Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Strong Badam]

1 ban for both bo3 an bo5. 9 stages 2 bans doesn't work in bo5 because with DSR you end up having to CP to disadvantaged stages for game 5, sometimes game 4 depending on MU.

 

[4tlas]

Not a fan of MDSR, since it allows for reduced variety in stage picks, but its not too bad in a Bo5 since the only thing it reopens is the "neutral" starter stage.

 

[DMG]

1 ban for both bo3 an bo5. 9 stages 2 bans doesn't work in bo5 because with DSR you end up having to CP to disadvantaged stages for game 5, sometimes game 4 depending on MU.

2 ban in Bo5 could work, but you'd have to open up DSR in some fashion. I proposed opening up Game 1 starter for Game 5. I don't think any other mod version of DSR would end up being as good. I'd rather just use 10 stages and 2 bans with normal DSR if we want 2 bans to stay.

1 ban seems a bit weak, depending on the stage list I guess. Anything consistent would be preferred though

 

[JesteRace]

1 ban for 9 stages in a bo3? That sounds awful. There's so little power in that 1 ban.

I don't know if I buy the argument that characters are forced to fight on stages that are disadvantageous in a bo5 with 2 bans either. I mean, yes, with certain characters that can come up, but that's because those are bad characters. If your character is only viable on a third of the stagelist, that is a character problem, not a ruleset problem.

IMO I would prefer 9 stages, 2 bans regardless of set, w/e DSR your heart desires = 10 stages, 2 bans(Yoshi's Brawl is the only stage that would work), normal DSR > 9 stages, 2 bans with 1 ban in a Bo5 >>>> 9 stages, 1 ban regardless of set >>>>>>>> anything else

 

[nimigoha]

Not a fan of MDSR, since it allows for reduced variety in stage picks, but its not too bad in a Bo5 since the only thing it reopens is the "neutral" starter stage.

Well MDSR only comes up in a Bo5 so...

1 ban for 9 stages in a bo3? That sounds awful. There's so little power in that 1 ban.

I don't know if I buy the argument that characters are forced to fight on stages that are disadvantageous in a bo5 with 2 bans either. I mean, yes, with certain characters that can come up, but that's because those are bad characters. If your character is only viable on a third of the stagelist, that is a character problem, not a ruleset problem.

That's a position I used to strongly be in but now that we know those characters won't get any better I think it's fair to consider the implication of those characters' stage picks.

Bowser and Ganon I find both fine on all 3 smalls and BF, possibly BC as well. 2 ban with DSR seems okay here, 2 ban MDSR for Bo5 seems pretty solid.

I don't see a situation in Nebraska 9 where a character has only 3 good stages for a matchup if that matchup isn't already killer in neutral regardless of stage.

If there's a glaring situation where 2 ban MDSR on Nebraska 9 or 10 is leaving characters with not enough good stages to counterpick to in a Bo5 then I'd like to see it.

MDSR in a ruleset is sorta like just removing a ban for Bo5. It's also consistent which I really like. Bo3 don't seem too open and Bo5 don't seem too constricted.

 

[4tlas]

You could also TRY one of the rulesets and then edit it as people bring up concerns. The stagelist had so many options that it was cumbersome to test them all so discussion was drastically more efficient, but in this case I think you should just try something.

 

[JesteRace]

nimigoha I agree that Bowser/Ganon (the usual examples) are fine on the small stages, BF, and possibly BC. I would even argue they're viable on Dreamland, even though it's still probably a slight advantage to the opponent. Having only 1 ban would actually hurt them worse, because they'd have to fight on FD or PS2.

4tlas I think people adopting the NE 9 are already doing that. Nebraska is running 2 bans throughout and so far, no problems. If there is a problem, it will of course be discussed.

