Proposed Standardized Ruleset

[Deleted member]

i think at this point in the stage list we're going to be stuck with something jank no matter what. it might be best to just #YOLO in dreamland64 for the time being, since if you want to ban a big stage you're going to ban the filler starter and distant planet anyway.

 

[Boiko]

i think at this point in the stage list we're going to be stuck with something jank no matter what. it might be best to just #YOLO in dreamland64 for the time being, since if you want to ban a big stage you're going to ban the filler starter and distant planet anyway.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I could see more people striking to FoD over Dreamland.

You can make the argument that having FoD and GHZ is a little bit redundant. But if I'm playing as Toon Link or Samus, I'd much rather be on FoD over GHZ due to the stage set up. The blast zones are similar, yes, but the platform structure is just super different.

And I think we all agree with this:
Definite Starters(5):
Battlefield
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Pokémon Stadium 2

Proposed Starters:
Fountain of Dreams
Dreamland 64

Definite Counter Picks(7):
Yoshi's Island
Warioware
Final Destination

Stages We're Considering Adding:
Lylat Cruise
Norfair
Distant Planet
Yoshi's Story
Skyworld

So if we add one stage from the proposed starters into the starters, and the other into CPs, we need to choose three stages to add to CPs to have the 12 stage set we've been talking about.

I personally think Lylat Cruise, Norfair, and Distant Planet would be the best choices.

 

[Deleted member]

i think skyworld norfair and lylat are terrible. how about people just vote whether you all think if those stages are good for our stage list or not

 

[Kidneyjoe]

Ok so I know people don't like Norfair because of the potential for camping but what's wrong with Skyworld and Lylat? Sure, they can be a tad janky but I don't think its enough to warrant banning them, unless I'm just missing something.

 

[Leafeon]

Ok so I know people don't like Norfair because of the potential for camping but what's wrong with Skyworld and Lylat? Sure, they can be a tad janky but I don't think its enough to warrant banning them, unless I'm just missing something.

Skyworld has more potential for camping than norfair. Lylat is fine.

 

[Narpas_sword]

skyworld has the bad elements from both lylat and norfair.

I think Lylat and Norfair are fine though.

 

[skellitorman]

Can someone explain why having only 8-9 of the best stages is worse than having 10-12 stages that include some disagreeable ones?

 

[mimgrim]

Personally I think a big stage list in P:M (read anything more then like 10) becomes redundant because of how many static stages there are now. Now this doesn't mean I don't think there aren't more viable stage then this, I actually think most of the stages found on page 1 and some on page 2 are viable stages for more serious play, but that it just ends up becoming redundant to have so many stages when you can make most/all characters happy as long as you have an even amount of each stage type (read small, medium, and big).

You know. I never see Rumble Falls get mentioned as a potentially viable big stage now. IIRC the stage itself has been made smaller in 3.5 compared to 3.02, though I'm not sure on blast zone sizes.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Rumble Falls is basically a PS2 Stage, with higher platforms, on a blastzone with the same ceiling as BF and slightly smaller blastzoe walls.

But its curvy and sharkable, which people dislike.

 

[Scatz]

If anything, Rumble Falls is a legitimate look for doubles. Singles wise, I think can hold up because characters can't get camped as hard as the DK64 stage. At the same time, I wonder how some slower characters can handle possible circle camping.

 

[Rizner]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I could see more people striking to FoD over Dreamland.

You can make the argument that having FoD and GHZ is a little bit redundant. But if I'm playing as Toon Link or Samus, I'd much rather be on FoD over GHZ due to the stage set up. The blast zones are similar, yes, but the platform structure is just super different.

And I think we all agree with this:
Definite Starters(5):
Battlefield
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Pokémon Stadium 2

Proposed Starters:
Fountain of Dreams
Dreamland 64

Definite Counter Picks(7):
Yoshi's Island
Warioware
Final Destination

Stages We're Considering Adding:
Lylat Cruise
Norfair
Distant Planet
Yoshi's Story
Skyworld

So if we add one stage from the proposed starters into the starters, and the other into CPs, we need to choose three stages to add to CPs to have the 12 stage set we've been talking about.

I personally think Lylat Cruise, Norfair, and Distant Planet would be the best choices.

I was under the impression 12 is too many. I would add yoshi story to cp from that list. Gives three small (ys, ww, ghz - can be argued mid) and three large (fd, dl, ps2 - can be argued mid) and the rest middle sized. Then give 1 or 2 bans, and in bo5 give 1 ban with bans sticking against yourself.

 

[Boiko]

I was under the impression 12 is too many. I would add yoshi story to cp from that list. Gives three small (ys, ww, ghz - can be argued mid) and three large (fd, dl, ps2 - can be argued mid) and the rest middle sized. Then give 1 or 2 bans, and in bo5 give 1 ban with bans sticking against yourself.

FoD?

