Project M Recommended Ruleset

[nimigoha]

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

1. Of course. But having 2 small walled stages with small vertical and small horizontal blast zones that both have very full platform layouts is still extremely similar. If WL had 1 platform then it would be a different discussion. GHZ is different because it has a large ceiling, differentiating it further (along with the single moving platform)

2. Not really following this. Are you replying to my reply to atlas?
3. "Middle" is almost universally considered to be around SV/BF. Your list has FD, DL, DS, Norfair, and PS2 for large (and SV plays pseudo large) while GHZ, WL, FoD, YS, (and BF plays pseudo small). That's skew towards large by a stage, in a game where DD heavy characters with lots of room to run around are more or less considered top tier in the tier list discussion thread without even factoring in stagelists; do you want to give them more advantage?

FoD isn't large. It's closer to GHZ than it is to BF and plays pretty small due to the tight platform layout. Though it's such a dynamic stage, when the platforms disappear it plays a fair bit more medium. Tough to strictly classify but it's by and large still a small stage.

4tlas honestly the feel of the stagelist is big for me personally. I look back at the Apex ruleset with 14 legal stages and it just seems extremely sloppy to me. A smaller, tighter, more quantified stagelist just feels better, I dunno. Sounds like BS when I say it like that haha.

 

[4tlas]

4tlas honestly the feel of the stagelist is big for me personally. I look back at the Apex ruleset with 14 legal stages and it just seems extremely sloppy to me. A smaller, tighter, more quantified stagelist just feels better, I dunno. Sounds like BS when I say it like that haha.

I understand, and I agree that many people will make this argument. I see merit in it, and somewhat like it myself. But I also agree that it sounds like BS when said explicitly, which is why I've only just started to consider using all the stages. Until now, I was also spouting the same idea which sounds like BS when I hear it aloud lol

I think starting from all the competitive stages and seeing where the meta develops is the best way to do it. It takes time and in the meantime people will complain, but its the best way to weed out undesirable stages and meta-influencing imbalances. With playtesting and time, we can work down to a small stagelist.

My biggest qualm is that we might be forcing the meta just by creating a stagelist so soon. Just look at how many people won't even consider Skyworld just because its on Page 2, or Bowsers because its an alternate? If we cut off stages from even being considered or tested like this, then we'd never end up with, for example, the Nebraska stagelist.

 

[DMG]

The fundamental problem is if you asked everyone to provide their own list of what's competitive, you might find answers ranging from 6 stages to 20 stages. That question is almost always interpreted as "what do you see as preferable to competitive play" instead of "what seems allowable for competitive play?"


Smash players have consistently weeded down the stage list across all Smash games, because of 2 factors:

1. Genuinely find out a stage is not that competitive after using it more extensively (I remember playing on Corneria, in Brawl, with money on the line in tourney. As late at early 2009, probably even later! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWl40sJPPFs Mind = blown). #1 = removal for actually being broken or unhealthy

2. Players elect to remove stages that may not be tested broken, but possibly impact gameplay beyond some margin they find unacceptable (prefer static stages to moving ones, prefer stages with less extreme factors, etc) #2 = removal due more to preference than game-breaking traits (what breaks a stage is subjective but that's another matter)


#1 has been happening for awhile in PM. Stages either changed or removed from most tourneys: old SSE Jungle, old dracula, Skyworld, Skyloft, others to boot. This is not surprising: some stages take awhile to prove busted or take a long time for consensus to spread (or 1 region is a hold-out and finally quits using the stage)


#2 is the natural progression of most Smash games. The community eventually shifts towards preferring to minimize the impact stages have on gameplay and to avoid some unique traits if they don't seem desirable. Ironically, this means for some people it's better to accept a static/flat stage with other troubles, than stages like Metal Cavern (omg slants are gross let's not play there). Metal Cavern for example might be a more balanced stage than Dreamland, but it's enjoyed less because of asymmetry/slants/blah blah blah.


