Proposed Standardized Ruleset

[Boiko]

Just wondering what everyone's gripes are with Yoshi's Island.

I think it's a pretty okay stage in terms of layout and mechanics, considering the support ghosts aren't exactly random anymore. Only think I don't like about it is the curves. As a short, DJC character with a low projectile, they interfere with everything. If the stage were flat I think it'd be totally reasonable. Since it's not though, I 100% prefer Norfair.

 

[Juushichi]

People can try to full stage strike as well, but if the argument is that chars like Bowser need enough small stages that the opponent can't just gg ban to function, striking from the full list is bound to give the other player more leniancy on dealing with big/small stages anyways. 11-13 legal stages, 5-6 strikes. Most stage list might have 3-4 small stages. Guess he's not viable?? eee

But Bowser isn't viable... #Kappa

GHZ/PS2/BF/SV/FoD
YI:B / DL / WW or YS / FD

1 ban, no player can select a stage that they previously won on (unless etc)

is what I think is going to end up being the thing in Columbus. I guess I wouldn't mind + Lylat ( hate it though, so does columbus ) / DP ( Columbus hates it though T_T )

 

[Foo]

Guys, there's really more to consider for starters than just blastzones. FoD has good blast zones for a starter, but it's platform setup is NOT suited for a starter. I would hate to see that stage become a starter.

 

[DMG]

I still wanna see a SV like stage, or even a tad smaller, with no plats

This fancies my muy bueno radar

 

[Boiko]

I still wanna see a SV like stage, or even a tad smaller, with no plats

This fancies my muy bueno radar

Like a mini FD but with tiny walls?

 

[DMG]

Like a mini FD but with tiny walls?

Could have walls like SV, or the same FD wall slopes (probably reduced to fit the stage easier)

Not sure about boundaries

 

[ChiePet]

quick question: everything on the OP, is that whats so far the widespread ruleset?

 

[Narpas_sword]

Guys, there's really more to consider for starters than just blastzones. FoD has good blast zones for a starter, but it's platform setup is NOT suited for a starter. I would hate to see that stage become a starter.

Can you explain why?

 

[mimgrim]

Ok. Honest question time.

What makes a stage good enough to be a conterpick but not good enough to be a starter?

 

[Boiko]

Ok. Honest question time.

What makes a stage good enough to be a conterpick but not good enough to be a starter?

I would say non overbearing quirks. I know that's hard to define but if we go through a few examples of generally accepted counter picks, they each have a trait that could aid in favoring match up, or hinder a specific character.

For example, Final Destination is where spacies go to die. Having it in the starters basically forces spacies to use a ban on it no matter what because they generally get juggled/combed hard by a large part of the cast.

Idk, it's so hard to put into words.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Ok. Honest question time.

What makes a stage good enough to be a conterpick but not good enough to be a starter?

I would say similarity to other starters. IE, having both FoD and GHZ .

 

[mimgrim]

I would say non overbearing quirks. I know that's hard to define but if we go through a few examples of generally accepted counter picks, they each have a trait that could aid in favoring match up, or hinder a specific character.

For example, Final Destination is where spacies go to die. Having it in the starters basically forces spacies to use a ban on it no matter what because they generally get juggled/combed hard by a large part of the cast.

Idk, it's so hard to put into words.

Every stage is going to have some kind of overbearing quirk some way some how. You use FD has a dis-favor to Spacies. What if I used PS2 as a favor to Samus? or BF as a favor to Marth?

Every stage can aid in favoring a MU or hinder a character or favoring a character.

So what is it that makes some quirks better then others?

 

[Foo]

Can you explain why?

The moving platforms really changes the dynamic of the game on a matchup by matchup thread. Often times, it can make approaching very difficult when against a projectile character because it removes aerial approach as an option a lot of the time. It's fine if neutrals are skewed because of broad things like stage boundaries that help one class of character over another, but counterpicks are more on a matchup by matchup basis.

Ok. Honest question time.

What makes a stage good enough to be a conterpick but not good enough to be a starter?

I don't think it's a matter of being "good" enough. For instance, I think wario ware is a FANTASTIC stage, but I think it should be a counterpick. You need some of both. imo, neutrals are just very basic that give little to no advantage based on how the stage size and platforms are set up, but have varying blast zone sizes.

 

[mimgrim]

Stop using the word neutral. It is stupid. Neutral stages do not exist and every stage is going to give some kind of advantage somewhere. To think other wise is... ignorant (seriously no offense intended here for anyone). Neutral stages do not exist.

 

[Narpas_sword]

The moving platforms really changes the dynamic of the game on a matchup by matchup thread. Often times, it can make approaching very difficult when against a projectile character because it removes aerial approach as an option a lot of the time.

The changing seems a good reason to make it a starter in my mind.

I know it's not how we operate, becasue of the larger pool of stages, but its a melee starter, so i figure it is here too.
And again, the reasoning you put here is a stronger reason to have GHZ as a CP instead of a starter.

Also, as a samus, i dont like FOD that much, and people dont seem to have trouble approaching me on it

:shrug:

 

[ChiePet]

IGNORED; I just wanna know if the OP is what I should go with or I should be just using what I already use!

