• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Project M Recommended Ruleset

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
The layouts are nearly identical. Yes, there are differences, but not enough to justify forcing someone to waste BOTH of their bans on what amounts to nearly the exact same set of traits.

Now, if you're suggesting we change the pick-ban system to the pool format as well, then I don't have as much of a problem with it. But it would still suck to have someone offer both PS2 and DP in a pool.
 

Sabre

Smash Apprentice
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
84
I'd be fine with the pool format, although to be honest that's not something I've looked into extensively. My main concern is just having a relatively balanced list of stages, but admittedly how people choose the stages is something that I don't know as much about.
As I did point out though, the two stages aren't that identical to the point where you want to ban them both unless you extensively prefer a small stage length or platform configuration with a middle plat, as those are their main similarities, while the distinct difference in ceiling height is a big difference that will have a large impact on striking decisions. If you want to really get rid of a certain characteristic, then it makes sense to use both of your bans to ensure that you don't play on it. In nearly every list, if you want to remove the possibility of playing on a certain kind of stage, then you need to use both bans to remove it(large or small sides, tops, walls, moving platforms, long lengths, etc.). Given that this is only part of what makes a stage unique, it seems appropriate that if you as a player really don't want to play on a stage with a specific set of characteristic(in this case length+side platforms), then you would use both of your bans to remove the stages that have those characteristics regardless of anything else about them. It does reward more flexible players, but I don't know that this is a bad thing.
 

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
We purposely provide 1 more stage of any trait than bans to create a "pick your poison" scenario. If there are 2 bans, there are 3 large stages, 3 small stages, 3 medium stages, 3 large blastzone stages, 3 cramped layout stages, etc.

However, they are not the same 3 stages. The 3 large stages should have completely different layouts (one open, one cramped, one between) and blastzones (one low ceiling, one medium, one high, one close sides, one medium, one far). We do our best with what we have.

Having PS2 and DP on the same stagelist (and especially as 2 of the 5 starters) means that 2 of the large stages are also the same layout. This means that the third large stage cannot possibly cover both other types of layouts. In some cases, this is unavoidable because of the stages we have available to us, but certainly not in this one.

Even if you want to make the argument that the different blastzones are more important than the similar layout, you STILL shouldn't run both PS2 and DP. As the 2 largest stages in the game (whichever their order, since our data sources seem to disagree on which one is the bigger one), they do not remotely balance out having 1 slightly small stage as a starter. Furthermore, that small stage is wide open, which counteracts its small size to some extent. Even further, large stages disproportionately advantage the characters who are already advantaged through basic game mechanics such as range and speed. If there should be a skew away from medium, it should be toward small, not large.

How people choose the stages is critically important to stagelist balance. We do not force players to spend both bans on the same set of characteristics anywhere else in our stagelists, so we shouldn't here either.
 

Sundark

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
99
Hey everyone. Been skimming through this thread like crazy for the past couple of days, trying to work out a new stage list for our scene, pretty much for the sake of wanting to remake our build from the ground up, and also because I don't think our current list is terribly great.

Here's our current list:
Starters: GHZ SV BF PS2 DL
Counters: WL FoD FD DP Norfair

Here's the list I've come up with:
Starters: WL SV BF PS2 DS
Counters: GHZ FoD FD DL

Our current one is actually one I kind of pushed for, but I'm seeing the redundancy in DP and PS2 more, getting an idea of how large PS2 really is (despite me thinking it's effectively smaller than Smashville due to edge-to-blastzone distances), and I'm not really satisfied with Norfair. Also I want to push Dreamland into CP territory if not completely remove it.

So I started with the 'big 3' because no way will I get SV pushed to CP where I am, then added Wario Land to counter PS2, and Delfino for a true 'large' stage that can be both platform-y and not-platform-y, since it's fairly even platform-wise between the other 4. Counterpicks were basically "need some more smaller stages" along with FD, which is another large stage, but one I'm not opposed to since going to FD to live longer is a gamble for anyone. DL because I don't know.

Just looking at it now, seeing all the counterpicks lined up like that, they seem to heavily favour a lot of open space (given FoD platforms always feel like they're at their lowest at all times to me) which is actually kind of troublesome. I was wondering about adding Bowser's as a CP just for the sake of another medium-ish stage, but that would only exacerbate the problem. Potentially Lylat could balance it out, but I'm iffy on that too. Maybe it's not a problem since we already have 3 platform-heavy stages in WL, BF, DS (sometimes), and then FoD-sorta/DL-sorta.

Anybody have some advice on what I could do with this? I can't help but feel my region won't enjoy suggesting PS2 as the straight-up large starter, so 2 small stages wouldn't be feasible.
 

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
Hey everyone. Been skimming through this thread like crazy for the past couple of days, trying to work out a new stage list for our scene, pretty much for the sake of wanting to remake our build from the ground up, and also because I don't think our current list is terribly great.

Here's our current list:
Starters: GHZ SV BF PS2 DL
Counters: WL FoD FD DP Norfair

Here's the list I've come up with:
Starters: WL SV BF PS2 DS
Counters: GHZ FoD FD DL

Our current one is actually one I kind of pushed for, but I'm seeing the redundancy in DP and PS2 more, getting an idea of how large PS2 really is (despite me thinking it's effectively smaller than Smashville due to edge-to-blastzone distances), and I'm not really satisfied with Norfair. Also I want to push Dreamland into CP territory if not completely remove it.