Adding to the problem is that some borderline stages do not get enough usage to clarify whether they are actually an issue or not. You can theory-craft on how "dangerous" a stage is competitively, but without sometimes years of data, you may just be left with variable opinions from different players. With a lack of hard data and varied opinions of a stage, the community/TO is left with a decision on whether to use the stage in tournaments. With money on the line, the safest approach is to remove the stage if there are doubts. You can add a stage back later on, but you can't change results and dollars in the past based on stages that probably should not have been legal.



TL:DR

People craft competitive landscape based on what they see as beneficial, not necessarily the all-inclusive approach. If it seems beneficial to craft a "trimmed" stage list for a variety of reasons, they will choose that path.

 

[_Chrome]

While I think the idea of using a lot of stages until the meta develops is a nice idea, it doesn't need to be that way in this day and age. We have data such as that provided by Kneato and we can use judgments and history of the game from Melee to deduce that certain stages should be allowed and others shouldn't. I think we have enough ability to judge that PS2 is, in fact, a large stage (omg shocker right?/s) and there is an overabundance of large stages in this game, but once again, this has already been stated and is common knowledge.

Also thank you to whomever wanted BC to be legal. It's my absolute favourite stage not to mention it really deserves to be a starter stage.

 

[PMS | LEVEL 100 MAGIKARP]

legalize metal cavern

 

[Kulprit]

Also thank you to whomever wanted BC to be legal. It's my absolute favourite stage not to mention it really deserves to be a starter stage.

Thank you for this. Nebraska decided to run Bowser's because we didn't feel like having Delfino's & Dreamland on the same list made sense, since their blastzones are (for the most part) similar enough to where most characters who would be banning 1 would just ban both (similar to how Wario Land and Yoshi's Story are on the same list). We originally tested with Bowser's as a CP and people absolutely loved the stage, hardly anyone complained about it and most gave us praise for it. So when looking at the raw data, it just made sense as a medium stage with large blastzones to have it as a starter, instead of Dreamland/Delfino's per se.

It's also a great Meta Knight stage

 

[4tlas]

DMG So what you're saying is that people make the stagelist smaller over time. What I was saying is that we have never started with the full breadth of options, so if we want to do that we need to back up first. Does this not jive with what you're saying?

 

[_Chrome]

It's the best Meta Knight stage!

legalize metal cavern

No. It's fun in crew battles because crew battles are all about (mostly) good-natured salt and hype, the roots of old school/underground smash, but please not for real tournaments. Though it is super fun. You were definitely joking though. Next time add kappa after that kind of statement.

 

[nimigoha]

DMG So what you're saying is that people make the stagelist smaller over time. What I was saying is that we have never started with the full breadth of options, so if we want to do that we need to back up first. Does this not jive with what you're saying?

Well I mean we've sorta done that already, albeit not with just 3.6. Skyworld, Lylat, YS, Distant Planet, etc have all been steadily dropping from stagelists since 3.02. I don't think there's a real need to start from scratch on this front as realistically the same thing will happen again.

 

[4tlas]

Well I mean we've sorta done that already, albeit not with just 3.6. Skyworld, Lylat, YS, Distant Planet, etc have all been steadily dropping from stagelists since 3.02. I don't think there's a real need to start from scratch on this front as realistically the same thing will happen again.

Perhaps, but my point is that we never ran them all simultaneously. What I've always gathered from the stagelists I've run (SG rotates every few months, so a lot of stagelists with a lot of players) is that whichever stages weren't on the last list are "ugh jank". I'm pretty sure if I removed anything but the "big 3" and then added it back later, it'd be jank. And all the people who were complaining were always the same people: the emotional and loud ones. And their complaints were never useful, they were always just "ew how can anyone like that stage".

I know if I ran the Nebraska stagelist (or my own), I would get complaints. Multiple. And I hear complaints about PS2, too. Nothing is immune, but people start with the most annoying thing first. That's why I want to run all the stages and weed them out one by one. People would only complain about the worst offenders at any given time, until we end up with what people are forced to accept. Right now nobody is forced to accept anything because there's options people haven't witnessed yet, so they feel like we should unban something, and there's not enough data to prove them wrong. And I agree, there's not enough data to say anything is wrong with Skyworld, for example. It dropped off of most lists when PMDT put it on page 2, ffs! That's not a reason to drop a stage, and now people won't consider it anymore.

