Proposed Standardized Ruleset

[jtm94]

I don't see why it's a problem that the person who's counter pick it is has the advantage. Thats generally why we have counters.

I get that with characters and stages being diverse it can get silly, but these seem like much more outliers and extreme examples than the regular way sets go. It may reward people who play more than one character to cover matchups, but again I don't see why that's bad.

The current system is still the best imo. The only situation where it is bad is when the winner is the one who has the multiple characters, and who's counter pick it is takes player 1 to a stage where they would be advantaged if he stayed on character a, but the advantage flips because player 1 switches to character b.

I don't think that diminishing the value of a cp by having characters being picked first, in most situations is worth avoiding the few out lier cases where cps can get flipped due to someone having a pocket character for certain situations.

The current system isnt perfect but it's better than any alternatives.

No don't get it wrong. There was currently a lot of confusion going about and that's not the reason for it. The loser of game one should be ADVANTAGED in the CP process.

The problem with stage first is that the winner gets to nudge the stage onto a stage of their favor and if they get it they can also get another advantageous CP on a stage of their liking. Conversely the winner can stay expecting the same MU that was just played, but get one entirely different that gives the loser supreme advantage.

If the characters are picked first, the loser will never be stuck on a stage with their opponent switching when it was unexpected. They will ALWAYS play the MU that was expected because of characters first and with 2 bans they will always get a stage that may not be their favorite, but is a close secondary. This consistently gives advantage to the loser instead of either giving some advantage to the winner, or a lot to the loser.

I will help clarify/debate to anyone via pm or 1v1 in order to avoid redundancy in this thread. There is a lot to think about currently.

 

[Brocolli123]

I think timing out is stigmatized because the way Smash functions makes it particularly gay. In another fighter you're far more restricted in your tools to run the timer, but in Smash games (we can use Brawl as an example I guess but Melee had it too), there are far more ways to abuse the mechanics to make the game non-interactive. Of course the only two that I can think of offhand (Brawl airdodge/ledge stalling) have been eradicated in P:M so... Idk I just wanted to give my theory on it.


I'm not a fan of lylat. At the very least I wish they would alter the background to not be so obnoxious and distracting. It makes it hard to see anything at some points and gives the illusion that the stage is still tilting like it used to because of the excessive movement. It's disorienting is what I'm trying to say.

edit: And I agree with the above about Norfair. I've discussed this a couple times with @ jtm94

It probably doesn't matter because the platforms don't stay in that position.

You say gay as if it was a bad thing

 

[Brocolli123]

I'm just going to leave this here as a preliminary start for what we should be going for in terms of a rule set. I've seen conflicts with stock, stages, the gentleman's clause, and all sorts of other crap at PM tournaments reminiscent of the early melee or brawl days. The basis of this will be a stage list that works from my point of view, as well as the melee rule set that I made in 2009 with minor alterations to reflect the current logistics of tournament organization.

the old rule set used for the basis can be found here:

http://smashboards.com/threads/mbr-official-rule-set.257229/

-------

Stage List

Singles

Starter Stage List:

• Smashville
• Pokemon Stadium 2
• Battlefield

Counter Stage List:

• Fountain of Dreams
• Lylat Cruise
• Yoshi's Island
• Final Destination
• Warioware
• Green Hill Zone
• Norfair
• Distant Planet

General Rules

• Items are set to off.
• Stock and Time are set to 4 stock and 7 minutes respectively.
• Regular sets are best of 3 matches.
• The Tournament Host is the arbiter of all disputes.
• Blind Picks: the first character selection of a set must be without prior knowledge of the opponent's character selection for both players.
• Modified Dave's Stupid Rule: No player can counter pick a stage he or she has previously won on unless agreed upon by both players.
• Gentleman's clause: any stage may be played on so long as both players and the Tournament Host agree to it, including banned stages. This can be used in tandem with the Modified Dave's Stupid Rule (MDSR).
• Timed out matches will be determined by the remaining number of lives, then percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, replay that match. Any Sudden Death match is strictly not to be played.

