Removing Distinction Between CP and Starter Stages

[PK-ow!]

Every stage affects a matchup.

A matchup doesn't exist except on a stage.


Okay, then perhaps you mean 'is an outlier in the plot of all MU ratios of a given pair of characters, across all stages.'
EDIT

Spoiler

(stages that aren't obviously anti-competitive / random. Ones that we discount outright. We're agreeing for the sake of this argument that there are certain stages which are banned and they're a given.)

I think this is what that phrase means.


But even granting that, this remark

The first game should not be played on what either character would choose as their counterpick. The first game should be as neutral as possible, not favoring either character over the other. This doesn't mean that it should necessarily make the match-up even, it shouldn't hinder the natural advantage that one character might have over the other. A system with only three starters will not work well if characters like Diddy or ICs are involved.

does have a confusing point in it. What is the meaning of 'not favoring one character over the other', logically distinct from (<==> not logically equivalent to) being an even matchup?
You use a term 'natural advantage', but to that I must take the initiative and object outright, because "no matchup exists except on a stage." Textbook case can be Falco. Falco can be really strong... but he really hates stages with anything that could possibly obstruct anything (except platforms high enough to clog approaches over his laser), suddenly having to work through the very structure of his design which makes him so sleek and solid in his optimal conditions.
How can you defend any reality to a 'natural advantage' of him on a character, if it doesn't hold on some stages? Given that the legitimacy of stages (at least relative to each other), is the point under contention, you aren't allowed to make reference to them to back the point, unless you can be sure you're avoiding circular reasoning.


Say some stage is 40-60 for a given character pairing. Let's say even that MUs for that pairing are a nice, unimodal distribution which peaks at 40-60, and has extremes at 60-40 and 25-75. (I mean, if you tallied all MUs for the pairing, in the sense at the start of this post.)
I would not so hastily draw any conclusion even from this nice statistical arrangement, but perhaps you have something in mind. It might help me understand your framework.


EDIT: I do agree completely that you've hit on a kernel of Truth, and in a very elegant form, with your "The first game should not be played on what either character would choose as their counterpick." This seems a principle good enough to design the ruleset around to maintain as true.

 

[Silver Swordsman]

Against what characters? IC on BF isn't a CP against snake wario marth Zelda metaknight diddy kong ROB wolf peach Lucario pit g@w ZSS ness ike yoshi or any other character that performs well on BF. A CP would be DK on Japes or D3 on halberd or MK or Delfino. Those are CP's being able to perform better than a character on another stage than someone doesn't instantly make it a CP.

I... never said IC counterpicked others with BF. First game they can always strike BF and the game will be played either on FD or Smashville depending on which one you strike. Those are the stages that an IC player will always go to if they lose a game - it is their favored counterpick. The first game should never be played on the best stage for either of the characters. All of the characters who like simple, flat stages get to play on one of their best stages when there's only three starter stages. If you add more starters to the list (or just remove the distinction and treat every legal stage as a starter like the OP suggested) then you prevent everyone from playing on their best stage in the first game. What's the problem with that?

EDIT:
PK-ow, when I said 'natural advantage' I was thinking of cases like Marth vs Sheik where Marth still has an advantage. Obviously it's not always that simple. A better way to describe it would be the average match-up ratio among all the legal stages. I agree this is a bit objective, so I'll leave it at that. My main point is that we should not be developing our rules to interfere with the matches and water down an advantage that some characters would have otherwise. If there are, say, 11 legal stages, and a given character is exceptional in four of them, they shouldn't have an advantage over a character who is equally exceptional in six of those stages.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Nobody ever starts games one FD against ICs >__>

Even Snakes avoid that one.


Oh and Ussi,

It's just that the Neutrals are where Tink CPs. He doesn't need a nerf.

 

[Ussi]

Nobody ever starts games one FD against ICs >__>

Even Snakes avoid that one.


Oh and Ussi,

It's just that the Neutrals are where Tink CPs. He doesn't need a nerf.