(5 starter, 6 CP, 4 stock 8min no items)

 

[Narpas_sword]

IGNORED; I just wanna know if the OP is what I should go with or I should be just using what I already use!

(5 starter, 6 CP, 4 stock 8min no items)

if you read the discussion, you'll see that the 3 starter list is pretty much out, 5 starters is likely, some say 7, and the current topic is what 5 starters we should choose.

No standard rules have been decided on, so for now do what you like.

 

[Boiko]

Every stage is going to have some kind of overbearing quirk some way some how. You use FD has a dis-favor to Spacies. What if I used PS2 as a favor to Samus? or BF as a favor to Marth?

Every stage can aid in favoring a MU or hinder a character or favoring a character.

So what is it that makes some quirks better then others?

Sure, and that's a fair argument. But there are certain degrees to that as well.

Say you're playing against Bowser, and Yoshi's Story is a starter. Would you really consider going there? No, probably not.
However, if you're Mewtwo, Lucas or Fox, against Samus, you'd probably be okay with PS2.I like being Ness on Battlefield against Marth, personally.

Simply put, Marth on Battlefield, or Samus on Pokémon may be generally considered in their favor, but it's not overwhelming like getting chain grabbed to death on FD.

It's not at the point where the stage completely changes the MU like it does on FD.

 

[ChiePet]

if you read the discussion, you'll see that the 3 starter list is pretty much out, 5 starters is likely, some say 7, and the current topic is what 5 starters we should choose.

No standard rules have been decided on, so for now do what you like.

Ahh, well my personal vote is Dreamland as CP (i play Peach, I know how it goes lol) and FD as Starter (not because i like it, but because it's 9/10 what people who borderline casual and competitive just Auto-Pilot to)

I always pick the same 2-3 stages; PS2/PS1, Smashville, and Battlefield. those seem to be the ideal starters.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I dont think "because casual's auto pilot to it" should ever count as a reason why a stage should be a starter...

 

[ChiePet]

I dont think "because casual's auto pilot to it" should ever count as a reason why a stage should be a starter...

-shrug-

if they dont learn the MU, let them pick it, I almost always Ban FD anyways.

 

[Narpas_sword]

So, i think we need to break the problem down further, instead of:

*post a list*
"not x stage"
"Why not?"
"Because reasons"

we should establish what our starter list should look like.

3/5/7 starters? (pretty sure 5 is the majority vote here)

What it should have in terms of types of stages: (Blastzone, Stagesize)?

Do we want all (Med,Med)?
Do we want some (Med,Med) , a (L,L) and a (S,S)
Do we keep as many 'moving' stages out as possible?

From what i can tell, most people are ok with BF/SV/PS2 as Starters.
The discussion is revolving around what to put in the other 2 slots if we go with 5.

If we decide what kind of stage we should have, rather than if a stage fits, we might be able to pick stages better.

Personally i think 5 (M,x) stages would be ideal. So all have Med Blastzones, then varying stage sizes.

 

[Player -0]

I think 5 starters would be ideal. There could be 7 but 5 would be faster for the tournament to run and less to think about. Kind of tired so can't think right now.

I'm sure there are better reasons lol.

 

[MonkUnit]

I know this sounds stupid, but I have a question about stage bans in a Best of 5.

Spoiler: Counterpicking process from OP

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.

Does this mean that the stages that stage bans carry over? So if P1 wins game 1 on BF, bans PS2 and FoD, then wins game 2, does this mean that the bans of PS2 and FoD are carried over and he/she can ban 2 more stages or do they not carry over and they would have to ban PS2 and FoD again?

 

[Narpas_sword]

i wouldn't think they carry over. but that's just me.

My reasoning is due to the likelihood of someone changing characters, the initially banned stages may not apply.

I think once stage list is decided we need to have a serious 6 page discussion on whether stage decision before character choice is still the right way to go about things.

 

[jtm94]

A stage list is looking incredibly hard to decide on.
Everyone merely posts we don't like X stage in this region we don't use it, but we love Y stage.
Next post says I hate Y we would never have that legal in my region.

I too asked about how bans work and if they stay through consecutive games in a set, but was never answered. If I win game 1 and ban X + Y, lose game 2, can I not pick X + Y or am I allowed to because I banned them? I rarely see this enforced in tournaments, but at the same venue I've had people use it against me. I don't like my bans hindering my own choices, that's not how it should work especially if they change character and all of a sudden I like that stage more.

CP should be CP. It's extremely handy to have characters that are extremely advantaged on extreme stages like Bowser for small stages so when they think they are taking your floaty to Warioware and you change your character to Bowser now they are disadvantaged for making the correct stage choice unless they have a character that benefits from that stage more.

 

[Narpas_sword]

^agree.

We've always played that you ban for the next match only, reban if it suits again next time.

Tomorrow ill take a look through the thread. instead of discussing each stage, we should propose some 5 stage starter lists (leave CP for later)

then make a poll on the starter list. we cant just let this topic fade into constant debate and never get anywhere.
Ideally we want a standard ruleset in place before PMDT release their next build, so they can chuck a 'tourney pack' in the addons.

