Stage Counterpicking Change Proposal

[Supermodel From Paris]

I'm not sure if this deserves it's own thread, but I figure if anything it warrants a discussion of it's own, so here it is:

If Johnny wins game 1, and George gets to counterpick his stage.
If George wins game 2, Johnny gets to counterpick his stage.

In my opinion, the current system places far too much emphasis on match 1. Winning the neutral is much too crucial, especially in a game like Brawl where counterpicking is so important (except where MK is concerned). Brawl from the characters to the stages is a hard counter sort of game.

I propose something a little different that I'm sure will be controversial. I'm also sure that I haven't thought it out in it's entirety and someone is going to explain to me why it's a terrible idea, and they will probably have a good point. But here it is anyway:

In game 1, we would follow our regular stage strike procedure.
In game 2, the loser would counterpick a stage like we do currently.
However, if the loser of game 1 wins the second match, the final match would be played on a neutral using the stage striking procedure, or on a combination of all neutrals and counterpicks using the stage striking procedure. In this case, we would still honor the stage bans offered by both players (except of course in the even that both players agree to cancel their bans).

Why?

In my opinion, allowing the winner of game 1 to counterpick a stage is counterproductive to the system, which is intended to give a small boost to the loser of a previous match. It accomplishes it's goal in game 2, but not in game 3, where the winner of this game will ultimately decide a set and both players have already won games; no one needs a leg up here, they are equal at this point. It doesn't matter when the games were won any longer, only that a game was won by both parties; the winner of game 1 simply does not need this boost, as he won a game in the set all ready. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, heh.

 

[1048576]

So you go from making game 1 really important to making game 1 irrelevant?

If you're that concerned that counterpicking gives too much of an advantage, just narrow the stage list.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Does the process repeat for 3 out of 5 sets? Like,

Player A wins game 1, Player B counterpicks.
Player B wins game 2, game 3 is played on the all neutral and counterpick strike
Player A/B wins game 3, Player B/A counterpicks.
etc.

If this was to be used, for game 3 it makes more sense, at least to me, to use all stages that are legal (Neutral and CP) for the strike.

I don't necessarily see this as better, but it doesn't sound bad.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

So you go from making game 1 really important to making game 1 irrelevant?

If you're that concerned that counterpicking gives too much of an advantage, just narrow the stage list.

This simply makes game 1 as important or unimportant (are you a glass half full, or half empty kind of guy?) as the other two games. Game 1 should not be weighted, nor do I believe it is intended to be. Rather, the weight game 1 carries is an unintended side effect of the fact that, hey, sets have to end some time. If we could give a CP to the loser of the last game of a set we would.

Does the process repeat for 3 out of 5 sets? Like,

Player A wins game 1, Player B counterpicks.
Player B wins game 2, game 3 is played on the all neutral and counterpick strike
Player A/B wins game 3, Player B/A counterpicks.
etc.

If this was to be used, for game 3 it makes more sense, at least to me, to use all stages that are legal (Neutral and CP) for the strike.

I don't necessarily see this as better, but it doesn't sound bad.

I'm not sure, but here's a possibility:

If the winner of any two consecutive games is the same as the winner of game 1, or the winner of any two consecutive games is the same, or the set is tied during the last game of the set, we would employ the stage striking procedure. The only time CPs would be used is on even games, basically, matches that could not possibly decide the outcome of a set. While this sounds a little convoluted, it makes a lot of sense and avoids weighing the value of certain games too much. If I need to explain this in a more cohesive way, I could.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

This sounds like basically punishing people for winning game 1.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It isn't punishing anyone for winning game 1, it isn't rewarding them for it either, however. At least, that's the goal. In a 3-game set it accomplishes the goal, in a 5-game set it gets trickier.

What we could do is always have a stage strike procedure in the last game of a set. So if a set goes to game 5, 7, 9, 13, whatever, the 5, 7, 9, or 13th game would be a stage strike.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

By winning game 1 you forfeit the right to counterpick a stage.

Only by losing game 1 do you get to do that.

It sounds like punishment to me.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

By winning game 1 you forfeit the right to counterpick a stage.

Only by losing game 1 do you get to do that.

It sounds like punishment to me.

Not exactly;

you forfeit the right to CP in the event that the game is a tie in the last game of a set. This eliminates the weight of game 1. Why do you need to CP if both players won a game in the set anyway? The goal of the counterpick system is not to reward the guy who won the first game. People are so used to the idea now that it seems unfair to do otherwise I think, which is kind of bizarre.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Why would we reward someone for losing on a neutral (game 1) and then NOT reward someone for losing on the opponent's counterpick (game 2), which by any account in any matchup should be harder to win on?
If that's not unfair I don't know what is.

