Proposed Standardized Ruleset

[Deleted member]

So I've been lurking in this thread for a little while without posting, where are we at now?

Is there just like no true agreement?

 

[Narpas_sword]

There isnt going to be true agreement.

At least not until PMDT just go with one rulset and make that an addon for the next release.
With a colour coded SS screen, striking rules and replacing the 'tournament mode' with a big ruleset sheet.

 

[SOJ]

There isnt going to be true agreement.

At least not until PMDT just go with one rulset and make that an addon for the next release.
With a colour coded SS screen, striking rules and replacing the 'tournament mode' with a big ruleset sheet.

That's not something we're interested in doing. While a universal stagelist is awesome, we'd still like to leave it up to TOs to decide. It would be released as an unofficial addon, but if we come up with something good I'll base the main SSS off it

 

[Narpas_sword]

Yea, i know it's not your guys thing, which i respect.

But you do have an influence on 'lazy' TOs, you know, the ones that just go 'bottom row starters, second CP'.
(/ TO's who have a fairly new group and dont want to have to explain stages to people/ know how to make their own stage screen).

Having the universal stagelist implemented into a build would be fantastic. even without all the 'Starter, Banned' labels.

 

[Player -0]

Speaking of which, is the stage preview on the stage selection ever going to go back to the paint effect? I don't really like the current slash thing. It doesn't look that good.

Edit - Also the text for the names and stuff.

 

[SOJ]

Speaking of which, is the stage preview on the stage selection ever going to go back to the paint effect? I don't really like the current slash thing. It doesn't look that good.

Edit - Also the text for the names and stuff.

You are the only person I've ever heard say this

 

[jtm94]

If Dreamland is too iconic to change then what are our options for large blast zoned stages that aren't as warping? Skyworld has decent blast zones.... but no one likes it. Lylat has moderately bigger blastzones than neutrals.... but no one likes it. Distant Planet has weirdness too the sides of stages and feels long still. Norfair is much better in my eyes, but is not large in terms of blast zones. What is the solution of in game stages? Do we tough out the extremity of Dreamland? Just customize it ourselves? Or just forgo having a large blastzone CP stage?

When I refer to CP being advantageous I mean for the loser of game. They are the one CPing and they should have slight advantage being deemed the lesser player after game. These are some of a few situations 1. The winner makes obvious bans and the loser picks the only decent stage left for their current character. The winner keeps their character feeling confident. The loser does not have an incredibly strong stage CP and the MU is the same. 2. The loser picks a stage that the winner was not considering banning because they plan to switch characters, but the winner changes to a character that does well on that stage. The loser is still left with a strong stage CP they are comfortable with, but the MU has changed.
(It is possible the winner could not change characters and give the loser the potential for the strongest CP, but this method is reliant on the winner primarily)

If we choose characters first here are some situations. 1. The winner decides to keep their character because they won. The loser is sticking it out feeling like it is winnable. Winner bans the 2 obvious choices and the loser is left with a weak stage CP and the MU is the same. 2. The winner decides to keep their character because they won. The loser changes characters because of bad MU. Winner bans the 2 obvious choices and the loser is left with a weak stage CP, but the MU is much more preferable.
(if the winner changes characters the outcome is the same. Loser can choose a better MU, but receive a weak stage CP. The winners actions do not grant or hinder the losers CP strength)

Looking at things like this and applying it to how tournaments are ran I have changed my mind YET AGAIN. I wasn't thinking of every scenario and my one incident was only coincidentally beneficial to me. I have had more sets under the same ruleset where winning game 1 has given me the strategic edge in the CP process by allowing me to change to a character my opponent wasn't expecting giving myself(the winner) an advantage.

This goes against the way I originally thought of the CP process. The winner bested the opponent on a neutral. Shouldn't the loser now have the chance to have a slight strategic edge over the opponent? Choosing characters first not only simplifies the tournament experience by being less confusing and more fluid, but no matter whether the winner changes or stays the loser will always get the same opportunities. I have nothing else to say about the banning process at this time.

 

[Boiko]

After reading @ jtm94 and @ Narpas_sword 's posts I'm starting to agree that character selection should be first.

Thinking about it in a real perspective, I played Gallo recently. Game 3, he counterpicks Warioware. I assumed he was going to switch to Marth, but he didn't. He switched to Ike, and it was a nightmare. I was at a huuuuuge disadvantage, MU wise and stage wise. If we picked characters first, I would have been at a more reasonable disadvantage, because that stage would have definitely been off the table.

