Project M Recommended Ruleset

[JesteRace]

Assuming you want to have an even list with 2 elements. But you don't need to do opposites, you can do a triangle or (even better) 4 elements. So for example:

Small stage, high ceiling, small sides
Medium stage, low ceiling, medium sides
Medium stage, medium ceiling, small sides
Large stage, medium ceiling, large sides

This has "overall balance", but is it balanced? Idk, but it might be the best we can do for gameplay, we'd just have to try it to see.

Well, even if 2/1/1 made any sense to me, which it doesn't, there are no medium stages with small sides anyway. All the viable stages with small blast zones are small stages. There are only a couple of stages where the blastzone width differs from the stage size anyways.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Having free-win stages kind of invalidates the purpose of a larger set count. Ganon takes you to Wario Land then you take him to FD then you're basically in a normal 2/3 situation.

No, it's not a normal 2/3. It gives you a chance to beat him on his best stage rather than just needing to eliminate it entirely, without it potentially costing you half your available losses. Because it's not a free win for him, just a higher chance. With a lower but still existent chance for the opponent to take the game. Ganon on WL in 2/3 is a much larger threat to your set than 3/5. It also works in reverse- Ganon getting the small chance to win on FD is better than giving it to them by default as you are suggesting it would be when compared to 2/3. But the idea isn't that Ganon becomes so much better, but more that the 3/5 is serving the purpose of more games for more information collection to help the "better player" be more likely the victor.

 

[4tlas]

Well, even if 2/1/1 made any sense to me, which it doesn't, there are no medium stages with small sides anyway. All the viable stages with small blast zones are small stages. There are only a couple of stages where the blastzone size differs from the stage size anyways.

I was just providing a theoretical example.

PS2 has small sides and a small ceiling.
Smashville sides are rather small, especially with the platform, and I believe the ceiling is not much bigger than PS2.
Skyworld's sides are rather huge though the stage is tiny.
GHZ and FoD both have large ceilings for their size.
Castle Siege and Metal Cavern have large sides while being tiny.
Dreamland's ceiling is huge but the stage is just large.

There are more nuances and discrepancies as well.

 

[Strong Badam]

Having free-win stages kind of invalidates the purpose of a larger set count. Ganon takes you to Wario Land then you take him to FD then you're basically in a normal 2/3 situation.

There aren't free-win stages available in the stagelists we're discussing other than in matchups that are already terrible across the board (e.g. Falcon v Bowser, now do it on FD).

 

[JesteRace]

I use the term "free" loosely. I just mean that with no bans or having less bans in a 3/5 than you would in a 2/3, you increase the variance in extremes, lending that much more power to the loser of the previous match (especially in character-first) and making the set that much more dependent on who wins game 1. Having less bans doesn't necessarily reward the better player, it tends to reward the character with more potent counterpicks.

 

[eideeiit]

So MUs exist? Wow.

 

[4tlas]

Oh btw guys, Smashing Grounds is switching back to Stage First. There was a sudden cry for a return to Stage First, and the support for it was unbelievably overwhelming.

As soon as we switched back, many people told me how much they hate Stage First and why, and they are both fierce and have proper reasoning. Is this what its like to fight for social justice? Where were all of these people at the rally or voting booth?!

Most progressive region -> most backwards region. If everyone else would be more vocal about their switches to Character First I might be able to argue for its return come summer.

 

[JesteRace]

Oh btw guys, Smashing Grounds is switching back to Stage First. There was a sudden cry for a return to Stage First, and the support for it was unbelievably overwhelming.

As soon as we switched back, many people told me how much they hate Stage First and why, and they are both fierce and have proper reasoning. Is this what its like to fight for social justice? Where were all of these people at the rally or voting booth?!

Most progressive region -> most backwards region. If everyone else would be more vocal about their switches to Character First I might be able to argue for its return come summer.

This is exactly what it's like to fight for social justice.

 

[Deleted member]

btw guys if you want me to update the opening post just tag me and list the changes and i'll get to them. i stopped paying attention to this when the dev team closed because i wanted to have development of the game matching a standard rule set. making a rule set after the game is finished isnt quite the same thing.