 

[DMG]

Not a fan of RF. The curved main portion allows people in the center to tech certain strong horizontal moves better. The platform curves are not ideal, and it's even less ideal that they break symmetry. Asymmetrical features like different platform heights on each side is doable I guess, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason why these are different from each other over how sloped or slanted they are. The sharkable portion is probably not desirable, eventually some Jiggs would probably find lame stuff to do with it.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I was under the impression 12 is too many. I would add yoshi story to cp from that list. Gives three small (ys, ww, ghz - can be argued mid) and three large (fd, dl, ps2 - can be argued mid) and the rest middle sized. Then give 1 or 2 bans, and in bo5 give 1 ban with bans sticking against yourself.

Why do you want bans to last a set instead of a game?
What sense does it make?
What positives are there compared to striking for the next game only?

Also, why should there be different rules for bo5 and bo3?

 

[Juushichi]

Not a fan of RF. The curved main portion allows people in the center to tech certain strong horizontal moves better. The platform curves are not ideal, and it's even less ideal that they break symmetry. Asymmetrical features like different platform heights on each side is doable I guess, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason why these are different from each other over how sloped or slanted they are. The sharkable portion is probably not desirable, eventually some Jiggs would probably find lame stuff to do with it.

I don't think that it's actually that bad for doubles.

 

[Deleted member]

Can someone explain why having 10 non-debatable stages is worse than having 12-13 stages that include some disagreeable ones?

 

[Rizner]

FoD?

right. Uhhh, no comment. (it's mid-size? idk)

Why do you want bans to last a set instead of a game?
What sense does it make?
What positives are there compared to striking for the next game only?

Also, why should there be different rules for bo5 and bo3?

It opens up lots of possibilities for people to do strange things like ban a stage because their opponent then won't ban it, and cp to it game 3 as a 'aha, gotcha'. Wouldn't happen super often, but not a fan of that possibility. I understand the argument of 'well, that's still on you' but would prefer this to not be possible.
Different settings for bo3 vs bo5 because the bans stick, so instead of each person banning 4 stages in a bo5 they ban 2. The alternative would be to say you get 2 bans after game 1, and if you ban again you can't change them or at that point the two originals open up again or something like that if you want the amount of stages banned to not grow crazy amounts.

Can someone explain why having 10 non-debatable stages is worse than having 12-13 stages that include some disagreeable ones?

Once you get in another 2-3 stages, you might be under the impression more bans should happen, and that means those extra stages would need to take into account the extra sizes and ensure that it doesn't open up a extra ban closing off all small, medium or large or causing balance issues outside of them. If done well, sure I could see it being fine. If it's just adding 2-3 more middle sized stages or 1 middle and 2 larger or something like that, then suddenly the proportions are off and you can ban out everything small but not everything large. I think the benefits it gives as opposed to drawbacks it can have are not worth it (people suddenly using all bans on these 3 because they don't like them, instead of what is good for their character is also possible, and I would imagine the extra 2-3 stages aren't going to be stages that when chosen both people can enjoy playing on in a high percentage of total matches).

Having said that, I could see it being worth trying for a bit and asking for feedback from tournaments to see what their use/value gained from them are and updating this accordingly if necessary.

 

[Binary Clone]

EDIT: wrong thread my bad

 

[Narpas_sword]

right. Uhhh, no comment. (it's mid-size? idk)

It opens up lots of possibilities for people to do strange things like ban a stage because their opponent then won't ban it, and cp to it game 3 as a 'aha, gotcha'. Wouldn't happen super often, but not a fan of that possibility. I understand the argument of 'well, that's still on you' but would prefer this to not be possible.
.

I'm sorry, i don't quite understand.
Which of my question are you answering?

It sounds like you're talking about counter-picking your own stage, but that's not what i asked.

I asked about bans carrying on through a set.
In striking for a game, there is no need to specify for picking a stage you struck, because striking is for the next game only.

Different settings for bo3 vs bo5 because the bans stick, so instead of each person banning 4 stages in a bo5 they ban 2. The alternative would be to say you get 2 bans after game 1, and if you ban again you can't change them or at that point the two originals open up again or something like that if you want the amount of stages banned to not grow crazy amounts.
.

Different settings is convoluted for no reason.
With a rule-set we should be looking for simplicity and effectiveness.
Striking for the next game only keeps things simple.
It keeps rules consistent. Both between bo3 and bo5 and between first game in a set and subsequent games in a set.

I just got my internship at Argonne National Laboratory for the summer! YEEAAAH

Despite being terribly late in trying to get in... I got it!

looking for the social thread i presume?

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Isn't FoD like almost exactly the same as GHZ, being platform configuration? That's also why I don't understand why someone wanted earlier to have both FoD and GHZ as starters, just replace one with the other, don't have both.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Battlefield and Smashville are also the same stage and blastzone with different platforms. Just choose one of them?

Didn't think so.

The difference between the platforms creates an entirely different stage. Just because they have similar aspects otherwise, doesn't provide a good reason to exclude one.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

That's a little different though. Those are 2 medium stages. How most people are structuring these starter lists are with one small, the "medium" and one large. So for medium it's fine to have two really similar stages of they are popular, but if we had had FoD, GHZ, Smashville, Battlefield and a large stage, I think that shifts the balance too much to small stages.

tl;dr I should have been more clear

 

[Rizner]

I'm sorry, i don't quite understand.
Which of my question are you answering?