Just because Tink does best on starters, doesn't mean he is bad on CPs now does it? Sure against MK a lot of CPs are a bad choice, but against the rest of the cast i don't see TL doing bad on all CPs

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I... never said IC counterpicked others with BF. First game they can always strike BF and the game will be played either on FD or Smashville depending on which one you strike. Those are the stages that an IC player will always go to if they lose a game - it is their favored counterpick. The first game should never be played on the best stage for either of the characters. All of the characters who like simple, flat stages get to play on one of their best stages when there's only three starter stages. If you add more starters to the list (or just remove the distinction and treat every legal stage as a starter like the OP suggested) then you prevent everyone from playing on their best stage in the first game. What's the problem with that?

EDIT:
PK-ow, when I said 'natural advantage' I was thinking of cases like Marth vs Sheik where Marth still has an advantage. Obviously it's not always that simple. A better way to describe it would be the average match-up ratio among all the legal stages. I agree this is a bit objective, so I'll leave it at that. My main point is that we should not be developing our rules to interfere with the matches and water down an advantage that some characters would have otherwise. If there are, say, 11 legal stages, and a given character is exceptional in four of them, they shouldn't have an advantage over a character who is equally exceptional in six of those stages.

Final D is hands down the IC's best stage. If they can play all their sets on FD they will. FD is the first stage you strike against them and the first stage you ban against them. They learn to play on other stages because they can't play on their preferred neutral or CP. They still don't get an advantage on SV it's just the closest thing to Final D.

 

[Zankoku]

When the top 3 stages that ICs go to, ignoring bans and strikes, are FD, SV, and BF, and your first round is a choice between FD, SV, and BF, that is an indication of a problem.

 

[Nefarious B]

Exactly, if you have all the legal stages (starters and CPs) included in the striking for match one, the two players will show through their strikes which stage they feel is the most neutral of those stages. This is how it works already with the 3 starter stage ruleset. The only difference here is that the proposed rule change would not take into account biases of what makes a stage an acceptable starter, and by removing these biases we come to a much more even result for the neutral first match that does not favor either character.

 

[Flayl]

"More even result"

Yeah I'm done with this thread.

 

[Tesh]

Does anyone opposed to this idea see any flaws in it besides:
-MK would be too good.
-Diddy and ICs would be too bad.
-Flat empty stages CANT be unfair, and complex moving stages with hazards CANT be fair.

AlmostLegendary, your argument against this idea seems almost identical to the argument for it, I'm surprised you don't see it the other way.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

There's no perfect way. Isn't it acceptable to say that if you can't practice on a stage enough and make it work, that's your fault? Isn't that why this is a competitive, difficult scene? It seems to me that no matter what, a character is going to run into hardships. So let's just pick what works fastest, easiest and works for most characters. I think that's the only solution.

 

[sandwhale]

Can someone please give the 11 stages list and also give an example of a striking of this list by opponents with two different characters and show a fair result?

There's been enough theoretical arguing now let's look at some concrete stuff.

 

[ngfc_0]

This rules without MK would be awesome

---

I have two ideas that seemed reasonable to me
first: Maintaining the same rule set as before with starters and counterpicks.
In the counterpicking phase the winner bans 2 stages instead of one.
probably someone had this idea before and failed -.-

second: Without the distinction between counterpicks and starters.
Before a set each of the two players ban 1 stage and pick a counterpick to be played in the second (and third) game. The 4 stages cant be played in the first game and they begin the striking procedure until one stage is left. In the second (and third) game they play in the loser's counterpick with character counterpicking if they want.
This way they won't play in their counterpick in the first game (or atleast in the best one).

 

[Ussi]

Does anyone opposed to this idea see any flaws in it besides:
-MK would be too good.
-Diddy and ICs would be too bad.
-Flat empty stages CANT be unfair, and complex moving stages with hazards CANT be fair.

AlmostLegendary, your argument against this idea seems almost identical to the argument for it, I'm surprised you don't see it the other way.

MK is not too good, stop being ignorant. If you use MLG's 15 stages (7 strikes for you): He has 4 stages he's notorious for: RC, norfair, delfino, and brinstar. Strike frigate (unless you aren't bad there) and 2 (3) others of your choice. You will always be at a disadvantage cause of the character but the remaining stages aren't promoting that.

