Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Kulprit]

Modified DSR or add Yoshi's Brawl.

P R O B L E M S O L V E D

Since these are our only 2 realistic options, let's break down the positives & negatives of each one:

Modified DSR
Positives
- Keeping the distribution of balance in all categories the same
- Not having to add a controversal stage to the N9 list
Negatives
- rules may confuse players (this honestly isn't a legitimate problem that TO's need to worry about though, as players need to know the ruleset of the tourney they're attending anyway)

Adding Yoshi's Island Brawl
Positives
- Not having to implement modified DSR, since there would be 2 stages left on Game 5 w/ 2 bans
Negatives
- Stage has many negatives attributes to it like slopes, 2 Dandalls, list goes on
- Skews the perfect balance of current N9 list
- Convincing players that running a controversal stage is worth it
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
With these pros and cons laid out, I would MUCH prefer adding Modified DSR to the ruleset rather than adding Yoshi's Island Brawl.

 

[_Chrome]

Mod Yoshi's

The one true path

Sky Sanctuary Zone? @Star ☆

But I see what you did there.

 

[DMG]

I don't think adding Yoshi could be 100% identified as a negative. Adding a stage could help some MU balance or add a bit extra competitive depth overall. That's a possible benefit to be weighed.

Modified DSR in this case should probably also be clarified as my example, since technically there have been multiple variations of DSR used or crafted before. Someone could interpret that as one of the Melee / older DSR variants. I assume most people are on board with my version, compared to the other variants.

 

[nimigoha]

I honestly think Nebraska 9 stage 2 ban MDSR is the way to go. Yoshi's Brawl has too many elements that annoy too many players, even though it's got nice medium attributes all around.

So I'm going to break down possible Bo5 scenarios to see what effect MDSR can really have when it's in effect.

In these scenarios, out of 9 stages, assume 1/2/8/9 are the counterpicks, and are the ones always being banned to shorten things a bit. Obviously not true for most matchups but that doesn't really matter for what I'm trying to show here.

Player A and Player B, stages 3/4/5/6/7

ABAB_
Strike to 5, A wins
B wins on his CP, 3
A wins on his CP, 7
B wins on his CP, 4
A can choose between 3 (lost on before), 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed)

ABBA_
Strike to 5, A wins
B wins on his CP, 3
B wins on A's CP, 7
A wins on his CP, 6
B can choose between 3 (won on before), 4 (previously unplayed), 5 (lost on before), 6 (lost on before), or 8/9 (stages he bans against A, previously unplayed)

AABB_
Strike to 5, A wins
A wins on B's CP, 3
B wins on his CP, 4
B wins on A's CP, 7
A can choose between 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), 7 (lost on before), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed)

So then you can also have 3 cases where it's reversed so we've effectively already counted those and the letters are just reversed (BABA, BAAB, and BBAA).

In each scenario, the counter picking player can choose between 2 stages he's previously lost on, 1 stage he's won on before, 2 stages he bans against his opponent, and one untouched stage.

The thing I find most interesting about MDSR is that the stage that opens up 4 out of 6 times is the stage from game 1, which was already selected through starter striking and will be the closest thing to a neutral stage (hypothetically). The other 2 out of 6 cases (ABBA and BAAB) the stage that opens up is a counterpick you've previously won on. However this progression requires you to win on your opponent's counterpick during the set.

But wait there's more

So those are the Game 5 scenarios but one of those also has a hidden MDSR previously, and that's AAB_ (or BBA_)

AAB_
Strike to 5, A wins
A wins on B's CP, 3
B wins on his CP, 4
A can choose between 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), 7 (previously unplayed), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed).

What's interesting here is that while he doesn't have his two best stages (8 or 9), A is in a really good spot since the stage he previously won on, and is not allowed to CP, is a stage that's supposedly in B's favour. The DSR rule here is stopping him from returning to a stage that, while he did win on it before, should hypothetically be B's stage! Rather than blocking a stage where A is meant to be advantaged on (and he previously won on), it's blocking B's stage. This means that there's (hypothetically) another stage that is open that's also in his favour.

