Project M Recommended Ruleset

[4tlas]

I don't quote follow what you mean by "more than allowed"

Oh, I suppose everyone probably uses different all-star rules.

Since we want to disallow just playing your main so other players have a shot while actually using secondaries, we set a max number of stocks you can select as the same character. If someone mains Zelda and secondaries Sheik, they should be able to select those 2 separately provided they don't Transform. Thus I only ban Transform if they select more total stocks than allowed as the 2 combined.

 

[eideeiit]

I think rules should be as easily enforceable and clearly defined as possible, so that approach (zelda and sheik are separate on certain occasions) to allstar doesn't really sound smart to me. idk tho. They do hinder people that would like to play 1 stock sheik and 1 zelda, but from my point of view those people are playing the same character for both stocks, just a different stance, so if that's allowed then so should 1 stock fire-samus and 1 ice-samus or 1 stock with a rushdown fox and 1 with a laser camping etc.
I'm kinda just going in circles throwing badly articulated posts by now though.

 

[4tlas]

I think rules should be as easily enforceable and clearly defined as possible, so that approach (zelda and sheik are separate on certain occasions) to allstar doesn't really sound smart to me. idk tho. They do hinder people that would like to play 1 stock sheik and 1 zelda, but from my point of view those people are playing the same character for both stocks, just a different stance, so if that's allowed then so should 1 stock fire-samus and 1 ice-samus or 1 stock with a rushdown fox and 1 with a laser camping etc.
I'm kinda just going in circles throwing badly articulated posts by now though.

This problem only exists because Zelda was so bad in Melee (and then Brawl) that we've had 15 years of people playing only one half or the other. By this point, people think of them as separate characters even though I completely agree with you that its just 2 halves of the same character. So while it is analogous, players won't see it that way in practice and will feel cheated out of their "but I play each character completely separately, why can't I use them for different stocks?" feeling.

You are right that its hard to enforce, which could be a good enough reason to scrap it entirely. Besides, I'm the only person with both a Sheik and Zelda at my events anyway, so I'd just be preventing myself from doing 2 stocks Zelda and 2 stocks Sheik. Good thing I won't complain, because I don't play AllStar anyway.

 

[nimigoha]

Outside of "I don't like there being 1 medium starter and pushing SV to a CP" I'd like feedback on this list please. If no one can agree on a third medium starter and if people still think balancing starters/cps makes sense, I think putting BF as a starter and SV as a CP is a logical choice.

I think it's actually decent even though I whipped it up on a whim. Would consider switching around DS/DL and maybe swapping FoD for something though I don't know what, and I think it's actually an okay CP.

 

[4tlas]

Is there some reason you've opted for only 8 stages?

Can I provide an argument for why 1 medium is bad? Medium is the average, the default. Characters who care about stage size prefer small or large (or both for different reasons, usually only 1 of which applies in any given matchup) and detest the other. Very rarely is medium considered "bad" for a character.

With only 1 medium stage, this is going to result in 1 of 2 things. Either the players care about stage size (in which case they ban opposing sizes and end up on the 1 medium) or they do not (in which case only layouts matter). In the case that they care about stage size, there is only 1 layout available to them. In the case that they do not, then we have removed one of the best neutral layouts (whichever medium we remove) for no gain.

Because all 5 layouts are different and all 5 sizes are different in the starters you've presented, the 2 are intertwined. I think that is suboptimal.

 

[DMG]

PM starters are just stuck in a suboptimal place no matter how you craft the list.

 

[nimigoha]

I went for 8 because it's still a decently large list, and because no one can agree on a third medium stage so why try to force one? I wanted an equal number of small and large so 3 and 3 works, I think 6 is too few and 10 is too many.

As for size and layout, I'm not sure where you're approaching from. Are you looking at two players where both ban for size, both ban for layout, or one for each? Or all three?

I don't think there's no gain. From a size perspective, you're removing a medium to force a 2/1/2 and mitigate ban power that is currently favouring larger stages in 9/10 lists we see.

You're right that banning for size will end up on the one medium with no layout choice. But IMO this is better than banning for size in 1/2/2 and having the large stage favourer get to decide which layout to use. Or honestly the inverse in 2/2/1, though I do prefer it to 1/2/2.

If both are banning for layout, no character has only 1 preferred layout. For striking they'll kill their two least preferred. It ends with (assuming good player and MU knowledge) each character's 3rd preferred layout.

One layout one size is obviously going to be strange. I don't think any list other than custom stages can make this fair for every MU, if that.

 

[4tlas]

I went for 8 because it's still a decently large list, and because no one can agree on a third medium stage so why try to force one? I wanted an equal number of small and large so 3 and 3 works, I think 6 is too few and 10 is too many.