 

[Rizner]

I would prefer bans stay against you as well, but as long as it's clearly stated I'm ok either way

 

[Strong Badam]

I don't really see the merit in allowing a player to counterpick to a stage they ban. If the idea is to allow them to pick that stage then change character to gain an advantage, then what's the problem with leaving it open and then switching if the opponent counterpicks you there?

 

[Narpas_sword]

Bans not carrying between games solves that.

You dont pick what you've struck for that round because it's not you picking.

 

[mimgrim]

Stage bans only last for one round, otherwise why do bans in each round in a bo5, and don't carry to the next round. Therefore during the next round either player can go to any of the stages banned last round unless banned again. This is common sense, no?

 

[Strong Badam]

Bans not carrying between games solves that.

You dont pick what you've struck for that round because it's not you picking.

This doesn't address my point at all. I see no value to allowing a player to counterpick a stage that they didn't want their opponent to counterpick them to.

Unrelated, I also advocate for the ability to update bans, like in a Bo5 set. Let's say I win game 1, ban FD/Lylat/YI:B. I then lose game 2, then win game 3. I should be able to update my bans with the newfound information I just acquired from game 2 and 3. But I should still not be able to counterpick to FD, Lylat, or YI:B game 3.

 

[mimgrim]

That makes absolutely zero sense though.

 

[DrinkingFood]

We should go with a list that favors one ban so we can avoid excessive complexities like this. Not that one ban solves that issue, but rather it makes it much simpler and less time consuming.
And also 1 ban means I can always take spacies to either GHZ or FD every set, so I can wiiiiinn moooore

 

[Strong Badam]

Changing it to 1 ban doesn't resolve any of the issues I've put forth.

That makes absolutely zero sense though.

Quite a convincing argument there bro. x_x

 

[mimgrim]

Stage bans only last for one round, otherwise why do bans in each round in a bo5, and don't carry to the next round. Therefore during the next round either player can go to any of the stages banned last round unless banned again. This is common sense, no?

Any other way is confusing and doesn't make sense.

Using the logic of "stage(s) you ban, you are unable to use for the rest of the set" opens up to the logic of "stage(s) banned in a round can no longer be used at all in a set" and defeats the purpose of CPing. It confuses new player, it confused me, it can even confused experienced players (and actually has happened before) and totally defeats the idea of how stage banning currently is, aka stage(s) banned in a round are only banned for the round and are reset for the next round and there shouldn't be any exception to that.

Explain to me why the logic of "stage(s) you ban, you are unable to use for the rest of the set" is actually smart and common sense rather then idiotic and senseless.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Changing it to 1 ban doesn't resolve any of the issues I've put forth.

Not that one ban solves that issue

I mean
Yeah
I know that

 

[Ripple]

The only reason I can see updating bans being a thing is because you lost twice therefore you should be able to ban twice.

However I don't think that banning for the set is somehow senseless or idiotic. Going into a match you know exactly what your characters' bad stages are. If you win, you should ban most of them almost regardless of who the opponent is playing

 

[mimgrim]

The only reason I can see updating bans being a thing is because you lost twice therefore you should be able to ban twice.

However I don't think that banning for the set is somehow senseless or idiotic. Going into a match you know exactly what your characters' bad stages are. If you win, you should ban most of them almost regardless of who the opponent is playing

I mean if stage(s) get banned for a set for both players it is fine and does make sense though can be argued to have other potential problems. But I fail to see the sense of "stages you ban in a round are banned for the rest of the set but only banned for your use". Sure you can argue it shouldn't matter that much because most people will ban the stages bad for their character but that still doesn't mean it makes sense. And it kinda hurts counter-picking characters to an extent. Like if a stage you banned for your main is good for your secondary, now you are barred from using a stage good for you secondary should you decide to switch and I know there are people out there who save switching their character as a last minuet thing.

 

[Foo]

@ Strong Badam There is some merit is allowing players to pick stages they banned previously, and I don't see any merit to actively banning it. It's much more intuitive that bans only last for a game, and it'd be really easy to forget which stages you banned.

But anyway, here's an example of how CPing to a stage you banned would work. Let's say I'm playing the zss vs mario matchup and I won game 1 handily. In that matchup, FD is probably the worst stage because it lets him camp a little harder and platforms REALLY help you combo mario, and maneuver around his stuff, so I ban it and idk, fod. Anyway, he then picks X stage and I stay zss, but he switches to fox. He wins game 2 and bans 2 stages that aren't FD. I could then pick FD and switch to roy to get a fairly good matchup. If he knew I had a pocket roy, the he'd have to choose whether the zss vs mario matchup that I did really well against him with had better odds of winning than roy vs fox on FD. (and lemme tell you, his better odds of winning would be fox on FD)

That's just one other example, but I'm sure there's more. Especially if you have a pocket character like bowser, and a main that hates yoshi's. (i.e. I know someone that mains samus with a pocket bowser.)