ok, so my point was for when game 3 occurs. Winner of game 2 strikes two stages based on information they have gotten through the set, including stage strikes from winner game 1. Winner game 1, however, only struck one stage and played it as a stage they don't like just to give better odds of it not being struck by winner of game 2. They then pick that stage in game 3, and winner of game 2 feels crappy because they were cheesed out of not striking that stage. While it is on them that they didn't strike it, it's a weird way to lose a set and if misunderstood makes for a not fun tournament experience.
It's a weird case to cover, but a case I would like covered because I've seen newer players and older players get hit by this in tournaments, and leave on a loss that they feel was underhanded in the way it happened.
I mostly just want the rule to be explicitly stated, but my personal preference would be bans to striking so the possibility is not there whatsoever.
I feel like this has too many large stages vs small stages (ps2, lylat, fd, DL64, distant planet vs fod, ghz, ww, ys) - I'd probably remove lylat and one other (maybe DP?) to bring it down to 10 total stages, as there aren't really good small stages to add in as well (unless metal cavern?), and the reasons above for 10 stages instead of 12-13. If we added in MC, I'd still want only 2 bans.
Your opening case is covered by selecting Characters before stages and then striking for that game only. The rule is that you can pick ANYTHING that isn’t struck by your opponent for the next game.
If the person doesn’t strike a stage because he thought something wrong, that’s on him.
Tbh if someone wants to waste a strike on a stage they actually want to go on later, that’s their risk.
It’s a very obscure scenario though, and I don’t think it warrants banning for the set.
Especially when banning for the set can mess up character changes.
Character selection preceding stage banning
The main question that should be answered before the stage limit (and other issues) should be addressed is whether character selection should precede stage banning. By answering this question, will everyone be able to follow the same reasoning in determining what numbers can fit well and what numbers do fit best. When people have been arguing for or against a certain stage limit (among other issues), they have been doing so while having different conceptions about the answer to this question.
Narpas_sword, and Jtm94 have given solid reasoning for warranting character selection before stage bans.
The main argument in design is as follows:
“Counterpicking stage first allows the winner to pick a really strong character on the stage that was counterpicked making it possibly difficult for the loser to counterpick the winner’s character.
Counterpicking the winner’s character first allows the winning player to minimize the loser’s ability to select the worst stage possible in the MU, but giving the loser the ability to still pick a favorable if not even stage for that MU.
The former is less fair for the loser than the latter. If fairness for the loser is the main factor that should be argued for or against this situation, then the latter should be used unless significant evidence suggests otherwise.”
There have been no arguments against character selection preceding stage banning that address this particular argument above (fairness for the loser) which should be the main factor that dictates whether or not it should happen.
It would be best to solve this issue first before continuing to argue about things without everyone being on the same page. Please solve this everyone.
Agreed, this really needs to be sorted.
But Starter list can be decided upon too.
It’s the counter-pick stages that this affects.
And yea, I’m yet to see any positives for Stage>Character selection.
If no one is able to argue for Stage>Character, I say we just change it now.
Make a decision and move on to the next topic.
We can always change the rules after we use them for a while, if they really aren’t working.
“Because we did it that way in melee” is definitely not a supporting argument though.
The same argument is there for fod and ghz on the other end.
Not really.
Lylat is almost EXACTLY the same size as Battlefield.
FoD is to Battlefield what Battlefield is to PS2.
First off, FoD isn't small, it's straight up medium. Secondly, it's fine to have 3 small stages since we'll have 3 large ones too, especially since GHZ is only kinda small. The vast majority of viable stages are large or medium, with only 3 good small ones. Having all 3 (viable) small ones is the only way imo
You say FoD is ‘straight up Medium’, then ‘GHZ is ‘only kinda small’.
They’re pretty much exactly the same.
Keeping balance towards stage size in starters and counter-picks, the most logical setup is similar to what we've been running:
Starter:
Yoshi's Story (S)
Battlefield (M)
Smashville (M)
Green Hill Zone (S/M)*
Pokemon Stadium 2 (M/L)
Counter-picks:
Final Destination (L)
Dreamland (L)
Wario Ware (S)
Fountain of Dreams (S/M)*
* = interchangeable
That gives 3 small, 3 large, and 2 medium with one small/medium stage. The last stage is the most controversial considering that the other outright medium stages are Yoshi's Island, Lylat Cruise, and Norfair. GHZ and FoD are bigger small stages because of the blastzones vertically being more suited towards medium size stages (FoD being closer to medium overall than GHZ). Overall, we have to keep one of the S/M stages to maintain a balance of 3/3/3. That leaves YI, LC, or Norfair as the potential medium stages; however, everyone is so volatile with the choices that I feel it won't get too far.
With a 9 stage starter + 2 bans, the loser of game 4 will be able to pick between 5 stages left (with DSR active). So, this makes it to where you'll have to win on a weaker stage unless you plan to hold onto that stage until the last game of the set (provided neither player switches characters). I think this is the most optimal with what's currently in our stage pool.
Adding more stages would be much harder to deal with because the only other small-esque stage is Metal Cavern, but it's only small when you're near the edges. Everywhere else is medium sized (blastzones and stage size included). From there, you'd have a decision of YI, LC, and Norfair as your medium stage again, then you'd have a dilemma with the large stages. All proclaimed large stages have medium vertical blastzones except for Dracula's Castle and Kongo's Jungle. Just from this alone, I'd probably keep things to a 9 stage limit. Makes things much less complicated imo.
That starter list has a very small, but no very large. It weighs too small.
S / MS / M / M / ML
If dreamland is too big for starter and should be a counter pick (I agree) so should Yoshi Story.
Open up JOE! ‘s Stage tool, and compare:
Battlefield
Smashville
Green Hill Zone
Pokemon Stadium 2
Then put Yoshi over top and you’ll see what I mean.
Lylat is actually a perfect size for a medium stage.
People have problems with the ledge, either the slope, or the head-banging ceiling, which is like melee BF. Also it’s just too ‘busy’ in the background.
Norfair is another great medium sized stage, but people have a problem with the platforms and the background.
Both could, with some work, eventually be starter material. But we need a list for now, not for future.