Diddy is not so reliant on a flat stage, he CAN fight on other stages.

 

[Nefarious B]

"More even result"

Yeah I'm done with this thread.

I suppose that's bad wording, I don't mean evening out the results as much as getting the most even stage for the matchup. As in neither will be playing on their favored or worst stage, but rather in the middle of their preferences

 

[cemo]

7 starters would be pretty good guys how about we do that instead of this 3 or 15 garbage you guys are talking about.

 

[etecoon]

Aaannndddd....Tink becomes unviable.

toon link is viable? LOL

 

[PK-ow!]

EDIT:
PK-ow, when I said 'natural advantage' I was thinking of cases like Marth vs Sheik where Marth still has an advantage. Obviously it's not always that simple. A better way to describe it would be the average match-up ratio among all the legal stages. I agree this is a bit objective, so I'll leave it at that. My main point is that we should not be developing our rules to interfere with the matches and water down an advantage that some characters would have otherwise. If there are, say, 11 legal stages, and a given character is exceptional in four of them, they shouldn't have an advantage over a character who is equally exceptional in six of those stages.

I'm not so sure a number like that should matter. This seems to speak to a principle of an ideal tournament world, where we play every legal stage. Aside from impracticality, I think we can test skill better than that.

What should matter is what the two players know about the matchup, their own skill level, each other's skill level, and rewarding whichever one has more knowledge. ('Knowledge' in a sense that would include skill, and experience, and used in the same way for the rest of this post)

In a sentence, I should be rewarded for what stages I win on and would win on, and, having limited and partial control of what stage we play on, and thus having a chance to ruin myself, rewarded for avoiding such self-ruin and exemplifying (bringing to an experiment i.e. a game) any crucial gaps between the knowledge levels of me and my opponent.*


The limitations of not going on every stage, allows for a sharper test.
Sadly, the only thing about "the right set procedure (for this game)" that's clear is that stage should be chosen after character, since that's what the game does. (And loser's counterpick, as that's an important universal principle very easily demonstrated.)


*Just as an example, for noticing that my opponent thinks he would have an advantage in X situation, I should be rewarded for getting a game to be played in X conditions, and winning (whether or not I think he is wrong or right; it's an impressive or critical point to demonstrate either way, isn't it?)


*~*~*~

And, I'm sorry, now I've got to ask about two things you said.

One, the very thing I'm objecting to is "would have otherwise." There isn't a "would have otherwise" except in a completely reversible sense, unless you're talking about the conservative principle of rule-making in general ("Impose as little extra as possible.") You're right, of course, we shouldn't make rules that change the game. That's the accepted statement, which we're trying to figure out 'what do we need to do to uphold it for Brawl', given the non-workable set procedure the game itself hands us.
You seem to clarify this statement with that line about 4 and 6 stages, and my answer to that is as above.


The second thing is I've got to ask what you mean by 'objective'.
Objective is to me contrasted with subjective, meaning "having reality in itself, apart from any point of view." That part where you put that word doesn't make sense to me if you use it that way, or if it was a typo of 'subjective'.

 

[Tesh]

MK is not too good, stop being ignorant. If you use MLG's 15 stages (7 strikes for you): He has 4 stages he's notorious for: RC, norfair, delfino, and brinstar. Strike frigate (unless you aren't bad there) and 2 (3) others of your choice. You will always be at a disadvantage cause of the character but the remaining stages aren't promoting that.

Diddy is not so reliant on a flat stage, he CAN fight on other stages.

Are you agreeing with me?

I'm not being ignorant. I'm just asking if the people opposed to this idea have any reasons besides what I listed. This idea was brought up in a previous thread and some people stated that MK would be overpowering if you couldn't restrict him to stages like FD, Smashville, Yoshis Island etc. Its also been a grievance of some Diddy and IC mains when the stagelist makes playing Fd or Sv the first match impossible.

I don't think diddy is going to drop to triforce tier with this rule and I don't think MK will get banned with this rule. MK will seem better, because he IS better and he always was. Diddy, IC and any other character that loves FD/SV won't get to counterpick twice in a 3 game set. Obviously if these characters are that limited, they will drop, as they should.