 

[JesteRace]

@Umbreon If you're referring to the Nebraska stagelist, it's this:

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

COUNTERPICKS:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Dreamland

Possible amendments, not used by Nebraska, but suggested by some of the scenes adapting the list:

-Adding Yoshi's Island
-I'm indifferent to this. I like the stage, some don't. It's whatever.
-Replacing Dreamland with Delfino's
-I'm not sure about this, because the smaller side blast zones throw off the distribution. However, it fixes the distribution for ceiling heights in turn and some scenes despise Dreamland so I can live with this change. Ban-wise, they're pretty interchangeable, so little will change.
-Switching GHZ and FoD
-This is also largely insignificant, more a
point of principle, balance-wise. There is a
very slight skew towards open space in the
starters. I can detail it out, but having FoD
take the neutral spot and GHZ more or less
negates this skew. I also don't feel like FoD
is any more polarizing. In fact, GHZ can be
extremely polarizing sometimes. Wide open
for huge punish games, but small in size to
aid characters with approach troubles.
There are quite a few characters that have
that combination. FoD is basically the exact
opposite of PS2, so if PS2 is good enough,
so is FoD. This is just my opinion, though.
Overall, it doesn't affect that much, and
GHZ is pretty widely accepted as neutral,
so again, I can live with it, that's just my
preference.

- If you use the 9 stages, use 2 bans and DMG's DSR (can't CP stages you've won on, except the G1 stage can be counterpicked or banned again in G5).
- If you add Yoshi's Island, use 2 bans and regular DSR.

You already have character first on the front page, so I think that covers everything.

 

[Bazkip]

There's already a thread for the Nebraska stagelist, what would be the point of making this the same

 

[xquqx]

There's already a thread for the Nebraska stagelist, what would be the point of making this the same

I mean, if everyone agrees that it's the way to go, then there wouldn't be a point in having this thread recommend something else just to be different. Not that I'm saying everyone does, but that would be a reason to have this the same. Plus "recommended ruleset" seems more official than "Nebraska" for someone coming here just to grab a ruleset.

 

[Deleted member]

as someone that plays fountain a lot, i cant imagine it ever being legal as a starter lmao

i'll update the stage list once the delfinos vs dreamland debate is settled. personally i think dreamland is ******** but it generally benefits my character so whatever.

 

[JesteRace]

as someone that plays fountain a lot, i cant imagine it ever being legal as a starter lmao

i'll update the stage list once the delfinos vs dreamland debate is settled. personally i think dreamland is ******** but it generally benefits my character so whatever.

Yeah, FoD hasn't been considered starter material for quite some time. I just don't agree. Especially in the context of A. Being compared to GHZ, and B. Having PS2 as a starter. PS2 is seen as a perfect starter, and FoD is just the reverse. GHZ doesn't properly offset PS2, and imo PS2 needs to be offset. Are the platforms really that bad? Imo, no.

As for Dreamland vs. Delfino's Secret, idk if the debate will ever be done. These are 2 immensely hated stages by varying areas. I think people who are fine with either are in the minority. I think I slightly prefer Delfino, but NE hates it for the most part, so we run Dreamland, and it's whatever to me.

 

[4tlas]

GHZ is the only walled stage in the starters. I think having a walled stage is reasonable, so consider that if you want to replace it with FoD. I also am currently running FoD as a starter, and while it raised some eyebrows, nobody really complained, and I actually see game 1 start on it a decent amount of time so far.

 

[nimigoha]

I personally really dislike FoD's platforms, so I can understand people not loving it as a starter. The GHZ platform interferes way less.

To me the platforms can really mess with some characters but really help others. GHZ doesn't really do anything to that degree so I think when just considering the two stages it makes sense to keep FoD as the CP.

 

[JesteRace]

It might just be Link bias on my part too. Link gets combo'd really hard and relies on not letting the opponent in, so a small, but open stage with almost no platform escape is pretty much the worst stage I can go to in matchups with those types of characters. And on the flipside, Delfino would be heavily in my favor because it's the opposite. It's a large stage so I'm harder to approach AND I have platforms to escape to. And I wouldn't want that stage to be neutral either. This could very well not be a big problem for the overall cast, but I doubt Link is the only character with this sort of matchup dynamic.
I understand FoD can be problematic at times, I just don't think the platforms are as polarizing as the combination of small/flat or large/platformed.

 

[4tlas]

Starters are not neutral in all matchups, nor should they be. Making sure all the options are available and in reasonable proportions allows striking to produce a relatively neutral stage. Aside from the absolute extremeties or super weird traits, everything should be available in starters. GHZ offers a wall, FoD offers multiple things at different times. Neither is "un-fit" to be a starter. A wall is important to offer in the starters, but a stage that favors different things at different times is more likely to average out to neutral in any matchup. Smashing Grounds is currently running both in its starters (partially to balance out the hugeness of PS2). We'll see how it goes!

 

[DMG]

Idk you could argue FoD plat mechanics make it unfit or undesirable to be a starter (or lesser concern that platform setup can be too similar to BF).