So I started with the 'big 3' because no way will I get SV pushed to CP where I am, then added Wario Land to counter PS2, and Delfino for a true 'large' stage that can be both platform-y and not-platform-y, since it's fairly even platform-wise between the other 4. Counterpicks were basically "need some more smaller stages" along with FD, which is another large stage, but one I'm not opposed to since going to FD to live longer is a gamble for anyone. DL because I don't know.

Just looking at it now, seeing all the counterpicks lined up like that, they seem to heavily favour a lot of open space (given FoD platforms always feel like they're at their lowest at all times to me) which is actually kind of troublesome. I was wondering about adding Bowser's as a CP just for the sake of another medium-ish stage, but that would only exacerbate the problem. Potentially Lylat could balance it out, but I'm iffy on that too. Maybe it's not a problem since we already have 3 platform-heavy stages in WL, BF, DS (sometimes), and then FoD-sorta/DL-sorta.

Anybody have some advice on what I could do with this? I can't help but feel my region won't enjoy suggesting PS2 as the straight-up large starter, so 2 small stages wouldn't be feasible.
If your region absolutely refuses to have PS2 be the only large starter, then I think you've done well with the criteria you're setting for yourself.

However, you do still have too much open space. You've got 2 cramped stages (WL & BF), which is not enough because bans are 'pick your poison' and I assume you have 2 bans for 9 stages. You've got 3 wide open stages (SV, FD, GHZ), which is good. Then you have 4 quasi-open stages: FoD opens up more often than it cramps up, but at least it alternates. DL is a decently open stage, but at least there are platforms on the side when you're over there. PS2 is similar. DS is so huge that the platforms are usually a decent ways away...but again its not too bad.

Keep in mind that open and large stages are more imbalanced than smaller stages are, because they exacerbate the differences between characters. Good characters have more movement and spacing coverage, and that gets even more important the bigger the stage gets.

You also have 4 stages with big blastzones (PS2s are big from center stage, not from edge), some of which are disproportionally big.
 

Iceballz

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
223
Location
"The Universe I'm Helpless In"
I need to fix the stagelist my scene will be using.It has way too many stages.

The Counterpicks are: Castle Siege, Final Destination, FoD, Halberd, Lylat Cruise, Norfair and Wario Land.

The Starters are: BF, Delfino's, DL, GHZ, PS2, Smashville and Yoshi's Story.

The stages, I'm thinking about getting rid of are Castle Siege, Halberd, Lylat and I'm not honestly sure what else.
I need to know how I would work out the striking, etc. with 10 stages.Someone please help me out.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Get rid of CS and Halberd. From there, remove 1 choice between Delfino or DL, and 1 choice between Wario Land or Yoshi Story. You could argue for removing Norfair or Lylat, but it's possible to keep them and attempt a somewhat reasonable list otherwise.

5 starters, 5 cp is fine for 10 stages. You would run 2 bans per player, regardless of set counts.
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
I would appreciate people's opinions on these 2 things:

First, the order and type of tiebreakers in round robin pools. I believe it should go Sets -> Games Won -> Fewest Games Lost -> Head-to-head -> Bo1 play-it-out

Second, the following stagelist. I do not think it is the best stagelist possible, and I am not advocating for it to be a universal stagelist. I just need opinions on how good/bad it is.

Starters:
GHZ, FoD, SV, BF, PS2
CPs:
WL, FD, DS, DL
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Some places swap out fewest games lost with head to head. I think the correct procedure is what you laid out, as it best reflects the results of the entire pool. In the process of a set win, a game you drop to make the set 2-1 should matter, since a person who is 10 wins 4 loss statistically did better than the person who had 10 wins 5 losses (regardless of head to head result). Player A with a 10-4 ratio has a better ratio than 10-5, they should advance. Hard to argue against that.

It's painful in situations where a person may have beat the person who's advancing out of pools, but using fewest losses at that point should make it blatantly obvious to everyone that every game in pools matters, and sandbagging / goofing off / losing focus can cost you the exit out of pools. Head to head should not override the totality of your pool results, so focus on dropping as few games as possible even if the set seems like a clear win.

Never been a fan of both DL and DS being legal. Bout only qualm
 
Last edited:

Darth Shard

Dark Lord of the Smash Bros.
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
89
Location
Portland, OR
Do you all think the community can reach a consensus on large stages? In MN, we have been running the NE9 list, but have been talking about what changes we'd like to see. We polled our PM Facebook page about what combination of large stages they'd like to see between DL, DS, and BC, and the option of having DL as a starter and DS as a CP was the clear winner, though only about 30 people probably responded to the poll.

I agree that having DL and DS in the same list is questionable, but the Falcon and Ganon players on our PR are vehemently against Bowser's, even though the one has barely played it and tends to justify his opinions with emotions over data, but I digress. I think having DL legal ****s up the whole list, and has led me to consider a larger roster of legal stages, even though I had previously been pushing to cut it down to less than 10. At least with a larger list, we can offer the same quality of CPs to characters that lose to circle camping as we can to characters that benefit from it. I just worry that having so many legal stages reduces the power of CPs.