 

[sunshade]

It has not been said yet however I think it is worthwhile to contemplate the removal of counter picking entirely if we were to institute full list stage striking for game 1.

If you come to the conclusion that X stage is the most neutral stage out of all potential stages allowed in the tournament why would we play on another stage? To reward people for losing? I find that a bit silly.

games two, three, and how ever many after that would all be on the same stage as game one due to that stage being the most fair to both party's involved. There is no reason to give an unearned advantage to one player and/or character for no reason.

If in the event a player wanted to switch characters I suppose they could then stage strike from the entire list again so that neither party is given a major advantage due to the stage.

If we dont have to bias a match-up lets not.

 

[Nefarious B]

Someone was asking how this would actually play out. Let's say the set is between a Diddy and an MK. Let's say the TO decides the stage list is the following (this is typical for my region):
SV
BF
FD
Lylat
Yoshis
PS1
Frigate
Brinstar
RC
Delfino
Halberd

Now the way it would work, is instead of striking between 3 or 5 stages, we include every one of the legal stages in the striking:

The way I would simulate it to would be something like:
MK strike FD
Diddy strike RC
MK strike SV
Diddy strike Brinstar
MK strike BF
Diddy strike Delfino
MK strike PS1
Diddy strike Halberd
MK strike Yoshis
Diddy strike Frigate

So match one would end up on Lylat, not a bad MK stage nor a bad Diddy stage by any means. I'm not sure if those decisions would be the ones a Diddy or MK main would actually make, but this is to demonstrate the idea that neither character would end up on a stage extremely favorable for them, which as nearly as possible accomplishes the goal of a neutral first match.

 

[Silver Swordsman]

The second thing is I've got to ask what you mean by 'objective'.
Objective is to me contrasted with subjective, meaning "having reality in itself, apart from any point of view." That part where you put that word doesn't make sense to me if you use it that way, or if it was a typo of 'subjective'.

You're correct, I did mean to say subjective.

I agree that the match-up, skill levels, and the knowledge that both players have is what should be important. As far as stages are concerned, though, I'm assuming that those factors are even, simply because there's no other way to decide how the stages should be settled. The stage that the first game starts on should not favor one character over the other. We both agree that the set should not be started on what either character would choose as a counterpick, at the very least. How do you believe the stages should be chosen?

Nefarious B, I'd like to point out that you didn't give the Diddy player his last strike. He would strike Frigate and the game would actually be played on Lyat.

 

[Ussi]

Are you agreeing with me?

I'm not being ignorant. I'm just asking if the people opposed to this idea have any reasons besides what I listed. This idea was brought up in a previous thread and some people stated that MK would be overpowering if you couldn't restrict him to stages like FD, Smashville, Yoshis Island etc. Its also been a grievance of some Diddy and IC mains when the stagelist makes playing Fd or Sv the first match impossible.

I don't think diddy is going to drop to triforce tier with this rule and I don't think MK will get banned with this rule. MK will seem better, because he IS better and he always was. Diddy, IC and any other character that loves FD/SV won't get to counterpick twice in a 3 game set. Obviously if these characters are that limited, they will drop, as they should.

oops my mistake, I was tired of seeing those reasons I just didn't read clearly.

 

[sandwhale]

@Nefarious B: I must admit that does look quite good. I mostly see this hurting the space animals (ironicaly because of lylat) but maybe someone more knowledgeable will show that others are hurt too.

My only real problem is that lylat will often be chosen as the starter between grounded and aerial characters and it's a pretty annoying stage. "Annoying" meaning you have to plan your moves according to to the tilting of the stage which you will say is part of learning a stage but it's something grounded/horizontal characters have a much harder time dealing with.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Someone was asking how this would actually play out. Let's say the set is between a Diddy and an MK. Let's say the TO decides the stage list is the following (this is typical for my region):
SV
BF
FD
Lylat
Yoshis
PS1
Frigate
Brinstar
RC
Delfino
Halberd

Now the way it would work, is instead of striking between 3 or 5 stages, we include every one of the legal stages in the striking:

The way I would simulate it to would be something like:
MK strike FD
Diddy strike RC
MK strike SV
Diddy strike Brinstar
MK strike BF
Diddy strike Delfino
MK strike PS1
Diddy strike Halberd
MK strike Yoshis
Diddy strike Frigate

So match one would end up on Lylat, not a bad MK stage nor a bad Diddy stage by any means. I'm not sure if those decisions would be the ones a Diddy or MK main would actually make, but this is to demonstrate the idea that neither character would end up on a stage extremely favorable for them, which as nearly as possible accomplishes the goal of a neutral first match.