 

[JesteRace]

Skyworld is weird. Is it a tiny stage with 3 big platforms, a medium stage, or 4 tiny stages? I legitimately don't get it. Someone explain it to me lol

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah you raise a good point about Skyworld, I was a bit sad to see it get booted from stage 1. They just wanted to show off their HD remakes which makes sense, but the loss was heavy. I actually think it's a really interesting stage as it has the smallest base platform but relatively big blast zones.

I could honestly see it replace FoD as a counterpick. I'll play with it a bit more.

 

[DMG]

No it does not jive, because people prefer not to use controversial stages in tourney. The reason being that you can still conduct meaningful analysis about a stage without it being in tourney. Money Match separately, do copious amounts of friendlies, explore camping strategies and go over gameplay footage, etc. Effectively, don't use tourneys as a lab for determining what stages are good or not.


Metaphor I'd use is like picking Fruit at a store. A good looking Fruit might spoil over time faster than you imagined, or rarely you get home and it turns out the Fruit is already bad inside. Now I wouldn't feel too guilty about any of this, since I chose what looked like a good Fruit. If it ends up bad, so be it.

However, I would certainly be wary of picking a Fruit with spots, blemishes, weird smells or fungus, etc. Maybe I pick it, go home, cut it up, and it turns out to be perfectly edible. But if the Fruit ends up being rotten, given some of the warning signs, you would certainly question my choice. I had better looking Fruit to choose from, why pick the one that appears to have more problems?


If those 17 stages you suggested all looked like pristine Fruit, then yes using them all and removing any bad ones later sounds fine. But out of those 17, there's likely anywhere from 3-6 stages that most people see as funky, and they will question your judgment of including them if they turn out bad. "That was an avoidable mistake that I payed money for, we told him it looked bad" etc

 

[Avro-Arrow]

Bowser's really is a good MK stage. It's also a good Sonic stage too, so :D.

YI has been dropping off lists from what I've seen too. Why not use more liberal stages at casual events (i.e. practice sessions for Smash clubs, basement tournaments, arcadians, etc.) and more "streamlined" versions at larger, more competitive tournaments? It'd minimize the impact of a suboptimal list while at the same time allowing for data to be collected for whether or not those stages are preferable.

Also what DMG said.

@trash? What do you mean by Sonic being a "min-maxing" character?

Another possible good small-mid stage is Sky Sanctuary Zone, which they use officially in Sydney, Australia. I swear I always plug this in any discussion about stages; I doubt it'll become standard but it's always there if you want to play around with it.

Here's a sample of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Rh3niLytE

 

[nimigoha]

I really don't think that custom stages are a possibility.

 

[4tlas]

Skyworld is weird. Is it a tiny stage with 3 big platforms, a medium stage, or 4 tiny stages? I legitimately don't get it. Someone explain it to me lol

Honestly, I think that's a good thing! If something is the most extreme in all of its aspects, it will get banned any time it should get picked! For example, imagine that a character dislikes big blastzones AND big stages. That's plausible, right? So do they want to ban the stage with the biggest blastzones (say, Dreamland) or the biggest stage (say, PS2)? Which do they value more? Perhaps they'll ban the 2 biggest stages and leave Dreamland, which gets picked. But if Dreamland were both the biggest stage AND had the biggest blastzones, it would ALWAYS get banned or ignored.

Skyworld is wide open for space-slayer juggles, but its a small stage. Its a small stage, but there's space to work with if you're willing to move closer to the blastzones. Those platforms are easier to kill/die from, but they can also be used to recover in tandem with the normally singular ledge option. The platforms let you get up to the top platform, but everything is so spread out on this tiny stage that you can sorta platform camp. There's not much space to run away but plenty to recover in, which is another dichotomy that might help this stage not get banned, but still get picked. And its unique!