So there you have a rough idea of the effect of MDSR. For some reason. Probably reads like a jumbled mess so I'm sorry if no one can follow this. I was pretty much just spitting my ideas out unfiltered.

TLDR: There are 8 situations where MDSR takes effect.

2 out of 8: The most beneficial one for the CPer takes place in a set where that CPer has already won a game on his opponent's counterpick.

6 out of 8 (including the 2/8 above): The "unbanned" stage from game 1 has already been filtered by the starter stage selection process.

 

[Cox Box]

I honestly think Nebraska 9 stage 2 ban MDSR is the way to go. Yoshi's Brawl has too many elements that annoy too many players, even though it's got nice medium attributes all around.

So I'm going to break down possible Bo5 scenarios to see what effect MDSR can really have when it's in effect.

In these scenarios, out of 9 stages, assume 1/2/8/9 are the counterpicks, and are the ones always being banned to shorten things a bit. Obviously not true for most matchups but that doesn't really matter for what I'm trying to show here.

Player A and Player B, stages 3/4/5/6/7

ABAB_
Strike to 5, A wins
B wins on his CP, 3
A wins on his CP, 7
B wins on his CP, 4
A can choose between 3 (lost on before), 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed)

ABBA_
Strike to 5, A wins
B wins on his CP, 3
B wins on A's CP, 7
A wins on his CP, 6
B can choose between 3 (won on before), 4 (previously unplayed), 5 (lost on before), 6 (lost on before), or 8/9 (stages he bans against A, previously unplayed)

AABB_
Strike to 5, A wins
A wins on B's CP, 3
B wins on his CP, 4
B wins on A's CP, 7
A can choose between 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), 7 (lost on before), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed)

So then you can also have 3 cases where it's reversed so we've effectively already counted those and the letters are just reversed (BABA, BAAB, and BBAA).

In each scenario, the counter picking player can choose between 2 stages he's previously lost on, 1 stage he's won on before, 2 stages he bans against his opponent, and one untouched stage.

The thing I find most interesting about MDSR is that the stage that opens up 4 out of 6 times is the stage from game 1, which was already selected through starter striking and will be the closest thing to a neutral stage (hypothetically). The other 2 out of 6 cases (ABBA and BAAB) the stage that opens up is a counterpick you've previously won on. However this progression requires you to win on your opponent's counterpick during the set.

But wait there's more

So those are the Game 5 scenarios but one of those also has a hidden MDSR previously, and that's AAB_ (or BBA_)

AAB_
Strike to 5, A wins
A wins on B's CP, 3
B wins on his CP, 4
A can choose between 4 (lost on before), 5 (won on before), 6 (previously unplayed), 7 (previously unplayed), or 1/2 (stages he bans against B, previously unplayed).

What's interesting here is that while he doesn't have his two best stages (8 or 9), A is in a really good spot since the stage he previously won on, and is not allowed to CP, is a stage that's supposedly in B's favour. The DSR rule here is stopping him from returning to a stage that, while he did win on it before, should hypothetically be B's stage! Rather than blocking a stage where A is meant to be advantaged on (and he previously won on), it's blocking B's stage. This means that there's (hypothetically) another stage that is open that's also in his favour.

So there you have a rough idea of the effect of MDSR. For some reason. Probably reads like a jumbled mess so I'm sorry if no one can follow this. I was pretty much just spitting my ideas out unfiltered.

TLDR: There are 8 situations where MDSR takes effect.

2 out of 8: The most beneficial one for the CPer takes place in a set where that CPer has already won a game on his opponent's counterpick.

6 out of 8 (including the 2/8 above): The "unbanned" stage from game 1 has already been filtered by the starter stage selection process.

In this case is MDSR "a player may not counterpick to the previous stage they won on"?