Lylat allows for some silly MK shenanigans along with sharking but whatever I guess. Keep living the dream. I'm pretty sure a diddy main would much rather play an MK or SV or battlefield than lylat. Why is it such a big deal for this to happen ?

 

[sunshade]

I'm pretty sure a MK main would much rather play a Diddy on Brinstar or Delfino than lylat. Why is it such a big deal for this to happen?

But whatever I guess. Keep living the dream.

 

[PK-ow!]

Halberd

Now the way it would work, is instead of striking between 3 or 5 stages, we include every one of the legal stages in the striking:

The way I would simulate it to would be something like:
MK strike FD
Diddy strike RC
MK strike SV
Diddy strike Brinstar
MK strike BF
Diddy strike Delfino
MK strike PS1
Diddy strike Halberd
MK strike Yoshis
Diddy strike Frigate

So match one would end up on Lylat, not a bad MK stage nor a bad Diddy stage by any means. I'm not sure if those decisions would be the ones a Diddy or MK main would actually make, but this is to demonstrate the idea that neither character would end up on a stage extremely favorable for them, which as nearly as possible accomplishes the goal of a neutral first match.

It's clear that a striking method like that will always produce the stage of the median matchup value for that character pairing, but the median is often a poor sort of average. It can be nonrepresentative (say, in a bimodal distribution), and it skews on the basis of frequency rather than magnitude. That first point isn't going to be a problem for what you're arguing, but the skewing concerns those doubts I mentioned on your that other guy's example of the char that likes 4 stages vs. liking 6 stages.

You're correct, I did mean to say subjective.

But then what you said doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how objectivity/subjectivity relates to the thing you called "a bit [subjective]" in that post.

I agree that the match-up, skill levels, and the knowledge that both players have is what should be important. As far as stages are concerned, though, I'm assuming that those factors are even, simply because there's no other way to decide how the stages should be settled. The stage that the first game starts on should not favor one character over the other. We both agree that the set should not be started on what either character would choose as a counterpick, at the very least. How do you believe the stages should be chosen?

I have next to no idea.

Recurring though is my wondering, I don't understand the goal of a neutral first match. Wouldn't the consideration of trying to get an advantage be part of choosing character game 1?

... thinking about it intuitively though, I don't see a way to escape the fact of 'prioritizing the median' as I framed that above. I mean, say one player's character is good everywhere but one stage, and on that one stage is soft countered. (Supposing some given starter stage list.) It's inescapable that all you can do, as someone who is to tell these two players how the stage selection is going to be game 1, is give the two players equal control over the stage they go on - which then, if the first player knows the slightest thing about those facts, is going to get him onto one of those good stages.
(So far, though, this is right because the second player "shouldn't get game 1 on a stage he might counterpick")

The example seems to go the same if there are two stages the character isn't so good on, or three stages.


Now the problem for a stage striking procedure for game 1 (and realize that whether it's 1-2-2-1 or 3-4-1 or whatever, all striking is essentially the same on this point), is that, if the character was soft countered on one stage, neutral on another, and good on all the rest, and "all the rest" is a bunch, that game 1 is going to get played on good conditions for that first character.

See, and it's because ALL striking does is land you on a median. It has no relationship to playing a neutral game 1 whatever, any more than for some pairs of characters, the median may, coincidentally, be neutral. But if the sort of distribution can freely vary - if it's chosen arbitrarily, as, given this highly imbalanced game, they are (except within the condition that they go from "large negative" through "zero" (50-50) through "large positive") - medians have no regular relationship to "zero".