As for size and layout, I'm not sure where you're approaching from. Are you looking at two players where both ban for size, both ban for layout, or one for each? Or all three?

I don't think there's no gain. From a size perspective, you're removing a medium to force a 2/1/2 and mitigate ban power that is currently favouring larger stages in 9/10 lists we see.

You're right that banning for size will end up on the one medium with no layout choice. But IMO this is better than banning for size in 1/2/2 and having the large stage favourer get to decide which layout to use. Or honestly the inverse in 2/2/1, though I do prefer it to 1/2/2.

If both are banning for layout, no character has only 1 preferred layout. For striking they'll kill their two least preferred. It ends with (assuming good player and MU knowledge) each character's 3rd preferred layout.

One layout one size is obviously going to be strange. I don't think any list other than custom stages can make this fair for every MU, if that.

How many bans do you intend to run with 8 stages? What do you do with DSR?

I'm talking about all striking scenarios. "Medium" stages are the ones nobody minds going to. The more medium stages in the starters, the more layout factors into banning. The goal is to end up with a combination of size and layout that overall is pretty neutral. If you disassociate the 2 factors it is possible to get a very precise combination of size and layout. That is preferable to forcing both players to strike their own good layouts to get good sizes, because you'll end up on a stage neither player wants rather than one both players want. Basically, you end up on a random stage neither player hates rather than a stage that's a combination of traits you both were looking for and aren't afraid of.

At the same time, you have the absolutely smallest and most cramped stage as a starter, as well as the largest stage (since nobody should ever use DP). I can't see WL getting struck to unless its like, Marth vs Ganon or something. Can somebody in a region that runs WL as a starter provide data? WL is so extreme it seems like a necessary ban, and at that point it just becomes a game of chicken about who will waste their strike on it.

 

[CORY]

and at that point it just becomes a game of chicken about who will waste their strike on it.

well, i wouldn't, but i'm biased : p

 

[nimigoha]

I get all the layout and size stuff, but I still think it's preferable to an S/L imbalance.

I think WL is fine as a starter since DS is also included. I would like to see more data about it but tbh I already think it should be swapped with GHZ in Paragon. It probably will end up as elimination of extremes to end up on M.

But the thing is, 99% of people think 5 starters is best. So it's really choosing between 2/2/1, 1/2/2, and 2/1/2. For most matchups, elimination of extremes will happen regardless of your starters, but it will favour certain characters in MUs if you have anything other than an even number of large and small stages. S/L imbalance forces one person to ban their opponent's best two, while their opponent gets to choose which of the "true neutrals" ends up winning.

I'm probably going to test this at my locals in September, providing no one comes up with a universal list in the next 4 months.

 

[JesteRace]

As Link, I can probably safely strike to WL against at least a solid third of the cast, personally. I'll try to pay attention and get some hard data on how often it gets struck to, but I'm fairly positive it's not significantly less or more struck to than GHZ was, just for different matchups.

 

[mimgrim]

So ideally the best starters, assuming 5 starters, to have are 1 small 3 med 1 large. But there is no real universally avcepted med stage after BF and SV and the only real contenders would be CS, YIB, and BC Alt and all uave a stigma to them one way or another so trying to get them into starter is a major hassle.

Next ideal would be 2 small 1 med 2 big. But not having SV as a starter would be a hard as hell sell, but easier, I would imagine, then trying to get one of the three I mentioned as starters. And let me just say that WW GHZ BF PS2 DS as starters and FoD (CS or BC alt) SV FD as cps is stunningly beautiful with size balance (3 small, 4 med, 3 big in total) and stage layout diversirty.

Next best, but far from ideal, is 2 small 2 med 1 big.

Then worst is, and yet most common, 1 small 2 med 2 big. I do wonder why this is the most common type of starter.

And sorry if there doesn't seem to be a point to this posr, I'm just letting out thoughts I have been building up for a while.

 

[DMG]

1 2 2 is most common because "PS2 is a medium stage" somehow still lingers

 

[nimigoha]

I actually wouldn't mind the 2 1 2 with SV as a CP.

I don't know about FD though. I know and agree that Dreamland's blast zones are beyond stupid but FD is a really dumb stage for other reasons.

And I didn't think about 10 stages in that format either.

S M M M L
S S M L L

Actually kinda makes sense when you think about how so many people argue that YI/CS/BoC aren't "balanced enough to be starters". But are they okay enough to be CPs? YI has almost never been a starter and people still argue it off lists.