No it does not jive, because people prefer not to use controversial stages in tourney. The reason being that you can still conduct meaningful analysis about a stage without it being in tourney. Money Match separately, do copious amounts of friendlies, explore camping strategies and go over gameplay footage, etc. Effectively, don't use tourneys as a lab for determining what stages are good or not.

If those 17 stages you suggested all looked like pristine Fruit, then yes using them all and removing any bad ones later sounds fine. But out of those 17, there's likely anywhere from 3-6 stages that most people see as funky, and they will question your judgment of including them if they turn out bad. "That was an avoidable mistake that I payed money for, we told him it looked bad" etc

I understand completely what you are saying, and as a TO of a very large region I see the issue. Unfortunately, people are also very bad at knowing what they want before they try it, and thus someone needs to suck it up and try it. Furthermore, people are very likely to have confirmation bias about this.

There are many smaller tournaments in the Boston area, and they all run different lists. And no matter what list they run, people complain. And its always the same people, the ones who complain about everything. Now, at what point do you find something agreeable enough that the complaints are limited? Perhaps Lylat really isn't that bad, but all of the complainers picked that because there was nothing else to complain about at the time! Throw all of the questionable stages at them, and they have to pick and choose. Then you'll get meaningful data.

Also, I can't get anyone to test all the stages. They're all too busy "training" to be bothered. They all want to be better players, not make sure they are playing the best game they can.

I really don't think that custom stages are a possibility.

Huh?

 

[DMG]

Forcing stages in tourney is not the best plan. A better method would be coming up with an incentive to use the stages. Offer a $20 reward to any 2 players who record 10 solid matches on a stage, before/after a tourney or at a Smash fest. Pay people to play stages and fill out a survey: they won't get paid if the info they give back is garbage. Have a spare setup on the side at tourneys dedicated to stages you want to try or test extensively. Give $1 venue discounts if a person plays at least 1-2 matches on that setup. Etc

If they absolutely refuse to even explore stages on their free-time, I question what Smash players they are.

 

[Kneato]

**** 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

A few issues I can point out.

A) Basically, with more legal stages, you need to run more bans. And more bans ends up hurting characters with few good stages more than having those stages helps them. Because they only prefer a small list of stages, the likelihood of you adding in a stage that they would actually prefer is small, and it will just be banned by the extra ban anyways. It also gives even more options to those characters who excel on many stages.

B) A smaller list has the benefit of being much more likely to be universally adopted. The more stages you include, the greater chance people will have a major problem with some. The Nebraska list is mostly acceptable stages. Even increasing the size to 10 has the downside of having to chose from Yoshi's Island, Lylat, or Norfair, all of which are fairly controversial.

C) We've been over the classification of sizes already. PS2 is strictly a large stage. However it has small blastzones. These are taken into account independently and are all balanced on the Nebraska stagelist.

 

[Kneato]

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

I'm chill as chili. I'm just saying, if it's something people will realize over time, let them realize it, then there will be a large push to change the current system. As of now though, I haven't heard complaints, not even from top players.

If it really ends up being an issue, wouldn't it be better for everyone to come to that consensus in their own time rather than try to push for a change now and run into all the growing pains of trying to enforce a rule change that people don't understand the reason for?

EDIT: I don't know if I said it, I'm not really against the rule change. I believe it could have a positive impact on the game. I just think getting it to catch right now will be difficult and could lead to more regional ruleset differences in the shortrun.

 

[4tlas]

Forcing stages in tourney is not the best plan. A better method would be coming up with an incentive to use the stages. Offer a $20 reward to any 2 players who record 10 solid matches on a stage, before/after a tourney or at a Smash fest. Pay people to play stages and fill out a survey: they won't get paid if the info they give back is garbage. Have a spare setup on the side at tourneys dedicated to stages you want to try or test extensively. Give $1 venue discounts if a person plays at least 1-2 matches on that setup. Etc

If they absolutely refuse to even explore stages on their free-time, I question what Smash players they are.

Question away, sir. They don't explore the stages and then can't come up with any good reasons why a stage is "too jank".

 

[DMG]

You have my condolences

 

[4tlas]

You have my condolences

This is why I find there isn't enough evidence to ban anything yet...

