Project M Recommended Ruleset

[trash?]

3/5 is basically the single biggest issue w/ melee's stage list, it's the reason a mid-high like yoshi or ganondorf almost immediately gets offed past a certain point in the bracket as they always have that one stage they always lose on, and meanwhile fox gets the counterpick that's always been in his favor for free

that's really important, because with the sheer amount of viable characters to look for here, several of which are based within min-maxing like sonic, the potential for certain characters abusing a unique trait is even more likely than it ever was in melee, even if it doesn't seem obvious right now

 

[4tlas]

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.

The group is too large and FB too unwieldy to do discussion there. We already tried, and it was a total disaster. I kept having to rehash very basic points and then my arguments would get attacked at every single level of logic simultaneously because there were just that many people debating at the same time. It was impossible to actually explain anything to anyone because halfway through following my logic they'd see someone else show up who they felt they could convince and they'd start talking to them instead. The only time I got anywhere at all was when talking to the AZ PMTV TO I mentioned already, and we came to an agreement after a LOT of discussion.

tl;dr: Really not a fan of trying to debate this on Facebook, especially in a group as large as that.

 

[JesteRace]

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

Alright, this is a solid argument. I'm not in favor of reducing ban count to 1 and I'm not in favor of modified DSR. I would be much more in favor of adding a stage. My choice would be Yoshi's Island. It's Medium stage, medium BZ, medium ceiling so it doesn't throw the skew in any direction. For now, NE will still run 9 stages, 2 bans with 1 ban in 3/5, BUT 10 stages, 2 bans regardless of set count will be considered if this can get the list national support.

So it would look like this:

Format is stage (stage size/BZ size/ceiling)

Starters
Green Hill Zone (SSL)
Smashville (MMM)
Battlefield (MMM)
Bowser's Castle (MLM)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (LMS)

Counterpicks
Wario Land (SSS)
Fountain of Dreams (SSL)
Yoshi's Island (MMM)
Final Destination (LLS)
Dreamland (LLL)

3 small, 4 medium, 3 large in each category. I like it. I'm sure Nebraska is tired of discussing stagelists but this could be an easy fix if the only problem is changing bans in a 3/5. Again, we'll stick with what we're using right now but I would encourage people already adopting our current stagelist to keep this one at the back of your mind.

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.

That's way more stages than necessary, for one. Also, look at what you get with that. For starters, you get 3 large, 2 medium, 2 small. For CP's, you get 3 small, 1 medium, 3 large. Overall that's 6 large, 3 medium, 5 small. That's skewed. For BZ size, there's 4 small, 6 medium, and 4 large. Okay, that's alright, I guess. For ceiling height, you get 6 small, 3 medium, and 5 large. Once again, skewed. A stagelist with quite a few controversial stages that also has a skew towards large stages and low ceilings is unlikely to ever be nationally accepted.

And Atlas, could you repeat what stagelist you will be trying with your next rotation? I'll give it a fair shake.

 

[4tlas]

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.

Here's the post, Jesterace. It was on page 16!

 

[DMG]

Nebraska list seems better than that. Starter is closer to 1/3/1, and CP''s don't include many controversial choices (Lylat, Skyworld, using both Delfino and Dreamland *assuming DS = Delfino Secret* )

The intended (assumption given the context of that post) skew towards small stages in that list doesn't seem to matter very much. If given 2 stage bans, a person would not have the ban power to remove the trio of PS2/DS/DL. Even taking out either DL or DS, Lylat would still be a decent offering for a CP (decent size + edges are notorious bad for many small stage chars). Now it's true that Lylat in this scenario may be less of a disadvantage than PS2 or some alternative (possibly more of a disadvantage for Bowser, that stage seems awful for him).

The most impact it has is arguably starter list, although this probably gives a person choice between BF and SV, instead of the usual BF (not taking into account that a ton of people gentlemen to BF or PS2 without striking). It's possible that a character good on FoD + GHZ is also above average on BF (not an unlikely proposition, given FoD and BF can be quite similar) which might be a triple-stage skew to avoid that Nebraska list covers.

TL:DR

Skyworld, Lylat, and possibly running both DS/DL will never be as popular as Nebraska list (once people get familiar with Bowser stage I figure)

 

[JesteRace]

Well, for the record, I certainly understand and respect the thought process. I understand that 2-2-1 for neutrals has a better average since PS2 is such a large stage. But in 1-3-1 even if the large stage is larger than the small stage is small, that doesn't really affect the striking process. 1 person can still strike 1 large stage if it's bad for them and 1 person can still strike 1 small. Then they each get equal say in which medium stage they want. With 2-2-1 even if the distribution is better, it still gives an advantage to people who want small stages. If I want big stages, I have to strike both small stages and I get no say in which medium stage we go to.

Now the list overall has 4 small, 2 medium, and 4 large stages, which is okay. But then you gotta look at BZ width and ceiling height. You have 2 low, 3 medium, and 5 high ceilings. You have 3 narrow, 5 medium, and 2 wide BZ's. Again, I'm sure the overall distribution is average, but that doesn't matter when I can prevent Fox from ever getting a low ceiling or Marth never has to deal with wide BZ's.

In summary, I understand what you were going for and I won't give you **** for "controversial" stages, but I can't get behind the skew towards high ceilings and narrow BZ's. Nor can I get behind 2-2-1 in neutrals.

 

[4tlas]

Nebraska list seems better than that. Starter is closer to 1/3/1, and CP''s don't include many controversial choices (Lylat, Skyworld, using both Delfino and Dreamland *assuming DS = Delfino Secret* )

The intended (assumption given the context of that post) skew towards small stages in that list doesn't seem to matter very much. If given 2 stage bans, a person would not have the ban power to remove the trio of PS2/DS/DL. Even taking out either DL or DS, Lylat would still be a decent offering for a CP (decent size + edges are notorious bad for many small stage chars). Now it's true that Lylat in this scenario may be less of a disadvantage than PS2 or some alternative (possibly more of a disadvantage for Bowser, that stage seems awful for him).

The most impact it has is arguably starter list, although this probably gives a person choice between BF and SV, instead of the usual BF (not taking into account that a ton of people gentlemen to BF or PS2 without striking). It's possible that a character good on FoD + GHZ is also above average on BF (not an unlikely proposition, given FoD and BF can be quite similar) which might be a triple-stage skew to avoid that Nebraska list covers.