 

[4tlas]

As for the argument of whether we should adjust the stagelist to balance out the character meta, I don't think there is a right answer. I would advocate for doing it, since a) I think it would just make for a better meta and b) isn't that what PM is all about? The usual reasons against it don't apply as strongly, those being a) its not doable when its hard enough to make a stagelist at all and b) the competitive scene is just trying to turn the base game into something that can be competed in rather than further adjusting the gameplay. We have plenty of options with which to purposely skew the stagelist, and we've already been modding the game, why not a little more by trying to have the rules balance out the meta?

This is one reason why I was advocating for 2 small stages in the starters (the other was to balance out just how huge PS2 is). Of course people may come to the conclusion that this is necessary, but we already have most opinions agreeing on which characters are bottom tier, so why not now?

 

[DMG]

How ban count affects Bowser/Ganon is also tied into set count. Bowser and Ganon are noticeably stronger in smaller sets with fewer bans. Partly assuming they win Game 1 (otherwise due to the flip/flop nature of their CP process, they may not be able to reasonably come back from game count deficits regardless of what the stage list is or ban count is)

In 2/3 with 1 ban:
Bowser wins
Loses on opponent's CP
Opponent only has 1 ban, Bowser's chances are fairly good

2/3 with 2 ban:
Bowser Wins
Loses on opponent's CP (This CP is weaker, but may not be noticeably weaker to give Bowser a decent chance)
Opponent has more ban power, Bowser CP probably not as strong and possible loss


The same as if we tried 0 bans. The fact of Bowser/Ganon being taken to some god forsaken place, is then balanced by their relative power to also do so. You have to be careful, because it's much easier to find "bad" stages for some of these chars than it is to find good stages. If ban count is kind of middle ground, you run the risk of removing their CP power and additionally not being able to afford them enough to ban out "all" bad choices.

It's impossible to remove all the bad choices for these chars, so balance might only be found by allowing them more good choices?


Mostly a fault of character design, but 1 ban might end up being suitable. I dislike the idea of weak ban coverage, but I dunno how you allow some more niche characters to function as well unless you weaken ban coverage, weaken DSR, or start adding stages targeted at buffing them?

 

[nimigoha]

4tlas really the only characters I would look at when possibly adjusting stagelist are Bowser and Ganondorf as slow projectile-less fatties, or Yoshi who is like really really terrible on flat stages without platforms but better than he was in Melee.

I don't agree with 2 small starters to balance out a single very large starter since in matchups where stage size matters the small and large are both being banned anyway and the game will probably occur on the most agreeable starter. I, as a Bowser, ban PS2 and you as a Fox are forced to ban both GHZ and FoD (examples)? Now I get to pick which medium we go to, something you didn't have a say in. I don't like that.

DMG I think that Bowser and Ganon in 2 ban N9 MDSR are fine.

In a 2/3 with 2 bans:
Bowser wins
Loses on opponent's CP (FD and PS2 probably banned, SV probably chosen)
Opponent has 2 bans to touch GHZ, WL, FoD, BF, and arguable BC. I'll assume that the first game was played on BC here, which gets banned by MDSR and then FoD and WL will probably get banned. So now Bowser has GHZ or BF to choose from, both pretty good Bowser (or Ganon) stages.

In a Bo5, if it goes to game 5, he'll have both of them plus BC to choose from again, which he won on before.

It really doesn't seem very limiting and I'm trying to use what I think is the most stage-dependent characters. Maybe Yoshi is more stage-dependent and giving him the ability to ban FD and either GHZ or SV seems like a nice thing when you consider his (sorta commonplace opinion) placing as a low-tier.

 

[4tlas]

nimigoha Yeah the character with weak stage presence gets to pick the better of the bad stages, which are mediums. It might feel like the element of choice is gone, and that feeling is a problem, but in actuality there was never any choice to begin with, just now the ball is in the other court. If those characters are agreed to be poor as characters, it may be worth giving them the advantage in the ruleset.