 

[Kulprit]

I don't think adding Yoshi could be 100% identified as a negative. Adding a stage could help some MU balance or add a bit extra competitive depth overall. That's a possible benefit to be weighed.

Modified DSR in this case should probably also be clarified as my example, since technically there have been multiple variations of DSR used or crafted before. Someone could interpret that as one of the Melee / older DSR variants. I assume most people are on board with my version, compared to the other variants.

Yeah I had a feeling I would've missed something about either part lol. It can definitely benefit some characters in certain MUs for sure. Even with that in mind though, I think having MDSR is more beneficial in the end, which we see from the scenarios laid out by nimigoha above.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I'm using the ssbwiki definition of MDSR where it's only the last stage you won on is banned.

I know there are all kinds of modifications of DSR and whatnot but from what I can gather for most of the people in this thread:

When you guys say DSR, you mean all stages you've previously won on you can't counterpick to (but your opponent can, aka "salty runback").

When you guys say MDSR, you mean only the last stage you've previously won on you can't counterpick to (but again, your opponent can if they so choose).

I don't think this has been mixed up so far in the thread but definitely a good idea to clarify.

 

[DMG]

The old Melee MDSR is not my version of DSR. The old variant allows the M2K effect: getting FD/CP stage twice in one set. This is not totally preferable.

My version does not allow re-picking CP's under any circumstance. The only stage that opens up is Game 1 starter, and it only opens up for Game 5. This prevents the M2K effect, or any other possible combinations.

Normal Winner DSR (Any stage you win on, regardless of pick status, is removed from your future picking) + Game 1 is available for Game 5

Mad SB ate up my post due to site maint. This post is much smaller and condensed

 

[nimigoha]

I don't really understand the M2K effect. From what I do understand:

M2K loses game 1
M2K CPs spacie to FD game 2, M2K wins
Spacie CPs to another stage, M2K wins
Spacie CPs to another stage, spacie wins
And now M2K is allowed to go back to FD.

I'm going to continue on as if I got this right lol, please correct me if needed.

This situation requires M2K to lose game one and win on his opponent's counterpick.

I also don't think we should immediately apply this to PM and consider it as 1:1 Melee. Remember that the M2K effect only happens using Melee's MDSR (not all-stage DSR) in a Bo5 and those never have any bans.

In PM we have bans so the situation where your opponent gets to take you to their best stage in the matchup twice simply doesn't exist. At best with this rule, your opponent may get to take you to their third best stage in the matchup twice. If they lose game 1 and win on your counterpick.

This being said, I like the idea of opening up the game 1 stage just for game 5. Already struck to so probably pretty close to a neutral stage most of the time. I'm up for that being discussed.

But yeah, I don't think the M2K effect would be a big deal in PM because we still have bans in a Bo5 so your opponent might be able to go to their third best stage twice, but definitely not their best stage twice (or at all actually!)

 

[ECHOnce]

Modified DSR or add Yoshi's Brawl.

P R O B L E M S O L V E D

Mod Yoshi's

The one true path

Anyone up for a 3rd reskin of SSE Jungle / Distant Planet?

 

[Strong Badam]

DSR is intended to prevent double jeopardy, losing on a stage you have already lost on. Any situation that allows that is bad, other than of course CPing to a stage you yourself have lost on.

 

[DMG]

PM has bans but you likely have to use some of that ban power on similar stages. A character who dislikes large stages in a MU has the trio of DL/FD/PS2. I'm not sure I would want to see any of those stages being used twice in a set, by the person already winning on the stage. That's a situation that WILL come up if you use the old Melee MDSR

Strong Badam how you feel about my mod allowing Game 1 starter for Game 5? I mean something has to give, unless we're content with Game 5 being reduced to 1 choice.

 

[nimigoha]

Those are some good points. I'm kinda stymied now.

1) I think Brawl Yoshi's would be a big point of hesitance for a lot of people if they see this stagelist being "pushed on them".