TL:DR

Skyworld, Lylat, and possibly running both DS/DL will never be as popular as Nebraska list (once people get familiar with Bowser stage I figure)

I was not attempting to skew toward smaller stages, actually, as you pointed out with having PS2 DS and DL. And I agree wholeheartedly that the list is controversial and will be less popular than the Nebraska list. I don't think that is really here or there, though.

Well, for the record, I certainly understand and respect the thought process. I understand that 2-2-1 for neutrals has a better average since PS2 is such a large stage. But in 1-3-1 even if the large stage is larger than the small stage is small, that doesn't really affect the striking process. 1 person can still strike 1 large stage if it's bad for them and 1 person can still strike 1 small. Then they each get equal say in which medium stage they want. With 2-2-1 even if the distribution is better, it still gives an advantage to people who want small stages. If I want big stages, I have to strike both small stages and I get no say in which medium stage we go to.

Now the list overall has 4 small, 2 medium, and 4 large stages, which is okay. But then you gotta look at BZ width and ceiling height. You have 2 low, 3 medium, and 5 high ceilings. You have 3 narrow, 5 medium, and 2 wide BZ's. Again, I'm sure the overall distribution is average, but that doesn't matter when I can prevent Fox from ever getting a low ceiling or Marth never has to deal with wide BZ's.

In summary, I understand what you were going for and I won't give you **** for "controversial" stages, but I can't get behind the skew towards high ceilings and narrow BZ's. Nor can I get behind 2-2-1 in neutrals.

I appreciate that you aren't bothering to argue about the controversial stages. I hadn't thought about the ceilings when making the list, and I don't think blastzones are as important as the combination of stage layout and size. I'm still not sure how you come to those conclusions of numbers though, so would you mind listing them out?

The 2-2-1 in starters is offset by the amount of open space in those starters. Smashville, Green Hill Zone, and Pokemon Stadium all have a lot of open space, which makes them play even bigger than the numbers would suggest. I agree that the stage striking process will still be able to eliminate PS2 regardless of how extra big it is, but that extra size FORCES the ban while the slight smallness of GHZ doesn't by the same amount. Even if you don't play on the stage, its inclusion offsets the balance of the stage selection process.

 

[JesteRace]

2 low ceilings (PS2, WL)
3 medium ceilings (SV, BF, Lylat)
5 high ceilings (FoD, GHZ, DS, DL, SW)

3 narrow BZ (WL, FoD, GHZ)
5 medium BZ (SV, BF, PS2, Lylat, DS)
2 wide BZ (SW, DL)

I mean, even if you don't think these are as important as stage size and layout (which I don't disagree with), at the very least, there shouldn't be a category you can completely eliminate with bans (in this case, wide BZ and low ceilings).

And again with neutrals, I understand the thought process but I can't say I agree. The small stages aren't as small as PS2 is large, sure. But they are still small enough to force bans. If I'm a "large stage character", GHZ is gonna be bad for me regardless of the open space. PS2 forces a ban, but you still get a 2nd one. So when one player wants small stages and the other wants large stages, the small stage person is still favored because they get to choose which medium stage is played because the large stage person had to use both his bans on the small stages.

And to be semantic for a second, outside of the relevant argument, I don't know if I'd say PS2 is as "open" as GHZ and SV. GHZ and SV both have a moving platform, which means they routinely play like smaller FD's. PS2 has 2 platforms symmetrically placed on the stage. They are always there, breaking up the space. But we'll probably be here forever if we start arguing about the minutia of stage layouts lol, so I'm gonna stop there.

 

[Kneato]

I was off the grid for this weekend and just skimmed the past two pages.

A) I don't think I understand the issue with changing ban numbers depending on set format. Could someone explain that?
My argument for it is that there is a precedent for that format in Melee and people are more likely to accept things they are familiar with. It is in place just to offset the bigger impact that DSR has in Bo5. I don't see an issue with this and feel like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies.

B) If you look at the data I posted of the Nebraska list, it has an exactly even distribution of major stage elements (3 of each). Adding a stage will only skew this balance. Additionally, I personally ****ing hate Yoshi's Island and I think there are other's who feel the same, making adding it in a controversial choice that would make the list less likely to gain traction.

 

[JesteRace]

I was off the grid for this weekend and just skimmed the past two pages.

A) I don't think I understand the issue with changing ban numbers depending on set format. Could someone explain that?
My argument for it is that there is a precedent for that format in Melee and people are more likely to accept things they are familiar with. It is in place just to offset the bigger impact that DSR has in Bo5. I don't see an issue with this and feel like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies.

B) If you look at the data I posted of the Nebraska list, it has an exactly even distribution of major stage elements (3 of each). Adding a stage will only skew this balance. Additionally, I personally ****ing hate Yoshi's Island and I think there are other's who feel the same, making adding it in a controversial choice that would make the list less likely to gain traction.

The general attitude in Nebraska is in line with this and the "10 stages, 2 bans in all sets" list is only a last resort if that is the more popular option. Both formats have plenty of support behind them. If we did have to add Yoshi's Island, it may be controversial, but adding a medium stage with medium BZ's and a medium ceiling wouldn't skew the balance cause a skew towards the middle isn't a skew at all. But that's just an "if" scenario. The Nebraska TO's and I definitely prefer the 9 stages ruleset by a large margin.

 

[trash?]

A) I don't think I understand the issue with changing ban numbers depending on set format. Could someone explain that?
My argument for it is that there is a precedent for that format in Melee and people are more likely to accept things they are familiar with. It is in place just to offset the bigger impact that DSR has in Bo5. I don't see an issue with this and feel like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies.

but it is broke. like, pretty objectively, even. the only reason aMSa is trying to build up a falco is because his opponent always gets to counterpick him to FD in BO5, and yoshi gets absolutely blasted on FD, so he can't willingly choose yoshi. your option of more consistency should not somehow result in less consistency, otherwise there's no goddamn point to running it

you're overestimating how hard you'll need to push for a universal ruleset to work now. the only reason it was volatile before was b/c an ever-changing meta meant what's considered to be a balanced stagelist always changes, now you have all the time in the world to set up something right

 

[DMG]

Again, Melee's situation is not desirable. The choices that have been made for Melee are practically forced with a stage list that small (a stage list that is still being debated for shrinking further by possibly removing Stadium). We have total control on avoiding that in PM due to a more generous stage list. If the PM stage list naturally shrinks down to Melee-size, then changing ban power makes more sense and it becomes a more forced solution.


