Project M Recommended Ruleset

[DMG]

People probably classify it as a medium based on how early they die, not actual stage size. Like how Dreamland is considered massive, but clearly isn't as long as many stages. Etc

Think subconsciously most people don't care if it's longer than FD, when at the sides you die earlier than BF (kinda oversight on LR boundaries)

 

[JesteRace]

I get that, but clearly how long it is should be affecting matchups in the neutral, shouldn't it? Wouldn't more people who are at a disadvantage on that stage have noticed by now and strike to it less? Or is there something about the stage that actually makes it as neutral as its popularity suggests?

 

[DMG]

Having a lot of room doesn't seem to be as big of an issue as Melee (open FD-style, not DL/Tri play): characters are faster, reach longer, and some offer anti-meta traits. It may heavily skew some MU's, but possibly not specific MU's you'd occur frequently.

It has enough traits to be seen as a more favorable FD, but I am surprised SV or BF are not picked more. BF seems more balanced for the cast.

 

[JesteRace]

But even BF is on the cramped end of the spectrum. There's simply no "true neutral"... which might be why, again, it just falls on comfort. But still, outside of BF and SV, I can't think of a more neutral stage than PS2, cause there just aren't many neutral stages in this game lol. Which begs the question: Is 3 starters all that crazy? What's the full list of pros and cons on that?

 

[DMG]

DFW had a pretty long talk about this on FB after people brought up alternative stage and starter ideas (BF/SV/PS2 only 3 legal stages in game, modified list of 5-6 legal stages, 3 starters and 5 others etc)


I'm not sure I could find it again and directly quote Strong Bad, Oracle, and Lunchables, but I think I can summarize the general opinion on 3 starter:


1. Doing 3 starter leads to imbalance in striking power. First person to strike gives up information and obtains nothing. There's no way to stagger strikes, leaves Game 1 influence a bit lopsided to the person who didn't win RPS or the Coin Flip or lower seed. There's no feasible fix to this ( I've even tried crafting a system of blind strikes to address it but it ends up being cumbersome to account for fairness and split decisions)



2. Decent number of MU's may not find "most evenish" stage out of 3 choices. Ganon being used for one example vs Diddy: he may prefer not going SV or PS2 but has very small strike influence in 3 stage. If you move up to 5 stages (say GHZ and Bowser are added), he gains a strike and can use both to remove SV and PS2. Bowser alt may have boundaries or x aspect that gives him a more even MU: same with Delfino Secret or other stages for characters. Going to 3 excludes those opportunities, but going to 5 doesn't often mean you're "forced" to accept the additional 2.

5 stage striking is superior: if there are remaining flaws it would be in character tools being hard to balance, which persist regardless of starter philosophy

 

[Deleted member]

i talked about this with strongbad in person since i avoid the internet more or less. using 3 stages is fine under one condition- everyone agrees that it is fair. a rule set is simply meant to bend the game into something universally accepted as "competitive" which we define in some arbitrary way. personally i dont think competitive needs to be defined because the common group can candidly express it without needing to default to inbred semantics. everyone more or less understands what it means to be competitive, and as long as the rule set fits what people see in their mind's eye then its probably fine to audible the okay and move on. if we all thought all stages on random with items was competitive, that would be fine. same if we banned half the cast. it is on the player base to call it.

you could argue that stage striking is problematic, but so is port priority and current striking order and we default to seeding here no problem. the main benefit to stage striking over say random like we used to do in melee is that you get to avoid having a bad stage for you game one. using stage strikes to gain information is a weak plan at best and i have never heard of anyone actually taking advantage of this as the basis for the win in some pivotal set.

the real issue with taking out stages is that it makes stage play, adaptation, and counterpicking into less valuable skills and unnecessarily reduces the depth of the game.

 

[Strong Badam]

i talked about this with strongbad in person since i avoid the internet more or less. using 3 stages is fine under one condition- everyone agrees that it is fair.

That's simple then; I don't agree that is fair, and go out of my way to avoid tournaments with such an unfair striking procedure. I attended one and that's because travel/hotel/registration arrangements had been made before the ruleset was posted, all the other top players at the event agreed that 3-starters was bunk.