 

[nimigoha]

I'm certainly not saying that starters need to be neutral for every character, that's impossible.

But GHZ does less polarizing stuff. On the whole it's a relatively neutral stage, aside from the openness that cycles, which can definitely affect matchups.

FoD's BF layout is another angle. I really like how the "typical" starters (GHZ, SV, BF, PS2, DS) have only one triplat, and they're all pretty varied.

 

[JesteRace]

I would like that list of starters if it weren't for the fact that it's 1/2/2 in both stage size and ceiling height. Platform layout wise, it's really balanced. Nebraska 9's starters is simply, in our view at least, the best balance of platform layout AND dimensions. And yeah, I get the arguments against FoD. At the end of the day, both stages are about equally as unlikely to be struck to anyway, so the difference is negligible.

 

[4tlas]

Since our stagelist discussion has mostly reached a "lets try it and see" stage (heh, stage), I'd like to bring up a ruleset proposal again.

Now I understand that Stage First is gross, and I also understand that Character First is more fair than the system I'm proposing. However, the point of a ruleset is to be something people WANT to compete and be judged by, and that means whether or not people like the rules matters.

After extensively interviewing my scene repeatedly, I have come to the conclusion that everyone enjoys or at least doesn't mind the ability to negate stages with character counterpicks. Most people (besides the most diehard multi-mains) dislike the ability to reverse a counterpick and the extra burden of knowledge placed on players by stage first. Some people dislike the ability to compound a counterpick with a character swap in stage first.

In order to appease both crowds, this rule is aiming to allow the negation of stages with character swaps but preventing reversal or compounding.

-Loser chooses a pool of 3 stages
-Winner bans 1 stage and picks character
-Loser picks stage and character

What this does is force players to give up power incrementally, which prevents the extreme situations of reversal (stage is not chosen before Winner's char) and compounding (loser does not have literally the entire stagelist to choose from after bans). However, since the winner has some but not full control over the stage chosen (since they still have to pick their char without knowing the final stage, but they can narrow it down significantly), they have the ability to negate the stage.

As a side note, this would also allow us to run stagelists with every single tournament viable stage available, since bans do not need to be wasted on "weird" stages that weren't going to get picked anyway, unless they are part of the pool (in which case they might actually get picked).

Can I get some feedback on this system? Only DMG replied last time (thanks!); it kinda got lost in the stagelist discussion, which was more important at the time.

 

[nimigoha]

I like this a lot. I would definitely say this is worth testing.

I still feel like C first is better simply because you have informed bans. This system works really well if you know all the characters your opponent might pull out, but if you don't then it's back to the toss-up of S first.

But definitely an improvement over S first in my opinion. People do really like the negation aspect, this seems to appeal to both.

I don't really see a way for the Winner to get too much advantage. After locking in his character, the Loser has both a choice of 2 stages he's already selected, and he gets to select his character. It doesn't really look like this system can be gamed by the Winner, at least not nearly to the extent that S first can.

 

[4tlas]

I like this a lot. I would definitely say this is worth testing.

I still feel like C first is better simply because you have informed bans. This system works really well if you know all the characters your opponent might pull out, but if you don't then it's back to the toss-up of S first.

But definitely an improvement over S first in my opinion. People do really like the negation aspect, this seems to appeal to both.

I don't really see a way for the Winner to get too much advantage. After locking in his character, the Loser has both a choice of 2 stages he's already selected, and he gets to select his character. It doesn't really look like this system can be gamed by the Winner, at least not nearly to the extent that S first can.

Arguably you have quasi-informed bans due to the nature of pooled bans. Essentially, the pool auto-bans all the other stages that aren't relevant to the "real" matchup possibilities as well as hints as to what real ones remain. But the winner can't, say, get Marth on YS to reverse your counterpick, since you'll just choose your other small stage which is just "good" for Marth but has to also be at least "good" for you since you put it in your damn pool in the first place.

I agree though, its not as fair as C first. But is it close enough that people liking it more is worth it? I dunno, we'd have to try it. But first I want to see if there's anything I'm missing in my analysis of it.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah. There's still the situation where you pick 3 stages, your opponent has no idea who you are, and they don't know what character you might switch to or what stage you might favour. So they'll probably ban the stage for their character they dislike the most, and lock in their character.

I feel like this system may actually disadvantage the Winner more than either of the other two systems. In this, he's picking his character before the final stage is selected, and he's not able to ban stages according to his opponent's character either (my assumption is always unfamiliar players, since it happens a lot at larger tournaments where this stuff is the most important IMO). In both of these aspects he's sorta knowledge-deprived.

