) then I'm banning your T, S, and Battlefield. Leaving them with generally unfavourable stages remaining.

While the Nebraska list isn't perfect, I don't think that a stage list can be anymore since stage sizes won't change. It's a shame that there's no "true" medium stage, the large stages pull the average way up.

But I think it's as close as we're going to get, and it's familiar enough to be widely accepted, which I think is very important. Having 5 starters is very familiar, altering # of bans depending on game count is familiar, and the stages are all pretty familiar outside of BC.

Can someone post a build with only the Nebraska list (colour coded) on page 1, with Bowser's swapped (but no other changes like logos or whatnot). It would be good to have up on the internet. I'd do it but brawl box isn't working for me.

 

[xquqx]

The trick is going to be to get the widely streamed scenes to accept the stage list, if it's going to gain any sort of widespread acceptance. Once the more visible scenes are using it, other scenes will begin to copy it.

 

[nimigoha]

Basically PMTV. They're essentially the leaders of the stagelist norm now, since the PMDT can't arrange the SSS in the default build to their recommendations anymore.

Right now some of them have really bad lists. It's like 1/10 people actually realize that PS2 isn't a medium stage.

TBH I'm confused as to why the PMDT has it left of Delfino in 3.6, they're sorta responsible for the whole misunderstanding in the first place. I'm assuming because of the blast zones but it's still helped foster a misconception.

I think this is the best shot at having a balanced but widely accepted standardized list.

 

[Bazkip]

If I get 3 bans agains Bowser or Ganondorf (the characters I like to think about when balancing stagelist for size since IMO they struggle the most with larger stages, but of course there are others) then I'm banning your T, S, and Battlefield. Leaving them with generally unfavourable stages remaining.

That sort of thing can happen with the Nebraska stagelist too. Ganon/Bowser plays win RPS, they probably ban one of SV/PS2/BC. You ban GHZ and BF. They're now stuck between choosing one of SV/PS2/BC which most of the time is not ideal for them.

But the only way to prevent that is to have two small stages and that's probably not gonna be balanced either.

 

[4tlas]

If I get 3 bans agains Bowser or Ganondorf (the characters I like to think about when balancing stagelist for size since IMO they struggle the most with larger stages, but of course there are others) then I'm banning your T, S, and Battlefield. Leaving them with generally unfavourable stages remaining.

This would happen with 5 starters too. There's no difference except that the stage sizes are overall balanced. The point is that if size is not the only banning factor, then players have an equal distribution of stage size to end up on.

Basically PMTV. They're essentially the leaders of the stagelist norm now, since the PMDT can't arrange the SSS in the default build to their recommendations anymore.

Right now some of them have really bad lists. It's like 1/10 people actually realize that PS2 isn't a medium stage.

Hi, PMTV here. I doubt we will standardize our rulesets at the current time, but I'm sure we will talk about it at some point. Not sure how interested most of them would be in discussion. I think I'm the only one who talks in here but one or two of them might read it.

 

[JesteRace]

Smashville isn't terrible for Ganon/Bowser and I would argue BC is pretty decent for them. At least for Bowser. If they have a huge disadvantage on a medium stage, that's a character problem(but again, I don't think it's that bad for them).

But, yeah, the only real reason to have an odd amount of neutrals is because one player getting more strikes is jank. And the only reason to run 5 is because 3 gives the RPS winner a disadvantage and because 7 is too many.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

I've done a bunch of research over the last couple of days on what the most balanced stage list in 3.6 would be. I've come to the conclusion that the Nebraska stage list with Bowser's Castle alt. as a starter is the answer. Substituting any stage in the Nebraska stage list with anything else would make the list less balanced.

I fully support that stage list and I hope it becomes standardized before too long.

 

[JesteRace]

So the question now is which PMTV scene is most likely to adopt this stagelist?

 

[4tlas]

But, yeah, the only real reason to have an odd amount of neutrals is because one player getting more strikes is jank. And the only reason to run 5 is because 3 gives the RPS winner a disadvantage and because 7 is too many.

Is it any more jank than one person getting the ban that picks the stage?

So the question now is which PMTV scene is most likely to adopt this stagelist?

Honestly, I dunno. My scene (Smashing Grounds in Massachusetts) rotates stagelists regularly, so we could certainly TRY this list at some point. Unfortunately, our next rotation is somewhere around February and we already plan to try the stagelist I suggested further up the thread and only nimigoha was kind enough to respond to. I was talking to the AZ PMTV member and I think he wants to try my list as well. I don't think anyone is really looking into the subject otherwise.

We also might be adding more groups to PMTV. If you'd like to join you can let us know and we'll evaluate. That might be your best shot.

 

[CORY]

DMG wanna try to press the dfw people about using nebraska stagelist at weeklies or at the next monthly (even though it won't be til january...)?

 

[Samwisely]

As a stronger option than pushing it to individual scenes, I'm part of a national TO secret FB group. In the wake of the PMDT disbanding, we've been adding prominent TOs from every region as an effort to unify the national scene. Finding a national stagelist is one of the primary objectives, and I was certainly going to offer our stagelist as an idea. We'll be starting discussion on that later this month.

 

[qwertz143]

I don't get this. Why can't we just let the bottom row all 7 be starters, and the middle row all 7 be counterpicks. That way you eliminate it in 1-2-2-1 format with only 1 stage left to choose. Then for counterpicks, ban 3 of your choice, include stupid rule and you still get a bunch of legal stages to play with. This is how we play in tournaments here.

 

[DMG]

I would prefer bans to remain consistent regardless of 2/3 or 3/5. Reason for this is two-fold:


1. Different tournament sizes or different regions can have variable bracket qualifications for how deep you need to be in bracket to encounter a 3/5 set. A small local that's pressed for time may only do 3/5 sets for the trio of Finals, while a national could do every top 16+ match as a 3/5. This is an inherently inconsistent split that's bound to come up, and it's probably not good for rule formats to split + split without total consistency.


2. People want to play basically the same game as everyone else. Making the game count longer is not a drastic shift (DSR affects MU's as the set count increases but that's to be expected), but changing ban power / stage legality / other things means that those players are legit playing something quite different than what you were playing. Take Melee 3/5: Jiggs always gets Dreamland, Marth always gets FD, etc. That's a pretty different experience than the average person in bracket playing those characters.


Having the game split into "Oh in x normal format, these 1-2 stages will never survive banning, but in y format once you get to top 16, you can almost always play somewhere on those stages" is not something I see as desirable. Keep bans the same, change DSR or add onto the stage list. My gut says add 1 more stage to make 10, and keep 2 ban consistent regardless of 2/3 or 3/5. Norfair, Lylat, or Yoshi Brawl are probably the most likely candidates. Norfair may be the least controversial choice?


If none of those are suitable to add-on, consider reducing stage ban to 1? In all honesty, 2 ban power in 9 stages is pretty hefty: almost half of stages removed after 4 total bans. 2 ban in 10 stages is a bit less hefty, and it leaves 6 stages minimum to play out 5 games without DSR changes or any other rule tweaks to accommodate 2 ban power.


I don't have a lot against the stages in Nebraska format: don't have much of an opinion about Bowser stage but the rest seems fine. I think bans changing because of 3/5 sets is the issue to solve.

TL:DR


In Nebraska list, assuming 9 stages and 3/5 sets dropping down to 1 ban, please instead keep ban count same for 2/3 and 3/5 sets. Change DSR rules OR reduce all ban counts to 1 OR add stage/s instead