Going into a match with unfamiliarity and striking the stage your opponent planned to strike when it is your only strike is an unreasonably large disadvantage to appropriate to someone based on RPS or G&W Judgment. Port priority rarely matters (except vs Snake), but that's a universal disadvantage.

 

[JesteRace]

Yeah, we tested 3 starters at a really small local on Saturday. I'm good now. Curiosity satisfied, never wanna do that again. So many matchups that I can't have Battlefield against, ugh.

We also had 2 bans in 2/3 and 1 ban in 3/5(which I hadn't agreed to), and also no. Nononono why did we ever do that, so stupid.

 

[DMG]

Losing a ban while going into 3/5 just feels bad man.

 

[Deleted member]

yeah thats fine, i still think using dreamland is insane but people do that too lol

 

[DMG]

How can u relive the glory of Melee if you turn off DL and Yoshi Melee? Scoundrel

 

[JesteRace]

If only Melee were alive #nostalgia

We could always run an improved version of Melee's starters

Wario Land instead of Yoshi's Story
Green Hill Zone instead of Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield is still bae
Pokemon Stadium 2 instead of Final Destination
Delfino's Secret instead of Dreamland

Might get boring with Battlefield being every game 1, but then again, people can't get enough of PS2 and these are all arguably better than their Melee counterparts.

 

[4tlas]

If only Melee were alive #nostalgia

We could always run an improved version of Melee's starters

Wario Land instead of Yoshi's Story
Green Hill Zone instead of Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield is still bae
Pokemon Stadium instead of Final Destination
Delfino's Secret instead of Dreamland

Might get boring with Battlefield being every game 1, but then again, people can't get enough of PS2 and these are all arguably better than their Melee counterparts.

Ewwwww, no Smashville and 2 huge stages but only 1 tiny one?

 

[JesteRace]

Here's why I don't like Smashville as a starter

1. If we don't count Bowser's Castle or Yoshi's Island(which many don't), then Battlefield and Smashville are the only 2 viable medium stages. If we're looking to balance the neutrals(which I am), then there's no way to do it with 2 mediums, one of them has to go. And between the two, I believe Battlefield to be a superior neutral, especially considering...

2. Smashville is too similar to GHZ in the sense of "smaller FD with a moving platform" and is ALSO very similar to PS2 in the sense of "Dash dancing and aerial wobbling heaven" GHZ and PS2 are definitely varied enough on their own, but Smashville bridges this gap between them that homogenizes the neutrals in favor of open space. You could argue that GHZ is the one to be replaced (as some scenes have already done) but then you still have 2 mediums and an imbalance in the starters.

Now if Bowser's Castle is still on the table, I'm all for Smashville as a starter cause 1/3/1 is amazing, but it's clear that Bowser's Castle has problems that may not be possible to overlook, so I'm considering alternatives.

Here's what I like about this proposed list of starters

1. 2/1/2 in stage size, blastzone width, and blastzone height (obviously 1/3/1 isn't possible).

2. Variety in the platform layouts. Absolutely nothing is repeated and there's no significant skew towards "cramped" or "open" which means the majority of matchups should be able to find a very agreeable stage on this list.

3. It has some of the appeal of the Melee formula while still being different enough from Melee. You can easily strike to Battlefield like you do a million times in Melee, but with the variety of platform layouts and many more diverse matchups, there is plenty of room for all the neutrals to get decent use.

Here's what's possibly problematic about this list of starters(although at some point, ya gotta take what you can get)

1. People are stubborn and may not be able to be convinced that Smashville as a counterpick is a good idea.

2. There are 3 walled stages to the 2 non-walled stages. I suppose if someone is purely trying to get a walled stage, it might be a problem because they're guaranteed to get one. I don't buy that it makes that much of a difference. I HIGHLY doubt that there is a character that is simultaneously A. Good on all three of WL/GHZ/DS and B. Significantly reliant on walls as opposed to a good stage layout.

Atlas, I just want to add that WL and GHZ are decently small and PS2 and DS aren't THAT much bigger than they are small. The average for stage width for these starters comes out to around ~141, which Battlefield is only slightly below. In fact, I could compare it to your starter list. The width gained by replacing SV with DS is made up for with the width lost by replacing FoD with WL. Blastzone wise, they're fine too, with WL and DS being reasonable outliers and PS2 and GHZ having ceiling heights inversely balanced with their stage sizes.