2) I think that the idea of being "forced" onto the single unplayed/unbanned stage or a stage your opponent has won on for game 5 isn't great (9 stage 2 ban). Like just because neither of us have CPd Smashville nor banned it, it doesn't mean it's a stage I necessarily want to counterpick you to.

I think the idea of 9 stage 1 ban is good since it leave more stages open for choice, but the now open stages are likely polarizing for both players. i.e. instead of being able to ban both WL and FoD against Bowser, now you can only ban WL, however conversely Bowser is only able to ban FD instead of both FD and PS2. What this creates in my mind is giving more power to the counterpicker, making it more likely they'll win on their CP and again we have the infamous "winning game 1 is artificially inflated" concept.

At the risk of coming across as someone with no conviction, I can admit that I now think 9 stage 1 ban might be the way to go, thanks to Strong Bad's very succinctly put idea of double jeopardy. I agree that no matter how rare the situation may be, the fact that it can arise under that form of DSR is bad.

Curse you Brawl Yoshi's for being such a double edged sword. Your stage width, ceiling, side blast zones, and unique platform fit so nicely into NE but your support ghosts (debatable), slanted ledges, slanted stage, and Shy Guys (lol hitlag) are so bleh in many situations.

 

[4tlas]

As an outside observer who doesn't want this list anyway, here's how I look at it:

If you add Yoshis Island, you can also add a ban. That ban can be used on Yoshi's Island if necessary, so AT WORST, no matter how much you hate Yoshis Island, this rule change does not affect you. If you are afraid that others will be ok with Yoshis Island and thus this is a disadvantage for you, that sounds like a personal problem.

Note that I personally would always want to ban Yoshis Island, and I still think you should add it. 1 ban in 9 stages defeats the whole point of having 3 stages with any attribute, since it subverts the pick-your-poison effect.

 

[ECHOnce]

Those are some good points. I'm kinda stymied now.

1) I think Brawl Yoshi's would be a big point of hesitance for a lot of people if they see this stagelist being "pushed on them".

2) I think that the idea of being "forced" onto the single unplayed/unbanned stage or a stage your opponent has won on for game 5 isn't great (9 stage 2 ban). Like just because neither of us have CPd Smashville nor banned it, it doesn't mean it's a stage I necessarily want to counterpick you to.

I think the idea of 9 stage 1 ban is good since it leave more stages open for choice, but the now open stages are likely polarizing for both players. i.e. instead of being able to ban both WL and FoD against Bowser, now you can only ban WL, however conversely Bowser is only able to ban FD instead of both FD and PS2. What this creates in my mind is giving more power to the counterpicker, making it more likely they'll win on their CP and again we have the infamous "winning game 1 is artificially inflated" concept.

At the risk of coming across as someone with no conviction, I can admit that I now think 9 stage 1 ban might be the way to go, thanks to Strong Bad's very succinctly put idea of double jeopardy. I agree that no matter how rare the situation may be, the fact that it can arise under that form of DSR is bad.

Curse you Brawl Yoshi's for being such a double edged sword. Your stage width, ceiling, side blast zones, and unique platform fit so nicely into NE but your support ghosts (debatable), slanted ledges, slanted stage, and Shy Guys (lol hitlag) are so bleh in many situations.

As an outside observer who doesn't want this list anyway, here's how I look at it:

If you add Yoshis Island, you can also add a ban. That ban can be used on Yoshi's Island if necessary, so AT WORST, no matter how much you hate Yoshis Island, this rule change does not affect you. If you are afraid that others will be ok with Yoshis Island and thus this is a disadvantage for you, that sounds like a personal problem.

Note that I personally would always want to ban Yoshis Island, and I still think you should add it. 1 ban in 9 stages defeats the whole point of having 3 stages with any attribute, since it subverts the pick-your-poison effect.