 

[DMG]

To be fair, people don't commonly complain about that kind of scenario much. General argument is "well you could have switched, or should have known/planned/etc". People more often complain when it's your situation, and suddenly you pull out Bowser or your own Ike or some WW monster.


Characters first also has problems. Doing character CP's before stages gives the winner a decent insight over what to ban, which is an influence we may not find desirable. If you have two varying characters (one likes 2 big stages, one likes 2 small stages), having to pick before stages means he knows which 2 stages to actually ban, out of the possible 4-5 you would have threatened. That leaves you with milder stage CP's generally and milder character picks, which should be a more favorable outcome for the winner if he doesn't have characters to switch with or sticks with the same char. That might be the hardest thing to sell for using that format.


About that other downside of promoting safer character picks from both sides: the winner doesn't want to lock in a niche character because that leaves him open to stage + character CP (not necessarily a bad thing, but overall character usage might consolidate towards safer choices), but it also forces the opponent to show his hand and remove the extra possibilities the loser normally could threaten to implement.


I don't mind the current system, but that may be bias because I have awesome characters with not a lot of stage or character problems.

 

[Scatz]

^Agreed. Character selection first actually hurts the more polar characters (Bowser for best example) because it's safer to play a character that's well balanced on stages than to rough things out with a character that can be easily CPed.

 

[Boiko]

I think it's just so hard to come to a real, fair, conclusion because there are so many contributing factors. In addition to that, there are extreme examples like Ike on Warioware, or Bowser on any small stage. I mean, game two I counter picked to PS2 and switched to Samus and won with a 3 stock, so it was basically the same effect.

In a game where stages play such an important role, it's next to impossible to pin down that perfect scenario that gives the CP'er a reasonable edge.

Unless everyone just plays Fox.

 

[mimgrim]

That is why you only do one stage ban instead of 3. :L

3 stage bans seriously defeat the purpose of the counter-pick phase and causes more complicated rules when they don't need to be.

Stop doing 3 bans or more and everything will be fine of following the natural order of the screens.

 

[Foo]

^Agreed. Character selection first actually hurts the more polar characters (Bowser for best example) because it's safer to play a character that's well balanced on stages than to rough things out with a character that can be easily CPed.

Why should we balance stage selection around the 3 or 4 bad characters that only work well on one or two legal stages?

To be fair, people don't commonly complain about that kind of scenario much. General argument is "well you could have switched, or should have known/planned/etc". People more often complain when it's your situation, and suddenly you pull out Bowser or your own Ike or some WW monster.


Characters first also has problems. Doing character CP's before stages gives the winner a decent insight over what to ban, which is an influence we may not find desirable. If you have two varying characters (one likes 2 big stages, one likes 2 small stages), having to pick before stages means he knows which 2 stages to actually ban, out of the possible 4-5 you would have threatened. That leaves you with milder stage CP's generally and milder character picks, which should be a more favorable outcome for the winner if he doesn't have characters to switch with or sticks with the same char. That might be the hardest thing to sell for using that format.


About that other downside of promoting safer character picks from both sides: the winner doesn't want to lock in a niche character because that leaves him open to stage + character CP (not necessarily a bad thing, but overall character usage might consolidate towards safer choices), but it also forces the opponent to show his hand and remove the extra possibilities the loser normally could threaten to implement.


I don't mind the current system, but that may be bias because I have awesome characters with not a lot of stage or character problems.

If the stage banner knows exactly what they are banning against, then we could much more easily balance that process. If CPing isn't strong enough, take away a ban or add a couple more CPs. If CPing is too strong, take away a few CPs or add a ban. The ability to switch characters after stage selection makes everything much more volatile.

 

[Boiko]

That is why you only do one stage ban instead of 3. :L

3 stage bans seriously defeat the purpose of the counter-pick phase and causes more complicated rules when they don't need to be.

Stop doing 3 bans or more and everything will be fine of following the natural order of the screens.

I'm an advocate of two. I'm gonna run through a quick scenario of my set with Emukiller and how, at the end of it, I was at a huge disadvantage.
Game 1 we play on Dreamland > He wins with Mewtwo
Game 2 we play on Final Dest. > He switches to Marth, I win with Ness
Game 3 we play on PS2 > He switches to Mewtwo, I win with Ness
Game 4 we play on Yoshi's Melee > He switches to Marth and wins

Now, we're down to game 5. I can't go back to FD or PS2, two of my better stages in the MUs. He had banned Smashville, GHZ, and FoD. I was basically left with the following stage choices:
Dreamland, Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Island, Battlefield, Warioware, Lylat Cruise.