I think there's always going to be that argument like "but I have to ban BoC because the emblem/platforms/chains mess up X for my character" and whether that's considered a good reason to have it even as a CP. Banning is already "imperfect" even with the "perfect" stagelist because some bans will be based on stage sizes and some bans will be based on stage elements. Not that it ends up mattering, but from a stagelist design perspective you have to think "who would ban this for size and who would ban this for weird elements" or does it all boil down to "just a ban"?

 

[mimgrim]

FD is a really dumb stage for other reasons.

It adds in a really unique niche of having no platforms which further adds to the diversity of stage lay-out. Only other big stage that I think is acceptable beyond DL (eh on cause it niche can be done by DS just on a smaller scale while DS offer better diversity and niche with its platforms and DL's layout is just BF but bigger, same with YS tbh it niche of super small stage can be done by WW but not as extremely and it just feels like BF but smaller and at least FoD has the advantage of having 2 of it platforms move up and down to make it both look and feel more unique then just a different size of BF) would be Nofair, which has its own set of problems. I don't think there are any other big stages even remotely accepted by the community other then PS2, DS, DL, and Nofair. Personally I would love Lylat as a big stage to have but people vehemently hate the ledges.

 

[Zach777]

Quick thought everyone. What if for the counterpick system we use ban packs instead of what it is now?
Ban packs have the player banning all stages containing the attribute that he/she does not want to fight with. The banning player can ban only one pack.

The ban packs would be something like this.

Large base stages

Small base stages

Stages with blastzones far away from it's ledges

Stages with blastzones close to it's ledges

High ceiling stages

Low ceiling stages

Open layout stages

Stages cluttered with platforms.



Using this system would probably be best with a large stagelist. With this ban pack system, you might not have to worry about the stagelist being lopsided toward a particular type of stage.

Definite con of the ban pack system would be trying to get people to agree on what stages should be on a particular ban pack.

 

[nimigoha]

Definitely not.

The current mindset is that bans should allow a player to eliminate the most "x attribute" stage or stages (1 or 2 bans) but not entirely stopping the CPer from being able to get that attribute. That's the mindset behind 3/3/3 in attributes.

Plus things like "clutter" and "open" are subjective.

Plus, what if you want to ban two completely different stages for completely different reasons? You want to eliminate FoD because the platforms mess you up but you also want to eliminate FD because the lack of platforms make your character susceptible to CGs.

Plus to be quite honest, CPing isn't the problem. The problem with almost every single list is the Starters. Namely, we don't have 3 acceptable medium-base stages.

 

[CORY]

i was thinking about that last night, actually. however:

Using this system would probably be best with a large stagelist.

this occurred to me and without a large stage set to pick from that's [mostly] non-controversial it'll be really hard to get the necessary raw numbers to make this feasible.

maybe if pm were still in development and the devs could tweak most of the stages to have competitive forms to put in, but as of now, 4tlas 's pooled bans is probably the best variant on something like this.

 

[4tlas]

FD sucks. It is the only uniform stage, which means it is automatically the most polarizing stage. There are no elements to take advantage of, which means there are no windows of power, no chances to mitigate a matchup, and a total lack of the literal namesake and defining aspect of this genre's gameplay (platform fighters).

In any matchup where this stage gives an advantage, it not only gives a massive advantage (because its open space and large size complement each other), but it also never wavers in that advantage (there is zero chance that a platform will change the dynamic). So it should be banned in those matchups. If it doesn't give an advantage overall, it doesn't even give a slight advantage, since the whole entire stage is uniform in not providing an advantage. Hence it won't be counterpicked.

In the very few situations where it does somehow manage to break those trends, its still an awful stage because of the reasons provided in the first paragraph.

 

[DMG]

FD is kinda unbalanced but it generally offers a RPS counter to whatever the opponent is doing (character basis). In that sense, FD advantages may not be as consistently good as some choices (because FD often acts as a double edged sword). Rarely do you see a genuine power swap happen on WL: if Marth is good on WL there's little chance you will outperform and reverse the tables with any other char. FD has quite a few instances where some dominant choice can be out-done (Sheik + FD a burden? Here come IC's. Marth a pain? Swing Falcon or MK by, etc)

I don't think FD is well balanced in total, however this isn't Melee without bans or overall weaker character designs. I think the cast can manage FD being legal and the design acceptable for seeking advantages. If we are to take the logic that PS2 is fairly well balanced and starter worthy, removing the platforms and shrinking the main stage (a la FD)should not lead to an explosive loss of competitive value (in reality, PS2 is probably less balanced than harped out to be but that's for another day)

 

[4tlas]