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say I win game 1. On game 2 I lose on my opponent's counterpick, which, in most areas' stage lists, can very easily end up being something incredibly ********. (MK on Brinstar) At this point, things have been set up so that to win the set, I have to have won two games on a neutral. (Not even one of my choosing, but an agreed-on neutral) For my opponent to win the set, he has to have won one game on an agreed-on neutral and one game on whatever stage he likes.
I'm going to feel pretty cheated right there, and justifiably so.

 

[san.]

It is better not to think of 1-1 as even when the second match was in one player's favor, but rather who uses their second chance (trump card) up first. Second chances right now gives the advantage to the specific player, but your example takes away that ace that the winner of game 1 has the right to conserve.

It is much more likely for a person to win on his counterpick than on a striked neutral. Essentially, this does punish the person who won game 1.

If you win game 1, you (should) suffer a disadvantage on game 2, then it's back to neutral on game 3
So you're playing neutral, disadvantage, neutral.

 

[sunshade]

If this system was put into place I would throw the first game every time.

If I lose the first round I have to win on a Counter pick and then a neutral to win the set.

If I win on the first round I have to win on a neutral and then a neutral again to win the set.

Win on your counterpick then a neutral or win on a neutral twice, which sounds easier?

 

[6Mizu]

Mmmmm...this could be either good or bad. Because know in a way your punishing the winner of the first match,and at the same time taking the emphasis from match 1 and putting it on match 2.

Also, people would probably Super-sandbag the first match...which pretty much means its a win for the player who lost the first match.

 

[san.]

If third match is only on neutrals, this totally Fs up banning stages for the third match.

For example, if there are 2 neutrals you don't want to play on, strike and play on your second worst neutral, win on your counterpick stage, ban your worst neutral for game 3. You can't replay other neutral cause of Dave's Stupid Rule. If I play ICs, I can get rid of FD and SV right then, and for the 3rd match, choose a MUCH more favorable neutral, because I can strike my 3rd worst neutral at least.

On most standard rulesets, I can get rid of FD and SV, and strike YI, leaving PS1/Lylat and battlefield (or any other 2 stage combination).

If the opponent bans a neutral and/or we play on a neutral second match, that messes even more things up.
If I'm ICs or another neutral heavy character, we can play PS1/Lylat first match (lose), he bans FD, I go to SV and win, and I can ban YI, there's only 1 stage left: battlefield. Not much choice there.

 

[6Mizu]

If third match is only on neutrals, this totally Fs up banning stages for the third match.

For example, if there are 2 neutrals you don't want to play on, strike and play on your second worst neutral, win on your counterpick stage, ban your worst neutral for game 3. You can't replay other neutral cause of Dave's Stupid Rule. If I play ICs, I can get rid of FD and SV right then, and for the 3rd match, choose a MUCH more favorable neutral, because I can strike my 3rd worst neutral at least.

On most standard rulesets, I can get rid of FD and SV, and strike YI, leaving PS1/Lylat and battlefield (or any other 2 stage combination).

If the opponent bans a neutral and/or we play on a neutral second match, that messes even more things up.
If I'm ICs or another neutral heavy character, we can play PS1/Lylat first match (lose), he bans FD, I go to SV and win, and I can ban YI, there's only 1 stage left: battlefield. Not much choice there.

Like I said taking "emphasis" from match one and placing it on Match 2.
TY San.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wow, people think strangely. Why does anyone think that you are "given" the right to counterpick anything? The loser is given the privilege of a CP in match 2 for sucking so badly. Regardless of what you may think, the winner is always punished in a counterpicking system, but in the system we have now, it's not really a punishment like it should be; in fact, winning game 1 puts you in an advantagous position!

That's not how a CP works! A CP is supposed to weight a match in favor of the loser!

However, in the current system, we end up with a tie in points giving an advantage to one player! A tie in points gives an advantage? That makes no sense. So, the winner of game one can win the second game (awesome) or... have an increased chance of winning the last game (sweet!). In the proposed system, the act of winning is counted as an intrinsic advantage state, unlike the current system. In the case of a tied number of wins, an advantage isn't awarded to either player because there is no advantage to offset, which is all a CP does.