 

[4tlas]

Here's why I don't like Smashville as a starter

1. If we don't count Bowser's Castle or Yoshi's Island(which many don't), then Battlefield and Smashville are the only 2 viable medium stages. If we're looking to balance the neutrals(which I am), then there's no way to do it with 2 mediums, one of them has to go. And between the two, I believe Battlefield to be a superior neutral, especially considering...

2. Smashville is too similar to GHZ in the sense of "smaller FD with a moving platform" and is ALSO very similar to PS2 in the sense of "Dash dancing and aerial wobbling heaven" GHZ and PS2 are definitely varied enough on their own, but Smashville bridges this gap between them that homogenizes the neutrals in favor of open space. You could argue that GHZ is the one to be replaced (as some scenes have already done) but then you still have 2 mediums and an imbalance in the starters.

Now if Bowser's Castle is still on the table, I'm all for Smashville as a starter cause 1/3/1 is amazing, but it's clear that Bowser's Castle has problems that may not be possible to overlook, so I'm considering alternatives.

Here's what I like about this proposed list of starters

1. 2/1/2 in stage size, blastzone width, and blastzone height (obviously 1/3/1 isn't possible).

2. Variety in the platform layouts. Absolutely nothing is repeated and there's no significant skew towards "cramped" or "open" which means the majority of matchups should be able to find a very agreeable stage on this list.

3. It has some of the appeal of the Melee formula while still being different enough from Melee. You can easily strike to Battlefield like you do a million times in Melee, but with the variety of platform layouts and many more diverse matchups, there is plenty of room for all the neutrals to get decent use.

Here's what's possibly problematic about this list of starters(although at some point, ya gotta take what you can get)

1. People are stubborn and may not be able to be convinced that Smashville as a counterpick is a good idea.

2. There are 3 walled stages to the 2 non-walled stages. I suppose if someone is purely trying to get a walled stage, it might be a problem because they're guaranteed to get one. I don't buy that it makes that much of a difference. I HIGHLY doubt that there is a character that is simultaneously A. Good on all three of WL/GHZ/DS and B. Significantly reliant on walls as opposed to a good stage layout.

Atlas, I just want to add that WL and GHZ are decently small and PS2 and DS aren't THAT much bigger than they are small. The average for stage width for these starters comes out to around ~141, which Battlefield is only slightly below. In fact, I could compare it to your starter list. The width gained by replacing SV with DS is made up for with the width lost by replacing FoD with WL. Blastzone wise, they're fine too, with WL and DS being reasonable outliers and PS2 and GHZ having ceiling heights inversely balanced with their stage sizes.

I love the write-up.

Smashville, with its moving platform, could be argued to be inherently more neutral because it favors different characters at different times due to having a different layout. I agree completely that having it and GHZ without some more closed stages is terrible, and also that it + GHZ may be redundant. So for what you're trying to do, I'd suggest this instead: FoD, SV, PS2, YS, DS

I say YS instead of WL because WL is tiny AND the platforms make it cramped. Its like the inverse of FD, which is huge AND open. I don't see any matchups claiming WL is neutral, but I can see a few claiming YS is neutral.

And yeah the overall stage size is pretty good, which is a plus. However the 2 big stages are both huge while the 2 small stages are not both tiny. In the starters we're currently using, both small stages are the same size and theres only 1 huge stage. Yes they are not proportionally sized any more than your suggestion, but there are twice as many of the under-proportioned stages.

 

[JesteRace]

I love the write-up.

Smashville, with its moving platform, could be argued to be inherently more neutral because it favors different characters at different times due to having a different layout. I agree completely that having it and GHZ without some more closed stages is terrible, and also that it + GHZ may be redundant. So for what you're trying to do, I'd suggest this instead: FoD, SV, PS2, YS, DS

I say YS instead of WL because WL is tiny AND the platforms make it cramped. Its like the inverse of FD, which is huge AND open. I don't see any matchups claiming WL is neutral, but I can see a few claiming YS is neutral.

