Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 So now that we know MLG hosts ridiculous smash tournaments...

[AMKalmar]

I only read a few pages of this, but it seems like the solution to the stage striking problem would be to remove the classification of starter or counter and just have players strike from all legal stages. The obvious problem with this idea is that it would take a long time for the set to start.

 

[Bloodcross]

Woooooooooooooooo
I'm gonna **** somebody
I hope you die of AIDS
I hope you die of AIDS

Woooooooooooooooo
I'm gonna **** somebody
Do you wanna blow me? Yeah!
Well I got herpes

 

[AMKalmar]

What the hell?

 

[solecalibur]

Rofl Ectecoon calling me obnoxious but he isn't?


.....I haven't laughed that hard in awhile

I'm telling people to do is grow up and play the stage more then just once and learn how the stage works and what to do in one situation and learn the mechanics, but people are still complaining about things that are not even a problem if they read up a bit on there stages

 

[Dark 3nergy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ dis omg play da **** stage and learn the tricks

obvi you cannot play it just once and be done with it

 

[AlphaZealot]

Picto is a very good Diddy stage. After SV/FD/BF it is probably tied with PS1 as Diddy's next best option.

Also stop the spam posts, warning will ensue.

 

[Bloodcross]

Erm I mean das enough yo

Edit:

 

[Overswarm]

I only read a few pages of this, but it seems like the solution to the stage striking problem would be to remove the classification of starter or counter and just have players strike from all legal stages. The obvious problem with this idea is that it would take a long time for the set to start.

This is assuming we have a balanced number of stages for each matchup.

If Diddy has 5 good stages and Meta Knight has 20, it doesn't really matter. They both get one starter they strike to and then their own CP. So, an equal and one advantage for each.

If we striked from all available stages, characters like MK would get a counterpick to start off on; this would be unfair.

 

[Laem]

Oh the problems solved with MK gone

 

[Flayl]

If we striked from all available stages, characters like MK would get a counterpick to start off on; this would be unfair.

I'm glad you (specially you) can at least see this, I was worried the idea to abolish the starter stage pool was going to go unopposed.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

A better idea is to just strike until three stages are left and play the set on those stages. I'm not sure which one would be first and second, but I'm sure that's easy enough to figure out.

 

[Overswarm]

A better idea is to just strike until three stages are left and play the set on those stages. I'm not sure which one would be first and second, but I'm sure that's easy enough to figure out.

Okay, now MK has three counterpicks. I don't think that helps.

 

[sunshade]

This is assuming we have a balanced number of stages for each matchup.

If Diddy has 5 good stages and Meta Knight has 20, it doesn't really matter. They both get one starter they strike to and then their own CP. So, an equal and one advantage for each.

If we striked from all available stages, characters like MK would get a counterpick to start off on; this would be unfair.

It would not be a counterpick it would be the stage which provides the average(medium) of bias in the match-up.

If Metaknight ends up on a stage helping him more than his opponent than that is an indication that Metaknight is a better, more adaptable character.

In either case he wont be ending up on stages like Rainbow cruise, Norfair or Brinstar. He will be ending up on stages like lylat, pokemon stadium, and some times delfino.

 

[AMKalmar]

This is assuming we have a balanced number of stages for each matchup.

If Diddy has 5 good stages and Meta Knight has 20, it doesn't really matter. They both get one starter they strike to and then their own CP. So, an equal and one advantage for each.

If we striked from all available stages, characters like MK would get a counterpick to start off on; this would be unfair.

You wouldn't end up with a counter-pick stage, you'd end up with the average of all the stages in that match-up. In your mind, this stage gives one character an unfair advantage in the match-up. In reality, that character simply has the advantage. What you're trying to do is balance a match-up that is skewed. Taking the average stage would allow the first game in the set to accurately represent the match-up. The characters in this game are extremely unbalanced and so are the stages. I think we try too hard to make it more balanced instead of improving our ability to overcome the imbalance.

edit: sorta ninja'd... I just didn't read that far down the page.