Additional Rules for Teams Play

• Life Stealing is allowed
• Set team attack to ON

Redwood Counter Pick System

1. Blind Picks character selection.
2. Stage Striking: Players eliminate stages from the Starter Stage List until only 1 remains, and the players then play the first match on that stage. Order can be determined by Rock Paper Scissors if the need arises.
3. The first match is played.
4. Winning player of the preceding match bans two stages.
5. The losing player of preceding match picks stage for the next match.
6. The winning player of preceding match picks character.
7. The losing player picks character.
8. The next match is played.
9. Repeat 4-8 for all consecutive matches as necessary until the set is complete.

Recommendations to Tournament Hosts

• Players are responsible for their own general welfare in regards to the tournament. In other words, players are responsible for:
  1. Being familiar with the rule set and stage list
  2. Entrance and venue fees
  3. Arriving on time
  4. Maintaining personal hygiene
  5. Controllers and Character Knowledge
  6. Minimizing Johns
  
  
• Sets are usually based on brackets which may be seeded at the Tournament Host's discretion. If your tournament is any other format, make a note to advertise it accordingly.
• Some kind of stalling prevention is highly recommended. Since a definition of stalling is too potentially ambiguous here, all instances of stalling are determined by the Tournament Host.
• Unnecessary delays in a set should be discouraged. This can occur before (not playing a match) or during (taking an unnecessary amount of time to counter pick) and after (not reporting) a set that has been called. The Tournament Host is recommended to keep tabs on set completion.
• No more than the previous match should be replayed in the event of a rule violation and it is recommended that any disputes be brought promptly and quickly to the Tournament Host's attention.
• When running a pool, the game count of each set in pool play should be recorded (i.e. whether the set was 2-0 or 2-1). Ranking in a pool is determined by the number of sets won. In case of a tie, the first tiebreaker is the win/loss ratio of the individual games, where the higher ratio wins. In the event of a tie in both set victories and match-up ratios, the player who won the set between the disputed players should advance.
• The semi-final and championship sets should be in at least best of 5 format.
• Wireless controllers should be discouraged or banned because of interference, unreliability (battery life), and time hindrance.
• The Tournament Host reserves the right at any time to make anyone leave the premises of the tournament.
• For all Melee tournaments, use of the character Metaknight is banned.

----

I chose the 2009 rule set because I made it and am fairly familiar with it. Changes from the 2009 list include
- different stage list (different game obv)
- changed the timer from 8 minutes to 7 to reflect larger tournaments and the reality that we will often have to share venue with a different smash game. i was considering 6 honestly, its kind of silly how stigmatized it is to time out the opponents as a legitimate win condition
- my stage list only has 3 starers so i dropped the 1 2 2 1 ordering from striking
- unbanned metaknight because yeah
- 2 stage bans because we're PM

the stage list is somewhat controversial for having a low number of starters and not having Yoshi Story, Dreamland 64, or Skworld as counterpicks, but to me i cant see any other starters being reasonable, and the latter 3 add more problems than they do to variety.

lets get this worked out. looking for specific input from @ Strong Badam , @Lunchables, @Oracle, @Hylian, @Jolteon, and of course anyone else i'm missing or you guys would suggest. lets tag the **** out of this thread, we have lots of people that made good rule sets in melee and brawl that have switched to PM as well.

3 stock is better

 

[Deleted member]

3 stock is better

literally no chance of standardizing 3 stock

 

[TheGravyTrain]

What are your guys thoughts on Distant Planet as the final starter? To me, it seems too similar to PS2 which basically has to be a starter. It seems to be the most reasonable big stage that doesn't have issues with camping.

 

[Foo]

I don't see why it's a problem that the person who's counter pick it is has the advantage. Thats generally why we have counters.

I get that with characters and stages being diverse it can get silly, but these seem like much more outliers and extreme examples than the regular way sets go. It may reward people who play more than one character to cover matchups, but again I don't see why that's bad.