He won convincingly on Dreamland. The set on Yoshi's Story was really close, and I was up quite a bit, but he was adapting a lot toward the end and won, so I wasn't about to go back there. Lylat, Warioware, and Yoshi's Island were all my bans, and I felt strongly about not going to any of them because, well, they're generally not good in the MU. So I was basically forced to go to Battlefield, where Marth and Mewtwo are at a bigger advantage against Ness. So due to DSR and three stage bans, I was forced to play at a disadvantage on my CP.

If there were only two stage bans, I could have gone to FoD, GHZ, or Smashville and perhaps done fine. Of course, the counter argument can be made, that he could have gone to one of the stages I had banned and won also, but ya know, it is what it is.

TL;DR, Two stage bans with 10 or more stages.

 

[DMG]

I think 2 is fine once you get to 11+ stages. Having just 1 ban for a jillion stages is very close to defeating the purpose of having bans at all: you ban WW so Bowser goes Yoshi, you ban Yoshi so Bowser goes WW. Out of Dreamland, PS2, Skyworld, and DP you get one ban? Sounds fantastic~ I know the argument is to not play characters who are sucky on most stages, but with character CP's factored in, there really aren't many "safe" characters. You're asking people to only play like the top 8-10 members of the cast.


2 bans is bueno. On the other side of the token though, I am more concerned about both diversity in stages, and some legal stages maybe warranting a closer look at. Bans aside, stages should be healthy and diverse on their own. It's more productive to create and use "good" stages, than use stage bans to mask underlying issues with a stage. I think it would be cool to see a smaller FD (either a rebalance or a completely new stage, in vein of Smashville but no plat and maybe dif blastzones). FoD without moving plats, a symmetrical Metal Cavern style stage, smaller PS2 but platforms closer to the edge, Melee Yoshi's with "average" blastzones, etc

 

[Strong Badam]

The issues you propose exist with a 1 stage ban system don't exist if your stagelist doesn't have obviously redundant stages. Remove Skyworld/Dreamland 64/Yoshi's Story and the lines become pretty blurred in that respect.

 

[mimgrim]

Well I'm an advocate of 9 stages FLSS style, anyways. Only one ban is needed there and it keeps things simple. 3 small stages, 3 medium stages, and 3 big stages. It gives an even amount of variety to all character who enjoy a certain size of stage over another and doesn't go overboard with stage number. The small and medium stages would be easy enough to figure out (YS, GHZ, WW, SV, PS2, BF) but it becomes trickier when getting to bigger stage because so many people seem to dislike big stages so much despite some characters sorely needing big stages (and that includes large blast-zones) and not including those kinds of stages is gimping those characters. Not all characters like the medium sized stages, you know.

 

[Boiko]

^I'm pretty sure PS2 is classified as big.

 

[DMG]

Why should we balance stage selection around the 3 or 4 bad characters that only work well on one or two legal stages?

My point wasn't whether we should or shouldn't, but that the effect of doing characters first naturally leads to safer character choices, which could mean less character diversity in tourneys. It may be a good thing to force the winner to use a safer character choice, but it can also force the loser to use a safer character since it's less likely he will obtain as good of a CP in that format. Just something for people to consider.

The issues you propose exist with a 1 stage ban system don't exist if your stagelist doesn't have obviously redundant stages. Remove Skyworld/Dreamland 64/Yoshi's Story and the lines become pretty blurred in that respect.

If the stage list is removed to where there's only 1-2 primary strong small CP, and only 1-2 primary strong large CP, then yes that looks to be the case. Bigger stages is where it gets tricky, because they don't have to necessarily carry the same exact platforms, features, etc to give similar advantages. Without Dreamland or Skyworld, stuff like FD/PS2/DP/Norfair can give someone a similar advantage (probably a non-floaty like CF). Although I guess you could classify PS2 and DP redundant and remove DP?

Big stages throw a wrench into the stage list in general I guess though. Always more problems or potential for problems to occur

 

[TheGravyTrain]

PS2 is big with low ceiling, so it usually doesn't benefit floaties (who are normally the people that like big stages). I think that's why it is perceived as a medium stage.

 

[Strong Badam]

@ DMG : Was it not obvious that if we were removing Skyworld we would also remove Norfair?

 

[DMG]

@ DMG : Was it not obvious that if we were removing Skyworld we would also remove Norfair?

No?
???????