TL;DR: In our current system, we use CPs to offset advantages, in theory. However, we afford an offset to a player when there actually is no advantage. The proposed system eliminates this extraneous offset.

 

[sunshade]

Like I said taking "emphasis" from match one and placing it on Match 2.
TY San.

This change to the rules would do a bit more than just remove emphasis from the first round. It would make winning the first round a disadvantage.

A victory first round would mean that you have to win on two neutrals to win unlike a loss which would result in you only having to win on a counterpick and a neutral. Given the choice between playing on an advantage giving stage and then a neutral or two neutrals, any player who wants to increase his or her chances of victory by the largest amount possible would be best off throwing the first game.

Winning being a disadvantage is a fundamental flaw in the proposed system and should call alarm to anyone considering this system.

 

[Ussi]

To those would who throw the first match to go CP then neutral.. well if you like to have games best of one by your theory that's fine...

If anything you are not keeping thoughts of pocket 2ndarys would might reverse your CP

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Jack, the problem is that that "tie" was not reached by equal means. One player got there winning on a mutually chosen neutral and one player got there winning on his chosen counterpick. I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Stauffy... that's the point. You know what doesn't make sense? That you haven't said "Get rid of CP'ing!", because in the current system, nothing after game 1 is equal means.

At all.

If your problem is that match 2 could be decided by non-equal means, what is the best option: make match 3 unequal to offset match 2, or just make match 2 equal?

If we want to keep CP'ing, this is a huge mathematical oversight. Either remove the CP system and just have starter stages, remove the CP system and all stages are decided randomly, or fix the oversight.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

I sure wouldn't mind if we played on all neutrals like the Japanese or whatever. I think things would be better that way.
There, I've said it now. Excuse me for not derailing the discussion sooner.

At the very least, the current system is nominally fair. Assuming a set is played out to the full number of games, each player gets an equal number of counterpicks and one neutral, which is supposed to favor neither player.
This proposed system wrecks that. (I don't have any idea what mathematical oversight you're talking about, either)

 

[Raziek]

This is an interesting idea, but it's flawed. I understand you want to take the weight out of Game 1, but as has been pointed out, the proposed system favors the losing player.

The purpose of counter-picking isn't to make things as even as possible. EXAMPLE SCENARIO TIME!

Bob wins Game 1 in an extremely close game against Steve.
Steven counter-picks MK on any gay stage and wins.
Bob is now DENIED his counter-pick opportunity, and is about to get ****** because he won Game 1, INSTEAD of having the advantage that he SHOULD have due to losing game 2.

Game 1 has weight for a reason. In the current system, you are rewarded for winning Game 1 (as you should be), by being able to use your counter-pick, should you lose on your opponent's. (which is a reasonable assumption)

I understand the intent of the idea, but it unfairly skews the game in favor of the worse player, especially if they play a character that does well on neutrals.

 

[Sugahighsnipa]

that, sir is a good point.

 

[fkacyan]

Me and SFP often disagree. This is not one of those times.

I think he looked at an MK banned metagame and correctly realized that with an increased emphasis on counters whoever won match one would win the set given two equally skilled players.

That said, I'm not sure this is the exact solution, but changing the counterpick system is definitely something that should be heavily considered.

IDEA: The winner of match one always has to pick his character first.

 

[Raziek]

IDEA: The winner of match one always has to pick his character first.

I don't see that working that well. I mean, it could in theory, but only if they play MK. Otherwise, assuming people do like Orion recommends and learn as many character counters as possible, they could be playing disadvantaged match-ups for the rest of the set, unless they pick MK.

That's pretty bogus.

It also, again, heavily skews things in favor of the person who loses Game 1, which is counter-intuitive. People shouldn't be punished in any way for winning the first game of the set.

 

[Crow!]

The current system is fair: of the games played, an equal number are counterpicks of each respective player. The proposed system, oddly enough, unfairly skews the game in the favor of the loser of game 1.

The counterpick system could still be broken despite its fairness if counterpicking were too powerful - if every match followed a Win-Lose-Win pattern, games 2 and 3 might as well not be played. This, however, is not the case in my experience. It's also not what I noticed from the update feed from MLG, where the stage list was more liberal and therefore counterpicking is more powerful than usual. So I think we're okay.

 

[1048576]

If counterpicks are auto-wins then it goes from games two and three not mattering to games one and two not mattering only now it's strictly unfair to the better player.

 

[fkacyan]

The current system is fair: of the games played, an equal number are counterpicks of each respective player. The proposed system, oddly enough, unfairly skews the game in the favor of the loser of game 1.