The current system is still the best imo. The only situation where it is bad is when the winner is the one who has the multiple characters, and who's counter pick it is takes player 1 to a stage where they would be advantaged if he stayed on character a, but the advantage flips because player 1 switches to character b.

I don't think that diminishing the value of a cp by having characters being picked first, in most situations is worth avoiding the few out lier cases where cps can get flipped due to someone having a pocket character for certain situations.

The current system isnt perfect but it's better than any alternatives.

Picking character first is much better imo. There are some niche cases where it's not, but it's REALLY easy to abuse. Let's say hypothetically that I have two mains. One likes small stages and the other likes big stages. If I win game 1, there is no way to CP me on stage. That is far from a niche case, that's just having a very basic dual main. I'd list all of the possible two characters to have, but there's probably hundres of combos that would work for that. That is the "only situation where it is bad" but that's not exactly an uncommon situation. It also really hurts specialists on the CP, because they can very easily find themselves in a bad matchup on a bad stage for the matchup ON THEIR CP.

Why would character selection before stage selection ever be bad? Only reason I can think of would be a nerf to cheesy pocket characters like bowser on yoshi's or wario ware, but I wouldn't call that a bad thing.

3 stock is better

No, it's not.

 

[DMG]

Both systems can give varying levels of advantages: it's not entirely set in stone that doing stages first will be milder, or that doing characters first will always give stronger CP results. If that were always true, it would probably be easy to just lean on the milder option @DrinkingFood


I see the appeal of both systems, and I'm not too sure which one is better. I think doing characters first will lead to more predictable sets, because once you know what both characters will be, it's probably obvious what stages to ban and those stage bans would probably remain constant throughout multiple sets/encounters or even between different players. Small stages suck for a MU? Ban whatever you can and go to GHZ or the remaining option. This scenario will play out for a lot of MU's I think. I think with the character and stage diversity we already have though, picking the option that keeps sets more constant and predictable might be OK? Idk


I may be in favor of the suggested format because of how complicated and varying the optimal CP strategy for both sides can be right now. In our current system, both sides have a greater lack of information overall. Because of that, the optimal CP strategy for both people changes rapidly based on what both sides actually play, what they "could" play, whether winner and loser can pick flexible characters that fit stage + character MU, etc


Character CP happens in both formats, so getting it out of the way lets both sides make more informed choices about stages. It may end up favoring the winner a slightly bit more in some cases where the loser can't use his pocket character to influence stage bans before char selection, but that might be a worthwhile tradeoff to obtain less varience.


@ Foo : the downside is that the loser can't threaten his own dual main scenario as strongly as before. If you have two characters good on opposing stages, obviously winner can't ban them all. If you do chars first, he gets to see "oh he picked small stage char" and then loser will probably get a milder CP with small stages consistently banned.

 

[Strong Badam]

3 stock is fine but not better. Unless you're having issues with your tournament finishing there's no real reason to run it.

 

[DMG]

1 stock all sets Bo5 / late bracket Bo7 let's get it ****in going ladies and gents

 

[MegaMissingno]

1HP Stamina FT10.

 

[Player -0]

Fox vs. Falcon. The powershielding battle.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Before this gets turned into a page of 'silly ways to play smashbros' can we revert back to the topic at hand?

It looks like more and more people are willing to try the character before stage selection order. Which is good, i definitely think it will be helpful towards newer competitive players, and help streamline events.

As someone pointed out, it may be a little more in the favour of the counter picker. but to me that's better than it being in favour to the winner.
It also relies less on knowing the opponents possible characters.

If we are in agreence to at least trying the character>stage order, shall we move onto a new point of contention?

There was discussion of stage bans lasting the set, instead of per game.
It goes in hand with Character>Stage ordering to have striking work for that set only. It is simple, and again follows the first set.
(After we strike for starters, we don't ban those for the rest of the set)

We also haven't really settled on a stage list.

Probably best we go with the '10 good, not 12 with 2 disputed' list.

Which is kinda leaving us with thses 10, i think?

Norfair, Lylat and Distant Planet too 'meh' to add in?
I think Lylat is better than Yoshis Island personally. Flyguys and Blarggwich are lamer than slants.