 

[JesteRace]

Giving someone the advantage in the ruleset for playing a worse character is something I just do not agree with. They chose their character and what strengths and weaknesses come with it, they don't need to be catered to.

And I don't even think these characters need it. Like, MU-wise, Bowser/Ganon/Yoshi are low-tier, sure. But they have plenty of viable stages. They only have 3 stages that are outright terrible for them and they can ban 2 of them. Where's the issue?

 

[nimigoha]

And I don't even think these characters need it.

Yeah this is pretty much what I'm saying so far. I don't see any reason for Nebraska with 2 bans to be unfair for any character in a way that another stagelist would fix and not tip the balance in another direction.

 

[Oracle]

I've posted a lot in the fb ruleset group about about why 2 bans 9 stages works in bo5 so I'll just copy/paste some stuff:

Having 1 ban in b05 increases the variance based on stages in the set. Also, thinking that b05 hurts characters with fewer good stages is fallacious. Imagine the 9 stages ranked in order, from least to most advantages in the matchup you're playing, so you get a list like
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
In a two ban system, you would always ban stages 1 and 2, and your opponent will always ban 8 and 9. Keep in mind this is assuming both players are making optimal stage choice decisions. Thus, after the banning phase the remaining list of stages is "
3 4 5 6 7
your opponent will want to go to their best stage in the matchup, which is stage 3, and you will want to go to your best stage, which is 7. How advantaged you on your 3rd best or 3rd worst stage is dependant on the matchup, However, consider in a bo5, if you only have 1 ban, the list of potential stages will look like this:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Here, if all 5 games are played, your opponent will pick 2 and 3, and you will pick 7 and 8. This means that in a bo5, you get to play 2nd most advantageous stage, and have to play on your 2nd worst stage. This means that in bo5, the variance is greater than in a bo3. Compare than to the 2 ban bo5, in which you play on stages 3, 4, 6, and 7 for the counterpick games. You play on the two stages you would normally play on in a bo3, plus two stages that are very close to neutrals.

Having more stage-based variance isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't like the one ban bo5 because it unnecessarily increases the advantages you get based on stage picks, thus making bad matchups get even worse because you have to play them on your 2nd worst stage, and reward characters who have polarizingly good aspects on a handful of stages (ie you are going to have to play bowser on two of warioware, battlefield, or fod in one ban, whereas bowser needs to win on a stage other than his strongest ones in 2 ban). This makes the game even more counterpick heavy, which is a major turnoff to many players, old and new alike. The biggest reason not to do it is because, by introducing more varied stages, it de-values individual games because their result will become less related to player-skill and more related to the stage matchup.

the problem is that it doesn't reward you for playing on more stages, it rewards whoever picks the character with better stage cps. for example, if I'm playing rob vs a roy, they have to ban dreamland in a bo5, so i get a massive advantage because I now only have to win on FD (free win basically) and greenhill zone. that's a lot easier than if they had two bans and I have to win on greenhill zone and some stage that's closer to a neutral. granted this is a fairly extreme example but it still shows that in one ban I just have to win on two 'free win' stages to take the set, whereas in 2 bans i only get one free win and have to win the next game on a more fair playing field

plus adding the stage variance disproportionately rewards the player who wins game 1. In the above scenario I get to play on the two easy stages for my two wins because I won g1, whereas if I lost game 1, I would have to win on my one of my opponent's counterpicks, which is a lot harder when roy gets his pick of wario ware/bf/fountain. the advantage from winning g1 is way too big, being artificially inflated in 1 ban because of how much stronger the counterpicks are relatively.

Actually it is still accurate. the stages are still in order of least to most advantaged, even if the amount of advantage is less.

One big mistake in making rules is trying to 'help' characters. It is not our responsibility to provide advantages to characters that only have a few good stages. The melee ruleset hurts bad characters like roy or dk, because you can just ban yoshis/FD and they have no good stages left. Even though these characters would be more useable in a no ban melee format, it isnt worth compromising the other values in the ruleset. Namely, by reducing bans to 'help' bad characters, you introduce stage variance that makes individual game wins less about player skill and more about matchup/stage advantages.