And yeah the overall stage size is pretty good, which is a plus. However the 2 big stages are both huge while the 2 small stages are not both tiny. In the starters we're currently using, both small stages are the same size and theres only 1 huge stage. Yes they are not proportionally sized any more than your suggestion, but there are twice as many of the under-proportioned stages.

You could argue that for Smashville, yes, but I think it's still DD city regardless of where the platform is. This isn't inherently a problem, it's just kind of lame when there's already PS2. With it also being so similar to GHZ, I think it's better to use GHZ because the smaller size of GHZ helps curtail the openness better(and it also has the moving platform appeal). Your suggested replacements aren't bad at all, but it dosn't have the same platform variety with SV and PS2 having their similarities and YS/FoD both being tri-plats. YS is slightly less crampd than WL, yes, but imo, not significantly. Plus there's the whole tether issue with YS. And while I could come up with a few matchups I could see myself striking to WL as Link(Ice Climbers, maybe Lucario), it's worth noting that the main goal of having a balance of starters isn't just "to have the most neutral starters" it's to ensure that both sides get a decent stage for them. Even in the matchups where WL or DS is an auto-ban, this helps everyone get to a good starter.

 

[4tlas]

You could argue that for Smashville, yes, but I think it's still DD city regardless of where the platform is. This isn't inherently a problem, it's just kind of lame when there's already PS2. With it also being so similar to GHZ, I think it's better to use GHZ because the smaller size of GHZ helps curtail the openness better(and it also has the moving platform appeal). Your suggested replacements aren't bad at all, but it dosn't have the same platform variety with SV and PS2 having their similarities and YS/FoD both being tri-plats. YS is slightly less crampd than WL, yes, but imo, not significantly. Plus there's the whole tether issue with YS. And while I could come up with a few matchups I could see myself striking to WL as Link(Ice Climbers, maybe Lucario), it's worth noting that the main goal of having a balance of starters isn't just "to have the most neutral starters" it's to ensure that both sides get a decent stage for them. Even in the matchups where WL or DS is an auto-ban, this helps everyone get to a good starter.

Fair. Something to think about is that if you're willing to make either BF or SV a counterpick, why aren't we doing that to way-too-huge-to-be-allowed PS2?

I also am still not convinced that 1-3-1 bans (or 3-2 or whatever) are any worse than 1-2-1, just different. Instead of getting the same number of bans but also getting the picking ban for winning RPS, you get to choose between having an extra ban or having the picking ban. If we have 6 starters we can run 2-2-2 and we can easily find ways to do that.

 

[JesteRace]

Fair. Something to think about is that if you're willing to make either BF or SV a counterpick, why aren't we doing that to way-too-huge-to-be-allowed PS2?

I also am still not convinced that 1-3-1 bans (or 3-2 or whatever) are any worse than 1-2-1, just different. Instead of getting the same number of bans but also getting the picking ban for winning RPS, you get to choose between having an extra ban or having the picking ban. If we have 6 starters we can run 2-2-2 and we can easily find ways to do that.

Battlefield is the only stage I'm NOT willing to make a counterpick, but you have a fair point. I think making SV a CP is a slightly easier sell than making PS2 a CP, silly as that is. Plus, the whole point of removing SV is there's no way to properly balance 5 neutrals with 2 mediums (imo, anyway). As for 6 neutrals, I don't know. Never considered it. 1-3-1 could work, but I think it's another hard sell.

 

[4tlas]

Battlefield is the only stage I'm NOT willing to make a counterpick, but you have a fair point. I think making SV a CP is a slightly easier sell than making PS2 a CP, silly as that is. Plus, the whole point of removing SV is there's no way to properly balance 5 neutrals with 2 mediums (imo, anyway). As for 6 neutrals, I don't know. Never considered it. 1-3-1 could work, but I think it's another hard sell.

Ok, lets say we cannot balance 5 neutrals with 2 mediums. I think it is far easier to convince people to run 6 starters than to convince them to make any of the big 3 a counterpick. But more importantly, is it possible to make a balanced stagelist with 6 neutrals? I assume we'd have 3 or 4 counterpicks then.