People have quite often pointed out in Melee that they dislike stage bans being different based on format. Not just because it's inconsistent, but because it has a legitimate impact on MU's. When ban power shrinks for larger sets, this leads to more severe CP's being obtained. In Melee's case, everyone knows about Jiggs = DL or Marth = FD/Yoshi etc. Characters legit get stronger or weaker based on ban power changing (the same as they get weaker or stronger based on stage list changes), and in PM do you know how difficult it already is trying to maintain stage balance for the cast when the rules are consistent? We have a huge cast, with a lot of variable preferences. Changing ban power or significantly changing the stage list has repercussions for the entire cast, this is not something to take lightly or accept simply because Melee has to deal with it and chose to shrink bans.


In PM's case, it might not be as severe because you still would have 1 ban left, but obviously 1 ban cannot cover a trio of stages that your character would not like. PS2/FD/DL is a trio that 1 ban practically holds little value over, except for banning DL against floaties or characters taking advantage of obnoxious blast zone sizes. GHZ/WL/FoD is another similar issue: 1 ban hardly impacts this a ton for applicable characters.


Remember that this is with character first in consideration. In character first, advancing to a 3/5 set is now more of a disadvantage because their ban power is limited. What would be the point of extending the set count, which is supposedly to promote or highlight a higher/more consistent level of skill, if you're going to tilt the tables by weakening ban power and allowing stronger CP's? That's an inherently counter-intuitive result vs the intent of extending the set count.


The alternatives I proposed are not all great, but most of them would functionally be a better choice than changing ban count. Adding a medium stage, changing DSR rules, or changing ban power to 1 across the board.


Adding a stage would let you run 2 ban power across the board, and if it were medium it wouldn't significantly skew the list. I think the only 3 stages that could be accepted somewhat universally are: Norfair, Yoshi Brawl, Lylat. Each one has their own quirks: I think Norfair is the least controversial so that was my prime suggestion. Yoshi probably has the most medium qualities, but some people bring issue with the slants and ghosts. Lylat is often ignored or generally disliked, not a lot wrong with it but it's not popular.


Changing DSR rules would allow 2 ban power across the board, but obv would have other impacts depending on how you choose to modify it. Some DSR mods would be superior to changing ban power, others probably not.


Changing ban power to 1 across the board is not ideal, but it's consistent. You could also try to shrink the stage list to 8 stages to accommodate 1 ban as well (probably removing a stage from whichever side is skewing more?)

 

[4tlas]

2 low ceilings (PS2, WL)
3 medium ceilings (SV, BF, Lylat)
5 high ceilings (FoD, GHZ, DS, DL, SW)

3 narrow BZ (WL, FoD, GHZ)
5 medium BZ (SV, BF, PS2, Lylat, DS)
2 wide BZ (SW, DL)

I mean, even if you don't think these are as important as stage size and layout (which I don't disagree with), at the very least, there shouldn't be a category you can completely eliminate with bans (in this case, wide BZ and low ceilings).

And again with neutrals, I understand the thought process but I can't say I agree. The small stages aren't as small as PS2 is large, sure. But they are still small enough to force bans. If I'm a "large stage character", GHZ is gonna be bad for me regardless of the open space. PS2 forces a ban, but you still get a 2nd one. So when one player wants small stages and the other wants large stages, the small stage person is still favored because they get to choose which medium stage is played because the large stage person had to use both his bans on the small stages.

And to be semantic for a second, outside of the relevant argument, I don't know if I'd say PS2 is as "open" as GHZ and SV. GHZ and SV both have a moving platform, which means they routinely play like smaller FD's. PS2 has 2 platforms symmetrically placed on the stage. They are always there, breaking up the space. But we'll probably be here forever if we start arguing about the minutia of stage layouts lol, so I'm gonna stop there.

Again, thank you very much for the polite response.

Starting with stage to ceiling:
WarioLand - 173
PS2 - 180

Smashville - 195
Lylat - 199
Battlefield - 200
FoD - 202.5
GHZ - 204.75

Skyworld - 210
Delfino - 211.25

Dreamland - 250

I agree that there are only 2 low ceilings, but I absolutely do not agree that I have 5 "high" ceilings. FoD and GHZ are bigger than BF by less than SV is smaller! Furthermore, BF (as well as FoD, GHZ, SW, and DS to some extent) has a top platform very close to the ceiling. Dreamland's top platform to ceiling is only about 200 units as well. Of course that's not quite the same, but this list isn't that bad in this department imo.

Side to blastzone:
WarioLand - 115.8

GHZ - 130
FoD - 135.5
PS2 - 141.25

Smashville - 149.75
Lylat - 150
Delfino - 154.5
Battlefield - 155.65

Skyworld - 173.375
Dreamland - 177.75

Here is a category where I agree that my list is weak, especially since this isn't even counting Skyworld's platforms or Smashville's moving platform. However, it is difficult to account for side to blastzone while also accounting for stage size and center to blastzone, so I'd like to also look at center to blastzone.

Center to blastzone:

WarioLand - 170

GHZ - 190
FoD - 198.75

Smashville - 220
Battlefield - 224
Skyworld - 230
Lylat - Also 230
Delfino - 235
PS2 - Also 235

Dreamland - 255

I expected that to actually be a lot different, but it proves a different point: most stages have similar blastzones, its the stages that are different. For reference, Bowser's Castle is 240 mid to blastzone, which again isn't very different from the rest. Is it worth swapping in Bowser's Castle to slightly change the blastzone but drastically change stage size and layout distributions?

I must admit that I was mostly looking at the stages when making this list. I looked at their sizes, layouts, and play patterns. I think I succeeded in balancing those aspects. The blastzones are not perfect, but I think they are good enough and worth the sacrifice in order to have good play on the stages themselves.

Would it help to also go through the Nebraska stagelist with the same criteria I used to make this one? Perhaps we could work out what makes a good list, since I think we might not inherently value the same things and it would be good to find them all.

Edit: I missed a few things in your post while writing this. First, I don't think GHZ is so small that it forces a ban, since it is quite open. Second, I mentioned before that I think smaller stages are not as bad for large-favored characters as the opposite. Bowser drowns on Dreamland but Peach can still play fine on Yoshis Story (of course thats just one example).