It isnt our fault ganon only has a few good stages, and changing the ruleset so bad characters like him can get free cp's to stages with massive advantages is a mistake

Its pretty messy so i can clarify later, but the tl;dr is
1. thinking bo5 2 bans makes you cp to a disadvantaged stage is a fallacy created by the false idea that its automatically bad if you don't have a choice in stage for g5
2. 1 ban in bo5 devalues individual matches by giving players uneccessarily big advantages on their stage counterpicks;
3. in turn, 1 ban bo5 also artificially inflates the importance of winning g1 because once you've won g1, you get super easy wins on your strong stages

Personally, i would want the nebraska list with yoshi's brawl added as the only change. I just like the stage, plus 10 stages doesn't largely affect anything besides a little extra depth.

 

[DMG]

2 ban with Neb 9 + Yoshi is already really high up on the list for a growing number of people. I'd like to see DFW push for it along with running character first.

 

[JesteRace]

Yo, NE 9/10 at IaB would make me so happy, y'all don't even know.

 

[nimigoha]

At our next London monthly in February I'll run character first 2 ban NE 10 lol. Exposure!

 

[Star ☆]

I made a post discussing the competitive viability of Sky Sanctuary Zone in the stage discussion thread. Please give it a look over as I think it's worth considering.

 

[Kulprit]

I made a post discussing the competitive viability of Sky Sanctuary Zone in the stage discussion thread. Please give it a look over as I think it's worth considering.

Stages not included in the vanilla 3.6 build will not be seriously considered for national/worldside standard, as 99% of players won't have access to that stage.

 

[Oracle]

also while i'm here i will say that i'm very for doing character choice first, stages second. interestingly, this only really works if you allow players to change their bans mid set. I will do some maths about it later when i'm not bogged with finals

 

[Star ☆]

Stages not included in the vanilla 3.6 build will not be seriously considered for national/worldside standard, as 99% of players won't have access to that stage.

Some regions use addons to swap Bowser's Castle to the competitive version and reorganise the stagelist. I also recall a custom tournament build released in 3.02 days that included the new Norfair and that was implemented at tournaments.

I can understand the reluctance to having to spread a tournament build in regions but with proper organisation it is not that strenuous. It has been standardised in two regions of Australia thus far after months of testing.

 

[DMG]

also while i'm here i will say that i'm very for doing character choice first, stages second. interestingly, this only really works if you allow players to change their bans mid set. I will do some maths about it later when i'm not bogged with finals

Changing bans seems fine. People have been fine with having bans shift or vary during the set, back in stage first format.

 

[Strong Badam]

Dreamland 64 is a terrible stage and should never be legal.

Char first is fine, I don't really care.

Someone should repost the Nebraska stagelist every page so I don't have to go back 5 pages to find it.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah sorry. Even if everyone downloads it for tournaments, the average player will show up and be like "why is this random stage off the internet a tournament-legal stage?"

Why would we include a stage not in 3.6? If we can do that then why not use Kneato's altered stagelist that distributes stage attributes more evenly? Or just poke around on brawl vault and use stages like Mewtwo Stadium just because they're unique? I'm slippery-sloping but I think my point still stands; why should we make an exception for just 1 stage when NE is already balanced and gaining traction?

I get that it's something a local made but we can't run around saying "my friend made this stage it's pretty and sorta flat and stuff, pls legalize" I know that sounds condescending but...

Nebraska is gonna win. Maybe with Delfino instead of Dreamland but yeah.

also while i'm here i will say that i'm very for doing character choice first, stages second. interestingly, this only really works if you allow players to change their bans mid set. I will do some maths about it later when i'm not bogged with finals

Why can't all TOs be as hip and cool and reasonable and tall as you?