If striking is all we can come up with, we just have to accept that's what "a fair chance at a neutral game" is; basically saying chars that are at least somewhat good on more stages, are what's good for game 1.


... but I'm not happy with giving up to that. I'm plum out of ideas, but I haven't done anything to prove to myself this is the best it can be.

 

[Prawn]

itt people who dont know **** about the ics talk about their matchups and how well they do on stages

:D

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

This is a seriously good, fascinating thread.

I like Nefarious' method. I think that in preventing the first match from being played on a CP, this is a good approach. I also agree that some characters are artificially inflated by the stage list, and that these should rightfully not be considered as good.

My question (and I'd like it if someone could answer this) is: Why is it so important for every game to be as neutral as possible? Also, sorry if this was answered (I might have missed it) but what about games 2 and 3? Regular CP procedure? Because that might invalidate question 1.

 

[ぱみゅ]

"Increasing competitiveness" is most likely "giving you more chances to win", even if that means do silly things like having a ******** stage advantage.

Now, we face another problem:
There's a winner of the first match (played on the "faires possible stage").
The loser picks the second one (on his/her favor).
Then, if the set goes 1-1, the loser of the second picks the last stage, which is on his favor! A free win to the last match? silly....

 

[sunshade]

"Increasing competitiveness" is most likely "giving you more chances to win", even if that means do silly things like having a ******** stage advantage.

Now, we face another problem:
There's a winner of the first match (played on the "faires possible stage").
The loser picks the second one (on his/her favor).
Then, if the set goes 1-1, the loser of the second picks the last stage, which is on his favor! A free win to the last match? silly....

If you are going on the assumption that both players are of equal skill than any non neutral map is a "free win".

If round one is even and player 1 wins, player 2 will counterpick a stage to his advantage.
This advantage will win match two for player 2 and then player 1 will counter pick.
This advantage will win game three for player 1 and the set will end.

This is why I feel that counterpicking (stages) should be removed and instead counter picking should be solely in the form changing characters.

If after game one ends a player wants to change characters you strike stages again, and the loser of the set will be given the advantage of getting to select character second (making it an actual counter pick).

 

[LanceStern]

Someone was asking how this would actually play out. Let's say the set is between a Diddy and an MK. Let's say the TO decides the stage list is the following (this is typical for my region):
SV
BF
FD
Lylat
Yoshis
PS1
Frigate
Brinstar
RC
Delfino
Halberd

Now the way it would work, is instead of striking between 3 or 5 stages, we include every one of the legal stages in the striking:

The way I would simulate it to would be something like:
MK strike FD
Diddy strike RC
MK strike SV
Diddy strike Brinstar
MK strike BF
Diddy strike Delfino
MK strike PS1
Diddy strike Halberd
MK strike Yoshis
Diddy strike Frigate

So match one would end up on Lylat, not a bad MK stage nor a bad Diddy stage by any means. I'm not sure if those decisions would be the ones a Diddy or MK main would actually make, but this is to demonstrate the idea that neither character would end up on a stage extremely favorable for them, which as nearly as possible accomplishes the goal of a neutral first match.

I kinda like the sound of that, then how would counterpicking work say if MK won the first game on lylat in the set?

 

[BSP]

My question (and I'd like it if someone could answer this) is: Why is it so important for every game to be as neutral as possible? Also, sorry if this was answered (I might have missed it) but what about games 2 and 3? Regular CP procedure? Because that might invalidate question 1.

If every game was meant to be nuetral, or as fair as possible, we shouldn't have counterpicks.

I'm pretty sure that game 1 is supposed to be on a nuetral so that the better player wins, since that's what we want in a competitive enviornment.

"Increasing competitiveness" is most likely "giving you more chances to win", even if that means do silly things like having a ******** stage advantage.

Now, we face another problem:
There's a winner of the first match (played on the "faires possible stage").
The loser picks the second one (on his/her favor).
Then, if the set goes 1-1, the loser of the second picks the last stage, which is on his favor! A free win to the last match? silly....