I've been tossing around some radical ideas, and one member of our community made a suggestion I found intriguing. He suggested having WL, GHZ, SV, BF and Distant Planet as starters, with FoD, Norfair, and FD as CPs. I don't think anyone could ever accept not having PS2, but I think that my friend may be on to something, at least with the starters. Any ideas/thoughts?
 
Last edited:

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Yeah think more regions are favoring removing DP entirely and just using PS2, so removing PS2 seems odd. To be honest though, you'll never have a great starter list because people are adamant about always using BF, SV, and PS2 together. Not that these stages are terrible, but starter balance is effectively out of the question because the stage traits end up real lopsided. If those 3 are always in use, that's 2 clear medium stages that are almost clones (platform coverage is different, and while it matters, nearly every other aspect is the same) and 1 long stage with short blast zones. Putting 2 small stages doesn't balance this, running a larger stage like Delfino or DL does not fix this, etc.

This would be less of a problem if people ran an extra medium alongside BF and SV, but there's no medium stage people universally like so it ends up trash. Don't get me started on the people who call PS2 medium.


I think Bowser's is OK, but I really think it could be improved on. The platforms stick out as unneccessarily odd, the chain has to be removed, lava possibly retextured, etc for it to seem decent. I'm totally against vanilla Bowser Alt with chains, it legit blocks crucially important areas offstage near the ledge that you need 100% visual clarity to deal or implement edgeguards. Trying to tech walls or properly meteor cancel along the path of the chain is a daunting task, and it should be completely off the table for legality, unless we're assuming the chain-less version is what's being considered. From playing Blue Lava, Chainless, and other "fixed" versions of B. Alt, there's no way I could accept the vanilla chain version and I wouldn't ask anyone else to for tournaments.


Bowser's is one of Falcon's worst stages, so I get where your Falcon is coming from, but I'm fine with the chain-less version being used since it's a pretty unique stage. Just comes with enough quirks for people to complain or dislike though: ask any smasher why would you purposefully make the main stage uneven or sloped in any way (maybe Yoshi Melee getting a pass for being Grandfathered in from Melee and having quite mild slopes only at ledge) and you have a hard sell for how it meaningfully contributes in a positive way. Just another thing for a person to blame or get annoyed by in the middle of gameplay. May not break gameplay, but makes selling the stage for legality a harder proposition.


I've given up on finding real starter balance from PM unless the solution involves further custom stages or mods. Vanilla PM lacks universally accepted Medium offerings, which would help make stage lists more balanced and less lopsided. Ideally, starters would end up on 1 of 3 medium choices (5 stages in 1/3/1 format, players assumed to ban the large and small offerings. Choose between medium stage with no platform, mild platform, or BF like extensive platform (possibly walls factored into this). This ideal is so far from what we experience often in tournament imo). People are fine with settling on PS2 for Game 1, but it probably favors a majority of the top tiers over other chars and is less balanced than assumed imo.
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
Do you all think the community can reach a consensus on large stages? In MN, we have been running the NE9 list, but have been talking about what changes we'd like to see. We polled our PM Facebook page about what combination of large stages they'd like to see between DL, DS, and BC, and the option of having DL as a starter and DS as a CP was the clear winner, though only about 30 people probably responded to the poll.

I agree that having DL and DS in the same list is questionable, but the Falcon and Ganon players on our PR are vehemently against Bowser's, even though the one has barely played it and tends to justify his opinions with emotions over data, but I digress. I think having DL legal ****s up the whole list, and has led me to consider a larger roster of legal stages, even though I had previously been pushing to cut it down to less than 10. At least with a larger list, we can offer the same quality of CPs to characters that lose to circle camping as we can to characters that benefit from it. I just worry that having so many legal stages reduces the power of CPs.

I've been tossing around some radical ideas, and one member of our community made a suggestion I found intriguing. He suggested having WL, GHZ, SV, BF and Distant Planet as starters, with FoD, Norfair, and FD as CPs. I don't think anyone could ever accept not having PS2, but I think that my friend may be on to something, at least with the starters. Any ideas/thoughts?
Well, having Distant Planet replace PS2 outright is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it actually helps at all. We still have one absolutely huge stage, 2 mediums, and then...2 slightly smalls? That's what I've already been doing, but with PS2. I don't think swapping to DP really helps there. And it doesn't enable us to use a tiny stage of WL/YS, because we still don't have a good fit for the last stage.

If you're concerned about increasing the roster of stages, you could try running the system I made that uses pooled bans. Loser offers 3, winner bans 1 and picks char, loser picks char and stage. It significantly reduces the problem of extra "auto-ban" stages because you only have to ban it if the other player wants to put it in their pool.