Starter Stage List:

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

Counter Stage List:

• Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
• Final Destination
• Warioware
• Dreamland 64
• Yoshi’s Story

 

[Deleted member]

we're basically taking the old ruleset at this point and doing a few adjustments-

- stage list with GHZ SV BF PS2 DL64 as starters, and WW DP FOD FD YI as counterpicks
- 7 minutes instead of 8
- revised CP order (nothing wrong with blind testing)
- stage bans for every match in the set and not just for the set
- no counterpicking to your own ban, which solves the no counterpicking to your own ban thing

i'll go over the OP basically

 

[Narpas_sword]

I have no problems with 7 instead of 8 minuets, as i rarely time out a match. But whats the reasoning?
Just to shorten potential games?
Would it not make timing out easier? a minute less to run away makes the goal line a lot closer if you intend to camp to timeout.

 

[Player -0]

- no counterpicking to your own ban, which solves the no counterpicking to your own ban thing

Why?

Also aren't stage bans for every match currently

Edit -

I have no problems with 7 instead of 8 minuets, as i rarely time out a match. But whats the reasoning?
Just to shorten potential games?
Would it not make timing out easier? a minute less to run away makes the goal line a lot closer if you intend to camp to timeout.

I think Umbreon said something about this in the first first pages. Not exactly sure if it was/where it is though. Something about making tournaments more snappy and 7 minutes is still long enough.

 

[Narpas_sword]

If striking is for a game, and not a set. then you can go to a stage you struck earlier, because that stage isn't struck for the game you're about to play.

i.e. every game the whole stage list is available,
The winner strikes 2 stages for the next game, and the loser can pick whatever else remains.
For the third game, the same thing happens. you don't have to remember what was struck previously. (for either player)

 

[Deleted member]

i banned pichu because **** you i do what i want

-------------------

Stage List

Singles

Starter Stage List:

• Green Hill Zone
• Smashville
• Battlefield
• Pokemon Stadium 2
• Dreamland 64 (until we get something better, hopefully soon)

Counter Stage List:

• Wario Ware
• Distant Planet
• Final Destination
• Fountain of Dreams
• Yoshi's Island

General Rules

• Items are set to off.
• Stock and Time are set to 4 stock and 7 minutes respectively.
• Regular sets are best of 3 matches, special sets (Winners, Losers, and Grand Finals) are best of 5 matches.
• The Tournament Host is the arbiter of all disputes.
• Blind Picks: the first character selection of a set must be without prior knowledge of the opponent's character selection for both players.
• Modified Dave's Stupid Rule: No player can counter pick a stage he or she has previously won on unless agreed upon by both players.
• Gentleman's clause: any stage may be played on so long as both players and the Tournament Host agree to it, including banned stages. This can be used in tandem with the Modified Dave's Stupid Rule (MDSR).
• Timed out matches will be determined by the remaining number of lives, then percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, replay that match. Any Sudden Death match is strictly not to be played.

Additional Rules for Teams Play

• Life Stealing is allowed
• Set team attack to ON

Revised Project M Counter Pick System

1. Blind Picks character selection.
2. Stage Striking: Players eliminate stages from the Starter Stage List until only 1 remains, and the players then play the first match on that stage. Players strike stages in 1 2 2 1 order.
3. The first match is played.
4. The winning player of the preceding match picks character.
5. The losing player of the preceding match picks character.
6. Winning player of the preceding match bans two stages.
7. The losing player of preceding match picks one of the remaining stages for the next match.
8. The next match is played.
9. Repeat 4-8 for all consecutive matches as necessary until the set is complete.