Also because I personally would be happy to play with items on high on random stages. In tournament. But I concede that because people have good logical arguments against it.

 

[CORY]

You have my condolences

Yeah, and your fb topic isn't going too much better : /

It started with one of our top 10 talking about how he would be glad dl came back because delfino's was too big...

 

[DMG]

Yeah, and your fb topic isn't going too much better : /

It started with one of our top 10 talking about how he would be glad dl came back because delfino's was too big...

Don't get me started LOL

 

[4tlas]

They're everywhere! ITS INSANITY!!!!!

But seriously my players are asking for Melee ruleset and stagelist. Halp. Right now I look like the crazy TO who is making up rules and enforcing them on the people.

We agreed on Character First I'm not crazy!

 

[DMG]

Project M: All these stages, characters, and you still choose to play Fox on FD

 

[4tlas]

Project M: All these stages, characters, and you still choose to play Fox on FD

[Insert "All These Flavors and You Chose to be Salty" Grandma meme here]

 

[Kneato]

Project M: All these stages, characters, and you still choose to play Fox on FD

I think it's high time we start doing character bans. Fox players shouldn't have to deal with pesky DDDs and Roys anyways.

 

[_Chrome]

Especially since, according to Melee players, Fox isn't the best character in the game despite the fact that he has no losing matchups and is still mathematically the best in the game. Characters like Ivysaur and Ness are just stupid. Lets ban them.

 

[Tarul]

I really like the Nebraska stagelist. A lot. It even has math to support it. That's REAL numbers!

I am going to play devil's advocate as to why it's hard to quickly adopt a single stagelist. If you adopt the Nebraska stagelist, you're limiting yourself to 10 stages. However, if you play your custom stagelist that can have up to 15 stages with 3 bans, you gain exposure to way more stages. Thus, when you go to another region's major, you won't feel uncomfortable because the tournament is running stages you've never played on. At worst case, you're over-prepared. Best case, you've got an advantage.

I, however, would love it if Austin would finally ban Yoshi's Story Brawl. And Delphino's. Those stages have so many things wrong with them. :\

 

[nimigoha]

Delfino is better than Dreamland.

Dreamland will probably beat it out for inclusion in the long run. Not a big deal.

But ambiguously saying "so much wrong with it" is silly.

 

[Kulprit]

I really like the Nebraska stagelist. A lot. It even has math to support it. That's REAL numbers!

I am going to play devil's advocate as to why it's hard to quickly adopt a single stagelist. If you adopt the Nebraska stagelist, you're limiting yourself to 10 stages. However, if you play your custom stagelist that can have up to 15 stages with 3 bans, you gain exposure to way more stages. Thus, when you go to another region's major, you won't feel uncomfortable because the tournament is running stages you've never played on. At worst case, you're over-prepared. Best case, you've got an advantage.

Thank you for the compliment! We tried our hardest to have our arguments objectively and not subjectively, like many TOs do for their PM stagelists.

And if the Nebraska stagelist because the national standard, then there would be no need to run the 15 stages to "be prepared for any stage," which is what Nebraska's overarching goal is with our stagelist: to have it be nationally accepted.

 

[Tarul]

Delfino is better than Dreamland.

Dreamland will probably beat it out for inclusion in the long run. Not a big deal.

But ambiguously saying "so much wrong with it" is silly.

Obviously, that was an exaggeration. I feel that most of the PM stages that are in dispute are okay for competitive play.

I personally dislike Dreamland because it's high blast zone makes it so that vertical-kill champs are kind of screwed or are Fox. The actual stage layout is fine.

As for Yoshi's Island Brawl, there are quite a few reasons why I dislike the stage. The curved edges make edgeguarding too easy for some characters (Marth), makes wavedashing to edge difficult, cause for weird interactions centerstage. If the stage were flat, I think it'd be great.

I just dislike how we currently do things in Austin. Bottom middle 5 are starters, middle middle 5 are counterpicks. It makes it so that the majority of the stages are very large, which definitely polarizes the game in favor of movement-centric characters. :\

 

[Bazkip]

Nebraska starters list strikes me as being too...open? I think it'd be better balanced if FoD was a starter instead of GHZ.