And we're back to square one, but with DP replacing BC and swapped with DS for starter. But seriously though - since those really are the only problems with Yoshi's Island, can't we just tweak those out? Leave the ledge slants, but partially/completely flatten out the ground in-between, maybe raise the platform a bit to compensate (+adjust the angle if it tilts too far without the slants), and get rid of the ghost plats? BC is an original and everyone is being open to it as starter, so why not use a fixed up YI if it solves the size balancing puzzle?

Or nvm, forget that. Pulled a dumb.

 

[JOE!]

Atlas, why do you not like this stage list? What would you change about it?

 

[DMG]

Atlas, why do you not like this stage list? What would you change about it?

Too big / too open on starters

Condensed list that isn't using 12-17 stages

Something along these lines iirc

 

[Darth Shard]

Curse you Brawl Yoshi's for being such a double edged sword. Your stage width, ceiling, side blast zones, and unique platform fit so nicely into NE but your support ghosts (debatable), slanted ledges, slanted stage, and Shy Guys (lol hitlag) are so bleh in many situations.

I dunno if I agree that the unique platform is a positive. I find that more often than not it messes up my combos and follow-ups rather than helping me out. I've played on the stage plenty in both tournaments and friendlies so it isn't that I'm not used to it. Personally, I don't hate Yoshi's Island as a legal stage in Brawl or Smash 3DS, but I think it would stand out as a more controversial pick than anything else in the NE9 list, and frankly I really like the list we have already.

 

[Swigo]

I suppose this question is mostly opinion, but I'm trying to reboot the PM scene at my college next semester, and I was curious if you guys think running Delfino or Dreamland is a better idea? I personally feel Dreamland is one of the worst stages and Delfino is superior, but I feel the general consensus on campus is the opposite. Is it worth just forcing my preferred rule set on everybody because i've decided it's better or should I let the majority decide? Secondary question, Yoshi's Island Brawl is the only available stage to make it an even 10? There's a lot of lovely stages in PM that I would love to run, but if people feel that there aren't any that would maintain balance I'd be willing to just run YB/9 stages.

 

[nimigoha]

I suppose this question is mostly opinion, but I'm trying to reboot the PM scene at my college next semester, and I was curious if you guys think running Delfino or Dreamland is a better idea? I personally feel Dreamland is one of the worst stages and Delfino is superior, but I feel the general consensus on campus is the opposite. Is it worth just forcing my preferred rule set on everybody because i've decided it's better or should I let the majority decide? Secondary question, Yoshi's Island Brawl is the only available stage to make it an even 10? There's a lot of lovely stages in PM that I would love to run, but if people feel that there aren't any that would maintain balance I'd be willing to just run YB/9 stages.

Delfino has medium side blast zones, Dreamland has large (which fits into the 3/3/3 scheme). So if you run Delfino you throw this off.

There's no stage other than YIB that's M/M/M.

 

[JesteRace]

I prefer DMG's MDSR and 9 stages. I see zero problems with this implemented.

 

[eideeiit]

The problem is that you can be taken to a stage you've already lost on without your consent.

A legit problem, but to chime in, I'd say it's the best suggestion so far.

 

[DMG]

Well my DSR variant would allow the opponent to change bans for Game 5. Since Game 1 starter opens up, he should be able to change bans to cover this. Changing bans would open up a previously banned stage though, probably a stage with a greater disadvantage than the Game 1 starter.

Game 1 was on BF and I lose. I have some fear of BF when Game 5 comes. I banned FD and PS2 earlier, I swap the FD ban to BF. You can now pick FD or whatever remaining fresh stage choice.

Delfino is not that medium on left/right blast zones. It just happens to be long. If you shrunk Delfino to the size of BF, but kept blast zone values the same, the size would become very evident. Side to Side, there are only 3 stages iirc that surpass it and it's tied with DP/PS2, which are both clearly above the average. Being long doesn't guarantee you'll get kills near the ledges, where statistically they might be closer to medium or smaller than stuff like BF

Would be similar to saying Delfino ceiling is Medium because the distance from top platforms to ceiling is smaller than Smashville platform to ceiling. Clearly the ceiling is above average, despite that fact.