FD is kinda unbalanced but it generally offers a RPS counter to whatever the opponent is doing (character basis). In that sense, FD advantages may not be as consistently good as some choices (because FD often acts as a double edged sword). Rarely do you see a genuine power swap happen on WL: if Marth is good on WL there's little chance you will outperform and reverse the tables with any other char. FD has quite a few instances where some dominant choice can be out-done (Sheik + FD a burden? Here come IC's. Marth a pain? Swing Falcon or MK by, etc)

I don't think FD is well balanced in total, however this isn't Melee without bans or overall weaker character designs. I think the cast can manage FD being legal and the design acceptable for seeking advantages. If we are to take the logic that PS2 is fairly well balanced and starter worthy, removing the platforms and shrinking the main stage (a la FD)should not lead to an explosive loss of competitive value (in reality, PS2 is probably less balanced than harped out to be but that's for another day)

In the sense that FD provides no aspects of counterplay on its own, which thus allows matchups to play out to their "pure" conclusion, FD provides competitive value by allowing those types of interactions to occur. FD has value because its your best chance to get the better of them by switching the matchup.

However, if we do do Character First, any matchup in which FD would cause this type of counterpick will have it banned. There's pretty much no point to FD at the end of the day.

 

[DMG]

Depends on what the MU hinges on. FD is not the most extreme on bondaries, stage length, or walls. There's room for other stages to offer a stronger advantage. Now I agree in 2 ban, it's likely to be at least 1 of the choices banned if there's a disadvantage present (if you ban PS2, you're probably also banning FD. Possibly same thing if you are banning Delfino/Dreamland). But the same reason Dreamland and WL see any usage, despite almost 100% ban rate in many MU's, is why I'd be fine with FD.

 

[4tlas]

Sure, which is why I said on occasion it manages to bypass the banning trends. But then its still an awful stage because its uniformly elementless. Aka even when it has competitive value, which is rare, its still bad gameplay.

 

[JesteRace]

The list Chevy posted earlier, adjusted for realistic expectations:

Starters
WL - SV - BF - PS2 - DS

Counterpicks
YS - GHZ - FoD - FD - DL

Cliffnotes: Two tiny (WL/YS), two med-small (GHZ/FoD), two medium (SV/BF), two med-large (PS2/FD), two huge (DS/DL).

I will be pushing this list hard in my scene. We already run the same starters, which is the most important part.

I had previously been against YS/DL, and an acceptable alternative would be to take off YS/DL and just have 1 ban, but now in this context I think that's kind of unfair because then there's only one tiny and one huge, but there's still two of all the other archetypes. Still, if my scene was willing to run this list minus YS/DL and 1 ban, I would definitely take it.

 

[4tlas]

The list Chevy posted earlier, adjusted for realistic expectations:

Starters
WL - SV - BF - PS2 - DS

Counterpicks
YS - GHZ - FoD - FD - DL

Cliffnotes: Two tiny (WL/YS), two med-small (GHZ/FoD), two medium (SV/BF), two med-large (PS2/FD), two huge (DS/DL).

I will be pushing this list hard in my scene. We already run the same starters, which is the most important part.

I had previously been against YS/DL, and an acceptable alternative would be to take off YS/DL and just have 1 ban, but now in this context I think that's kind of unfair because then there's only one tiny and one huge, but there's still two of all the other archetypes. Still, if my scene was willing to run this list minus YS/DL and 1 ban, I would definitely take it.

Is there some reason why you've listed PS2 as med-large? I also think classifying FD as med-large is misleading due to how the openness compounds with the size.

In addition to that, what is the reason WL is expected to balance out PS2 + DS in the starters? WL is about as tiny as PS2 is huge...and then you also have DS.

 

[JesteRace]

It's just an overall archetype, if we're talking just stage size, the balance is 4 small, 2 medium, 4 large(or 4 low, 2 medium, 4 high for ceilings). Overall, I used "med-large" for lack of a better term because they're wide stages with low ceilings, balanced on the other end by FoD and GHZ, small stages with high ceilings. I was basically just condensing how I would classify the balance.

As for the starters, I have never claimed that it was numerically balanced, simply "practically balanced" or the best we can do. Because Bowser's has been deemed not to be starter material, there is no 3rd medium. From there, the ideal balance would be 2/1/2. WL/GHZ/BF/PS2/DS would be absolutely perfect because it has the most variety in platform layouts, and is numerically balanced (WL and PS2 balance each other out as do GHZ and DS), but as we all know, the mighty 3 starters are impossible to mess with. So you replace GHZ with its medium-sized counterpart, and that's how you get to the starters I've proposed. It's not perfect, but it's the closest we can get to the ideal with the stages available imo.