Third, stage size:

GHZ - 120
FoD - 126.5

Battlefield - 136.7
Smashville - 140.5

PS2 - 187.5(!)

FoD and GHZ are about 10%-15% smaller than BF/SV, but PS2 is almost 30% bigger! I don't think 10% is enough to force bans all by itself.

Fourth, you mentioned that PS2 isn't that open. I agree that the platforms are evenly distributed so that they are always somewhat nearby, enough to come into play if you try. I indicated that in the post where I proposed the list. I also counted FoD as sometimes being quite open when the platforms disappear. One of the objectives of my list was to move away from the big & open stagelists I see most places use (which is a reason why there's no FD on my list but several FD-like stages).

 

[JesteRace]

Again, it looks like we just quantify things a little differently. You look at the sizes as distributions from the average and try to balance according to that. I prefer to look at sizes as categories that fit into a range and balance according to that. My view is a bit simpler and more mainstream, but yours is definitely worth merit. Like, neither point of view is wrong. I'm just not sure if we can come to a consensus or a compromise between our two viewpoints. However, if I judged your list based on my criteria, it's only fair for you to judge mine based on yours, so by all means, have at it.

Edit: Wait, Norfair is less controversial than Yoshi's Island? lol since when?

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I definitely think Yoshi's is the least controversial out of the three. Lylat edges are still poo, and the platform layout is sorta covered by BC. Norfair seems a bit too big but it's been a while since I've played on it so I might be misremembering.

Yoshi's ghosts I don't think are the problem. They're well indicated and on a timer. It's more the slants at the ledges changing hitbox angles and stuff.

 

[DMG]

People complain about Ghosts or Slants way more than Norfair. I took some issue awhile back on Norfair with the platforms moving (and height of those platforms at top/near top), but judging other stage lists or preferences that seem prevalent lately, vertical moving platforms don't seem to be a huge deal for many people. FoD/GHZ/Delfino all have platforms that change height, Norfair doesn't stand out like a sore thumb by that standard.


The other consideration on Norfair was whether stuff like TL bomb camping would be more obnoxious than usual due to an overall lack of lower platforms to "leap" from. A fair point that was worth examining closer, but it's possibly true for many other stages based on space or platform design. TL bomb camping on Delfino, Dreamland, BF, or some other stage may already be sufficiently toxic/lame/problematic for the MU in question. The addition of Norfair might not noticeably worsen the plight for chars with vertical camping or platform access concerns (TL not the only character in question, just one of the easiest to highlight the concern)


Yoshi Slants are hard to judge. Sometimes it adds to the depth of the game (ground attacks being linked to slant angles, projectile bounces, etc), other times it's kind of silly. Slanted main stage + slanting platform is kind of an odd combination, leads to inconsistent gameplay based on your horizontal positioning (how far left or right you are on the stage + how far left or right you try to jump or access the platform). I don't see the stage as a deal breaker although I'd possibly keep walled stage balance in mind if this is gonna shift things (If Delfino over DL in Nebraska list, that would be another walled stage etc)


More people vocalized their desire for Yoshi to have slants and/or ghosts removed, than changes to Norfair (people complain about Norfair aesthetics more than stage facets imo. Norfair too red, unpleasant on some TV's, etc). I view that as more controversial (even if some of the objections aren't articulated or logically backed beyond "It's just dumb / I don't like it"), despite the fact that if you were to accept the slants or ghosts, the stage probably ends up being a milder/healthier choice. You could empirically prove Yoshi is a milder stage than Norfair or x choice, and still have it rejected because enough people "hate the stupid ghost/slants". That's just a sad reality I factored in when I recommended Norfair: maybe opinions on Yoshi will change now that development is over and people have to accept even minor flaws in stages since patches aren't coming.


Use Yoshi, Norfair, or any stage that will be nationally accepted + balanced enough to add to Nebraska 9. Make it Nebraska 10, 2 bans consistent, character first, and I think you have a fantastic ruleset. It's already pretty good but could be gold standard with 1 tweak imo.

 

[nimigoha]

I personally don't think we need either. Nebraska seems fine for me.

A key thing is that BF tends to play more like a small, as the platforms allow characters who prefer smaller stages to have increased mobility and not get out-camped.

Meanwhile SV plays more like a large, as the moving platform can sometimes give no options other than ground. Bowser in particular I see having a tough time on this stage.

2 bans in a Bo5 doesn't actually seem like a big deal to me. If someone can craft up a matchup and game progression where it's clear that 2 bans is to constricting, I'll cave.

But if I pit character with best neutral vs character with worst neutral, Bowser P1 vs Fox P2, where Bowser prefers small stages and Fox prefers large (assume no character counterpicks, these guys are hardcore solo mains in this example):

G1: P1 bans PS2 and probably SV, P2 bans GHZ and BF, play on BC. Assume P2 wins.
G2: P2 bans two of WL/GHZ/BF/FoD, P1 goes to one of the remaining two and wins on his counterpick
G3: P1 bans two of SV/PS2/DL/FD, P2 goes to one of the remaining two and wins on his counterpick
G4: DSR and P2 ban three of WL/GHZ/BF/FoD, P1 goes to the remaining stage and wins on his counterpick
G5: DSR and P1 ban three of SV/PS2/DL/FD, P2 goes to the remaining stage.

This seems pretty fair to me. There's probably an example out there of a matchup between small-favouring character and large-favouring character that doesn't work out like this but this is the one that came to mind.

I see the point brought up occasionally that while SV and BF are medium stages, they differ vastly in the amount of "open space" there is to play around with, and I agree.

Thoughts?

 

[JesteRace]

So, our options using the Nebraska stagelist are as follows:

Keep it as is. The pros are a relative balance of stage sizes. The cons have been pointed out in relation to changing ban count in a 3/5.

Keep the stages as they are, keep 2 bans in 3/5 sets, and modify DSR. The pros are being able to run 2 bans throughout without messing with the stage balance. The cons are the general ambivalence of DSR modifications. There is also still not optimal room for variety. With 2 bans, If there's any way to pick a stage you won on in the set at all, that will happen 99% of the time, which is undesirable imo.

Add a medium stage and have 2 bans throughout. The pros of this are having both enough bans in a 2/3 and having enough viable CP's in a 3/5. The cons are the controversial stages to be considered. Norfair is too big and the ceiling is too low, Yoshi's Island fits the balance but is unpopular, and Lylat is actually pretty close, but again is too big.