 

[Rizner]

@ DMG : Was it not obvious that if we were removing Skyworld we would also remove Norfair?

Also unsure why this would happen. I don't see the connection here

 

[Narpas_sword]

^I'm pretty sure PS2 is classified as big.

Stage(platform, blastZoneX, blastzoneY)

Ps2 (Large,Med, Low)

 

[DMG]

Left and Right blastzones for PS2 are some of the largest. I went to Joe's stage checker with the 15 stages, and the only thing wider was Dreamland.

The size of PS2's main platform makes the blastzones seem not as large, but even when you calculate the distance between one end of the stage to the blastzone, it's above average. The ceiling is definitely the only thing remotely keeping people from calling it "big"

 

[Narpas_sword]

having to pick before stages means he knows which 2 stages to actually ban, out of the possible 4-5 you would have threatened. .

This is assuming you know all of the characters your opponent can play, which shouldn't be something that smashers need to know.

if you strike stages before you pick characters, you can essentially do nothing helpful and just strike to a stage that benefits their better character. you don't even know if they're playing their main first round.

Striking stages first can make the whole process redundant.
Striking can take around 2 min.
Making a 2 min process mean nothing once you go back to the CSS is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

There isn't a decided upon stage-list OR how many bans would suit.
But if you do CSS before SSS, you can probably go with 2 strikes, and 12 stages.

The purpose is to strike REALLY bad stages for your match-up, essentially making the counter-pick not quite as volatile.
And yes, that includes taking Bowser away from YS/WW as much as it includes taking samus away from DL64/PS2.

Since the loser gets their character pick after the winner, the winner should have something to mitigate a counter-character/counter-stage combination pick.

.......................................

These are the things that need to happen once a first match (which has attempted to find a most equal stage) is over.

Both player need to have to opportunity to change characters.
One player needs to select a stage.

The idea is to give the loser of the previous match a bit of a kick-start going into the next match.
Since both players need the opportunity to change a character, (we aren't preventing changes, that's dumb) we make the winner chose first, so the loser gets an advantage in seeing the winners character and then deciding if they need to change or stay.

We also have to decide which stage to play on. Again we're giving the loser a kick-start, so giving them the stage choice is the go to.
But in order to prevent the loser gaining too much of an advantage, we allow the winner to strike some stages first.

All of that has to happen.

Now the question is what ORDER do we do it in?

Well, the screen are in Character, Stage order. So that's an obvious choice.
But melee does stage character. for who knows what reason. (seriously, why did this come about?) And vets are used to this.

Both sequences someone can come up with a '1%' weird situation where it "doesn't work".
This situation is a bit silly to base a rule-set on, lets be honest.

Character>Stage:

Follows the menus.
is simple, new players can understand it easier.
Follows the same order as the first match (this is a big one to me, we don't find out starter stage then pick our characters, why do we do the counter pick in reverse?)
Doesn't allow for the Stage selection to be in the winners favour by swapping out a character.
Is faster (no backtracking through menus, people accidentally starting, forgetting characters have to be chosen)

Stage->Character:

Vets are used to it/ some vets hate change.
Allows some players to use their secondary when their main characters stages are struck. (reversing a cp essentially)
What else?

Trying not to strawman, i'm asking for help building a bigger pros list for each.

......................................

I think we have to forget melee rules exist for now (don't worry, they'll still exist after we're done here) and pretend that this is the first game we are playing competitively.

The scene is new with new players joining all the time. We need a rule-set that is easy to follow, doesn't need too much explaining and is fast, so we can get through games.

......................................

To add a new question:

If a character is so dependent on a certain stage (lets say Bowser again, because hes been brought up) is that not a problem for the tier list discussion and character design?

 

[TreK]

It seems to me that the amount of bans and the order of picking characters/picking stages have an effect that is proportional to how balanced the cast is.

If I was playing a game where I can expect matchups to be 6-4 at worse like once in a blue moon, I probably wouldn't care how many bans I have or if I have to announce my character first.

What I'm getting at is that hopefully these questions will become more and more irrelevant with each PM update. You guys can try to find the objectively ultimate bestest answer but I think it is mostly a waste of time. We can probably go with gut feeling and be fine, tbh.