 

[4tlas]

So you replace GHZ with its medium-sized counterpart, and that's how you get to the starters I've proposed. It's not perfect, but it's the closest we can get to the ideal with the stages available imo.

I followed fine until this part. You swapped GHZ with DS, no?

Again, larger and more open stages further separate the haves from the have nots. The good characters have some combination of speed, projectiles, and range/disjoint, all of which are more and more effective the more space there is on the stage. Bad characters are critically lacking in these aspects, and need less space, which means fewer neutral interactions, to keep up.

All else being equal, (we've already factored in everything else the best we can) we should go with 2 Small, 2 Medium, and 1 Large. This is even more true because PS2 is absolutely massive, but we have 2 stages that are only slightly small (GHZ and FoD) to balance it out.

 

[JesteRace]

I followed fine until this part. You swapped GHZ with DS, no?

Again, larger and more open stages further separate the haves from the have nots. The good characters have some combination of speed, projectiles, and range/disjoint, all of which are more and more effective the more space there is on the stage. Bad characters are critically lacking in these aspects, and need less space, which means fewer neutral interactions, to keep up.

All else being equal, (we've already factored in everything else the best we can) we should go with 2 Small, 2 Medium, and 1 Large. This is even more true because PS2 is absolutely massive, but we have 2 stages that are only slightly small (GHZ and FoD) to balance it out.

No, I swapped GHZ for SV. My ideal starter list is WL/GHZ/BF/PS2/DS. I find this to be exceptionally well balanced, but we have to include SV somewhere, so it's best to put it in place of GHZ. That just brings the small stage/high ceiling to a medium stage/medium ceiling with a similar layout. So the variety in platform layouts is kept in tact, with a, in my view, tolerable skew towards big stages and low ceilings.

That's not to say I don't like the SG starters. The extreme wideness of PS2 is offset by having 2 moderately small stages AND their moderately high ceilings offset the very low ceiling of PS2. I understand and support the mindset. The minor problems I have with it are 1. The lack of aforementioned variety in platform layouts, 2. FoD is a tough sell as a starter, and 3. This shouldn't be a problem, but I think a lot of people would be against having PS2 as the largest starter, even people who accept that it is a large stage.

 

[4tlas]

Ah, my mistake. I got confused about where you were working from for a moment.

I've had no issues in my region with people accepting FoD as a starter or PS2 as the large starter.

As for the lack of variety in platform layouts, I think that is reasonable for the starters. Keep in mind that we are trying to represent the most neutral stages in the starters. This means that more average attributes should be considered, and more extreme ones removed.

WL is the smallest and most cramped map, and those compound. FD is the most open, and also quite large, which also compound. DL has the largest boundaries and is also quite open, which again compounds. YI has the most irregular stage layout due to the slopes. Starter stages should be within these extremes.

GHZ has a platform that is barely relevant, which is not as extreme as FD's nothingness. Smashville has a platform that is often, but not always relevant, which I find is quite different from GHZ. FoD has irregular stage layout, but it varies from very regular like Battlefield to very regular like GHZ. Battlefield is not as cramped with platforms as WL, and PS2 is pretty average in terms of layout.

This seems like an appropriate amount of layout variety to me. More extreme layouts should be included in the stagelist, but do not belong on the starters imo.

 

[sealedinterface]

I'm just getting into this now, but why is Smashville a CP and WarioWare a starter? The abundance of platforms on WarioWare heavily favors some characters, while Smashville's single moving platform on a mid-size stage always seemed like a perfect balance.

 

[JesteRace]

Ah, my mistake. I got confused about where you were working from for a moment.

I've had no issues in my region with people accepting FoD as a starter or PS2 as the large starter.

As for the lack of variety in platform layouts, I think that is reasonable for the starters. Keep in mind that we are trying to represent the most neutral stages in the starters. This means that more average attributes should be considered, and more extreme ones removed.

WL is the smallest and most cramped map, and those compound. FD is the most open, and also quite large, which also compound. DL has the largest boundaries and is also quite open, which again compounds. YI has the most irregular stage layout due to the slopes. Starter stages should be within these extremes.

GHZ has a platform that is barely relevant, which is not as extreme as FD's nothingness. Smashville has a platform that is often, but not always relevant, which I find is quite different from GHZ. FoD has irregular stage layout, but it varies from very regular like Battlefield to very regular like GHZ. Battlefield is not as cramped with platforms as WL, and PS2 is pretty average in terms of layout.

This seems like an appropriate amount of layout variety to me. More extreme layouts should be included in the stagelist, but do not belong on the starters imo.