With like 15+ possible legal stages and 41 characters, it's kinda pointless to look at the finer points of a CP system without testing it. I think it passes the basic level for most people; they get semi-informed bans and there's still the negation aspect, so outside of it having to be explained multiple times I think most people won't have a problem trying it out.

I'd say go ahead and run this at a SG, Atlas. Get feedback, we can look at some sets, see if people figured out a way to exploit it or see if there's like always too much advantage for the loser or something.

I think there could be some really cool mind-games with this system though. Pick two stages you actually want to go to and a third to throw your opponent off.

 

[JesteRace]

I wouldn't say there's no way for the winner to game the system. Like, say I drop game 1 to a Ganon and my pool is FD/PS2/SV. Then he switches to Falcon. Even if I know he has a Falcon, if I do FD/PS2/FoD, he can simply switch to Falcon and ban FoD. If I do FD/FoD/WL, he can stay Ganon and ban FD. I'm still basically forced to stay in the medium range if I don't want to counterpick myself in this situation. However, not all matchups are that extreme. That criticism aside, this is still much, MUCH better than Stage First. And is a good compromise if such a thing is necessary, so those are big pros for it. I don't agree that it opens up all viable stages, though. I'm not about to have someone pool Skyworld/RumbleFalls/Halberd against me (just an example).

 

[nimigoha]

Get your Skyworld ****-talking face out of this thread, that stage is a work of art!

I agree with your other points though. It seems like people with "opposite" stage secondaries can cover their bases well enough... Seems like it rewards secondaries a lot, like S first does. (inb4 someone else comes in and say C first doesn't reward secondaries)

 

[JesteRace]

Well, some people main characters who have a significant variance in their power based on that stage. I main Link, so I don't have this issue and I can focus my efforts on finding a secondary that covers matchups. But some do have this issue, so I understand wanting to have secondaries to cover those bases, but if your stagelist is balanced, and you have an appropriate number of bans, it shouldn't come up that often imo.

 

[DMG]

You don't need the entire list to compound an advantage, just enough stages that go against the grain of what the other person/character is inclined towards. If a character is terrible on FD, PS2, and Delfino (due to size), it's irrelevant whether you do pooled pick or pick from entire legal list. The information garnered from that pool is not substantial in the specific vacuum of "I am bad on these 2-3 stages, these are my big threats".


While it would hamper or even negate attempts by Winner to reverse a CP, it also handcuffs Loser in cases where having more than effectively 2 stage choices is required for an advantage or where earlier ban information could lead to smarter selection (Loser gains no prior insight to possible personal preferences because bans only happen after pool is selected, and that insight doesn't seem unhealthy).


I don't see it as a substantial improvement. Theoretically, it plays out like 90% similar to regular Stage first: Loser is assumed to be more fluid or hold the final ultimate CP advantage for picking character last regardless of stage choice. Constricting from 9 to 3 does not change this much. On a practical level, it might have better or worse outcomes depending on how flexible both players are. For a lot of solo mains, it really will not change a whole lot for them aside from possibly less overall ban power (3 pool with 1 ban = less ban power than 9/10 stages 2 ban).


I think people should stick with Char first, and instead change the stage list if there's any issues. Figuring how much information or blindness or xyz tradeoffs in Stage first is fair doesn't seem to be wholly possible. Any Stage first method deals with the eternal struggle of trying to allow some hidden variables (hidden chars) without suffering unintended consequences (reverse CP by Winner, double down by Loser). I don't think it's possible: if I did, I would craft my own Stage first variant and defend it. Nothing totally suitable or "better" than Char first comes to mind.

 

[4tlas]

Yeah. There's still the situation where you pick 3 stages, your opponent has no idea who you are, and they don't know what character you might switch to or what stage you might favour. So they'll probably ban the stage for their character they dislike the most, and lock in their character.

I feel like this system may actually disadvantage the Winner more than either of the other two systems. In this, he's picking his character before the final stage is selected, and he's not able to ban stages according to his opponent's character either (my assumption is always unfamiliar players, since it happens a lot at larger tournaments where this stuff is the most important IMO). In both of these aspects he's sorta knowledge-deprived.

With like 15+ possible legal stages and 41 characters, it's kinda pointless to look at the finer points of a CP system without testing it. I think it passes the basic level for most people; they get semi-informed bans and there's still the negation aspect, so outside of it having to be explained multiple times I think most people won't have a problem trying it out.

I'd say go ahead and run this at a SG, Atlas. Get feedback, we can look at some sets, see if people figured out a way to exploit it or see if there's like always too much advantage for the loser or something.