It sounds like you're talking about counter-picking your own stage, but that's not what i asked.

I asked about bans carrying on through a set.
In striking for a game, there is no need to specify for picking a stage you struck, because striking is for the next game only.

Sorry for not being clear - I'm unsure at this point what you mean by striking every game at this point. Does this mean it would be like all starters, and you would go back and forth between both players in each game during the set? Or would strikes act like bans, but just not last past a game?

 

[Narpas_sword]

That's a little different though. Those are 2 medium stages. How most people are structuring these starter lists are with one small, the "medium" and one large. So for medium it's fine to have two really similar stages of they are popular, but if we had had FoD, GHZ, Smashville, Battlefield and a large stage, I think that shifts the balance too much to small stages.

tl;dr I should have been more clear

FoD and GHZ are pretty 'medium' too.
Compared to YS and WW.

on a scalseof sorts:

YS/WW


FoD/GHZ
BF/ SV
PS2/DP


DL64

Sorry for not being clear - I'm unsure at this point what you mean by striking every game at this point. Does this mean it would be like all starters, and you would go back and forth between both players in each game during the set? Or would strikes act like bans, but just not last past a game?

So what i mean is:

First game:

Stage striking as normal (1-2-1)

Next game:

Winner strikes 2 stages from the complete list.
Loser chooses a stage.

Result

Next game:

Winner strikes 2 stages from the complete list.
Loser chooses a stage.


So strikes (or bans) are made for the immediate Next game ONLY.
if the person wants to strike the same stages again, that's up to them.

 

[Narpas_sword]

double post

 

[Chevy]

I would just like to put my vote in for keeping Yoshi's Story, at least as a counter-pick. Maybe personal bias, but it's the only small stage I actually like playing on. Randall is a cool guy.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Yoshi Story should definitely be in, it's easily a favourite.

personally, id go with:

Starter Stage List:

• Smashville
• Pokemon Stadium 2
• Battlefield
• Fountain of Dreams
• Green Hill Zone

Counter Pick List:

• Lylat Cruise
• Yoshi's Island
• Final Destination
• Warioware
• Norfair
• Distant Planet
• Yoshi’s Story
• Dreamland 64

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I just went and checked and was misremembering stuff, I thought FoD and GHZ had the same blastzones. My B.

My personal preference seems to lean towards this:
WarioWare
Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Skyworld

You either need that, or what @ Narpas_sword proposed with neither extreme included (FoD being the kinda small and PS2 being the kinda big). The GHZ, BF, SV, PS2, "big stage" proposition earlier fails at this because it favors bigger stages too much. I understand that a lot of people dislike having big stages, but its just not fair to omit them and prevent characters that like them from having a fair stage first game.

 

[Player -0]

I see GHZ as somewhat small and SV, BF, PS2 and the like as medium.

 

[DMG]

I see GHZ as somewhat small and SV, BF, PS2 and the like as medium.

Ur very incorrect to view PS2 as medium, just putting that out there

 

[Player -0]

Not exactly medium but I wouldn't put it as big, might by my mental image of big like something such as DL. The flatter the stage and less platforms the smaller it feels. FD feels big though.

Now that I think about it PS1 feels bigger just because stage transformations lol. Are the blastzones for PS2 closer by any chance?

 

[DMG]

From Joe's stage thingy with the 15 16 stage comparison, PS2 has the widest main platform (DP is very close). The horizontal blastzone is similar to FD: it extends further than FD's, but it's also a longer stage than FD, so if you measure tip of the ledge to blastzone, it's similar or shorter blastzone than FD. The only stage with a larger absolute horizontal blastzone was Dreamland by a smidgen.

 

[SOJ]

How would you guys like this background for Norfair instead?

http://imgur.com/a/ApHfs

 

[Paradoxium]

How would you guys like this background for Norfair instead?

http://imgur.com/a/ApHfs

That already makes it look way better, But I would also think about changing the main platform as well. Isn't that the background from the part with Samus in the campaign mode? If so you should try making the main platform match up to the one in the campaign

 

[Narpas_sword]

that looks awesome. Phendrana Labs?

 

[Binary Clone]

How would you guys like this background for Norfair instead?

http://imgur.com/a/ApHfs

Yeeesssss.

The two guys playing pm with me right now are also really liking that.

 

[Mean Green]

How would you guys like this background for Norfair instead?

http://imgur.com/a/ApHfs

I need that stage, hook me up pls

 

[SOJ]

I need that stage, hook me up pls

http://forums.kc-mm.com/Gallery/BrawlView.php?Number=208019

 

[Mean Green]

http://forums.kc-mm.com/Gallery/BrawlView.php?Number=208019

Oh wow I thought it was meant for the next patch, thanks!

 

[Narpas_sword]

gonna go so well with the music i put on norfair.

Thardus battle, Nightmare battle, Phendrana Labs, Spice Pirate Theme =D