That's why winning on the nuetral is so powerful in this game. But, you may be strawmaning the situation a little bit. Taking someone to RC as MK is powerful, but certainly not an auto win, esspecially considering that your opponent can change characters.

And like I said above, our system is for the better player. We would expect the better player to win game 1, and as such, the CP system helps them.

This is why I feel that counterpicking (stages) should be removed and instead counter picking should be solely in the form changing characters.

Theory coming, but that would probably centralize the game more to MK, since he can't get put in a disadvantage with stages anyway. Plus, what if the selected stage really favors a character?

If after game one ends a player wants to change characters you strike stages again, and the loser of the set will be given the advantage of getting to select character second (making it an actual counter pick).

If I'm following you right, the winner could still strike all of his or her bad stages, and end up on a nuetral again.

 

[sunshade]

Theory coming, but that would probably centralize the game more to MK, since he can't get put in a disadvantage with stages anyway. Plus, what if the selected stage really favors a character?

If the stage is selected via stage striking it will be the median of bias. If the stage happens to help one character more than another that is because the character is better suited on more stages and is thus a better character in that regard.

Metaknight would probably become stronger as a result of this, but this change is not made to balance the game out its made so that the starting game is on an even playing field. It just so happens that Metaknight is really really good and we dont like seeing him on an even playing field because it makes him look too good.

If I'm following you right, the winner could still strike all of his or her bad stages, and end up on a nuetral again.

thats the point. Why should we give someone an advantage for no reasson? Counterpicking will instead of being "who can abuse X character on Y stage the hardest" will become "I lost to your X with my Y so I am going to switch to Z because I think I will have a better chance".

I think the first round should be double blind character picks then stage striking.
All proceeding rounds should be loser picks his character second then stage strike again (assuming someone changes character).

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I think people need to make the distinction between CP a neutral and just plain CP'ing. It seems pretty clear to me that people fail to realize these differences.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

AlmostLegendary, that post just made no sense. Like, grammatically, I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[Nefarious B]

I'm pretty sure that game 1 is supposed to be on a nuetral so that the better player wins, since that's what we want in a competitive enviornment.

Exactly, the neutral is in theory supposed to skew the matchup as little as possible, so that it can be as close to neutral playing field as possible. The BBR has attempted to make this happen by suggesting a set of stages that we can consider to skew matches as little as possible.

The issue that the OP raises is that the BBR's assumption that a stage with few gimmicks, stage changes, and that is mostly flat is a more neutral stage, when in fact this merely allows characters who do well only on those stages to play on a stage they would CP round one. This clearly isn't helping the neutral first match to be played with as little bias as possible towards each character.

This change is a suggestion on how to deal with that problem.

 

[ぱみゅ]

That's why winning on the nuetral is so powerful in this game. But, you may be strawmaning the situation a little bit. Taking someone to RC as MK is powerful, but certainly not an auto win, esspecially considering that your opponent can change characters.

And like I said above, our system is for the better player. We would expect the better player to win game 1, and as such, the CP system helps them.

If the "better player" is better right fro the start, why even let the opponent CP, given the fact that the winner of the round 1 is "better", and will win the round 3?

Spoiler

I know what you tried to state, but your word selection was just wrong.

 

[sandwhale]

If the "better player" is better right fro the start, why even let the opponent CP, given the fact that the winner of the round 1 is "better", and will win the round 3?

Spoiler

I know what you tried to state, but your word selection was just wrong.

Because deiciding the match on one round won't assure you of seeing the better player win. A player can easily be off his game for one round, do a huge/many mistake(s) or just get unlucky. Now if you play a B03 or even moreso a B05 the probability is much higher that the best player will be playing better most of the time than his opponent. Which is for example why you have sets in tennis and other sports.

And for that reason, if the top player loses game 1, his opponent's CP on game 3 mustn't give him such an advantge that the other player would have little chance of winning on it. That's why certain stages really need to be banned.

 

[Ussi]

I've watched MMs go 2-0 to 2-3.. People learn to adapt or get mentally exhausted

 

[sandwhale]

I've watched MMs go 2-0 to 2-3.. People learn to adapt or get mentally exhausted

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? Because capacity to adapt and mental endurance are what define good players.