I think there could be some really cool mind-games with this system though. Pick two stages you actually want to go to and a third to throw your opponent off.

I still think you can garner information from the pool selected, but there are so many possibilities that I can't account for them all in theorycrafting. Yeah, I guess I'd have to run it to see.

I wouldn't say there's no way for the winner to game the system. Like, say I drop game 1 to a Ganon and my pool is FD/PS2/SV. Then he switches to Falcon. Even if I know he has a Falcon, if I do FD/PS2/FoD, he can simply switch to Falcon and ban FoD. If I do FD/FoD/WL, he can stay Ganon and ban FD. I'm still basically forced to stay in the medium range if I don't want to counterpick myself in this situation. However, not all matchups are that extreme. That criticism aside, this is still much, MUCH better than Stage First. And is a good compromise if such a thing is necessary, so those are big pros for it. I don't agree that it opens up all viable stages, though. I'm not about to have someone pool Skyworld/RumbleFalls/Halberd against me (just an example).

Sounds like you picked a poor pool to me. Maybe thats an issue because you tried to pick "stages bad for the opponent" rather than ones good for you? The matchup matters obviously, but it should be possible to make a pool that covers the current matchup and some alternatives, so that they would have to switch to something that kinda works on the remaining 2 stages or works on one but not the other. Perhaps the numbers need to be adjusted if that bad pool situation gets forced upon people too often, which is why it would need testing.

I don't think Rumble Falls or Halberd are competitively viable. I was talking about the 18 stages we've discussed in the past when trying to brainstorm a stagelist. Though I understand that its possible some people would still dislike some stage being available AT ALL, it is again a compromise in between banning them outright and putting them in a stagelist so that they force bans.

You don't need the entire list to compound an advantage, just enough stages that go against the grain of what the other person/character is inclined towards. If a character is terrible on FD, PS2, and Delfino (due to size), it's irrelevant whether you do pooled pick or pick from entire legal list. The information garnered from that pool is not substantial in the specific vacuum of "I am bad on these 2-3 stages, these are my big threats".

The pooling player has 2 choices here: tip his hand as to a possible switch by including other stages from those 3, or go all-in and offer up the pool of all 3. If he does the former, then information is gained compared to stage first and the pool is weakened, and if he does the latter, then the counterpicked player can switch characters to something that isnt terrible on that pool.

While it would hamper or even negate attempts by Winner to reverse a CP, it also handcuffs Loser in cases where having more than effectively 2 stage choices is required for an advantage or where earlier ban information could lead to smarter selection (Loser gains no prior insight to possible personal preferences because bans only happen after pool is selected, and that insight doesn't seem unhealthy).

I cannot think of any situation in which more than 2 stage choices are required for an advantage, and such a thing would be easiest to find by testing. I had not considered the information gained from bans as a loss from traditional systems; thank you for pointing that out.

I don't see it as a substantial improvement. Theoretically, it plays out like 90% similar to regular Stage first: Loser is assumed to be more fluid or hold the final ultimate CP advantage for picking character last regardless of stage choice. Constricting from 9 to 3 does not change this much. On a practical level, it might have better or worse outcomes depending on how flexible both players are. For a lot of solo mains, it really will not change a whole lot for them aside from possibly less overall ban power (3 pool with 1 ban = less ban power than 9/10 stages 2 ban).

It changes it drastically in the situation where you do not know what characters the opponent possesses. It also prevents both stage reversal and compounding, so I dont see how it is at all similar to Stage First. Changing from 9 to 3 changes it a LOT, since the 1 ban can always remove 1/3 of the list, which will amount to whichever third is intended for the secondary (or main).

I think people should stick with Char first, and instead change the stage list if there's any issues. Figuring how much information or blindness or xyz tradeoffs in Stage first is fair doesn't seem to be wholly possible. Any Stage first method deals with the eternal struggle of trying to allow some hidden variables (hidden chars) without suffering unintended consequences (reverse CP by Winner, double down by Loser). I don't think it's possible: if I did, I would craft my own Stage first variant and defend it. Nothing totally suitable or "better" than Char first comes to mind.

I understand you don't think its possible, but I still don't find any of these criticisms valid. You have helped me think of some, though.

1) If neither player has a secondary, this essentially gives the winner only 1 ban.
2) If only the losing player has a secondary, they can still compound their character with a stage pick (fortunately, not as many people seem to hate this as reversal).
3) There is complex strategy to this system, which many players may not enjoy or understand, and therefore causes it to fail horribly.