I still insist that a balanced stagelist is going to have to remove FD, and then probably have Skyworld in it. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Unfortunately, both are such unpopular options that they seem to never gain any traction. I've run lists like that, but my players know its always only temporary. Other regions tend to say "no we won't even try it because nobody else will", ignoring the fact that I inform them of the others and then they still won't try it.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, and then they don't commit. No wonder our community can't agree on anything =P
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
I think FD is fine, cause it's unique and only costs 1 ban to fix. For most other stages with an aspect that hurts your character (boundaries, walls, platforms, stage length), 99% of the time there are multiple offenders you ban in bunches. Pretty rare for someone to ban WarioLand, and then swing over to ban PS2. WL and GHZ/Fod/BF/Yoshi Melee would all be lumped together for many chars on what to avoid. Same with DL, DS, DP, Norfair, etc. So any legitimate issue FD presents to a MU, likely won't cost additional bans on similar stages. The closest thing would often be PS2, and if people start banning that 100% along with FD, finally people may realize PS2 isn't actually that balanced? Win win in either case (although still don't often see FD and PS2 lumped together on bans)

That seems healthy enough, and this isn't a case like bringing back Brinstar, Mute City, or something else and rationalizing the legality by suggesting any problems be taken care of with your stage ban. Trash is trash regardless, FD is only slightly garbage. The gameplay isn't always exciting or nuanced, but it serves as a legit CP IMO.
 
Last edited:

JesteRace

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
435
Location
Eye-Oh-Wah
This is the list I am going to try running in Iowa if I can either A. Convince the TO's or B. Run my own tournament.

Starters
Wario Land
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland

Counterpicks
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Bowser's Castle
Final Destination

Really, at this point in the meta, it seems like the majority of the community likes 9 stages, 2 bans. Not necessarily a consensus, just seems to be what most people like. And within that majority opinion, WL/GHZ/FoD/BF/SV/PS2/FD seem to be nearly universally accepted, while 2 of BC/DL/DS is still widely debated and mostly interchangeable. From what I've heard so far, Iowa HATES Delfino and is meh towards Bowser's. So that's what brought me to what is... well, it's just the original NE9 with some starters switched.

Now, as we have established countless times, an ideal balance of starters is just straight up impossible with what we have. This, imo, is the best we can do, aiming instead for an averaging out of the more polarizing aspects. Assuming SV/BF as an ideal average, adding PS2 creates a skew towards wide stage length and low ceilings (and a very slight skew to wider blastzones). Adding WL balances out the stage length, but also creates a skew towards small blastzones. Dreamland actually very neatly balances out the skew and doesn't really throw off any other attributes. When you average out all the attributes of these 5 stages, it's within 2-3 units of SV/BF. Again, not perfect, and I know Atlas will have some problems with this ;). But again, I think it's about as good as we can do, and most people will go to the major 3 anyway.

As a side note, I am starting to feel like Delfino might be kinda bad in the long run. Honestly, I don't know why this stage gets compared to Dreamland so much, they have so little in common. To me, Delfino seems to play awfully similar to PS2 and FD in a good number of matchups, which can be a problem down the road if/when people actually start thinking optimally about their bans and CP's. I kind of see a 9 stage list as 4 pairs of similar stages and a "true neutral". For instance, in some matchups, I would see it as WL/FoD, GHZ/SV, PS2/FD, BC/DL, and BF. You can always ban a pair, although you can never entirely get rid of a particular option (high ceiling, Narrow blastzones, etc.). Which is an appropriate amount of banning power, I think. In this context, Delfino kinda throws off this balance (it also throws off some averages, but not by too much).
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
If you get destroyed by open space, SV is usually the second ban with FD. If you get destroyed by big stages or small ceilings, PS2 is usually the second ban.

DS and DL are nothing alike, but people also think PS2 is a medium so what can you do?

I don't think DS is a problem, but that's because I don't view it as redundant with FD. I think FD needs to go, so then that makes DS helpful lol
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
What would removing FD fix though for majority of MU's? The impact seems minimal in character first, where you can't hold opponent bans hostage to multiple or secret threats as per stage first.
 

JesteRace

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
435
Location
Eye-Oh-Wah
If you get destroyed by open space, SV is usually the second ban with FD. If you get destroyed by big stages or small ceilings, PS2 is usually the second ban.

DS and DL are nothing alike, but people also think PS2 is a medium so what can you do?

I don't think DS is a problem, but that's because I don't view it as redundant with FD. I think FD needs to go, so then that makes DS helpful lol
I mean if FD was to go, I'd be fine with DS for sure. But I just do not see that happening.

I can't think of too many reasons to ban SV in almost any matchup outside of preference. Open space? FD/PS2/DL/BC are all more open, at least as far as our current definition of open space goes (which is a conversation for another time, cause my break is not nearly long enough lol). Wide stage length? Again, the above stages are moreso. It's simply just not a polarizing stage unless you really don't like moving platforms. I pair it with GHZ because I have found that the combination of open air space and not having a lot of ground to cover actually can pose a problem in some matchups to the point of warranting a ban. In this case, SV somewhat has the same deal, and both stages have a moving platform as well, so *shrug*

TL;DR: Looking at all attributes and how they play, I find SV to be much more like GHZ than like FD.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
SV might be closer to GHZ (I group it like 3rd or 4th in the FD camp for disadvantages, with PS2 and others closer), but there's like 2 other stages even closer to GHZ that often get banned instead (WarioLand and FoD come to mind). SV isn't very similar to many other stages, so a person banning it is probably doing it based off preference or player vs player consideration, and not priority MU flaws to address. GHZ and SV banned together is probably a really small niche, even smaller than SV and FD banned together (Fox comes to mind).
 