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think in a game of 1600 matchups, things are a little more nuanced than "neutral stages exist solely within certain extremes". In my view, the goal of the starters is not to simply have the stages deemed the "most neutral". The goal is to come to an agreeable stage for both parties in as many matchups as possible. Now, ideally, this goal would be reached by striking from all legal stages, but for time reasons, we obviously can't have people striking 9+ stages every set, so it must be condensed. And, again in my view, it should be condensed to a set of starters that represent as much of the stagelist as possible, which is accomplished by having platform variety. It doesn't matter that Wario Land won't be struck to as often as the other stages, it just matters that there are matchups that can safely strike to this stage (I've already explained some matchups that would strike here, previously) and that in the overall set of starters, there's a stage that almost every matchup can agree on.

I'm just getting into this now, but why is Smashville a CP and WarioWare a starter? The abundance of platforms on WarioWare heavily favors some characters, while Smashville's single moving platform on a mid-size stage always seemed like a perfect balance.

Wario Land is a starter in some areas, but it is by no means universal. Smashville is not a CP anywhere, and though we have been discussing the idea in this thread, I don't believe any scenes are anywhere near considering making SV a CP. That's all this thread is, really: Discussing ideas.

 

[mimgrim]

Actually, I kinda talked my TO into running WW, GHZ, BF, PS2, DS as the starters.

But I'm not sure if he is actually going with that for our 2nd season (first season was the typical GHZ, SV, BF, PS2, DL as starters) cause there has been some complaints about SV not being a starter and some rants about SV BF and PS2 being neutral stages and must haves and what no, though I firmly believe that neutral stages simple don't exist in Smash, or really platform fighters in general.

 

[4tlas]

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think in a game of 1600 matchups, things are a little more nuanced than "neutral stages exist solely within certain extremes". In my view, the goal of the starters is not to simply have the stages deemed the "most neutral". The goal is to come to an agreeable stage for both parties in as many matchups as possible. Now, ideally, this goal would be reached by striking from all legal stages, but for time reasons, we obviously can't have people striking 9+ stages every set, so it must be condensed. And, again in my view, it should be condensed to a set of starters that represent as much of the stagelist as possible, which is accomplished by having platform variety. It doesn't matter that Wario Land won't be struck to as often as the other stages, it just matters that there are matchups that can safely strike to this stage (I've already explained some matchups that would strike here, previously) and that in the overall set of starters, there's a stage that almost every matchup can agree on.

I understand what you're suggesting: in order for the most neutral stage to be found in each matchup, we must provide the gamut of stage attributes so that that possibility is available. I too would prefer FLSS if we didn't have time constraints.

However, due to the nature of only having a limited number of stages, each stage we include in the starters that gets less use is removing a "most agreeable" stage in more matchups, hence why it got more use before being removed. This is an overall negative.

Furthermore, because we only have so many stages, it is entirely possible that the theoretical "most agreeable" stage isn't even available, which means that the chosen stage may benefit one player over the other. Offering less extremes and having the stages be more similar to each other allows players to strike down to the last nuance, leading to the actual "most agreeable" stage and not some 2nd-rate stage.

I also doubt we lose much by cutting the extremes from starters. WarioLand, for example, is both the smallest and most cramped stage in the game. I doubt anyone will allow it to be chosen if they dislike either attribute, since they are so extreme, and since they complement each other it is likely that anyone who dislikes one dislikes both. So, if both players do somehow agree to Warioland, couldn't they also agree to any other stage with proportional attributes? In other words, if they both love small and cramped equally, they probably both like kinda small and kinda cramped equally, and they hate large and open equally. It seems to me that they could fairly (but perhaps not happily) strike to FoD, PS2, or FD instead. So I still see nothing gained from offering the most extreme attributes without disassociating them from each other.

 

[Darth Shard]

^ I think that's the best explanation I've heard so far accurately reflecting my personal desire for starters. I may try pushing that list in MN down the road if that gets fleshed out more, as I had a lot of input on the previous one.

 

[JesteRace]

Yo, 4tlas , humor me on some math stuff here if you please. Mostly still discussing starters, so here comes the wall of text.

Now, the obvious starting place is Smashville and Battlefield. I've toyed with making one of them a CP before, but I can't really justify it. These are demonstrably and unarguably the safest and most neutral stages in the game, largely due to all of their attributes being medium. I think we can both agree that the list should be balanced around those 2 stages to the best of our abilities.

So, when you add PS2 because you have to, a couple things happen. The average ceiling height comes down, the average blastzone width goes up a bit, and the average stage width shoots up considerably(Really, this stage is crazy, I can't really explain why it's such a good neutral, cause I feel like it shouldn't be). So, the skews PS2 have created need to be compensated to keep the averages close to SV/BF.