 

[jtm94]

I apologize I did miss a crucial piece of information. All of my rambling was done taking a 2 ban 10ish stage system into account. I would only do 3 ban if we were still doing willy nilly OG 14 stage lists. Under a 2 ban system you can ban the most undesirable of small stages. Yoshi's and Warioware, then the opponent is left with say... GHZ as Bowser. I didn't mean to imply that the CP factor was inherently bad for the loser, it is always there and CONSTANT when picking characters before stages. So with that in mind having Bowser and getting GHZ isn't that bad if you think about it. If you just make the stage list so there are only 2 small stages like Warioware and GHZ... then a 2 ban system would cover all small stages and be redundant to the CP process requiring 1 ban instead to achieve the same results.

If we decide to go 1 ban and characters first I would remove Yoshi's Island completely. I would also remove Dreamland completely. This will leave us with:
Starters:
GHZ, PS2, Smashville, Battlefield, FoD
Counterpicks:
Yoshi's Brawl, Warioware, FD, Norfair(if we remove Dreamland, look further to find my input)

9 stages total. 1 ban removes either of the small stages, but there are still 3 stages that leave a lot of movement on being PS2, FD and Norfair. This to me is more important because under this list no stage has obscenely large blast zones meaning stage layout becomes a large factor with such unique stages. It leads me to remove Norfair entirely under a 1 ban system leaving 8 stages 5 being starters. I am a fan or large stage lists, but it seems we will never reach consensus on ulterior stages.

If we go 2 ban I would encourage adding something different like either Metal Cavern or Norfair to shake things up, but that's just me wanting salt on my food instead of something practical. I am incredibly irked because under this stage list the only stages with a higher ceiling than Battlefield are FoD and GHZ.. The PMDT rigged stages to weaken Fox, but forgot to actually include stages that had a higher ceiling.. and there is nothing to fill the hole that Dreamland leaves without being stupid.

 

[Player -0]

The PMDT rigged stages to weaken Fox

If you're referring to the stage ceiling adjustment in ~3.0 then that was because the ceilings were lower than the typical proportions of stage to blastzone and stuff.

That's what I heard anyway.

 

[DrinkingFood]

The ceilings were actually lower on average than Melee's. It wasn't a nerf to fox raising them, it was a buff to him keeping them lowered, so they didn't. There were also lots of other characters like lucas m2 snake etc who kill off the top early, I think it's healthy the game doesn't revolve around vertical kills when they detract from edgeplay heavily

 

[Deleted member]

@Umbreon could you please update the OP with what we've been currently discussing? I don't think 3 starters is on the table anymore.

i'll get to it tomorrow, it's a lot of information to sort. but tl;dr here's where i think we're at right now-

1. we want at least 10 stages, of which 5 are starters. we also need a good large stage for striking. as long as the development team is aware of the issue, i think it's safe to assume we'll get one and to move forward for now. dreamland64 is jank, and imo choosing to not alter it is the same as everyone simply choosing to not play it, but i'll respect where you're coming from on it.
2. atm it looks like ghz ps2 bf sv filler for striking and yi fd fod ww dp for counterpick choices. lylat is up for debate, as is norfair. frankly i oppose both and i think most other people do too. im open to being disproven on that last part
3. we've agreed that bans should happen for every match in the set. i think thats basically a done deal
4. i think we all also agree that you cant cp to a stage that you banned. also a done deal
5. the dev team has a good opportunity to put a standardized rule set into the game, but i see you guys would rather leave it on the TO. while its certainly more organic for the community to instate their own standardized rule set, thats basically going to happen with this thread and may find its way into the game anyway. at the very least, it would certainly make it easier on the player base to simply have it built into the game. we already do this with 4 stock, no items, 8 minute timer, team attack on, so im not sure that implementing a rule set changes a whole lot and imo pretty much finishes the job in that regard. but perhaps that conversation can wait for another day

for the record, i pretty much agree that 5 starters is better than 3, but that also assumes that we have 5 reasonable starters. im going to move forward under the assumption that we will get something to meet that issue. in the event that we dont end up with a reasonable large stage, going back to 3 is probably correct.

 

[Narpas_sword]

i'll get to it tomorrow, it's a lot of information to sort. but tl;dr here's where i think we're at right now-

3. we've agreed that bans should happen for every match in the set. i think thats basically a done deal
4. i think we all also agree that you cant cp to a stage that you banned. also a done deal

Have we?

I still don't think it makes sense to ban for a set, forcing people to remember what was banned, and messing stages up when it's VERY possible people will change characters in a game full of viable characters.

Striking for a game instead of a set removes the need to specify 4.

Striking for Set:
Prevents player changing back to a character that would have been good on the stage?
Help me out here for positives.