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
What would removing FD fix though for majority of MU's? The impact seems minimal in character first, where you can't hold opponent bans hostage to multiple or secret threats as per stage first.
Its not fixing MUs. Its putting a stage that will get banned less often on the list instead.

For example, if we remove FD, we can put DS, Norfair, and Skyworld on a list. DS takes the big, Norfair takes the flat, and Skyworld takes the open space juggling. But DS has plats to offset the big (and gives us a big blastzone stage that isnt DL), Norfair has plats to occasionally offset its FD-ness, and Skyworld is really small but has big blastzones (which offsets PS2).

Now your CPs are WL, SW, NF, DS instead of WL, uh crap we have no medium, FD, uh DS is like FD so lets use super huge DL

I mean if FD was to go, I'd be fine with DS for sure. But I just do not see that happening.

I can't think of too many reasons to ban SV in almost any matchup outside of preference. Open space? FD/PS2/DL/BC are all more open, at least as far as our current definition of open space goes (which is a conversation for another time, cause my break is not nearly long enough lol). Wide stage length? Again, the above stages are moreso. It's simply just not a polarizing stage unless you really don't like moving platforms. I pair it with GHZ because I have found that the combination of open air space and not having a lot of ground to cover actually can pose a problem in some matchups to the point of warranting a ban. In this case, SV somewhat has the same deal, and both stages have a moving platform as well, so *shrug*

TL;DR: Looking at all attributes and how they play, I find SV to be much more like GHZ than like FD.
Yes, I was suggesting open space. And I agree that SV plays more like GHZ than FD. They are both small enough that the openness isnt too extreme, and the occasional platform breaks up the constant advantage, so you don't need to outright ban the stage so often.

The fact that nothing is quite like FD is exactly why its a problem. It doesnt share enough attributes with other stages to keep the ban-2-of-3 paradigm going for all attribute spectrums. Putting FD on the list means all the other stages have to adapt, and then no matter what we do we end up with the list being too big, too open, or too small.

If you don't have FD, you can slightly change all the other stages.

GHZ, FoD, SV, BF, PS2
WL/YS, SW, NF, DS(or DL if you insist) and voila.

You have 3 smalls (GHZ+FoD, WL/YS, SW, with only 1 extremely small)
You have 3 bigs (NF, PS2, DS/DL, with only 1 extremely big)
You have 3 small ceilings (WL/YS, PS2, BF+SW from their plats if you can ladder combo)
You have 3 big ceilings (GHZ, FoD, DS/DL)
You have 4 small sides (GHZ, FoD, WL/YS, PS2)
You have 3 big sides (SW, DS/DL, NF+BF)
You have 3 cramped (WL/YS, FoD+SW, BF)
You have 3 open (NF+SW+FoD, GHZ, SV)
and most importantly, none of those lists are identical. Few even share 2 stages, if you aren't counting the I-sorta-fit-in-this-category that I used the +s for.

But when you have FD, you have a stage that is so extreme that it throws everything else off. Its open and big, with big sides and a low ceiling.

Ok so as soon as you put in FD, you already have your 3 open stages (GHZ, SV, FD) which means you can't use SW or NF. Well if you don't have SW or NF with FD, you can't have 3 big sides (DS/DL, FD, ?). If you have FD, people don't want to use DS. Now you have to use DL, which would qualify as open (so now you have 4...) and also has a preposterously huge ceiling. Now you can't balance that huge ceiling with PS2 + FD + WL/YS. Its just tooooo huge, but w/e. Lets say its fine. You have 4 open stages now, so you need 4 cramped stages (or at least 3). Well we only have WL/YS and BF, because FoD swaps between cramped and open. So its 2.5 to 4. And FD is REALLY open.

Swap things around. Try to find something that works with FD. Even if I wasn't making the argument that FD is a satanic stage, it just makes the whole list impossible to work with.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
We already can't adhere to the ban 2/3 paradigm very well because we lack a varity of universally accepted stages (Medium stages in particular have a huge void). The list is always skewed, unless you want to run really unpopular stages like Lylat, Skyworld, or Norfair (or lesser unpopular things like Bowser Alt, Yoshi Brawl, etc). Even on the possible merits of the stages or overall stage balance, convincing people to use stages they vehemently protest and abhor is hard, probably impossible on the national scale. Let alone actually transitioning a list to permanent status, and not just a trial experimentation period where "well it doesn't matter what I think, the stage will be gone in 2 weeks anyways who cares". Not that I'm lecturing you TO's, since many of you have gotten scenes to convert or approach stages with an open mind already. Just not optimistic on selling multiple regions on stages I know are gonna get booed or treated with disgust, even if it's somewhat unwarranted.


People are willing to accept imbalances on stage facets, if they like the stages or find them balanced enough. The fact that 50% of probably all tournament games end up on PS2, despite legitimate MU polarization and flaws probably worse than perceived, shows plenty of people openly disregard the attribute "balance" we're aiming for IMO. I gave up awhile ago on a checklist that tries to perfectly account for walls, size, boundaries, etc. Probably easier making custom stages and appealing for usage, than taking current stuff most people give the stink eye and try to use it. I don't have hope for a vanilla 3.6 stage solution, but maybe that's just me.
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
I have never had interest in finding a universal standard. When I argue lists, its for pure theory only. What people like basically doesn't enter the equation, because we have statistics on stages and how likeable they are isn't one of them.