There are a couple different ways to go about this. The 1/3/1 method has proven ineffective as all other medium stages have shown to be indefensible as starters. So all we can do is have a proportional balance where PS2 and the other 2 starters average out close to SV/BF.

Now, Atlas, your method is pretty good. Balancing the largest stage with two moderately small ones is smart. The average for stage width comes to 140.44, which is perfect(Smashville is 140.5). The average for ceiling height is 196.45 (SV is 195, BF is 200, so this is also on the nose). The one area where this is a bit off, though, is in blastzone width. This is because, in general, the small stages have disproportionately narrow blastzones than the big stages have wide. SV is 440, BF is 448, and your average comes to 427.1. I wouldn't say that's terrible, but it's definitely not ideal either speaking strictly mathematically.

So what's the alternative? Well, I started by just balancing PS2, the widest stage in the game, with WL, the smallest. This creates a hefty skew towards low ceilings and small blastzones, so to balance that, the 5th stage would be Dreamland.

*DUN DUN DUN*

Yeah, I know, but hear me out. This can work because 1. The stage itself isn't that big, it's just the blastzones. And 2. The numbers are actually pretty good in this context. Now, I know you disagree with using extreme elements in the neutrals, so I'll leave that argument for a different post as this is already getting way too long. Like I said, just humor me on the numbers. The average blastzone width on this list comes to 441.6 and the average ceiling height comes to 199.6. Both of those are in the ideal range. The average stage width comes to 143.72, which is still really close to Smashville.

Okay, that's enough rambling, I just wanted to share the number-crunching I did. Incidentally, my math landed me right on the starters already being used in AZ, so I guess it's working for at least some people lol

 

[4tlas]

Yo, 4tlas , humor me on some math stuff here if you please. Mostly still discussing starters, so here comes the wall of text.

Now, the obvious starting place is Smashville and Battlefield. I've toyed with making one of them a CP before, but I can't really justify it. These are demonstrably and unarguably the safest and most neutral stages in the game, largely due to all of their attributes being medium. I think we can both agree that the list should be balanced around those 2 stages to the best of our abilities.

So, when you add PS2 because you have to, a couple things happen. The average ceiling height comes down, the average blastzone width goes up a bit, and the average stage width shoots up considerably(Really, this stage is crazy, I can't really explain why it's such a good neutral, cause I feel like it shouldn't be). So, the skews PS2 have created need to be compensated to keep the averages close to SV/BF.

There are a couple different ways to go about this. The 1/3/1 method has proven ineffective as all other medium stages have shown to be indefensible as starters. So all we can do is have a proportional balance where PS2 and the other 2 starters average out close to SV/BF.

Now, Atlas, your method is pretty good. Balancing the largest stage with two moderately small ones is smart. The average for stage width comes to 140.44, which is perfect(Smashville is 140.5). The average for ceiling height is 196.45 (SV is 195, BF is 200, so this is also on the nose). The one area where this is a bit off, though, is in blastzone width. This is because, in general, the small stages have disproportionately narrow blastzones than the big stages have wide. SV is 440, BF is 448, and your average comes to 427.1. I wouldn't say that's terrible, but it's definitely not ideal either speaking strictly mathematically.

So what's the alternative? Well, I started by just balancing PS2, the widest stage in the game, with WL, the smallest. This creates a hefty skew towards low ceilings and small blastzones, so to balance that, the 5th stage would be Dreamland.

*DUN DUN DUN*

Yeah, I know, but hear me out. This can work because 1. The stage itself isn't that big, it's just the blastzones. And 2. The numbers are actually pretty good in this context. Now, I know you disagree with using extreme elements in the neutrals, so I'll leave that argument for a different post as this is already getting way too long. Like I said, just humor me on the numbers. The average blastzone width on this list comes to 441.6 and the average ceiling height comes to 199.6. Both of those are in the ideal range. The average stage width comes to 143.72, which is still really close to Smashville.

Okay, that's enough rambling, I just wanted to share the number-crunching I did. Incidentally, my math landed me right on the starters already being used in AZ, so I guess it's working for at least some people lol

I appreciate the math. I think your logic is solid, assuming we aren't discussing the "extreme attributes in starters" point or the "disassociating elements from each other" point. I'm enjoying a booze-y Friday night, so excuse me if this is not particularly coherent.

What is the stage-to-blastzone distance if you do include the Smashville platform? What if you average including the platform with not including it?

Another thing to consider is center-stage-to-blastzone as opposed to ledge-to-blastzone. Not all kills come from the ledge, and some not only come from center stage but from the opposite side of center stage. When taking this into account, how close to average are my starters?