On a side note, I think doing this would allow us to more accurately determine match-up ratios between characters. [And the tier list but the match-ups are what matter]

 

[Overswarm]

This is not the case.

You are under the assumption that all stages are created equally. This is not the case.

 

[Flayl]

It would not be a counterpick it would be the stage which provides the average(medium) of bias in the match-up.

If Metaknight ends up on a stage helping him more than his opponent than that is an indication that Metaknight is a better, more adaptable character.

In either case he wont be ending up on stages like Rainbow cruise, Norfair or Brinstar. He will be ending up on stages like lylat, pokemon stadium, and some times delfino.

Delfino is amazing for MK, lylat and PS can be depending on the matchup.

 

[AMKalmar]

It would not be a counterpick it would be the stage which provides the average(medium) of bias in the match-up.

You mean median. (lul punz)

You are under the assumption that all stages are created equally. This is not the case.

I rephrased my post before I noticed you replied, I have a tendency to edit a lot. I state there that the stage list is not balanced, I know this. By average I meant median.

 

[Overswarm]

I rephrased my post before I noticed you replied, I have a tendency to edit a lot. I state there that the stage list is not balanced, I know this. By average I meant median. There isn't a way to choose the mean stage; you can't add them all up and divide by the number of stages.

I'm not sure what your point is. The idea is to have a fair starter stage for the first match, then allow players to have their skewed stages for the CPs. Saying "the stage is fine, it is just the matchup is in player X's favor!" is not an argument, its a misunderstanding of why we use stage striking.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You are perhaps the most annoying smasher out there and have consistently annoyed me without even knowing it.

EAT A **** BRACEFACE!!

I approve of this post coming from an individual whose avatar is a monkey clinging to an overly large banana.

 

[ADHD]

Delfino is amazing for MK, lylat and PS can be depending on the matchup.

Yay someone pointed out what I was just going to do.

 

[AMKalmar]

I'm not sure what your point is. The idea is to have a fair starter stage for the first match, then allow players to have their skewed stages for the CPs. Saying "the stage is fine, it is just the matchup is in player X's favor!" is not an argument, its a misunderstanding of why we use stage striking.

Sorry for my poor organization in writing. I often throw all my ideas out there without clearly saying what I mean.

Fair
I cannot think of a method for selecting the first stage for a match between any two characters in this game that will result in the game being fair every time. The game is simply not that balanced. I've read people say that the current starter system is unfair because characters like Ice Climbers are looking at a list of their best stages. Is that fair? Does a stage even exist that will make the match-up between Ganondorf and Ice Climbers fair? Fair as in, "free from bias," "neither excellent nor poor" for either character. Fair is something this game is not. I would rather the first game in a match be accurate to the match-up than fair.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Overswarm]

"fair" is determined by results. If you can get consistent results that are not skewed, it is fair. We can get this with a 9 starter stage list.

 

[AMKalmar]

Can you give me a situation where results would be skewed?

 

[Overswarm]

Can you give me a situation where results would be skewed?

Metaknight wins 87% of the time vs. Jigglypuff from multiple matches we record. He does this on Brinstar. Looking at matches on Final Destination, Smashville, and other stages that are less dynamic, we can see that the win ratio is similar. The results are not skewed.

Metaknight wins 72% of the time vs. Diddy on Rainbow Cruise. Looking at matches on other stages we can see this win % is skewed. It isn't a stage where two people of equal skill will get close games / go back adn forth.

Na mean? Na mean? Dog?

 

[AMKalmar]

Okay, so you are saying the first game in a match between any two characters, the stage should accurately reflect the matchup based on real tournament results. I agree with this and I see that my previous idea about selecting the median stage of all legal stages would not achieve this result. But I can't imagine that the current starter system would achieve this for every match-up either.