Also what do you mean by change bans mid set? This is something I'm not understanding.

Strong Badam

Starters: GHZ, SV, BF, BC, PS2
CPs: WL, FoD, [possibly YI], FD, DL [possible switch to DS]

I personally agree that DL is dumb but if it stays in and the NE stagelist is widely accepted I'll get over it. Compared to character first or overall attribute balance I think it's less important.

 

[Star ☆]

Yeah sorry. Even if everyone downloads it for tournaments, the average player will show up and be like "why is this random stage off the internet a tournament-legal stage?"

Why would we include a stage not in 3.6? If we can do that then why not use Kneato's altered stagelist that distributes stage attributes more evenly? Or just poke around on brawl vault and use stages like Mewtwo Stadium just because they're unique? I'm slippery-sloping but I think my point still stands; why should we make an exception for just 1 stage when NE is already balanced and gaining traction?

I get that it's something a local made but we can't run around saying "my friend made this stage it's pretty and sorta flat and stuff, pls legalize" I know that sounds condescending but...

Initially the stage was made for creative purposes but we realised the competitive potential of it after testing it with some top players in our region.

I do not think it is worth throwing the opportunity of a better stage for an optimised stagelist because people cannot stand the idea of a tournament build being distributed.

 

[DMG]

Adam DL is a terrible stage but like, you have bans. I think Delfino is sometimes garbage and isn't much of an improvement on Dreamland, but I'm down for having either one legal cause people have bans. I wouldn't extend that logic to all stages (ie: legalize banned stages and just give players 10 bans), but I think DL can certainly be managed in PM a lot better. Melee Bo5 with 100% FD/DL is kind of a bummer, but PM isn't limited that far.


Nimi: Changing bans = at any point in Bo5 set, you can re-select bans.

I ban FD and PS2 immediately after Winning Game 1

I realize later in the set that my opponent has different character choices or different preferences

I then change my bans to GHZ and WL, say later on in Game 4 of a set. FD and PS2 are now back in play at that moment

 

[Strong Badam]

Was gonna edit but people posted so here:

Its pretty messy so i can clarify later, but the tl;dr is
1. thinking bo5 2 bans makes you cp to a disadvantaged stage is a fallacy created by the false idea that its automatically bad if you don't have a choice in stage for g5
2. 1 ban in bo5 devalues individual matches by giving players uneccessarily big advantages on their stage counterpicks;
3. in turn, 1 ban bo5 also artificially inflates the importance of winning g1 because once you've won g1, you get super easy wins on your strong stages

1. Not automatically bad in every situation, but being more or less forced to going to 1 stage or 2 other stages that you've already lost on feels claustrophobic and very bad to actually be a victim of. And honestly for this game very depressing to arrive at in a tournament set with so many stages that are close to not sucking.
2&3. This assumes your stagelist grants huge advantages in several matchups; if your stagelist is crafted correctly then you've already prevented redundancy and such leading to few stages being particularly strong for a character in a given matchup except in fringe cases where unique character kits happen to interact that way, like with chaingrabs or bowser on WarioLand/FoD. You need to make your ruleset to be ideal for most cases and not use the extreme examples to prevent that.

 

[nimigoha]

Not automatically bad, but being more or less forced to going to 1 stage or 2 other stages that you've already lost on feels claustrophobic and very bad to actually be a victim of.

Can you be specific with an example here? I can't think of a matchup where this happens due to the stage pick and not because the matchup is plain bad.

Star ☆ what exactly is SSZ meant to be better at with regards to an optimized stagelist? Are you ignoring the NE stagelist and its merits?

 

[4tlas]

Giving someone the advantage in the ruleset for playing a worse character is something I just do not agree with. They chose their character and what strengths and weaknesses come with it, they don't need to be catered to.

While this is true, how is it an argument against making the game more fair? Project M is all about balancing character strengths, so this seems in line with the game design goals. I think that is a pretty good argument in favor of skewing the stages.