 

[nimigoha]

SV to CP or riot.

 

[JesteRace]

I appreciate the math. I think your logic is solid, assuming we aren't discussing the "extreme attributes in starters" point or the "disassociating elements from each other" point. I'm enjoying a booze-y Friday night, so excuse me if this is not particularly coherent.

What is the stage-to-blastzone distance if you do include the Smashville platform? What if you average including the platform with not including it?

Another thing to consider is center-stage-to-blastzone as opposed to ledge-to-blastzone. Not all kills come from the ledge, and some not only come from center stage but from the opposite side of center stage. When taking this into account, how close to average are my starters?

I actually wasn't using ledge-to-blastzone at all. I was doing blastzone-to-blastzone, which means center-to-blastzone would have the same balance. And since your stage widths are balanced, I would assume your ledge-to-blastzone would be the same balance as well, maybe a little better. I definitely didn't factor in what the distance is from the SV platform to the blastzone is when it's on either end, I might look into that. Obviously, it would slightly improve the average balance of ledge-to-blastzone, I'm just not sure to what extent. Either way, mathematically, SG's starters are pretty solid.

SV to CP or riot.

I've humored the possibility, and tried to make arguments for it, but SV is too good of a starter. Like, the more I thought about it, the more I'm like, I can't think of a single aspect of SV that says counterpick. The only possibly polarizing aspect of it is its openness, but even then, it's not anywhere near an extreme because it's not a big stage and the platform frequently breaks up the action. Seriously, people don't give the platform enough credit, SV isn't just a small FD. And if you didn't already strike to SV, most of the time the only reason to CP SV is if your best stages got banned and you just wanna play it safe with a neutral stage. In my view, SV and BF not being starters is out of the question. PS2 is debatable, but obviously that's not going anywhere. And while the lack of a good 3rd medium is frustrating, it's much more important to use the actually neutral stages we have than to have a perfect numerical balance. For all the debate about what the 4th and 5th starters should be, people are still going to strike to those 3 stages like, 90%+ of the time, and in the case of BF and SV, it's for good reason.

 

[4tlas]

I actually wasn't using ledge-to-blastzone at all. I was doing blastzone-to-blastzone, which means center-to-blastzone would have the same balance. And since your stage widths are balanced, I would assume your ledge-to-blastzone would be the same balance as well, maybe a little better. I definitely didn't factor in what the distance is from the SV platform to the blastzone is when it's on either end, I might look into that. Obviously, it would slightly improve the average balance of ledge-to-blastzone, I'm just not sure to what extent. Either way, mathematically, SG's starters are pretty solid.

Ah, I must have misinterpreted. As I said, I was inebriated.

I think looking at ledge-to-blastzone is important as well, so its all good.

I've humored the possibility, and tried to make arguments for it, but SV is too good of a starter. Like, the more I thought about it, the more I'm like, I can't think of a single aspect of SV that says counterpick. The only possibly polarizing aspect of it is its openness, but even then, it's not anywhere near an extreme because it's not a big stage and the platform frequently breaks up the action. Seriously, people don't give the platform enough credit, SV isn't just a small FD. And if you didn't already strike to SV, most of the time the only reason to CP SV is if your best stages got banned and you just wanna play it safe with a neutral stage. In my view, SV and BF not being starters is out of the question. PS2 is debatable, but obviously that's not going anywhere. And while the lack of a good 3rd medium is frustrating, it's much more important to use the actually neutral stages we have than to have a perfect numerical balance. For all the debate about what the 4th and 5th starters should be, people are still going to strike to those 3 stages like, 90%+ of the time, and in the case of BF and SV, it's for good reason.

I agree that there's really no good reason to put SV as the counterpick. The best one of the 'big 3' to move would be PS2 for being so mind-bogglingly huge... at which point we'll still end up with numerical issues.

I still will contest that people end up on the 'big 3' with such frequency, however. When SG ran 2 larges and GHZ, that was true. But now that we run GHZ, FoD, and the big 3, I find that people go to GHZ/FoD with enough frequency that its not so lopsided. I think it helps significantly that a) layouts are dissociated from size in these starters, and b) moving platforms prevent FoD from benefiting one player over the other at all times (some people still ban it because they get screwed by the moving itself, though).

 

[JesteRace]

That's fair, I suppose. 90% may have been an exaggeration. The point I was trying to make is that while we should keep the goal of balance in mind, SV/BF/PS2 should remain starters above all else, and not just because they're universally accepted.

Although entertaining the possibility for funsies, what would a list of starters even look like without PS2?