If we can come up with a nicely balanced stagelist that uses 6 starters, then that's a great argument for using 6 starters. I don't see any downside to 6 starters, though I think DMG disagrees with me afair.

 

[DMG]

Striking is best left to odd numbers, so both sides get an equal even amount of strikes. If you run 6 stages, both players cannot have 3 strikes. Someone gets 2 and the other person gets 3. At that point, there is no strike order, strike stagger method, or alternative phrasing that changes the fundamental math.


Think about it from this POV: instead of moving "up" from 5 to 6, imagine it as going down from 7 to 6. In the process of going down from 7 to 6, you ask 1 person to give up his strike (as alluded to earlier, both players can't strike 3 stages if 6 stages exist). Doesn't matter if he goes "last" and gets to "pick" from the end. He has lost 1 stage strike.


If you shrunk the total stage list from 9 to 8 (with 2 bans on each side), and then asked only one player to give up 1 ban count to accomodate the change, it wouldn't go over very well. Doing even number striking is akin to that: someone gets screwed.


In 5-7 stage striking, the last person to strike is not making an imbalanced pick between 2 stages, that further requires an additional stage to rectify this advantage. He is electing to use his final strike. This is not a balance issue unless the strike count is inbalanced from using even stage count OR other factors such as running only 3 stages / incorrect stagger method (easy example in 5 stages: 1st player uses both strikes immediately. This is clear advantage for 2nd player and is incorrect stagger method)


I'd rather go outside Vanilla and start modding stages, than try to conform to 4-6-8 stage striking.

 

[JesteRace]

Yeah, that's the problem. Even if we could balance 6 starters (which we probably could), that balance pretty much no longer exists when one person gets an extra strike's worth of influence.

It's very true that making any of the big 3 a counterpick is an uphill battle, but from what I'm seeing, it's the only way to have balanced neutrals without a 3rd medium stage. I suppose Michigan's starter list is doable (Yata also described it as improved Melee). For the record, that would be WL/SV/BF/PS2/DS. Considering how similar SV and GHZ are, this could work fine. It's not as "mathematically balanced" but it may be the closest we can get to balanced neutrals without giving up any of the big 3 and without a 3rd medium.

 

[4tlas]

Striking is best left to odd numbers, so both sides get an equal even amount of strikes. If you run 6 stages, both players cannot have 3 strikes. Someone gets 2 and the other person gets 3. At that point, there is no strike order, strike stagger method, or alternative phrasing that changes the fundamental math.


Think about it from this POV: instead of moving "up" from 5 to 6, imagine it as going down from 7 to 6. In the process of going down from 7 to 6, you ask 1 person to give up his strike (as alluded to earlier, both players can't strike 3 stages if 6 stages exist). Doesn't matter if he goes "last" and gets to "pick" from the end. He has lost 1 stage strike.


If you shrunk the total stage list from 9 to 8 (with 2 bans on each side), and then asked only one player to give up 1 ban count to accomodate the change, it wouldn't go over very well. Doing even number striking is akin to that: someone gets screwed.


In 5-7 stage striking, the last person to strike is not making an imbalanced pick between 2 stages, that further requires an additional stage to rectify this advantage. He is electing to use his final strike. This is not a balance issue unless the strike count is inbalanced from using even stage count OR other factors such as running only 3 stages / incorrect stagger method (easy example in 5 stages: 1st player uses both strikes immediately. This is clear advantage for 2nd player and is incorrect stagger method)


I'd rather go outside Vanilla and start modding stages, than try to conform to 4-6-8 stage striking.

Not seeing it. You say nothing changes the fundamental math, as if math is pure and absolute. But math is only describing something. In this case you've chosen to describe the number of bans someone gets, but this is not all that is occurring. For example, the ban that also selects the stage is a ban + certainty. It is more than a ban, and everyone values that certainty differently. Some people will view it as being worth MORE than a ban, and some people will view it as being worth nothing. If they win RPS, they are free to decide. If they lose, they still might get what they want, which is certainly no worse than the current system of being strictly worse off for losing RPS.

The objective is not to give players an equal number of bans. The objective is to give the players an equal amount of POWER. Power comes in forms other than bans, including the certainty of making the final ban.