Striking for Game:
Easy for newcomers
Follows how the menu works (nothing is struck on the SSS when you go to it)
No Remembering what has been struck + what has been won on.
No running out of stages in longer sets.
No confusing rule about playhing on what you struck
most importantly: Follows the same rules as the first match. (we don't keep the starter strikes banned, do we?)


Not sure why the current rules are so bent on doing something different for the subsequent games in a set from what happens in the initial.


...................................................

Not sure why you're still talking about 'an extra stage for the future' too.?
We need rules for this stage set, not what may happen.
If DL64 is too large for starter (yes, i agree, it is) then put something else in.

Plenty of people were happy with FoD as a starter.

GHZ, FoD, BF, SV, PS2

that's 5 medium Blastzone starters, with varying stage widths, and platform layouts.

 

[mimgrim]

I'm honestly surprised no one thinks of Yoshi's Island, not to be confused with Marth's Fox's Yoshi's Story, when starters get discussed. :L

 

[Narpas_sword]

i thought of it as a starter, then after hearing "FoD too jank" dismissed it as a starter.

If people think FoD is too Jank, they're going to have a problem with YI.
YI should Definitely be a CP though.

 

[Foo]

i thought of it as a starter, then after hearing "FoD too jank" dismissed it as a starter.

If people think FoD is too Jank, they're going to have a problem with YI.
YI should Definitely be a CP though.

I have much more of a problem with FoD, but it's not really from a fairness standpoint. I just hate it. I think Yoshi's Island is completely fine, but agree that it should be a CP because of stage walls, stage curves and the big middle platform. I know there's no such thing as a totally neutral stage, but yoshi's will always be fairly far from neutral one way or the other.

 

[jtm94]

I don't know if people know this or not, but there are codes to add an almost unlimited number of stages and we could easily add in a stage that the community agrees upon. Not like there aren't several stages that could be removed from the game entirely without a second thought.

I think Yoshi's Island could fill the gap in neutral seeing as we have nothing else to put there. I can understand preferring Yoshi's Island over FoD as a neutral. Also FoD is kind of redundant being the same blastzones as GHZ, give or take a tad.

 

[Boiko]

Spoiler

Have we?

I still don't think it makes sense to ban for a set, forcing people to remember what was banned, and messing stages up when it's VERY possible people will change characters in a game full of viable characters.

Striking for a game instead of a set removes the need to specify 4.

Striking for Set:
Prevents player changing back to a character that would have been good on the stage?
Help me out here for positives.

Striking for Game:
Easy for newcomers
Follows how the menu works (nothing is struck on the SSS when you go to it)
No Remembering what has been struck + what has been won on.
No running out of stages in longer sets.
No confusing rule about playhing on what you struck
most importantly: Follows the same rules as the first match. (we don't keep the starter strikes banned, do we?)


Not sure why the current rules are so bent on doing something different for the subsequent games in a set from what happens in the initial.


...................................................

Not sure why you're still talking about 'an extra stage for the future' too.?
We need rules for this stage set, not what may happen.
If DL64 is too large for starter (yes, i agree, it is) then put something else in.

Plenty of people were happy with FoD as a starter.

GHZ, FoD, BF, SV, PS2

that's 5 medium Blastzone starters, with varying stage widths, and platform layouts.

I agree with this almost 100 percent.

The biggest thing not being able to go to stages that you banned. That doesn't make any sense. If I banned a stage, and then they switch their character, or I switch my character, or even both, where one of the stages I banned now benefits me, why should I not be able to go there?

In a game where there are like, 800 different character match ups, stages become pretty relevant.

 

[Strong Badam]

Yeah I think the question on everyone's mind right now is the magical 5th starter. It's like 95+% agreed on that it should be GHZ/PS2/BF/SV + ??? for the 5-starter system. Most of the CP's are fair enough CPs, but would get struck in 99%+ of striking procedures for jank/matchup polarization, whereas the aforementioned 4 starters can reasonably be expected to be struck to in a fair amount of matchups. Probably the stage that could be added to the starter list and be seen the most game 1 is FoD, but I think the stage balance would be skewed toward smaller stages in that case.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I don't know if people know this or not, but there are codes to add an almost unlimited number of stages and we could easily add in a stage that the community agrees upon. Not like there aren't several stages that could be removed from the game entirely without a second thought.

Unfortunately those codes break random select and striking.

 

[Rizner]

I think yi should stay counter because shy guys actually change a lot for some characters (although understand that argument can be made to keep it a starter).

I also prefer fod to ghz as a starter

From Umbrion's latest list, I'd add norfair as the bubble cp stage, move fod to starter