And there's no way 50% of all matches are on PS2. Maybe in your region. I know some regions do all Smashville. My region seems to be pretty well distributed. I dont know if that allows the stagelist to be whatever, or if its because the stagelist is what it is, or neither.

And Medium is actually a case where we don't need 2/3. We have 1 open, 1 cramped, and there's no way someone needs to ban both mediums for being medium. Same goes for all of the other centers of the attribute spectrums.

2/4 is a more acceptable deviancy than 2/2 (for the extremes). So something 2/4, opposite 2/3, and middle 2/2 isn't too bad at all. But something 2/4 and opposite 2/2...ew.

It would also help free up stagelists a lot if we use the counterpick system I made. And would stop people ******** about Stage First on the reg...maybe.
 

Kneato

Totoro Joe
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
395
Back from the dead.

If Bowser's Other Castle had the side chains removed, the middle emblem flattened, and the background lava de-saturated (I know there is a blue version already but I find that even more harsh on the eyes than the original), would anyone here consider it for starter material to replace DL/DS? Or is it still in the realm of counterpicks?

After a bit of messing around I think I can make those changes.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
It could be a starter, but without those changes I think it should be CP or banned (chains on = banned period).

It's a god damn terrible Falcon stage, but I don't mind it being legal with fixes in place.
 

JOE!

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
8,075
Location
Dedham, MA
Would stage edits be a no-no nowadays? I know Atlas has a few on the SG build as alternate stages, such as Flat Yoshi's Island, Sky Sanctuary, etc for testing out. Would it be against the grain to much to try something similar with say, "Altered blastzone Dreamland" as an alt or "Flattened Bowser's Castle" etc?
 

Kneato

Totoro Joe
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
395
It is done

Competitive Bowser's Other Castle
- Lava brightness and saturation reduced
- Main platform flattened to be level with ledges' height
- Side chains removed
- Camera bounds adjusted to better reflect the stage's wide blastzones
 
Last edited:

JOE!

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
8,075
Location
Dedham, MA
It is done

Competitive Bowser's Other Castle
- Lava brightness and saturation reduced
- Main platform flattened to be level with ledges' height
- Side chains removed
- Camera bounds adjusted to better reflect the stage's wide blastzones
Gahlike.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a similar note to what I brought up before though, where would any sort of line be for stage edits? Obviously aesthetic / minor changes such as flattening odd terrain / lighting / etc as seen here is OK, but what about altering more mechanical parts? Ceiling height, blast zone width, floor depth, stage size, platform layout, stage position, and so on. These are all factors in why a stage is picked, but I don't really see the research into the why / what / etc of the stage design anywhere.

Would it be a big influence to increase the height of GHZ, keeping the theme of high ceilings and short sides?
Make the Norfair blast zones smaller to keep with a small blast zone, big stage vibe?
Has research been done on say, the real effects the blast zones have on certain characters? (I know that say, I can live X% longer vs Fox Usmash on certain stages, but I don't know if there's ever been something formalized).
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
For better balance, PM probably needs new or modified stages. Although I assume tournament players ATM are satisfied enough with the current rotation of fairly viable chars, and the current usual legal stages, otherwise they'd be more vocal about it (although there's clearly some people who quit or quietly leave, with stages or characters being the reason just not vocally expressed)

It would be nice at least to go fix some things, or offer a clear enough vision on stage design that a National List can be used. Regions are split for non-traditional reasons: usually in Smash you might of had difference stage lists due to different philosophy. Midwest = more liberal, EC = more conservative, etc. For PM, 90% of differences are over legit questions like should both DS and Dreamland be legal? Should FoD be starter? Etc. There's no headway to be made on a National List, and I'm not sure there ever will be unless 1 of 2 things happen: PM goes beyond Vanilla end patch and adds/fixes stages, or PM shrinks to very conservative mindset and only 3-6 stages are legal period.

The game is still playable if neither happens, but you're obviously left with a weaker game and weaker, divided scene if change of some kind does not occur.

As for research on chars, there's nothing super in-depth. Think of how many characters now, how many viable stages, vs something like Melee. Melee might take study of like top 8 tournament characters and effectively map out their entire kill list + favorability rating based on VERY specific MU's. PM would take a long time and a dedicated team probably to map out anything extensive. With a little bit of data, and general experience/knowledge of the stage from playing enough on it, should give a person enough of an insight to those answers.

Although IIRC someone for Melee made a knockback calculator that included DI paths and various stage positionings you could customize. Making one of those for PM would be the answer you're looking for, but I doubt anyone has even started a project like that. PM research is sorely lacking.
 
Last edited:

JOE!

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
8,075
Location
Dedham, MA
For better balance, PM probably needs new or modified stages. Although I assume tournament players ATM are satisfied enough with the current rotation of fairly viable chars, and the current usual legal stages, otherwise they'd be more vocal about it (although there's clearly some people who quit or quietly leave, with stages or characters being the reason just not vocally expressed)

It would be nice at least to go fix some things, or offer a clear enough vision on stage design that a National List can be used. Regions are split for non-traditional reasons: usually in Smash you might of had difference stage lists due to different philosophy. Midwest = more liberal, EC = more conservative, etc. For PM, 90% of differences are over legit questions like should both DS and Dreamland be legal? Should FoD be starter? Etc. There's no headway to be made on a National List, and I'm not sure there ever will be unless 1 of 2 things happen: PM goes beyond Vanilla end patch and adds/fixes stages, or PM shrinks to very conservative mindset and only 3-6 stages are legal period.