 

[Star ☆]

Can you be specific with an example here? I can't think of a matchup where this happens due to the stage pick and not because the matchup is plain bad.

Star ☆ what exactly is SSZ meant to be better at with regards to an optimized stagelist? Are you ignoring the NE stagelist and its merits?

I'm not ignoring the NE stagelist, I was just told that a tenth stage was in consideration for the NE stagelist and regions in our country have enjoyed SSZ's status as a counterpick so I wanted to provide a suggestion.

If you read my post in the Stage List Discussion thread, I outline how unique it is and how it can bring new, dynamic interactions to matchups that other stages don't. Its blastzones fill up a space in ratios that Lylat once filled and the slanted platforms allows for unique recovery options and other wavelanding mixups. Read my post for additional info.

 

[JesteRace]

I would need the exact dimensions of Sky Sanctuary Zone to actually have an opinion on it. Stage width, BZ width, and ceiling height to be precise.

And yo, 9 stages. 2 bans for both players. 5 stages left. 5 games maximum. When are you ever forced to CP a stage you lost on?

 

[DMG]

I'm not a fan of using non-vanilla choices at this point, because it's likely to fracture and fragment the community. Custom stage development and experimentation makes more sense when a game is still being dev'd, because those choices can be explored and then established as a standard choice.

SSZ looks good, but what if I go and present my own 3-4 custom stages? 2 regions use yours, 3 regions use 2 of mine, 2 regions use 1 of mine + your SSZ, and 1 region uses neither of ours. We've now split the community with different builds / stages added.

This is inevitable if people push for custom options to be viable in tourney at this point

Edit: You're reading Adam's post wrong people

"You're either forced to go to 1 stage (last stage left), or pick from 2 different stages you lost on (the stages your opponent CP)"

You're not forced to pick a stage you lost on, that's not what he suggested. What he suggested is the situation being between a rock and a hard place. Having 1 fresh stage, plus having 2 losing/opponent CP stages left, is a pretty meh situation. That 1 last fresh stage might suck for your character, while having an additional fresh stage could lessen those odds.

 

[nimigoha]

Nimi: Changing bans = at any point in Bo5 set, you can re-select bans.

I ban FD and PS2 immediately after Winning Game 1

I realize later in the set that my opponent has different character choices or different preferences

I then change my bans to GHZ and WL, say later on in Game 4 of a set. FD and PS2 are now back in play at that moment

Wait is this not a standard? That seems like a no-brainer to me. If the point of bans is to get rid of the stages you're most uncomfortable playing a matchup on, it makes sense to reselect those bans if the matchup changes.

I'm not ignoring the NE stagelist, I was just told that a tenth stage was in consideration for the NE stagelist and regions in our country have enjoyed SSZ's status as a counterpick so I wanted to provide a suggestion.

If SSZ has a medium base, a medium ceiling, and medium side blast zones then you have at least something but it appears that this is not the case and so it doesn't belong as NE's 10th stage.

 

[Star ☆]

I would need the exact dimensions of Sky Sanctuary Zone to actually have an opinion on it. Stage width, BZ width, and ceiling height to be precise.

And yo, 9 stages. 2 bans for both players. 5 stages left. 5 games maximum. When are you ever forced to CP a stage you lost on?

The blastzone dimensions are in my post. Blastzones are 225 Width and 196 Height. Almost equivalent to that of Lylat Cruise. I'm not experienced enough with Brawlbox to give you accurate values regarding the stage length. Though I know it is slightly smaller than that of Pokemon Stadium 2.

I'm not a fan of using non-vanilla choices at this point, because it's likely to fracture and fragment the community. Custom stage development and experimentation makes more sense when a game is still being dev'd, because those choices can be explored and then established as a standard choice.