 

[Kneato]

Though this has already been glossed over, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents about FoD.

FoD should never be considered for a starter stage. The stage has a massive problem and that's the vertical movement of platforms. That alone wouldn't be a big issue, but what makes it problematic is that they move into the stage itself.

Out of every single legal stage on NE9, this is the only stage factor I can think of that can single singlehandedly get someone wrecked based on what amounts to RNG. It's not something that can be easily timed like Randall.

How many times has it happened to you that a raising platform has suddenly disrupted your movement or cut an attack short? How many times has this lost you a conversion/the neutral or gotten you killed?

For the same reason I also am against Delfino's as a starter (along with it's size). The only other stage that has something disruptive like this is Dreamland and I find that the wind has impacted my games far fewer times than rising plats.

 

[JesteRace]

Alright, alright. I'm convinced haha GHZ will remain in place of FoD. I'm still not super sold on GHZ, but the arguments against FoD are many and justified, and no way in hell will I accept Wario Land as a starter, so GHZ will simply have to do.

So, I'm gonna go off on a hypothetical balance tangent here, cause what else is there to discuss in this thread atm? No TL;DR, just read it or don't. Now, I'm gonna skip the discussion on starters and just focus on the balance of stages overall. I will, of course, start with the obvious 3.

BF: Medium width, Medium ceiling, cramped layout
SV: Medium width, Medium ceiling, open layout
PS2: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout

BF and SV balance each other out by having similar dimensions and one being cramped and the other being open. Now because PS2 is a large stage with a low ceiling and an open layout, we would need a small stage with a high ceiling and a cramped layout to balance it out.

PS2: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout
FoD: Small width, High ceiling, cramped layout

Hey, that's perfect! Wait, there's only 4 stages. Well, clearly we need more stages. But bear with me, I'm only going slow to detail the balance side of things. FD is a pretty iconic counterpick, so let's add that on to the list

FD: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout

Okay, so FD is very similar to PS2. Unfortunately, there are no more FoD's to balance FD out. So we'll have to balance out as many of these attributes as possible and then add other stages to balance the rest. FD is as wide and open as it gets, so what's on the other side of that extreme?

FD: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout
WL: Small width, Low ceiling, cramped layout

So as far as stage sizes and layouts are concerned, we still have balance. But now we have 2 extra low ceilings. To maintain balance, we need 2 more stages, both with high ceilings. If they could both be medium sized stages, that'd be ideal, but oh wait, no they can't, because we barely have any medium stages, none of which have medium ceilings. So it has to be one small stage and one large stage. Well, that makes things easy.

GHZ: Small width, High ceiling, medium layout
DS: Large width, High ceiling, medium layout

I say medium because of the stage sizes. GHZ is open relative to its size, but because it is a small stage, it is still more cramped than SV/PS/FD. Same with DS, it is cramped relative to its, but because it is a large stage, it is more open than BF/FoD/WL. Regardless, the 2 stages balance each other out and balance out the low ceilings. So here's the full list so far, in order from most cramped to most open:

Wario Land (Small, Low, cramped)
Fountain of Dreams (Small, High, cramped)
Battlefield (Medium, Medium, cramped)
Green Hill Zone (Small, High, medium)
Delfino's Secret (Large, High, medium)
Smashville (Medium, Medium, open)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (Large, Low, open)
Final Destination (Large, Low, open)

Now, if it were that simple, this list would be just about perfect. Everything is evenly distributed 3/2/3. But it's not that simple. Here are the problems:

1. Delfino's Secret is a little inconsistent. Most of the time, it fits the description of "cramped for a large stage", but occasionally, due to the moving platforms, there are some layouts that are more akin to being called wide open.
2. The actual problems. We need 5 starters. We only have 2 medium stages. This means we either have to A. Have 2 large and 1 small stages in the starters, B. Have 1 large and 2 small, or C. Only have one of the medium stages. This will never happen and shouldn't happen because Battlefield and Smashville are the most balanced stages in the game.

We can't really solve that first problem, cause Delfino is as good as it gets for a "large, but kinda cramped-ish" stage. Can we solve that second problem? What would we need?

???: Medium stage, medium ceiling, medium layout.

A third medium stage. A true medium. With this stage, all dimensions would be distrbuted 3/3/3, and we could 1 small, 3 medium, and 1 large stage in the starters.

But we don't have this hypothetical stage, so I just wasted everyone's time :/

 

[Bazkip]

Does it even make sense to call FoD and GHZ high ceilings when they're only 2.5 and 4.75 units higher, respectively?

Am I underrating how much of a difference it makes? It's hard to get a grasp on it since units are vague.