For example, lets say I dislike 4 of the 5 stages. My opponent bans 1, and now I get to ban 2 of 4, of which I hate 3. How do I ban 2/4 to make my opponent ban the last one for me? Is there a way to make them also prefer the one stage that's good for me? From the other perspective, which one of the 4 disliked stages should I ban if I'm the starter? Well this is a lot easier, since I get to choose the stage I like as long as it makes it past them banning 2/4 stages. I don't have to manipulate them into banning the ones I want them to nearly as hard.

That power should not be overlooked so easily just because it doesn't fit into the math of bans.

 

[DMG]

That's the whole purpose of staggering: to allocate "power" more fairly. This is why strikes alternate between players instead of 1 guy doing 2-3 strikes and then his opponent doing all 2-3 strikes. It already serves that power balance function properly in odd number stages. The person going last also has to go first. This should indicate a pretty decent "power" balance. Going last is not overlooked: it's accounted for in the current correct stagger pick method.

If you don't like 4 stages out of 5, play a better character or a better MU. At a certain point, it's not the fault of the stage system if the characters still aren't balanced amongst each other. Adding 1 stage and skewing strike count for 1 side to maybe (probably) not fix a whole lot of actual issues, seems like a stretch.

 

[4tlas]

That's the whole purpose of staggering: to allocate "power" more fairly. This is why strikes alternate between players instead of 1 guy doing 2-3 strikes and then his opponent doing all 2-3 strikes. It already serves that power balance function properly in odd number stages. The person going last also has to go first. This should indicate a pretty decent "power" balance. Going last is not overlooked: it's accounted for in the current correct stagger pick method.

If you don't like 4 stages out of 5, play a better character or a better MU. At a certain point, it's not the fault of the stage system if the characters still aren't balanced amongst each other. Adding 1 stage and skewing strike count for 1 side to maybe (probably) not fix a whole lot of actual issues, seems like a stretch.

You're correct, it is accounted for. That doesn't mean it is counted correctly. Where have we seen evidence that it is counted correctly? Melee, where they have to use 5 starters because thats all they have? Can you direct me to anyone who tried 6 starters in PM and found that people felt like it was unfair to them?

 

[DMG]

Staggering for other games functions as the current system does. Both sides get equal number of choices + the current stagger. They do not balance the last or first pick in Dota/LoL by giving one side an extra choice.

 

[4tlas]

Staggering for other games functions as the current system does. Both sides get equal number of choices + the current stagger. They do not balance the last or first pick in Dota/LoL by giving one side an extra choice.

In LoL they always give the same side First/Last pick, and that side has a statistically significant win rate boost.

Edit: If you're talking about bans, they're banning 3/150 champs or something ridiculously inconclusive. The extra certainty is also marginalized because the last ban is not the first pick. If you're talking about picks, no MOBA uses 6 players, so there's no control group.

 

[DMG]

Have they changed LoL staggering then? It used to be 1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2. One side gets 1st pick and the other last pick. Explain what current LoL stagger happens to be if it's different now

 

[4tlas]

Have they changed LoL staggering then? It used to be 1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2. One side gets 1st pick and the other last pick. Explain what current LoL stagger happens to be if it's different now

No that's still what they do, but Team 1 has a significantly higher win rate.

 

[DMG]

1st champ advantage may be impossible to totally balance. Each team has very limited control over champ pool. Stage striking already has a vastly larger amount of mitigation since your choices reduce from (say 9 total legal stages) to 5 starters, and from 5 starters to just 1 choice. The person going last in Smash is not 1st picking a FOTM champ or dictating how both teams should pick for the rest of the process.

Going last in Smash strikes is not a huge or noteworthy imbalance unless other aspects are messed up. You can try 6 starter if you want: am trying to save people time and effort like when the 3 stage starter idea came up. Not a clear picture on how it's an improvement.

 

[4tlas]

1st champ advantage may be impossible to totally balance. Each team has very limited control over champ pool. Stage striking already has a vastly larger amount of mitigation since your choices reduce from (say 9 total legal stages) to 5 starters, and from 5 starters to just 1 choice. The person going last in Smash is not 1st picking a FOTM champ or dictating how both teams should pick for the rest of the process.

