First let me say...that by going into a technicality...you can never TRULY define the word "fair" in video games. It's just like the law...someone is going to find a loophole to out do what the other has done. So let's throw this being overly technical on the word "fair" out the window. I'm going to use the word "even" which is in a GENERAL sense. Just so you know, xD.
Also, Reno, you suck, xD. Go read it like I did, =p.
Okay...I hate to say this Scar, but what VaNz said about the space animals is right. You can't say that Peach/Jiggs get an auto-win if they win R1. Mainly because Spacies can do the same thing. Characters like Peach/Jiggs have one requirement...They HAVE to win the first round. (That is talking by your argument.)
However, we could also have the following: Say I lose round one to Inui. I cp Mute city...I feel even if it came down to a peach ditto, I should be fine. Suddenly, as the screen is loading I think back to something. Given Inui's nature, he does EXTREMELY well on gay stages. He uses Sheik and ***** me on Mute City. CP stages are good for either character. It's also player specific, too:
Ultima Scout feels he does well with Falco on Mute City (I beg to differ, lol. Hi Ultima Scout *waves*). If he had planned on going Falco for the set, that doesn't mean he'd get ***** on that stage as a CP. Alex Triad does well on Mute City with Samus. (I guess that's not supposed to happen?) I'm using Mute City as an example since it tends to be a CP that is quite complained about in general.
Now in reference to that rule of the banning stages back and forth...well I feel that it does take a bit of the "fairness" away from both sides. When you do that, yes...it does give each player a bit more planning power for their situation from the start. However, I feel it takes away a bit more of the "even" grounds that we have with the random for the first part. If, you both know in fact the character that your opponent is starting off with, you're given the opportunity to tip the scales.
We go like this: Player A ***** on 3 of these stages and sucks on the rest. Player B sucks on 3 of these stages, ***** on one, and is average on the rest. (let's say for argument's sake that the neutral stages are placed evenly distributed at this point. ) Now with this rule...there's a high probability that player B is going to be stuck on a stage he possibly sucks on, or might be evenly traded with. We'll say that the one stage that Player B ***** on, is a stage that Player A sucks on. The chances of player B getting that stage is unlikely bv far. It's going to be ZERO, to be honest. As a matter of fact, the chances of player A getting his **** stage is guaranteed. Going random on the first...leaves that option wide open.
To Hat's rule...I don't like it. No offense to Hat, but I think it's a bad rule. It's meant to give that player that won round 1, their shot...assuming they lost the second round. Which, by the way, doesn't always happen.