SSZ looks good, but what if I go and present my own 3-4 custom stages? 2 regions use yours, 3 regions use 2 of mine, 2 regions use 1 of mine + your SSZ, and 1 region uses neither of ours. We've now split the community with different builds / stages added.

This is inevitable if people push for custom options to be viable in tourney at this point

Fair enough, I can understand your concern. Our region has just been comfortable with our stagelist for quite some time now and I wanted everyone else to explore the possibility. If you guys don't want to adopt it, then that's fine but I want to convince you all of the viability of it, even with the concern of custom content conflicts.

nimigoha Please read my edited post above regarding what makes it unique.

 

[DMG]

The stage seems competitively fine, just concerns about custom content. Some custom stuff works at IaB because Lunchables iirc goes over every setup and knows what he's doing (also just cosmetic changes, not new stages). Average end user at home, smaller regions, etc may not have that luxury.

 

[Star ☆]

The stage seems competitively fine, just concerns about custom content. Some custom stuff works at IaB because Lunchables iirc goes over every setup and knows what he's doing. Average end user at home, smaller regions, etc may not have that luxury.

That's pretty much what happens in our region. Us PAL users have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get PM to work in the first place so I suppose implementing custom builds on tournament setups is fairly rudimentary to us haha

We just posted it on our Facebook page and SmashBoards thread and also popped it on the SD cards that didn't have it at tournaments with a laptop.

 

[JesteRace]

While this is true, how is it an argument against making the game more fair? Project M is all about balancing character strengths, so this seems in line with the game design goals. I think that is a pretty good argument in favor of skewing the stages.

I disagree, but here's another problem entirely. Your assumption is that skewing towards small stages would only help bad characters like Bowser/Ganon, but that is not true. There are many matchups between viable characters that are mostly even but also depend on the stage. Link vs. Marth for example. Mostly an even matchup, but I want large stages, he wants small. Should he have an advantage in the ruleset just because some bad characters(that again, I think are being overstated in their badness) need a leg up? I'm gonna say nah.

As for Sky Sanctuary Zone, if it's only slightly smaller than PS2, it's still a large stage. Large stage with medium blast zones and medium ceiling throws off the balance of the list. If it is actually smaller enough than PS2 to be medium than yeah, it could work as #10... buuuuuut there's the whole accessibility problem. Most people are fine just running YI Brawl if they need a 10th stage

 

[nimigoha]

What he suggested is the situation being between a rock and a hard place. Having 1 fresh stage, plus having 2 losing/opponent CP stages left, is a pretty meh situation. That 1 last fresh stage might suck for your character, while having an additional fresh stage could lessen those odds.

I can see his point, just because your opponent hasn't banned it and you haven't banned it doesn't necessarily mean it's a stage you want to take the matchup to. That's why I think we should look at 2 ban but MDSR so the stage you started on (and won on) is open again. Just a thought. Would definitely need to fiddle around with that at more length.

@SOJ can you update your stage data google spreadsheet to include Bowser's alt Castle so we can have a little more empirical backing in discussion? Also in your "Row 1" category PS2 has stage size of 187.552 but above it's 178.1744 which I think is the current value but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Star ☆]

As for Sky Sanctuary Zone, if it's only slightly smaller than PS2, it's still a large stage. Large stage with medium blast zones and medium ceiling throws off the balance of the list. If it is actually smaller enough than PS2 to be medium than yeah, it could work as #10... buuuuuut there's the whole accessibility problem. Most people are fine just running YI Brawl if they need a 10th stage

Like I said, it's up to you guys to determine whether if the stage's competitive merits are valued enough to have to distribute a custom build. Regions in our country did, but you guys have your own ideas about what works competitively so I suggest you weigh up what it can or cannot offer to the NE stagelist (or any other stagelist for that matter)

 

[DMG]

10 stage with Yoshi looks the most appealing. MDSR was my second hand choice if we were set on both 9 stages and 2 consistent bans. I'd try anything aside from changing ban counts because of 3/5