Going last in Smash strikes is not a huge or noteworthy imbalance unless other aspects are messed up. You can try 6 starter if you want: am trying to save people time and effort like when the 3 stage starter idea came up. Not a clear picture on how it's an improvement.

Well I agree on all the theorycrafting about why 3 starters blows. I don't agree on the theorycrafting about 6, so then it comes down to providing compelling evidence. I don't think there is any in either direction, so we'll just have to try it some day.

Thanks for helping explore the topic!

 

[DrinkingFood]

1-2-1 is in theory perfectly balanced for informed picking
first striker picks 1 stage with 0 information. Second striker picks 2 stages, both of which are on the informed basis of seeing the first striker's first strike. Striker 1 now has information on 2 stages the from striker 2, so his last strike is twice as valuable.
one is 2 strikes x 1 amount of information = 2 half informed strikes
the other is 1 strike x 0 information + 1 strike x twice the amount of information = 1 fully informed strike

I'm pretty sure you could do this with 9 or 13 strikes as well, but not with 3, 7, or 11

 

[4tlas]

1-2-1 is in theory perfectly balanced for informed picking
first striker picks 1 stage with 0 information. Second striker picks 2 stages, both of which are on the informed basis of seeing the first striker's first strike. Striker 1 now has information on 2 stages the from striker 2, so his last strike is twice as valuable.
one is 2 strikes x 1 amount of information = 2 half informed strikes
the other is 1 strike x 0 information + 1 strike x twice the amount of information = 1 fully informed strike

I'm pretty sure you could do this with 9 or 13 strikes as well, but not with 3, 7, or 11

Assuming a ban with 1 ban's worth of information is worth 2 bans, yeah. But its not that cut and dry, unfortunately.

 

[eideeiit]

Numbers yeee

5 starters of A, B, C, D and E and the bans go 1-2-1 (p1, p2, p2, p1)
P1 has a certain stage he wants and has his bans in a certain order of importance. (ie. favorite- ABCDE -ban, E would be first ban)
P2 has a certain stage he wants and has his bans in a certain order of importance.
The MU isn't affected by the stage (or at least the players aren't aware it is) and the players have no info on each other
The certain order of importance the players have for their bans doesn't change during the game, ie. when p2 sees p1 ban stage A he changes B from his least favorite stage to his favorite.

Supposing a situation like this, let's take quick look at the chances:

P(p2's favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans not p2's favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans not p2's favorite on 4th ban) =
(4/5)*(1/2)=(2/5)
P(p1's favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans not p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans not p1's favorite on 3rd ban) =
(3/4)*(2/3)=(1/2)
P(p2's 2nd favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans p2's favourite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans not p2's 2nd favourite on 4th ban)+P(p1 bans not p2's favorite or 2nd favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2's favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/5)*(1/2)+(3/5)*(1/2)=(2/5)
P(p1's 2nd favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans not p1's 2nd favorite on 3rd ban)+P(p2 bans not p1's favorite or 2nd favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 3rd ban) =
(1/4)*(2/3)+(2/4)*(1/3)=(1/3)
P(p2's 3rd favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans p2's favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2's 2nd favorite on 4th ban)+P(p1 bans p2's 2nd favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2 favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/5)*(1/2)+(1/5)*(1/2)=(1/5)
P(p1's 3rd favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's 2nd favorite on 3rd ban)+P(p2 bans p1's 2nd favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/4)*(1/3)+(1/4)*(1/3)=(1/6)

So in a pure mathematical sense banning first indeed is strictly better in a situation of equal information.

Feel free to point out mistakes and stuff, I went way too late for this and am regretting it.

 

[Bazkip]

Numbers yeee

5 starters of A, B, C, D and E and the bans go 1-2-1 (p1, p2, p2, p1)
P1 has a certain stage he wants and has his bans in a certain order of importance. (ie. favorite- ABCDE -ban, E would be first ban)
P2 has a certain stage he wants and has his bans in a certain order of importance.
The MU isn't affected by the stage (or at least the players aren't aware it is) and the players have no info on each other
The certain order of importance the players have for their bans doesn't change during the game, ie. when p2 sees p1 ban stage A he changes B from his least favorite stage to his favorite.