Remove Dreamland and Wario Land. Have 1 ban throughout. The pros are having the right # of bans for all sets, maintaining stage balance (2 S/3 M/2 L in each category), and has almost no controversial stages. The cons are general player attitude towards small stagelists, a little less variety, and the removal of a widely accepted stage (Wario Land).

Pick your poison or is one of these options genuinely more desirable?

 

[nimigoha]

For second option, why do we have to modify DSR and what would it be changed to? My example showed that with both players in a matchup where the characters have opposite preferences and do their best to keep away their worst stages, no one was forced to play on an unfavourable stage. At worst in my example, the starter seems like it's more in Fox's favour than Bowser's but we can't expect everything to be true neutral haha. Doesn't seem that bad, will have to play the matchup there to see.

But the counterpicks were actually quite solid. Due to the aforementioned nature of the "feel" of SV and BF, we sorta have 4 "open" stages and 4 "restricted" stages. 2 bans and DSR don't really hurt the counterpicks. I may be missing something though.

If I were to remove 2 stages from Nebraska to make a 7 stage list I'd take out FoD and FD actually. If you're not taking out the largest stage then there's no reason to take out the smallest. FoD's moving platforms can screw some stuff up and FD has some really kooky matchups, plus SV and GHZ are pseudo-FDs anyway.

7 stages 1 ban in a Bo5 also plays out pretty much exactly like my example. P1 Bowser and P2 Fox:

G1: P1 bans PS2 and probably SV, P2 bans GHZ and BF, play on BC. Assume P2 wins.
G2: P2 bans one of WL/GHZ/BF/, P1 goes to one of the remaining two and wins on his counterpick
G3: P1 bans one of SV/PS2/DL, P2 goes to one of the remaining two and wins on his counterpick
G4: DSR and P2 ban two of WL/GHZ/BF, P1 goes to the remaining stage and wins on his counterpick
G5: DSR and P1 ban two of SV/PS2/DL, P2 goes to the remaining stage.

I dunno. It seems fine when I break it down like this. Again, show me a matchup where P1 needs small stages more and/or P2 needs large stages more and I'll happily reconsider my stance.

7 stage 2/3/2 1 ban DSR or 9 stage 3/3/3 2 ban DSR both seem fine but if 7 doesn't provide any real advantage over 9 (my example seems to show that it doesn't, but again please give feedback) then I think 9 is better as it allows for more variety without actually sacrificing any balance.

 

[4tlas]

Again, it looks like we just quantify things a little differently. You look at the sizes as distributions from the average and try to balance according to that. I prefer to look at sizes as categories that fit into a range and balance according to that. My view is a bit simpler and more mainstream, but yours is definitely worth merit. Like, neither point of view is wrong. I'm just not sure if we can come to a consensus or a compromise between our two viewpoints. However, if I judged your list based on my criteria, it's only fair for you to judge mine based on yours, so by all means, have at it.

I did also place them into categories in my post, hence the breaks between the groups. I merely mentioned the % difference to point out how big the gap in those groupings is!

The Nebraska list is this, yes?

Starters:
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Bowser's Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counterpicks:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Dreamland

Within the starters, thats 3 quasi-flat stages (Bowser's platforms are very high, end up being used for vertical combos rather than combo breaking). When you add in Dreamland for counterpicks that makes 4, and then FD itself. This is more than half of the stages!

The sizes of the starters are very nice. The mediums are pretty much just different layouts, which facilitates banning nicely.

There are 2 walled starters, 1 walled counterpick, and a semi-walled counterpick. There are no anti-walls. I think this is a fine amount of wall-space. In my list I made sure to include Delfino so that there'd be a big walled stage, while you have Bowsers as a medium wall stage. I think it is sad that there are no anti-walls, as I think that is a valid counterpick trait. I know many people disagree though... (anti-walls would be Lylat and Skyworld, some people might include Metal Cavern and Castle Siege and Randall)

Platform camping is about as strong here as in my list, due to Battlefield/Dreamland/Bowsers.

There are no slopes on the list. I again think that is a valid counterpick trait. (The options for that are the 2 Yoshis, Metal Cavern, Castle Siege, and Lylat)

The only stage with low platforms is Warioland, which is also just straight-up cramped. Its unfortunate that theres no stage in this list to differentiate the tiny size from the low plats and cramped maneuverability. Using platforms to block projectiles and enable movement are very important regardless of map size (the options for that are Yoshis Island and Lylat).

And there's no stages with platforms outside of the main stage (the options for that are the 2 Yoshis and Skyworld).

That's all I got. I understand we may not be able to reach an agreement or compromise, but I enjoy the debate. As long as there is still material to discuss, I find it enjoyable to explore the problem space.

 

[DMG]

For 3/5 sets, you're right that 7 stage - 1 ban is practically the same as 9 stage - 2 ban. You are left with 5 stages, the math can do itself that bans + picks would be extremely similar. My initial suggestion for going down to 1 ban count was to remove zero / one stage, not two. Alternatively, remove 2 stages and add Norfair/Yoshi to also make 8. With 8 stages, you are left with 6 after 1+1 bans: this works fine for 3/5 set counts. I think this approach is OK, but simply adding Norfair/Yoshi to the 9 stages we currently have is probably a better idea. I mentioned reduced ban count to offer a consistent alternative that doesn't change based on set size, but it may not function as well as 10 stages with 2 bans.



Modifying DSR: the most obvious mod would be allowing Game 1 starter to be replayed on Game 5, with otherwise normal DSR rules (can't pick anything you won on prior). You can also allow the opponent to use or shift his stage ban, later in the set, to the starter, if the starter will somehow be more unfavorable in his eyes. This would only have to apply on Game 5: he can ban "normally" much earlier in the set and decide later on Game 5 to change a ban appropriately. Locking in bans would be unfair if the set does not develop to Game 5: would effectively be a wasted ban if he was forced to choose early and chose to ban the Game 1 starter before the set was fleshed out.

You could decide not to allow the opponent to ban the Game 1 starter, but it's probably more fair to let the opponent change if he wants. He can choose whether Game 1 starter (the stage he accepted along with his opponent during strikes) is a bigger threat than another prior stage he banned and change accordingly. Other DSR mods are probably not as good as that, not gonna bother going down the list.



