Random Stage Method. Should we change it?

[Firestorm88]

So as everyone around here probably knows, currently we select the first stage of any given set in a tournament by using the "Random" function in the game and letting it choose one of six or seven "neutral" stages. This is done after choosing the character.

However, is this the best way? A long time ago, AlphaZealot made a topic discussing the possibility of custom stages in tournaments. This post by usea in that topic really got me thinking:

One thing that the custom stage builder made me hopeful for was a static first stage in tournaments. I believe that tournaments would be much better off if the first stage of every set was always the same thing. Often times a set goes one way or the other depending on what came up as the random stage. If everybody went into the tournament knowing what the first stage would be, they could prepare and there would be no random element to it.

I think that the opening stage would be a great place for custom stages.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=3922331&postcount=32

I still disagree with custom stages being used, but like I said back then, why not go with a regular stage? Smashville?

Currently, we can have any of six to eight stages in the first set. In Brawl, it looks like there's a high chance it'll be some of the following stages: Smashville, Final Destination, Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, Lylat Cruise, Pokemon Stadium 1, Halberd, and Delfino Plaza. I have no Backroom access so I have no idea how stage talks are going.

Although all of them could fall under the category of neutral, almost all of them have some very specific advantages that they grant certain characters. Melee's neutral stages exemplified this best.

You might remember a lot of people actually using neutral stages to counter-pick, something that seems crazy at first thought. Why would you pick a stage that's supposedly neutral to give yourself an advantage? Because they aren't neutral! We all knew they weren't neutral, but there really wasn't one neutral stage in that game. Falco's lasers on Final Destination; Marth's tipper on Battlefield; Peach's recovery on Dreamland 64. Fox's u-smash on Yoshi's Island...

Another thing Melee demonstrated is that the neutral stages won't be lost in tournaments. People WILL counterpick them because they DO offer an advantage.

In Smash, we all know stage plays a huge role in deciding the outcome of a match. Knowing the stage before picking your character is something that I think every game in the set should allow, not just the second two.

Evo is already going with a standard "Smashville for first match" ruleset. I think that unlike Evo, we shouldn't have a childish "Our way is always the best" mindset and look into it as well. We should at least explore this option.

Ok, since my thoughts came out more jumbled than I thought they would:

tldr: We should move from selecting randomly from a set of stages to making Smashville the first stage of every set

Pros
- You always know the stage before picking character
- No advantage to one character just because they got lucky (ie. Marth in Melee gets Battlefield first round)

Cons
- Increases "Final Destination Only" (or Smashville only) stigma of competitive Smash
- Potentially less variety

For cons, I don't think there's any way to shake that FD thing considering FD wasn't exactly the only stage we played in Melee anyway. And I think enough people will be counterpicking with the other neutrals to make the second point a non-issue.

What I'm most interested in hearing is what others think of moving from the random pick to a Smashville standard. I truly do believe Smashville is the most neutral stage in the series. I see no character with an advantage on this map, mostly due to the moving platform and edges.

 

[OldManTellah]

Personally I don't think it's worth it even if they aren't neutral because I hold the variety at a higher value.

 

[Firestorm88]

I don't think it would as people would still be using those stages to counter-pick.

Is there really only one person with an opinion on this? Was my post not focused enough?

 

[Kirin]

I could see this happening. Smashville is indeed the most neutral stage in Brawl I believe. There are no janky edges like Final Destination and the moving edges of Lylat that gimp recovery, there are not so many platforms that it might gimp a character, such as Battlefield, there is at least ONE platform to help melee characters get in close with another option other than trying to get through projectiles on the ground, etc etc.

Now the one thing I'm thinking about... who wants to hear the Smashville music over and over and over at tournaments? ><

 

[Firestorm88]

Go KK Rider is like the most epic music in the game.

 

[Kirin]

Some of the Smashville songs are great. Others... not so much.

 

[Yuna]

No stage is 100% fair. This is why we have more than 1 stage on Random. Together, as a whole, they create fairness.