Recommendations to Tournament Hosts

• Players are responsible for their own general welfare in regards to the tournament. In other words, players are responsible for:
  1. Being familiar with the rule set and stage list
  2. Entrance and venue fees
  3. Arriving on time
  4. Maintaining personal hygiene
  5. Controllers and Character Knowledge
  6. Minimizing Johns
• Sets are usually based on brackets which may be seeded at the Tournament Host's discretion. If your tournament is any other format, make a note to advertise it accordingly.
• Large tournaments should generally have sets of pools to determine seeding.
• Some kind of stalling prevention is highly recommended. Since a definition of stalling is too potentially ambiguous here, all instances of stalling are determined by the Tournament Host.
• Unnecessary delays in a set should be discouraged. This can occur before (not playing a match) or during (taking an unnecessary amount of time to counter pick) and after (not reporting) a set that has been called. The Tournament Host is recommended to keep tabs on set completion.
• No more than the previous match should be replayed in the event of a rule violation and it is recommended that any disputes be brought promptly and quickly to the Tournament Host's attention.
• When running a pool, the game count of each set in pool play should be recorded (i.e. whether the set was 2-0 or 2-1). Ranking in a pool is determined by the number of sets won. In case of a tie, the first tiebreaker is the win/loss ratio of the individual games, where the higher ratio wins. In the event of a tie in both set victories and match-up ratios, the player who won the set between the disputed players should advance.
• Wireless controllers should be discouraged or banned because of interference, unreliability (battery life), and time hindrance.
• The Tournament Host reserves the right at any time to make anyone leave the premises of the tournament.
• For all Project M tournaments, use of the character Pichu is banned.

 

[Narpas_sword]

ammend stage striking rule 1-2-2-1 to 1-2-1

 

[Strong Badam]

1-2-2-1 means Player 1 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 1 strike.

 

[Player -0]

If striking is for a game, and not a set. then you can go to a stage you struck earlier, because that stage isn't struck for the game you're about to play.

i.e. every game the whole stage list is available,
The winner strikes 2 stages for the next game, and the loser can pick whatever else remains.
For the third game, the same thing happens. you don't have to remember what was struck previously. (for either player)

I mean not being able to counterpick to your own bans.

Make sure Giga Bowser is banned. Also RIP P:M Pichu in tournament.

Edit -

1-2-2-1 means Player 1 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 1 strike.

A lot of times it's used to signify how many bans per person too.

 

[Narpas_sword]

1-2-2-1 means Player 1 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 2 Strike, Player 1 strike.

Well, i guess that makes sense.

i've just never seen it written as 1-2-2-1-1-2 for 7 starters.

 

[DMG]

Can be written any way, as long as you correctly inform players that the strikes are properly staggered.

For 5 stages:

1-2-1

1-2-2-1

P1: 1
P2: 2
P1: 1

Turn 1: P1 strikes 1
Turn 2: P2 strikes 2
Turn 3: P1 strikes 1


All means the same thing

 

[Deleted member]

right i forgot to ban giga bowser and ike climbers

 

[MegaMissingno]

Writing it ABBA would be a little clearer. 1221 is kinda confusing because it's not clear whether those numbers mean P1 and P2 or 1 stage and 2 stages.

 

[Deleted member]

i'll clean it up for a final version, right now we know what it means so thats fine

 

[Narpas_sword]

Not to mention it's not necessarily player 1 who strikes first, it's decided by RPS.

But who wants to have ABBA stuck in their head the whole match?

 

[Player -0]

Shh, they'll think Ike Climbers are "released"

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Can we start using the proposed stagelist as a guideline and discuss potential changes (like replacing Yoshi's Island with Lylat...). I assume most people agree with the general framework of the proposed stagelist, so its just a matter of fine tuning rather than trying to overhaul the whole thing (which is good because I like it overall).

I am starting to re-evaluate what I consider average. Using JOE!'s stage size tool, i was just trusting his built in average. I am going to put all the blastzone stuff in an excel sheet and see what the average blast zone dimensions would be with this proposed list as well as taking out stages like Dreamland. Will post findings soon.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I've got an easter Tourney coming up, will be happy to get the guys and girls using the ruleset above _b

If improvements come we can change, but for now that looks like an awesome ruleset.

 

[Xcite]

What was the main issue as to why Lylat Cruise wasn't seen as a viable starter/counterpick? From what I've gathered, most people's issue with the stage is the "difficulty" in sweetspotting (or not dying) at the edge. Wouldn't this be considered more of a lack of skill of the player than an inherent flaw with the stage?