Adding a medium stage is probably the best choice. Norfair and Yoshi seem like the best choices for way ^^^^ above listed reasons in prior posts. If I had to rank approaches, with Nebraska as baseline, I would say:


104 / Adding Medium Stage (10 stages, 2 consistent ban)

100-101 / Modified DSR (only the version I outlined, the rest would probably be way below 97)

100 / Current Nebraska (9 stages, ban reduced to 1 for 3/5 sets)

98 / One consistent ban + 2 stage removed + 1 Medium added (8 total stages)

95 / One consistent ban + 2 stage removed (7 total stages + modified DSR)

94 / One consistent ban + 0 removed (9 total stages)


Edit: Damn it's late why am I still up

 

[Kneato]

but it is broke. like, pretty objectively, even. the only reason aMSa is trying to build up a falco is because his opponent always gets to counterpick him to FD in BO5, and yoshi gets absolutely blasted on FD, so he can't willingly choose yoshi. your option of more consistency should not somehow result in less consistency, otherwise there's no goddamn point to running it

you're overestimating how hard you'll need to push for a universal ruleset to work now. the only reason it was volatile before was b/c an ever-changing meta meant what's considered to be a balanced stagelist always changes, now you have all the time in the world to set up something right

The difference being that in PM you still get your ban in Bo5 and character matchups are a ton less skewed. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" was meant about the current ban system in PM.

Anyways, as to the options that you thought up DMG, I don't think either of your top two choices are preferable to just keeping it as is.

(104) The Nebraska stagelist was now individually thought up by a few different regions nearly simultaneously. This seems to suggest it's composition has clear merit, being that it is balanced and many regions can agree to the stages on it. Adding any of the other medium stages to it would hurt one or both of those factors. It doesn't matter if me, you, or Uncle Bill like Lylat, Yoshi's, and Norfair, they are controversial stages at large. If the amount of arguing and nitpicking that goes on in this thread is representative, it would be really painful to get a number of regions using the same list if they don't like the stages. And out of those three, only Yoshi's wouldn't throw off the balance that made this list good in the first place.

(100-101) I don't see any issue with the DSR modification itself, but it just seems like having one rule be inconsistent rather than another. Anyways, I think the biggest challenge would be explaining this to players and getting them to actually use the rule. People don't like change and I feel like a large number will just go by original banning rules out of habit/because they don't understand the new rule.

I believe these changes just seem like a disproportionate amount of effort for something that isn't a big issue in PM. I haven't heard complaints about this before coming to this thread and I doubt I'll hear them outside of it.

 

[JesteRace]

Gah, I wanna respond to all of this, especially Atlas, but I'm having a bat **** insane day. What I will say is that the more I think about it, screw the other options for the Nebraska list. In my mind, there are only two viable options with minimal controversy. Both involve running the 9 stages, 2 bans list. One option is to run 1 ban in a 3/5. One is to implement the modified DSR which only bans the last stage you won on in a set. So... why not let the individual scenes decide for themselves? I mean, as long as the stagelist itself is universal, surely this one small difference in the ruleset wouldn't be too bad logistically. And I think giving TO's that extra control over the ruleset for their region might also make them more open to adopting the list. Thoughts on this?

Edit: Ignore this post. It was hastily made and poorly argued.

 

[4tlas]

Gah, I wanna respond to all of this, especially Atlas, but I'm having a bat **** insane day. What I will say is that the more I think about it, screw the other options for the Nebraska list. In my mind, there are only two viable options with minimal controversy. Both involve running the 9 stages, 2 bans list. One option is to run 1 ban in a 3/5. One is to implement the modified DSR which only bans the last stage you won on in a set. So... why not let the individual scenes decide for themselves? I mean, as long as the stagelist itself is universal, surely this one small difference in the ruleset wouldn't be too bad logistically. And I think giving TO's that extra control over the ruleset for their region might also make them more open to adopting the list. Thoughts on this?

What if TOs don't like either of those rules?

 

[trash?]

I believe these changes just seem like a disproportionate amount of effort for something that isn't a big issue in PM. I haven't heard complaints about this before coming to this thread and I doubt I'll hear them outside of it.

this is because you're playing a game with a few months worth of metagame data

it took melee over a half-a-decade to realize nobody wants to play on rainbow cruise

chill tf out, you have time

 

[DMG]

Banning simply the last stage you won on leads to M2K situations:

1. Lose starter 0-1
2. CP FD/Similar advantage and win 1-1 (Last stage won = FD)
3. Win on opponent's CP 2-1 (Last stage won now = opponent CP)
4. Opponent wins on his CP 2-2
5. You re-pick FD/similar advantage and win 3-2 (^^^^^^^)

The DSR mod most places try out, is banning the last stage you won on that also counted as your pick. Winning on the opponent's CP would no longer "reset" your prior win status, however this would also open up the door to re-pick your opponent's stage. Removing that possibility = my description of DSR mod.


Normal DSR (win anywhere at any time, it's gone from your picking) + Game 1 starter becomes available for Game 5. You do not allow any re-picks on CP stages, there is no sticky situation where you can trick the system into getting another FD match, you simply get the Game 1 starter (a stage both sides had impact on deciding earlier in the set) available again at the very end of the set. Replaying the Game 1 starter (which would be an option the opponent can change his ban to for Game 5) seems like the most balanced choice, compared to allowing another CP/opponent's CP/complicated xyz formula.

Explaining my mod isn't very hard: "Normal DSR, with the Game 1 starter available again on Game 5 for picking or banning". This would be normal DSR for 2/3 sets, and function as intended for 3/5, without needing a huge couple of lines to explain.


I cannot stress enough that using different ban counts = inherently changing the competitive balance of characters to something different. I'd rather convince every region to use Yoshi Brawl, please do not accept different ban counts based on set count.

 

[JesteRace]

So would DFW run this list with Yoshi's Brawl added and 2 bans throughout, DMG?

 

[DMG]

Idk what DFW would do. DFW has done silly things in the past such as DP + PS2 legal in same list, WarioWare legal in teams ("Yoshi Melee is just too small for teams, apparently WarioWare is not" - YeahOK.jpg)

I don't think DFW has even accepted character first despite having brought it up at least twice in the FB group with decent # responses. I could certainly make a very strong case for this though, given the data you guys have already compiled and other areas already switching to Neb 9 / possibly Neb 10


Edit: DFW PM FB group now has my post outlining original nebraska 9 (with a link to kneato's post containing the pictures with data), along with my idea of adding 1 stage. Gentlemen, now we wait...