 

[4tlas]

Alright, alright. I'm convinced haha GHZ will remain in place of FoD. I'm still not super sold on GHZ, but the arguments against FoD are many and justified, and no way in hell will I accept Wario Land as a starter, so GHZ will simply have to do.

So, I'm gonna go off on a hypothetical balance tangent here, cause what else is there to discuss in this thread atm? No TL;DR, just read it or don't. Now, I'm gonna skip the discussion on starters and just focus on the balance of stages overall. I will, of course, start with the obvious 3.

BF: Medium width, Medium ceiling, cramped layout
SV: Medium width, Medium ceiling, open layout
PS2: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout

BF and SV balance each other out by having similar dimensions and one being cramped and the other being open. Now because PS2 is a large stage with a low ceiling and an open layout, we would need a small stage with a high ceiling and a cramped layout to balance it out.

PS2: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout
FoD: Small width, High ceiling, cramped layout

Hey, that's perfect! Wait, there's only 4 stages. Well, clearly we need more stages. But bear with me, I'm only going slow to detail the balance side of things. FD is a pretty iconic counterpick, so let's add that on to the list

FD: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout

Okay, so FD is very similar to PS2. Unfortunately, there are no more FoD's to balance FD out. So we'll have to balance out as many of these attributes as possible and then add other stages to balance the rest. FD is as wide and open as it gets, so what's on the other side of that extreme?

FD: Large width, Low ceiling, open layout
WL: Small width, Low ceiling, cramped layout

So as far as stage sizes and layouts are concerned, we still have balance. But now we have 2 extra low ceilings. To maintain balance, we need 2 more stages, both with high ceilings. If they could both be medium sized stages, that'd be ideal, but oh wait, no they can't, because we barely have any medium stages, none of which have medium ceilings. So it has to be one small stage and one large stage. Well, that makes things easy.

GHZ: Small width, High ceiling, medium layout
DS: Large width, High ceiling, medium layout

I say medium because of the stage sizes. GHZ is open relative to its size, but because it is a small stage, it is still more cramped than SV/PS/FD. Same with DS, it is cramped relative to its, but because it is a large stage, it is more open than BF/FoD/WL. Regardless, the 2 stages balance each other out and balance out the low ceilings. So here's the full list so far, in order from most cramped to most open:

Wario Land (Small, Low, cramped)
Fountain of Dreams (Small, High, cramped)
Battlefield (Medium, Medium, cramped)
Green Hill Zone (Small, High, medium)
Delfino's Secret (Large, High, medium)
Smashville (Medium, Medium, open)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (Large, Low, open)
Final Destination (Large, Low, open)

Now, if it were that simple, this list would be just about perfect. Everything is evenly distributed 3/2/3. But it's not that simple. Here are the problems:

1. Delfino's Secret is a little inconsistent. Most of the time, it fits the description of "cramped for a large stage", but occasionally, due to the moving platforms, there are some layouts that are more akin to being called wide open.
2. The actual problems. We need 5 starters. We only have 2 medium stages. This means we either have to A. Have 2 large and 1 small stages in the starters, B. Have 1 large and 2 small, or C. Only have one of the medium stages. This will never happen and shouldn't happen because Battlefield and Smashville are the most balanced stages in the game.

We can't really solve that first problem, cause Delfino is as good as it gets for a "large, but kinda cramped-ish" stage. Can we solve that second problem? What would we need?

???: Medium stage, medium ceiling, medium layout.

A third medium stage. A true medium. With this stage, all dimensions would be distrbuted 3/3/3, and we could 1 small, 3 medium, and 1 large stage in the starters.

But we don't have this hypothetical stage, so I just wasted everyone's time :/

There are more options to consider.

1) Offer up triangles of stage traits. For example, instead of pairing PS2 with FoD, offer up PS2 with Lylat and Green Hill Zone. PS2 is huge with close blastzones and somewhat open. Lylat is very cramped but is a large stage with anti-ledges. GHZ is small with small sides but decent ceiling, open space, and walls.

2) Scrap the starter-counterpick system. This is doable with FLSS, though I think FLSS takes too long.

3) Change the starter system. If we offer 6 stages, do striking in a 1-3-1 pattern, then one player gets 3 bans and the other gets 2 bans and a pick, which is arguably even more fair than our current 2 bans vs 2 bans and a pick.