The counterpick system could still be broken despite its fairness if counterpicking were too powerful - if every match followed a Win-Lose-Win pattern, games 2 and 3 might as well not be played. This, however, is not the case in my experience. It's also not what I noticed from the update feed from MLG, where the stage list was more liberal and therefore counterpicking is more powerful than usual. So I think we're okay.

MK largely invalidates the counterpick system to begin with, so this postulation isn't really valid.

 

[Raziek]

MK largely invalidates the counterpick system to begin with, so this postulation isn't really valid.

This is true, but he's going to invalidate most systems UNLESS we implement rules specifically designed to inhibit him. (At which point he should probably just be banned.)

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

This is not an MK ban thread. When I posted this, I spoke with a mod who said "it will probably turn into either an MK ban thread or a Brawl sucks thread," so can we please prove him wrong and stop my thread (which makes a good point, even despite the flaws in my idea) from being needlessly locked?

There are a lot of good points in this thread. Primarily, I concede that in my proposed system, the points weren't reached via equal means. However, that is sort of the point to the CP system in the first place: we give an advantage to the losing player, because he lost and needs a leg up. This sort of exposes the CP system as faulty all together. It worked in melee, but in brawl, there are stages that blatantly invalidate large portions of the cast and these stages are legal.

I do though think that a lot of the other solutions proposed (such as playing on only neutrals) have flaws of their own. Neutrals, as an example, aren't even really truly "neutral" — our current starter list gives a huge leg up to the top tier characters, who all have amazing ground and camp games. The stages we consider neutral are designed to cater to these characters because mentally we have all made the assumption that "large running area and fewer obstacles" is a neutral stage when that probably couldn't be further from the truth.

The stages closest to neutrality in a world where planking and scrooging are regulated (or MK is banned) are Smashville and Battlefield. King Dedede and ROB offhand don't like Battlefield at all, though. A system like the one they use in Japan is flawed in it's own right unless we plan on figuring out what the most even stages are for each match-up and limiting each set to these specific stages (lol).

Ultimately I think the goal should be to evaluate each stage and have a consistent and relevant system for deciding what stages are neutral and which benefit characters in a radical way (Rainbow Cruise, Final Destination and Jungle Japes have got to go).

 

[Raziek]

This is not an MK ban thread. When I posted this, I spoke with a mod who said "it will probably turn into either an MK ban thread or a Brawl sucks thread," so can we please prove him wrong and stop my thread (which makes a good point, even despite the flaws in my idea) from being needlessly locked?

There are a lot of good points in this thread. Primarily, I concede that in my proposed system, the points weren't reached via equal means. However, that is sort of the point to the CP system in the first place: we give an advantage to the losing player, because he lost and needs a leg up. This sort of exposes the CP system as faulty all together. It worked in melee, but in brawl, there are stages that blatantly invalidate large portions of the cast and these stages are legal.

I do though think that a lot of the other solutions proposed (such as playing on only neutrals) have flaws of their own. Neutrals, as an example, aren't even really truly "neutral" — our current starter list gives a huge leg up to the top tier characters, who all have amazing ground and camp games. The stages we consider neutral are designed to cater to these characters because mentally we have all made the assumption that "large running area and fewer obstacles" is a neutral stage when that probably couldn't be further from the truth.

The stages closest to neutrality in a world where planking and scrooging are regulated (or MK is banned) are Smashville and Battlefield. King Dedede and ROB offhand don't like Battlefield at all, though. A system like the one they use in Japan is flawed in it's own right unless we plan on figuring out what the most even stages are for each match-up and limiting each set to these specific stages (lol).

Ultimately I think the goal should be to evaluate each stage and have a consistent and relevant system for deciding what stages are neutral and which benefit characters in a radical way (Rainbow Cruise, Final Destination and Jungle Japes have got to go).

I didn't intend to derail that in that sort of way, but it is the truth.

I agree with you on our flawed perception of what stages are "neutral" (I prefer the word "starter", personally), but I disagree that we should be neutering the stage list just because it provides a handful of strong CPs for certain characters.

Banning Japes isn't warranted just because it's an extremely strong pick for Falco, that's the whole point of a counter-pick. This kind of banning methodry turns slippery slope in a hurry, and before long, you have only a small handful of stages left. (And even then, it won't be neutral across the cast)

 

[fkacyan]

BF is a million times worse than FD if you're being camped. I really wish people would camp harder so this was more apparent.