 

[JesteRace]

I will be no less ecstatic if Nebraska 10 is what makes the standard.

Edit: Yo, speaking of FB groups. Holy ****, Atlas, you weren't kidding. This PM TO Facebook group is already looking like a cluster **** and a half. At least this thread understands how to accurately describe PS2.

 

[nimigoha]

At least this thread understands how to accurately describe PS2.

This is like one of the biggest factors leading most stagelist to being "imbalanced" so that sounds like a good start!

 

[JesteRace]

No, I mean *this* thread understands PS2. This thread here on Smashboards. The majority of my arguments on the FB group so far have been about why PS2 is large and thus, no other large stages should be neutrals. Ya know, the thing this thread accepted like, 8 pages ago.

 

[trash?]

idk why it's so difficult to get others to figure out that stage. it's not as if taking out the silly transformations magically made it any less of a big ol' area with a relatively low ceiling (although it's technically a bit higher, but that was just since PM otherwise had lower ceilings on average for its viable stages many moons ago)

 

[nimigoha]

Oh... that's disappointing lol. We all know that PS2 has the most ground but the lack of a third platform makes it play even bigger.

Smh good luck.

Still low-key blame PMDT for putting it left of Delfino and Dreamland in the build. Sorta incepted the idea that it's smaller than them. Just something we have to deal with I guess.

 

[4tlas]

Speaking of character first:

Way way back when this ruleset was first proposed and people wanted it to gain traction, it was suggested that a big region try it out both for data's sake and for convincing other regions that precedence for character first could exist. Since Smashing Grounds regularly changes its stagelist, someone suggested that we would be amenable to trying out the ruleset. I proposed it to my co-director and we ran a month-long trial period and gathered data.

With regards to character first, the data collected (and reported to this thread) said thus:

1) Surprise secondaries are gross.
2) Characters doubling down on stage counterpicks is gross and leads to boring blowout games.
3) Characters reversing stage counterpicks is gross and leads to boring blowout sets.
4) Characters negating stage counterpicks is COOL and encourages secondaries by an appropriate amount.
5) Players with secondaries want their secondaries to have a stronger advantage, and solo mains don't.
6) Players are concerned with wanting to match the national scene.
7) Players like status quo, whatever that may be. Don't fix what ain't broke was a common argument in favor of stage first, due to Melee.
8) Minor issues, but returning to character select wastes time and is annoying, and trying to imagine all of the potential secondaries when banning wastes time and is annoying.

It seems that a large number of people assumed that I wouldn't dare change the rules based on this data, and thus didn't speak up. So at the time, it seemed that switching to Character First was a good idea. Now there is a public outcry, and the subject has been brought up again. It seems that we may move back to Stage First. The chief arguments are:

1) Characters negating stage counterpicks is so cool and encouraging secondaries is so important that its worth all of the other issues, which are just going unaddressed.
2) Players want to match the national scene.
3) Minor issue, but apparently some people need to look at stage select just to remember what the stagelist is, and thus waste even more time by going SSS->CSS->SSS.
4) That's how Melee does it.

Yes that last one is believed so strongly that people are suggesting and getting support for running Melee's ruleset with Smashville instead of FoD.

So if people want to enforce a national standard, it might be easier to start with just ONE rule, like Character First. The sooner its implemented the sooner people will accept it.


JesteRace I looked through the NEW stagelist thread just now. I'm not sure if its worse than the "old" one. All I have to say is that I'm not bothering to argue about it on there again. You seem to have just gotten some support literally as I write this, so good luck. I truthfully believe that logic will not prevail, but emotion and authority, so if you jump in right now and push it as the obvious conclusion you might succeed. Otherwise people will continue to believe PS2 and FD are medium, because they just won't read the data.

 

[nimigoha]

Smashville instead of FoD... that's horrendous.

Good luck with it you guys.

I mean the PMDT already changed the recommended ruleset to character first before disbanding so you have that to back you up as well.

 

[PMS | LEVEL 100 MAGIKARP]

**** I'm probably going against the grain here and will immediately get shouted down in favor of the nebraska stagelist but

I recently played at a tournament in my region (see location) which had adopted the minnesota stagelist simply because "I dunno minnesota does this" and I really did not like it. at all.

While I do have some issue with the selection of starters and the treatment of ps2 as a full-fledged "large" stage my main complaint is the lack of available counterpicks. in a game in which nearly the entire first page of the stage select screen could be filled with viable stages (that's 21 stages) the amount of total legal stages is limited to 9, with less counterpicks than starters, seems to me like an extreme limitation.

why not yoshi's story? Is the addition of randall so terrible that it overrides its quality as a small stage with a triplat setup? it's slightly larger than warioware while having a more normalized platform setup, I don't see the reasoning here to ban it, and in fact I would much rather see it as a starter than green hill zone mainly because I think ghz's platform is next to useless, its odd mixture of stage size and high blastzone serves it better as a cp than a starter, and because yoshi's can just as easily function as a "stage with walls"

why not delfino's or norfair? that seems to be one relatively prevalent type of platform setup (large, wide, moving platforms) that is categorically excluded in this stagelist. additionally, this list appears lacking on large stages. If I want a stage where I won't die early to sakurai angled hits, my best bet is dreamland (large sides and ceilings) and then other bowsers (large sides mediumish ceilings) both of which can be banned in a bo3 (why the hell are bo3s and bo5s different ban numbers anyway), leaving no stage that has a large side blastzone or ceiling that doesn't also have a significantly small ceiling or close sides. thus meaning the only options I have are essentially starter stages, which effectively makes counterpicking nonsensical if the advantage is lost and a counterpicker is forced to go to stages all deemed "neutral"

and while I understand why some people might not like yoshi's brawl (ledges, tilting platform, randad) I really think it should be included simply because its unique platform setup gives it something no other stages (aside from metal cavern) have: an immobile single platform.