The game is still playable if neither happens, but you're obviously left with a weaker game and weaker, divided scene if change of some kind does not occur.

As for research on chars, there's nothing super in-depth. Think of how many characters now, how many viable stages, vs something like Melee. Melee might take study of like top 8 tournament characters and effectively map out their entire kill list + favorability rating based on VERY specific MU's. PM would take a long time and a dedicated team probably to map out anything extensive. With a little bit of data, and general experience/knowledge of the stage from playing enough on it, should give a person enough of an insight to those answers.

Although IIRC someone for Melee made a knockback calculator that included DI paths and various stage positionings you could customize. Making one of those for PM would be the answer you're looking for, but I doubt anyone has even started a project like that. PM research is sorely lacking.

Looks like I have a job to finish.



Edit:

I made a survey to help get an idea of where the community may be in terms of the design of stages + the meta of stage choice. It'd help as a starting point to fill it out!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5DWPSDH
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
The line is what we think people will agree to try. Since there is no more "official" source for getting PM, we could easily start distributing a modded version of that and it would become "PM 3.6 TE" or something. Boom, the logistics are not a philosophical conundrum.

The question is, would people try it? I think so. There's enough discontent and yearning for "new" content that I think people will try them.

Still trying to think about what to do for next year's Circuit. Leaning toward enforcing a standard, but not sure which standard to enforce. Since I'm not sure (and I know most people don't agree with my opinions), its hard to justify any option. I'd still rather no standard than a ****ty standard.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
I'm not sure who would be willing to host any further mods for PM. Any further release may draw backlash from former PMDT members or supporters, either for possible legal repercussions or for going against their wishes. I definitely know people are yearning for a bit more but I'm not sure how any projects will succeed. Take Lunchables Build for example: entirely scrapped after quite a bit of work.

I legit would not be surprised if say PM subreddit mods refused to allow that kind of content on the page etc
 
Last edited:

JOE!

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
8,075
Location
Dedham, MA
I'm not sure who would be willing to host any further mods for PM. Any further release may draw backlash from former PMDT members or supporters, either for possible legal repercussions or for going against their wishes. I definitely know people are yearning for a bit more but I'm not sure how any projects will succeed. Take Lunchables Build for example: entirely scrapped after quite a bit of work.

I legit would not be surprised if say PM subreddit mods refused to allow that kind of content on the page etc
This is what I am confused about though, since stuff like "Flat Yoshi's" or "Competitive Bowser's" exist and nobody says a word, also brand new stages are made on BBox all the time for PM.

Either way, i got nearly 300 results on that survey and I am putting the data together now :)
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Should have clarified cause I know some stage mods are very popular. The difference is those downloads are usually 1 stage edited, or 1 custom stage added. That post related to a custom build, not just 1 stage, so the context of mine was over custom builds not being accepted. Posting an entire new build goes beyond that, even if the only change for that build is that same edited stage.

The sneaky workaround to making a 3.6 TE or modded version, is to simply host each change separately and not have it bundled. OR get a massive TO group on facebook, share that build with multiple scenes directly and bypass a huge online presence like Reddit/etc. Anything public on SB, Reddit, etc is asking for trouble if you're trying to get a full build download approved. The issue at that point though is that spreading the build any further would be arduous: the average "random" PM player that may not go to tournaments, but still do Anther Ladder or still watches PM, is gonna want to know where and how to get that new build. Or people that aren't super involved in the scene, but come out every monthly etc. May not have real access if it's not eventually posted up somewhere very visible (only so far that word of mouth or direct sharing by TO's can go), which again probably would trigger a lot of pressure to remove / not use it.
 
Last edited:

Zach777

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
489
Location
3rd rock from the sun
Well, having Distant Planet replace PS2 outright is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it actually helps at all. We still have one absolutely huge stage, 2 mediums, and then...2 slightly smalls? That's what I've already been doing, but with PS2. I don't think swapping to DP really helps there. And it doesn't enable us to use a tiny stage of WL/YS, because we still don't have a good fit for the last stage.

If you're concerned about increasing the roster of stages, you could try running the system I made that uses pooled bans. Loser offers 3, winner bans 1 and picks char, loser picks char and stage. It significantly reduces the problem of extra "auto-ban" stages because you only have to ban it if the other player wants to put it in their pool.

I still insist that a balanced stagelist is going to have to remove FD, and then probably have Skyworld in it. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Unfortunately, both are such unpopular options that they seem to never gain any traction. I've run lists like that, but my players know its always only temporary. Other regions tend to say "no we won't even try it because nobody else will", ignoring the fact that I inform them of the others and then they still won't try it.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours, and then they don't commit. No wonder our community can't agree on anything =P
I would absolutely love to use this pool ban system to increase the amount of legal stages I could choose from.
 

Zach777

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
489
Location
3rd rock from the sun
Lets talk about Olympus stagelist.