 

[CORY]

Not to mention it's not necessarily player 1 who strikes first, it's decided by RPS.

But who wants to have ABBA stuck in their head the whole match?

God dammit, now I have dancing queen stuck in my head...

 

[TheGravyTrain]

If it weren't for PS2's popularity essentially demanding it be a starter, as well as Yoshi's awkward hills/valleys/platform layout, I would argue that Yoshi's Island should be the 3rd medium stage and PS2 a counterpick. Sadly, that will never happen and a starter list should ideally have the stages that are most struck too, no matter how awkward they are to fit. I say this because Yoshi's has the exact same blastzones as Smashville, which are almost identical to Battlefield. This makes it a great addition to the other 2 medium stages. However, I think if it should be legal at all, it would have to be a counterpick.

The reasons are as follow. Yoshi's weird non-flat main platform is really annoying. It is incredibly frustrating to deal with (this may be incorrect, but I seem to recall I time where I was Ness and I was in a low spot and grounded PK Fire hit a rising part of the stage and stopped well before half of its normal grounded distance, its only good attribute). Another reason I hate this stage is its platform. I don't even get that mad at the moving aspect (though I do wish it didn't slant as extreme as it did). It is extremely in the way of everything I love to do with platform. Any projectile affected by gravity (or Sheik/Ness esque diagonal down) can't be used to attack people on the main stage, of which you can do off of essentially every platform on any stage in the entire game (including banned stages). Granted, most horizontal projectiles work against opponents also on the platform, that is, if you are on the high side of the platform or its in its neutral position. Tech chasing is notably worse because their roles aren't hardly ever limited by being near the edge because of length. The ridiculous length of the platform also inhibits wavelanding off platforms for mobility reasons except for on the very edge (and its only really useful if its the low edge or its in neutral position). The slant can also make it so its moved just out of reach to be useful. Its a shame because blastzone wize and recovery wise, its a great stage. I just can't stand the gameplay when you are actually on it...

Since its pretty clear it makes a bad neutral, it would have to be a counterpick. But as a counterpick, all of its inherent values are lost (nice average blastzones and main stage size) while all of its quirks, good (blargwhiches, walls) and bad (weird main stage slopes, moving platform, awkwardly long platform for wavelanding, projectile pressure, and tech chases). Its averageness also is a flaw if its a counterpick because counterpicks should be unique from other stages on the list whereas a starter might want to be more average.

As for Lylat, it has its fair share of flaws. The slanted edges can be abused by low crouchers, the ledges over no mercy when trying to be precise with you recovery, and it suffers from similar blastzones (vertically its the same as SV and YI, but horizontally it is wider than those by 10 and by battlefield by 6). However, its platform layout is unique (and in my opinion more useful), and the others can be passed off as a part of it being a counterpick.

I will start collecting my thoughts on the large stages in the proposed list, as what I thought I was going to propose was wrong (Norfair isn't really a great large stage, which is what it hinged on, seeing as Norfair has a lower ceiling than battlefield and almost the same side blastzones).

tl;dr Yoshi's Island sucks as a counterpick, Lylat is better, cooler, and awesomer.

 

[SOJ]

I am starting to re-evaluate what I consider average. Using JOE!'s stage size tool, i was just trusting his built in average. I am going to put all the blastzone stuff in an excel sheet and see what the average blast zone dimensions would be with this proposed list as well as taking out stages like Dreamland. Will post findings soon.

The blast zone data displayed in BBox and JOE!'s stage size tool is actually slightly wrong. I've been corrected by Magus multiple times on this. I'll post a corrected spreadsheet soon.

 

[DMG]

THE STAGE PLOT THICKENS!