X character may suck on X-stage on Random but excel on Y-stage while being pretty neutral on A, B, C stages. Another will be neutral on all 5. Some will suck on all of them, but only because they suck as characters.

There is no one stage where every single character in the game stands an equal chance of winning if you ignore the natural differences in metagame that would be almost constant no matter what stage is played. But if 5 stages are on random, fairness can be created.

 

[Tom]

In agreement with Yuna, I believe that the system we use right now is better. A lot of Brawl tournaments allow each player (Singles) or team (Doubles) to ban 2 stages, so if you don't like one of the neutrals (Final Destination, etc.), you can ban it and another. As more tournaments are played and broken tactics become known, we will ban the increasingly ridiculous or overpowered stages and your personal stage bans can go towards neutral or legit counterpick stages that you just don't like.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I don't want to give too much away, but the SBR is currently working on a system different from the old method in order to create the most neutral first match possible.

 

[RedPeppers]

Sounds sweet Panda! I kinda like this idea; however, what about just letting the two opponents agree on a stage for the first match?

 

[Yuna]

Sounds sweet Panda! I kinda like this idea; however, what about just letting the two opponents agree on a stage for the first match?

Because sometimes people can't agree on one?

 

[Rampage]

Go KK Rider is like the most epic music in the game.

Smashville music is garbage

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Sounds sweet Panda! I kinda like this idea; however, what about just letting the two opponents agree on a stage for the first match?

That has always been, and will always be, an option. If you agree, you could even play on banned stages. When I was in a local tournament, my friend and I ended up playing each other, so we decided to play on Summit for the first match. It was hilarious.

 

[Meta_Master]

I could see this happening. Smashville is indeed the most neutral stage in Brawl I believe. There are no janky edges like Final Destination and the moving edges of Lylat that gimp recovery, there are not so many platforms that it might gimp a character, such as Battlefield, there is at least ONE platform to help melee characters get in close with another option other than trying to get through projectiles on the ground, etc etc.

Now the one thing I'm thinking about... who wants to hear the Smashville music over and over and over at tournaments? ><

It may not have the best music, but like you said, its the most nuetral stage right? So, why would it matter if it had bad music (besides KK rider).

 

[pockyD]

odd stage in

try it, love it

 

[Firestorm88]

No stage is 100% fair. This is why we have more than 1 stage on Random. Together, as a whole, they create fairness.

X character may suck on X-stage on Random but excel on Y-stage while being pretty neutral on A, B, C stages. Another will be neutral on all 5. Some will suck on all of them, but only because they suck as characters.

There is no one stage where every single character in the game stands an equal chance of winning if you ignore the natural differences in metagame that would be almost constant no matter what stage is played. But if 5 stages are on random, fairness can be created.

I think a better argument here would be proving why Smashville isn't fair. It doesn't matter if the other stages are fair or not as long as Smashville is. And although you and another poster have said no stage is fair, I'm still not understanding why Smashville isn't fair.

SamuraiPanda, does it have to do with a strike-out system where both players alternate between striking out neutral stages until one is left? Or is saying that too much as well?

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Blast, Pocky, why must you spoil the surprise? Yeah, its already been posted in various threads/sites (like SRK of all places) that the SBR is actually shifting to the stage strikeout system. But certain parts of it will probably end up being different than whats been done before.

 

[Firestorm88]

Something tells me with that method we'll probably see a lot of Smashville starts. After all, both players will strike out stages which give their character a disadvantage or their opponent an advantage. In the end, I think Yoshi's Island and Smashville will be the odd ones out...

Would this be done before or after character selection?

 

[hova]

i always liked the strike a neutral from random and ban a counterpick rule.

making sure that you don't get a neutral that you hate for the first match, but leaving it open for counterpick later and at the same time allowing you to completely ban a horrid stage

striking a neutral from random is also great if you play multiple characters, because you may hate the stage for your main, but it may be perfect for a secondary that you counterpick with