 

[DMG]

Nebraska starters list strikes me as being too...open? I think it'd be better balanced if FoD was a starter instead of GHZ.

But how would this impact anything if players choose their strike on FoD instead? Like, in a 1/3/1 starter list, replacing the 1's with another similar stage (the stage would be another representative of S or L) doesn't change much. If PS2/Delfino/DL/FD/DP is chosen as the L, sets with any characters trying to avoid Large, will ban the L representative 99% of the time. If I decide to change GHZ to WarioWare, FoD, or Yoshi Melee, none of these differences make a huge impact aside from my opponent maybe considering a lesser aspect like walls or ledges.

If you want the stage list to be less open, you'd have to modify more than just 1 starter pick. Modify 2 picks, or change the medium stages, since changing S or L alone is not super meaningful. Strikes will function 95% the same if you only change L or S (this may not hold true for imbalanced lists that are closer to 2/2/1 or 1/2/2)

 

[JesteRace]

While I think NE 9 is balanced overall for platform layouts, I do see a slight favor for quasi-flat, "open" stages. And FoD being a starter in place of GHZ would remedy that. But like DMG said, unless stage size is irrelevant in the matchup and platform layout is all that matters, changing the small starter impacts very little. And seeing how GHZ is almost as much of a widely accepted neutral as SV/BF/PS2, I'd rather not add to the list of things we need to convince people to adopt.

Edit to avoid double post: Ummm, Magikarp. Dreamland and Bowser's Castle are not the only stages with large blast zones. You still have Final Destination. They are in fact, quite large, especially from center stage.

Let me restress the balance of the stage categories.

3 small stages (WL/FoD/GHZ)
3 medium stages (BF/BC/SV)
3 large stages (Ps2/FD/DL)

In neutrals, we have 1 small, 3 medium, 1 large.

3 narrow BZ's (WL/GHZ/FoD)
3 medium BZ's (PS2/SV/BF)
3 wide BZ's (FD/BC/DL)

In neutrals, we have 1 narrow, 3 medium, 1 wide.

3 low ceilings (WL/PS2/FD)
3 medium ceilings (BC/SV/BF)
3 high ceilings (FoD/GHZ/DL)

In neutrals, we have 1 low, 3 medium, 1 high.

3 flat/quasi-flat stages (GHZ/SV/FD)
3 "somewhere in-between" stages (FoD/BC/PS2)
3. Heavily platformed stages (WL/BF/DL)

In neutrals, we have 2 quasi-flat, 2 in-between, and 1 platformed. This is the one area where an imbalance is found. But, as DMG pointed out, switching out GHZ for FoD would make little difference overall, and SV has to be a neutral.

So adding Norfair/Delfino's/YS all throw off the balance that is present. The only stage you could add without throwing off the balance is Yoshi's Island, as it is medium across the board and is a "somewhere in-between" stage.

 

[JOE!]

Yoshi's Story Brawl

Brawl had Yoshi's Story? Damn, i thought they just had Yoshi's Island

 

[Darth Shard]

I think another case for Dreamland or Delfino's in this stage list is with regards to walled vs. non-walled stages.

In the Nebraska list, we have the following:

3 Walled stages: WL, GHZ, BC
2 Quasi-Walled stages: FoD, PS2 (you cannot travel under the stage but you can move around under the ledge)
4 Open stages: SV, BF, FD, DL

While this isn't perfect symmetry, having Delfino's over DL offers only 3 open stages. Given that walled stages change the way that certain characters recover/edgeguard, this is an important consideration when doing bans.

 

[nimigoha]

You don't consider FD at least semi-walled?

 

[JesteRace]

I would probably just classify DL and FD as semi-walled, just like FoD. PS2 has no wall that makes any difference whatsoever.

So 3 walled (WL/GHZ/BC)
3 semi-walled (FoD/FD/DL)
3 non-walled (SV/BF/PS2)

Once again, we have a balance that adding or replacing a stage would throw off. Even adding Yoshi's Brawl would throw off the balance in this category.