Yoshi's kind of sucks in general, but I am fine with it being a CP. I don't think that a stage has to have wildly different boundaries than the "average" stages to be worth it: the other stage facets and attributes are what make it feel like a CP and it's totally fine. Yoshi's is way more unique than many stages, despite average blast zones. Basically see it as an average stage + quirks that some characters might like and others dislike. Lylat is probably a better starter, despite the fact that both stages could probably live to see competitive improvements to certain features.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

@ DMG I would be fine if both or were included, but right now, it seems to be Lylat vs Yoshi's and I greatly prefer Lylat because its "cons" are more manageable, slight pro in more unique blastzones, and its still a unique stage. It has no walls, which is seeming to become less and less common. Its platforms are unique (while Yoshi's plat is also unique, I outlined why I find Lylats more useful).

@ SOJ Did you tell @JOE! so he knows to fix it in his next update? Also, do you know the extent of the error? Like is it universally a set number off or more like a varied amount depending on the stage?

 

[SOJ]

@ SOJ Did you tell @JOE! so he knows to fix it in his next update? Also, do you know the extent of the error? Like is it universally a set number off or more like a varied amount depending on the stage?

Varied amount depending on the stage. I dunno why the value's aren't entirely correct but Magus has special magic to see what they actually are in game.

 

[PlateProp]

I dont get why all of you say Yoshi's Island plat is such a problem, like it literally just tilts back and forth. If you arent paying attention to wht you're doing and the platform gets in the way of that, it's on you as a player, not the stage

 

[Leafeon]

I dont get why all of you say Yoshi's Island plat is such a problem, like it literally just tilts back and forth. If you arent paying attention to wht you're doing and the platform gets in the way of that, it's on you as a player, not the stage

It's not about its tilting, he's talking about how falling / downwards diagonal projectiles suffer from the platform covering a great majority of the stage (Which is basically one of the only two reasons to CP this stage.) YI should remain as it is imo, and it's great for dealing with aerial projectile campers.

 

[DMG]

The slanting part of the platform makes wavelands and certain tech chases unreliable. Like if you toss up and need to waveland going the direction of the downward portion, you either get a sloppy one or have to do it in place. If people tech roll to either side and you jumped up/wavelanded up for positioning, it kills some SH aerial punishes (Falcon flies into the plat, or flies over the head of the opponent if it's towards the downward portion. This forces regrabbing as a punish more than other choices, and regrabbing is not always a great punish). Or just in general, you get put up to the platform during tech chase and hold down. If attacks send you towards the upward part of the slope, you get really easy CC/ASDI since you will get floored by even attacks sending you at small angles that aren't 100% flat.

The platform by itself doesn't seem like a lot, but when you also factor in the mainstage slopes, it leads to some unreliable tech chase/platform trap scenarios that don't seem "groovy".

 

[FrootLoop]

A couple format points I'd like to bring up.

1) A few tournaments ago I played ORLY in a best of 5 set. He picked Falcon against me game 1 and I won. I was figuring out my bans vs Falcon when I remembered he also plays Bowser so I ended up banning Bowser-friendly stages on the grounds that I'd rather fight Falcon on Falcon-friendly stages than Bowser on Bowser-friendly stages.

I asked him after the set and it turns out that his plan was for me to ban vs Falcon and then he would get the rest of the set to counterpick great Bowser stages. I only prevented this plan by remember that he plays Bowser which is kinda lame knowledge to need to avoid getting gamed like this. This doesn't seem to be a problem in best of 3 sets because each player only gets one counterpick at most.

2) I've played sets where I win game 1, make my bans, lose game 2 on their counterpick, and now am required to remember my bans so that my opponent can make their bans with the extra ban information I had to reveal by winning first. I feel disadvantaged by not having as much information during my bans as they do during theirs and I don't like that this is the result of me winning first. I have to deal with my own bans and their bans when it's my counterpick where they only had to deal with my bans on their first counterpick. This happens to me more in doubles sets because the stages are probably harder to call correctly and having 2-3 less stages to worry about can help a lot when choosing bans.

The characters before stages suggestion solves these assuming you can change your bans each time your opponent is counterpicking you. It doesn't seem like the 'pick stages you banned' can be abused in this scenario. Ban per game instead of per set sounds nice to me.