Supposing a situation like this, let's take quick look at the chances:

P(p2's favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans not p2's favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans not p2's favorite on 4th ban) =
(4/5)*(1/2)=(2/5)
P(p1's favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans not p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans not p1's favorite on 3rd ban) =
(3/4)*(2/3)=(1/2)
P(p2's 2nd favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans p2's favourite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans not p2's 2nd favourite on 4th ban)+P(p1 bans not p2's favorite or 2nd favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2's favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/5)*(1/2)+(3/5)*(1/2)=(2/5)
P(p1's 2nd favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans not p1's 2nd favorite on 3rd ban)+P(p2 bans not p1's favorite or 2nd favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 3rd ban) =
(1/4)*(2/3)+(2/4)*(1/3)=(1/3)
P(p2's 3rd favorite stage is played on) = P(p1 bans p2's favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2's 2nd favorite on 4th ban)+P(p1 bans p2's 2nd favorite on 1st ban)*P(p1 bans p2 favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/5)*(1/2)+(1/5)*(1/2)=(1/5)
P(p1's 3rd favorite stage is played on) = P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's 2nd favorite on 3rd ban)+P(p2 bans p1's 2nd favorite on 2nd ban)*P(p2 bans p1's favorite on 4th ban) =
(1/4)*(1/3)+(1/4)*(1/3)=(1/6)

So in a pure mathematical sense banning first indeed is strictly better in a situation of equal information.

Feel free to point out mistakes and stuff, I went way too late for this and am regretting it.

Nerd

 

[Deleted member]

i pretty much agree and always ban first. but then i dont try to trick my opponents into playing a stage i like, i assume my opponents are good and get rid of the stages that i think are bad for me, and if my opponents arent good i know i'll win anyway. this is also part of why i'm okay with the idea of 3 starters even though i think 5 is still better. as someone who always looks for marginal gains, even i have a hard time buying the discrepancy between the two correlating to a set loss.

 

[_Chrome]

I haven't been on this thread for sometime, but what does anyone think of Lylat Cruise being legal, and possibly replacing BC as a starter?

 

[4tlas]

I haven't been on this thread for sometime, but what does anyone think of Lylat Cruise being legal, and possibly replacing BC as a starter?

Can't see it being a starter, too many people dislike the anti-ledges. Can totally see it being legal and on a stagelist though, since it provides 3 important counterpick traits in a unique way: slopes, low and frequent platforms, and anti-ledges. SG is running a stagelist right now with Lylat, and honestly it seems like a good thing so far.

 

[nimigoha]

Agreed, I think the ledges alone cause too much of a "community outcry" against the stage as a starter, but aside from that it's a good enough stage to be used as a counterpick.

 

[_Chrome]

Is the complaint you're talking about the thinness of the ledges, or the slant on the sides? Because the thinness of the ledges really shouldn't be a problem if people can sweetspot their recoveries, and the slant isn't a huge deal: people put up with YS in Melee and vouch for YI in PM.

As for having to put up with stages, it looks like PM will have to do that to since we don't have some of the good stages found in the netplay build, and lots of people dislike so many stages anyways.

 

[4tlas]

Is the complaint you're talking about the thinness of the ledges, or the slant on the sides? Because the thinness of the ledges really shouldn't be a problem if people can sweetspot their recoveries, and the slant isn't a huge deal: people put up with YS in Melee and vouch for YI in PM.

As for having to put up with stages, it looks like PM will have to do that to since we don't have some of the good stages found in the netplay build, and lots of people dislike so many stages anyways.

The thinness of the ledges is what gets people. Most of them complain that they fail their recoveries, and I don't think that's very valid (git gud would apply here, essentially). But even if you are good at sweetspotting, it does force you to be very precise: which means you can be easily edgeguarded. People complain about that too, and while they are correct I think that just means its a good counterpick. Not all recoveries are affected equally. Also its a big stage, so recovering isn't always necessary, and even when it is it may not be to ledge.