 

[DMG]

Point 3 is not accurate. That is not a true pick, in the sense that the last strike remaining reduces the stage count to 1. It's a false pick: more accurate is to just say that the final strike is indeed just that. With 2 stages left on the final 4th strike, "picking" BF instead of SV is exactly the same as striking SV. You can't have both considered separate events at the same time: a final strike translates into a forced pick and a pick translates into a forced strike. 5 stage striking is not 2 strikes, then 2 strikes and a pick.


You could maybe attempt to describe it as 2 strikes, then 1 strike and a pick? Which is kinda argument over semantics when both players perform the same 2 strike actions technically. In either case, it's always a better idea to use odd number starter lists so that both players get an equal number of strikes. There is no final "pick" imbalance in 5+ that gives final player not just equal strikes, but some meaningful picking power (it's not meaningful picking power if your choices are limited to 1 after the strike. Instead, it's just meaningful strike power). In 3 strikes, there's an obvious imbalance because asymmetrical information from 1st strike gives 2nd player advantage. 5+ with staggering doesn't quite have that ofc


Edit: Ripple and I did the Medium Stage push a long time ago. Idk how long ago it was when he brought up using 1/3/1 stagelists because everyone was trying to do 2/1/2 or ended up 1/2/2. Modding some trash stage and making it a viable medium stage was always the future: stages were a bit of a missed opportunity despite how gorgeous some of them look and the obvious large amounts of time put into what we have anyway.

 

[4tlas]

Point 3 is not accurate. That is not a true pick, in the sense that the last strike remaining reduces the stage count to 1. It's a false pick: more accurate is to just say that the final strike is indeed just that. With 2 stages left on the final 4th strike, "picking" BF instead of SV is exactly the same as striking SV. You can't have both considered separate events at the same time: a final strike translates into a forced pick and a pick translates into a forced strike. 5 stage striking is not 2 strikes, then 2 strikes and a pick.


You could maybe attempt to describe it as 2 strikes, then 1 strike and a pick? Which is kinda argument over semantics when both players perform the same 2 strike actions technically. In either case, it's always a better idea to use odd number starter lists so that both players get an equal number of strikes. There is no final "pick" imbalance in 5+ that gives final player not just equal strikes, but some meaningful picking power (it's not meaningful picking power if your choices are limited to 1 after the strike. Instead, it's just meaningful strike power). In 3 strikes, there's an obvious imbalance because asymmetrical information from 1st strike gives 2nd player advantage. 5+ with staggering doesn't quite have that ofc


Edit: Ripple and I did the Medium Stage push a long time ago. Idk how long ago it was when he brought up using 1/3/1 stagelists because everyone was trying to do 2/1/2 or ended up 1/2/2. Modding some trash stage and making it a viable medium stage was always the future: stages were a bit of a missed opportunity despite how gorgeous some of them look and the obvious large amounts of time put into what we have anyway.

I am aware that the pick itself is not a separate event from the ban, my point was that that ban is worth more than a normal ban. So if you want to word it the way you're suggesting, then yes it is either 2 strikes or 1 strike and a pick, which can be argued to be less fair than 3 strikes or 1 strike and a pick. The pick is worth more than 1 strike, but is it worth 2? Probably not, but some people might feel that way.

Anyway, that part is just semantics. I still see no problem with running 2 strikes vs 3 strikes, provided the person with 2 strikes is getting the strike that "picks". Perhaps that should be done in a 1-3-1 pattern, or maybe people would like it better as a 3-2 pattern.

 

[JesteRace]

Ripple and I did the Medium Stage push a long time ago. Idk how long ago it was when he brought up using 1/3/1 stagelists because everyone was trying to do 2/1/2 or ended up 1/2/2. Modding some trash stage and making it a viable medium stage was always the future: stages were a bit of a missed opportunity despite how gorgeous some of them look and the obvious large amounts of time put into what we have anyway.

A fixed Yoshi's Island would've been a god damn godsend. No slopes, no shy guys, no ghosts. ****ing perfect.

 

[Deleted member]

so i was bored so i altered dreamland where on all of its blastones got brought in 35 units and its still absolutely ****ing massive. how does anyone think that this stage is okay for tournament play? ****ing crazy.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, in the case of Nebraska's scene as a whole and probably quite a few others, people have Melee boners(although our scene was mostly fine with Wario Land over Yoshi's Story) and don't like Delfino because... because... I got nothing.

Yeah, I'm officially on team Delfino now.

Question: Does the fact that PS2 is mathematically large matter at all when, in practice, it is arguably the most commonly picked starter? Is there something about it that makes it "play like a medium" or are people just so comfortable on it that the possibly polarizing aspects don't even register for them?

 

[4tlas]

Are they playing any of the plethora of average+ speed characters? That would make them notice the size less.