Nefarious B
Smash Champion
So this was brought up by Gheb in the MLG Discussion forum, I feel it's a good idea that deserves more discussion:
In the proposed new system, the first match would involve each player striking 5 stages from the list, with 1 left to play on. The players would then CP games 2 and 3.
The word fair is thrown around a lot with respect to stages and how characters interact with them. The idea of a fair stage is absurd; each stage merely benefits different characters, and this certainly applies to both the stages deemed counter picks and the ones deemed starters by our current rule sets.
The merit of this change, I feel, is that it removes the notion of any "fairness" associated with stages. By allowing all stages in the striking process, you will by definition come out with the most even or "fair" stage possible for that matchup out of the stage list, because it is the middle ground in between what both players want. The goal of a well made stage list should be to avoid giving any characters arbitrary advantages, but by limiting the first game to so called "neutrals", we are also limiting character inherent strengths that make them more flexible stagewise
Through this system we would remove the current striking/CP system that allows these notions of "fairness" associated with certain stages to arbitrarily buff certain characters, and instead allow the characters through striking to decide what is in fact the most even stage.
Thoughts?
The way things work right now if you had 11 legal stages for your tourney, we would have a certain number of starter stages, let's say 5, and 6 others for CP. The players would each strike two of the 5, leaving 1 left to start on. They would CP games 2 and 3.I think the best solution is to simply remove the distinction between "starter" stages and "CP" stages. Since stage striking already serves as a compromise solution to find the fairest stage in any given match-up (and since starter stages are often used to counterpick) you might as well strike the first stage out of the whole stage list.
In the proposed new system, the first match would involve each player striking 5 stages from the list, with 1 left to play on. The players would then CP games 2 and 3.
The word fair is thrown around a lot with respect to stages and how characters interact with them. The idea of a fair stage is absurd; each stage merely benefits different characters, and this certainly applies to both the stages deemed counter picks and the ones deemed starters by our current rule sets.
The merit of this change, I feel, is that it removes the notion of any "fairness" associated with stages. By allowing all stages in the striking process, you will by definition come out with the most even or "fair" stage possible for that matchup out of the stage list, because it is the middle ground in between what both players want. The goal of a well made stage list should be to avoid giving any characters arbitrary advantages, but by limiting the first game to so called "neutrals", we are also limiting character inherent strengths that make them more flexible stagewise
Through this system we would remove the current striking/CP system that allows these notions of "fairness" associated with certain stages to arbitrarily buff certain characters, and instead allow the characters through striking to decide what is in fact the most even stage.
Thoughts?