 

[-Ran]

If you include all legal stages, this is what happpens...
Good for Diddy Kong
FD
Smashville
PS1
Pictochat

Better or Neutral for MK
Battlefield
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Yoshi’s Island
Brinstar
Frigate Orpheon
Green Greens
Norfair
Pokémon Stadium 2
Rainbow Cruise

There's no median stage in that.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Ignore this post

 

[AlphaZealot]

edit: someone already posted what I was gonna say.

 

[-Ran]

I've always thought that it would be neutral vs MK, since he tends to operate better with platforms than Diddy.

 

[AMKalmar]

I changed my mind again but I'm not even going to bother.

Changing the subject but I don't want to make a new topic with no point, and I want to hear what you have to say about it. Theoretical ruleset:
What if we took some inspiration from tennis? Tennis tournaments have been around a lot longer than smash tournaments and tennis is the man. This would probably take too long for large tournaments though.
To win a set, you must win at least 2 games (more in finals) and must have won 2 more games than your opponent. Players alternate who chooses the stage instead of loser's pick.

 

[-Ran]

Tournament length would become astronomical.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I changed my mind again but I'm not even going to bother.

Changing the subject but I don't want to make a new topic with no point, and I want to hear what you have to say about it. Theoretical ruleset:
What if we took some inspiration from tennis? Tennis tournaments have been around a lot longer than smash tournaments and tennis is the man. This would probably take too long for large tournaments though.
To win a set, you must win at least 2 games (more in finals) and must have won 2 more games than your opponent. Players alternate who chooses the stage instead of loser's pick.

I honestly think tournaments should be anywhere from 4-12 rounds depending on attendnace of course round robin cut to top 8 or top 4 again depending on attendance then top 8 play. Pay outs to top 4 or top 2 again depending on attendance. Of course the people with the best record after the amount of rounds would be top 4 or 8.

 

[Inui]

Ban Meta Knight.

 

[Kuraudo]

It never ends.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Ban Meta Knight.

Hard to believe I'm quoting you, but yeah what he said.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Ban Meta Knight.

My brain collapsed just now.

 

[Damage Points]

I actsully enjoy fighting MK quit a bit with wario and I've recently gotten into using MK in tourney sets. He's quite fun to use. Do not ban him.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Ban Meta Knight.

Naw it cant be!?

 

[REL38]

Ban Meta Knight.

This post just put me on the fence

 

[Deleted member]

Now I don't know much about brawl at all (I barely play), BUT I read through the whole thing, and I've gotta say that I think ADHD is right on this one.

As I said, I don't really have any stake in this, but I think a stagelist which promotes diversity of characters is absolutely essential for any smash game. So optimally, a stagelist which helps to reduce the overpoweredness (not a word) of MK, WITHOUT putting in ridiculous stages is good. I think we can all agree that a common goal for all smash players is to play a game where the quality of the player, not the quality of the character is what's important. Without hacking the game, the only way to really do this is to change the stagelist to balance things out.

The argument from people against him is shifting. At first, people were saying that those who are playing Diddy, Falco and ICs should play more "flexible" characters to accomodate for the fact that the stagelist doesn't favour them. Once people started to point out the flexible characters meant MK/Snake, the argument from those opposed to changing the list seems to have changed to "this is actually the list which benefits those other characters the most." The fact that the argument changed like this seems to imply some kind of bias which is clouding people's judgement.

With that said, I really don't know which statelist is more balanced (worse for MK), the EC stagelist or the MLG stagelist. Is there an objective answer to this?

With regards to the TVs, obviously minimizing the lag is best. For those who are saying that the 1-2 frames of lag has no effect, even if that IS true (which I doubt), it still has a VERY strong psychological impact on those who do believe that it is affecting their game. With that in mind, if getting lagless TVs was an option for MLG, I'm sure they would get them (they aren't dumb). There's obviously some reason why they aren't able to do it.

This is an entertaining thread, I love it!!! (Although midway through, the EastCoast-MidWest flaming was pretty stupid)