 

[nimigoha]

Well my DSR variant would allow the opponent to change bans for Game 5. Since Game 1 starter opens up, he should be able to change bans to cover this. Changing bans would open up a previously banned stage though, probably a stage with a greater disadvantage than the Game 1 starter.

Game 1 was on BF and I lose. I have some fear of BF when Game 5 comes. I banned FD and PS2 earlier, I swap the FD ban to BF. You can now pick FD or whatever remaining fresh stage choice.

Delfino is not that medium on left/right blast zones. It just happens to be long. If you shrunk Delfino to the size of BF, but kept blast zone values the same, the size would become very evident. Side to Side, there are only 3 stages iirc that surpass it and it's tied with DP/PS2, which are both clearly above the average. Being long doesn't guarantee you'll get kills near the ledges, where statistically they might be closer to medium or smaller than stuff like BF

Would be similar to saying Delfino ceiling is Medium because the distance from top platforms to ceiling is smaller than Smashville platform to ceiling. Clearly the ceiling is above average, despite that fact.

Middle to side is 235, same as PS2.

Ledge to side is 154, Battlefield is 156.

Them's ain't large blast zones.

___

Is anyone actually against being allowed to change bans later in the set?

 

[Kulprit]

Is anyone actually against being allowed to change bans later in the set?

I don't think this was ever a problem, nor should it be. Each game you win, you declare 2 bans that effect what stage the next game will be played on. The fact that your bans are different than previous matches shouldn't matter.

 

[nimigoha]

I'm only mentioning it because earlier people were saying we should allow a ban change.

Not sure where the precedent is. Melee Bo5 don't have bans and Melee Bo5 only has 1 CP per player, so "change bans vs not change bans" isn't from Melee. Are there bans in Bo5 for Brawl or 4 that people are using as an example where bans can't be changed?

Just curious as to why it was brought up in the first place.

 

[Kneato]

Hold up a sec.

Allowing bans to change wasn't the standard? I was sure that you make new ban picks before every game in a match.

 

[Scatz]

Kinda need to have bans change to accommodate for character changes, and I see no reason to force players to make decisions for the rest of the set after game 1.

 

[nimigoha]

Hold up a sec.

Allowing bans to change wasn't the standard? I was sure that you make new ban picks before every game in a match.

I haven't seen any PM ruleset discuss changing bans, probably because it's an obvious thing.

Just something that should be clarified.

 

[4tlas]

Too big / too open on starters

Condensed list that isn't using 12-17 stages

Something along these lines iirc

First point, yep absolutely.

Second point was just preferable, but not ideal.

Another point that is just a minor concern is that I want to consider purposely skewing small.

My main issue is that the stagelist is boring and doesn't use many of the stage layouts that are more interesting. Varying them still creates a balanced stagelist.

 

[JesteRace]

"Interesting" is subjective. Some people think FD having no platform interruptions makes for the most interesting gameplay. Again, for now, the goal is an objective balance.

As for the starters, I do agree that there is a slight skew towards quasi-flat stages. Again, I'm not too keen on just identifying everything as "open" or "cramped" but GHZ and SV are both mostly flat with only BF to balance that out. PS2 and BC are both "in-between" stages, as the platforms make a big difference at certain percentages but not at all percentages. They also provide movement options, but again, not on the level of stages like BF. So if we draw a parallel with other stage dimensions and their extremes, flat stages would be the "large option", heavily platformed stages would be the "small" option, and the "in-between" options would more or less the "medium" option. So, overall in the stage list, we have 3-3-3 for each option, but in the starters, it's 1-2-2. If we want it to be 1-3-1 like all the other stage dimensions, GHZ or SV have to be replaced. You can't really replace SV for obvious reasons, so we'd have to replace with GHZ with FoD. This... would actually work fine, because FoD is more or less the same dimensions as GHZ, so the balance of the other stage dimensions, and we would then have 1-3-1 for stage dimensions since FoD is an "in-between" stage(it may start as a tri-plat, but the platforms are always moving, sometimes creating more "open" layouts).