Honestly, the starters list was the best I have seen from any PM major so far IMO.
Having FoD, GHZ, Sv, Bf, and PS2 made it where if you were fighting a strong heavy, you would
most likely ban GHZ and FoD which gives the fatty choice of Smashville or Bf. I like to play as
Bowser in tournaments from time to time and the current stagelist of GHZ, Sv, Bf
PS2, Dl/DS makes it where I have to choose either my opponent's preferred medium or PS2
in first set.
In the starter's list PM has usually been using, my opponents
always ban GHZ(which limits Bowser's movement somewhat to begin with due to no platforms),
I have to ban Dl, then I usually ban PS2 as the stage itself is larger,
then they choose between Bf and Sv. Then they get to choose between Sv and BF.
Which is their preferred platform layout.
Sv and BF are not bad to end up on, as it normally will end up on those two stages in
Olympus' starters anyway, it is just that my opponent who typically has a superior character gets
to pick his/her choice of flat-ish or platformed. Whereasin Olympus' starters, I, the person
using the heavy(Bowser) get my choice of Sv or Bf(and on rare occasion's PS2) even if
my opponents gets last strike, because they are forced into striking FoD and GHZ usually
due to them being smaller(at least IMO and, from what I have seen, the opinion's of others).
This gives fatties a boost that I think help PM's balance in a way.
I feel that making it where the stagelist is "balanced" so as to give an equal amount of
every stage type is actually imbalanced for PM's roster. This is because heavies
struggle on large stages due to design reason much more than top tiers and campers do on
small stages.
Campers are already better than fatties usually, why should they get to have a platform layout
that makes it better for them than what it already is? GHZ and FoD are not even that small,
if it does go there, the camper will still be the likely winner of the MU ratio.

Even from a balance between stage types perspective, Olympus's stagelist is good though.
I do not anyone thinking I implied that Olympus has a skew in starter's list that is unfair.
Just that I feel that fatties have a helping hand in the starter's list of Olympus which I feel
should now become the normal PM starter's list.

To sum it up:
1. I think fatties like Bowser and Ganon should get a starters list(or even a whole
stagelist) that gives them a heads up, albeit small, against the hard MUs they must endure in tourney.

2. Olympus's starters are godlike(lol) IMO.


Also, I would love to see Yoshi's Story added as a counterpick for the same reason I
like the Olympus starters but that is just me.
 
Last edited:

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
That's essentially how the scenario would play out if the starter list was 1-3-1 for S-M-L. I don't think the trifecta of FoD SV BF is ideal though. FoD platforms too similar to BF, while BF and SV share the same stage and boundaries essentially (sure platforms matter, but BF having a different platform layout over SV is diluted by including FoD etc). Despite how blasphemous it might sound, removing PS2 and replacing it (kind of assuming a post-vanilla build for this) might improve chances for fatties too. Stage lists with both PS2 and a large stage like DL/DS are kind of sad, but they work out for the expected balance of non-fatties.

I don't think the odds for fatties improves that much with added small stages, unless the ban count is skewed (2 small stages, 3 bans etc). Remember that they have to compete with some other chars that might prefer small stages (other fatties) or chars that can still win on smaller choices (arguably Falcon vs many of them, etc). Removing big stages helps them more than adding small stages IMO: especially if character first is applied.
 
Last edited:

4tlas

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
1,298
I chose the Olympus stagelist. It is not my preferred stagelist, but rather a compromise between what I wanted and what the community considers "standard" right now (Paragon). As you can see, it is Paragon but with FoD as a Starter and DS as a Counterpick.

1-3-1 would be ideal, but we simply can't do it. 1-2-2, if it includes super huge PS2, is definitely not balanced. 2-2-1 is better, partially because you have 2 somewhat small stages with tall ceilings (GHZ/FoD) and 1 super huge stage with a tiny ceiling (PS2), partially because (as you point out) it benefits characters that are traditionally bad anyway.

The complaints I have received about the Olympus (and Blacklisted 2 and GUTS4, all the same list because I was the TO) stagelist that I think are actually worth discussing are that 1) there are no big blastzones in the starters and 2) there are 4 big stages but only 3 small. Of course, I knew both of these going in, which is why it is not my preferred list either. However, I think they were worth all of the other improvements the list made.

PS2 has large blastzones *from the center*, because the stage is just so damn large. It has tiny blastzones from the edges (and a small ceiling, though the distance from BF's top plat to its ceiling is much smaller so...). If we want a big blastzone stage in the starter, I see 2 options: a) replace PS2 with DP outright (not really a fan due to rain) or b) go to 7 starters with GHZ/FoD/BF/SV/[SSZ or BC]/PS2/[DS or DL]. The reason why I say it has to be 7 is that PS2 is still way larger than the "neutral" smalls are small, and when there's only 5 stages nobody seems happy having 20% of the stages be SSZ/BC.

I've said this many times and I'll say it again: adopting a different counterpick system will also enable us to expand the stagelist without automatically forcing "wasted" bans. Since we *also* have issues with whatever counterpick ruleset we pick, we should consider experimenting with others. My system I proposed before can add a clause that both players can agree to character lock at the beginning of a set and then they play with normal 2 bans out of 9 stages. Voila, works for solo mains too, now.
 
Top Bottom