my issue of treating ps2 as a "large" stage is that while it may play onstage like a large stage it most definitely does not have the survivability of a large, especially vertically.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think large stagelists are inherently better because they allow more varied options for counterpicks, allow people to actually have functional counterpicks, and eliminate the tangible effect of dave's stupid rule. that being said, large stagelists require more bans, but honestly, moving from 9 to 12 stages and from 2 to 3 bans isn't to big of a deal

for the record my stagelist that my region ran before it adopted the nebraska ruleset (in 3.6b, so bowser's alternate castle wasn't a thing) was
starters:
ghz (unfortunately, I really dislike ghz being a starter and wish something worked better)
smashville
battlefield
ps2
norfair

cps:
yoshi's story
ww
fod
fd
yoshi's brawl
delfino's
dreamland

with three bans. While this stagelist is on the larger side (and don't get me started on my ideal stagelist that includes 5 other stages), I see no reason to throw out perfectly functional stages such as yoshi's story or norfair. additionally, I feel as though this list strikes a fair balance between large and small stages and platform setups

I haven't entirely kept up with this thread and I do like the usage of bowser's castle as a starter and the treat of ps2 as a stage with a hilariously large stage space. If I had to construct my own stagelist now, I'd take my previous list and replace delfino's with bowser's and make it a starter in the place of norfair.

however, the main consensus in this thread seems to be something pretty different from this stagelist, so I guess what I want to hear is why I'm wrong and why the nebraska list is better than this. if I understood why the nebraska list was preferable I would gladly play it but at the moment I don't really like the way that stages that I commonly played on and see no issue with prior to the end of the pmdt are suddenly now banned

 

[4tlas]

Is there some reason we aren't considering using all of the competitively viable stages? The ruleset is just trying to find some way to judge skill at playing "Project M", and all of those stages are within reason. We don't ban characters outside of Giga Bowser and Warioman, so why ban stages outside of Infinite Glacier, Fourside, Shadow Moses, and the like?

FLSS for starters, provide an appropriate number of bans for the rest of the list (4 for 17 stages). So the competitive stages are:

WarioLand
Yoshis Story
Metal Cavern
Castle Siege
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Skyworld
Battlefield
Smashville
Yoshis Island
Lylat
Norfair
Delfinos Secret
Bowsers Castle
Distant Planet
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland

 

[nimigoha]

Randall interrupts tether recoveries which is undesirable. It's also essentially the same as Warioland (small BZs and small stage) so you have to spend 2 bans to get rid of almost exactly the same thing. Plus we already have BF and FoD as triplats.

Look over the Nebraska stagelists's spread of attributes. Side blastzones, top blastzones, and stage width (commonly referred to as stage size and we consider this very separate from BZ size), are all very evenly distributed.

Stage redundancy is reduced, allowing for simpler thought process for counterpicking (so reduced time) but it also streamlines the meta, so to speak. Including two stages that are almost identical outside of platforms (WL and YS, DS and DL) in the same list means that if you don't want to go to that kind of stage you have to spend two bans.

Your starter list is also still skewed towards large. Nebraska is pretty close to even.

Sorry for not addressing everything, hope I can clear up why the Nebraska list might be more accepted by us internet randos.

Is there some reason we aren't considering using all of the competitively viable stages? The ruleset is just trying to find some way to judge skill at playing "Project M", and all of those stages are within reason. We don't ban characters outside of Giga Bowser and Warioman, so why ban stages outside of Infinite Glacier, Fourside, Shadow Moses, and the like?

FLSS for starters, provide an appropriate number of bans for the rest of the list (4 for 17 stages). So the competitive stages are:

WarioLand
Yoshis Story
Metal Cavern
Castle Siege
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Skyworld
Battlefield
Smashville
Yoshis Island
Lylat
Norfair
Delfinos Secret
Bowsers Castle
Distant Planet
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland

4 bans for 17 stages seems pretty bad. Including stages that people dislike out of principle (debatably Castle Siege, Norfair, Lylat, Yoshi's, Yoshi's, Skyworld, Metal Cavern) means that people are going to ban these out of fear. Hard for me to explain but to some people, including Lylat in a stagelist is like including Pokefloats; many people will "waste" a ban on that stage and not gamble that their opponent might pick it.

So IMO it takes smart bans away (banning based on stage attribute, like as a Bowser might want to ban large flat stages) and uses up more bans on stages people simply do not like.

The Nebraska stagelist is pretty much like the 6 least controversial stages in PM (SV, BF, GHZ, FD, PS2, WL) and adds DL (Whispy and ludicrous BZ, Delfino could be considered here) and FoD (moving platforms and repeated platform layouts but not as controversial as others) and Bowser's Alt, which hasn't yet been officially "featured" as a tourney-ready stage.

Also do rulesets running MDSR have bans in Bo5? Because MDSR isn't really a big deal in Nebraska list because you still get bans, you're not going to be forced to go back to the worst stage for the matchup like the usually-mentioned M2K vs spacies on FD. Not to mention spacies have been showing in Melee recently that they can beat him there.

 

[PMS | LEVEL 100 MAGIKARP]

1. having two stages with drastically different platform setups isn't redundant, platforms are a very tangible part of how a stage plays
2. not wanting to play into banning out of fear is essentially the same reason as saying "cuz melee" ie not good
3. I don't think my list is skewed towards large stages, it depends what you consider a "middle" and how large you consider fod to be

also including delfino's over norfair confuses the hell out of me

 

[4tlas]

4 bans for 17 stages seems pretty bad. Including stages that people dislike out of principle (debatably Castle Siege, Norfair, Lylat, Yoshi's, Yoshi's, Skyworld, Metal Cavern) means that people are going to ban these out of fear. Hard for me to explain but to some people, including Lylat in a stagelist is like including Pokefloats; many people will "waste" a ban on that stage and not gamble that their opponent might pick it.

So IMO it takes smart bans away (banning based on stage attribute, like as a Bowser might want to ban large flat stages) and uses up more bans on stages people simply do not like.

The Nebraska stagelist is pretty much like the 6 least controversial stages in PM (SV, BF, GHZ, FD, PS2, WL) and adds DL (Whispy and ludicrous BZ, Delfino could be considered here) and FoD (moving platforms and repeated platform layouts but not as controversial as others) and Bowser's Alt, which hasn't yet been officially "featured" as a tourney-ready stage.

Also do rulesets running MDSR have bans in Bo5? Because MDSR isn't really a big deal in Nebraska list because you still get bans, you're not going to be forced to go back to the worst stage for the matchup like the usually-mentioned M2K vs spacies on FD. Not to mention spacies have been showing in Melee recently that they can beat him there.

We talked about pooled bans further up the thread, and the "fear bans" you are talking about would be removed by that rule. I understand 100% what you're talking about, though. By itself, I don't think that's a good enough reason to discard all those stages.