The question then is this: Is the benefit of replacing GHZ with FoD worth having another change to convince people of?

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I don't see a problem with swapping GHZ with FoD other than convincing people it's a good thing for the list.

 

[Kulprit]

The main "problem" with switching GHZ and FoD is that in many scenarios, the small stage will be banned regardless of its features, but rather based on the stage size alone. The only true way to fix this issue having a medium stage fit each category: 1 quasi-flat, 1 in-between, and 1 open, but unfortunately this can't happen as Bowser's is the only viable option as a starter (besides SV and BF) as the other medium stages skew the stagelist balance as whole.

So yes, having FoD instead of GHZ as a starter could help the issue a little bit, but not a whole lot in the big picture. And if it doesn't affect the big picture as a whole too much, I don't really wanna go through the hassle of convincing people that FoD > GHZ as a starter when many people already believe GHZ is a staple starter.

 

[JesteRace]

Okay, let me be clear. Each category IS represented in the mediums. SV is quasi-flat. BF is heavily-platformed, BC is in-between. Because each category is represented in the mediums, we actually have almost no problem. GHZ is the only stage throwing off the balance, because it adds a second quasi-flat stage. Replacing GHZ with FoD is the only solution that fixes this very slight problem. If we agree that GHZ is too standard, and that GHZ/FoD will be banned most of the time for their size anyway, then there's no actual problem and we can move on. The only reason I suggested this was for the principle.

 

[4tlas]

Of course interesting is subjective, but this stagelist is certainly less varied than it could be while still being balanced. Perhaps not as balanced, but I think the ratio is good and it would be well worth it.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, unfortunately the more variance you add, the more controversial you get. I've toyed around with the numbers myself to see what kind of balance can be achieved with the more eccentric stages, and it's a fun idea if you don't care about national acceptance. Which you clearly don't, which is totally fine. But in a stagelist specifically designed for national acceptance, we have to shy away from stages unlikely to be accepted even if we could find a similar balance with them.

 

[4tlas]

Well, unfortunately the more variance you add, the more controversial you get. I've toyed around with the numbers myself to see what kind of balance can be achieved with the more eccentric stages, and it's a fun idea if you don't care about national acceptance. Which you clearly don't, which is totally fine. But in a stagelist specifically designed for national acceptance, we have to shy away from stages unlikely to be accepted even if we could find a similar balance with them.

You're absolutely right. Everyone would rather no standard than what they view as a bad standard. I would rather try and push for a better standard first and find out that <50% of the people approve and then try for "weaker" standards. I find this preferable to trying to push for this standard first.

I still intend to run the stagelist I proposed and get some feedback first. It may be possible to convince enough people to adopt it if it has backup. But it is always hard to shift from status quo, and especially from status quo with precedence and authority, so I am much more wary about trying to shift the standard after one is made.

 

[Scatz]

Simplest way to make an argument is to bring a stage list that can prove your logic without causing controversy.

 

[trash?]

I should point out how the current "perfect balance" of 9 stages that's being held up so highly is 100% theoretical at best, and doesn't take into account what characters will become more and more centralizing

this argument I'm making is not the same thing as skewing in favor of bad characters, mind (and, really, any ruleset changes built upon balancing out top tiers shouldn't be considered for a very long while), but I'm kind of poking at the idea of what inherently makes this "balanced". beyond a technical concept that works upon a pattern rather than anything within the metagame.

I really need to see some actual, real life use of these rulesets in high-level play, for one. you can only work within theory for so long

 

[JesteRace]

Get someone to use this stagelist at a national then haha