 

[1048576]

Well if you want more than one game to matter, you need to keep the stage list to a point where significant advantages are minimal.

 

[Raziek]

Well if you want more than one game to matter, you need to keep the stage list to a point where significant advantages are minimal.

Which, like I said, would be essentially neutering it down to 2-3 stages.

 

[fkacyan]

Which, like I said, would be essentially neutering it down to 2-3 stages.

If that makes a better competitive game, why not?

 

[sunshade]

Well if you want more than one game to matter, you need to keep the stage list to a point where significant advantages are minimal.

Or you could stage strike from the entire list of legal stages and eliminate the idea of "starter" and "counterpick" and instead have the list of legal stages and banned stages.

I am of the mentality that unless a stage has an unbeatable strategy as a result of the stage (circle camping) or random elements that are so intrusive that they infringes upon combat to the point in which player skill is marginalized (wario ware, port town aero dive) then the stage should not be banned. In all other cases the stage should be legal on the grounds that it encourages a tactic however the tactic is not broken and therefore not justifiably bannable.

By using my standard a very large stage list will be created and players will stage strike from the entire list. The stage chosen will be the only stage played on due to it being the decided "neutral" via stage striking. The stage will be democratically chosen by players by removing their worst stages/opponents best stage resulting in the final stage being of minimal advantage to either party. The last stage left unstruck will be the median of bias due to it (assuming both players make the best choices possible).

This allows case by case and match-up by match-up neutral stage selection based on the opinions of those entering the set. The stage will be neutral based on player's input and from person to person we will be able to find the most neutral stage instead of using our overly generalized "starter" stage list.

 

[Raziek]

If that makes a better competitive game, why not?

Because it's restricting the game to the point of being boring and flavorless. We can't destroy what makes Brawl unique as a fighter, just to balance it. It's excessive alteration, much akin to why we haven't put in a whole crap ton of ridiculous rules, just to keep MK on par with the rest of the cast.

Or you could stage strike from the entire list of legal stages and eliminate the idea of "starter" and "counterpick" and instead have the list of legal stages and banned stages.

I am of the mentality that unless a stage has an unbeatable strategy as a result of the stage (circle camping) or random elements that are so intrusive that they infringes upon combat to the point in which player skill is marginalized (wario ware, port town aero dive) then the stage should not be banned. In all other cases the stage should be legal on the grounds that it encourages a tactic however the tactic is not broken and therefore not justifiably bannable.

By using my standard a very large stage list will be created and players will stage strike from the entire list. The stage chosen will be the only stage played on due to it being the decided "neutral" via stage striking. The stage will be democratically chosen by players by removing their worst stages/opponents best stage resulting in the final stage being of minimal advantage to either party. The last stage left unstruck will be the median of bias due to it (assuming both players make the best choices possible).

This allows case by case and match-up by match-up neutral stage selection based on the opinions of those entering the set. The stage will be neutral based on player's input and from person to person we will be able to find the most neutral stage instead of using our overly generalized "starter" stage list.

This has been brought up before, and it's heavily flawed in two ways.

1) You will never EVER fight MK on a stage where he doesn't have an advantage. This doesn't happen ANYWAY, but it's even worse in this case. MK just strikes all the neutrals and you get ***** on a counter-pick stage.

2) It defeats the purpose of using counter-picking as a means of beating your opponent through the use of stage knowledge. Brawl is unique in that the stages actually mean something. I should be rewarded for learning stages to their fullest, and if you take away my ability to counter-pick Norfair on someone who has no idea how the stage works, you're breaking the system.

NEXT!

 

[Jack Kieser]

How exactly does this proposition unfairly skew the favor to the loser of Game 1?

Game 1: Played on a Stage Striked neutral. Player 1 wins, barely.
Game 2: Played on a CP. Player 2 wins.
Game 3: Played on a Stage Striked neutral, just like the first game. Player 1 will most likely still have the advantage, anyway, only now it's not because we're handing him a free win.

It still skews the favor to the winner of game 1, just not as extremely. Where is all of this loser is in the better position crap coming from? Do you guys mean better than in the current system?

Because I'm pretty sure that's the point. That the OP thinks the current system gives too much favor to the winner of Game 1.

I think people are forgetting that the proposed system isn't taking away a counterpick from the winner of match 1; it's never awarding a counterpick to the winner of match one. That's an important difference. No one has a "right" to a counterpick, here. Player 1 (in the above scenario) isn't getting screwed, because something wasn't taken away from him... he simply never had it in the first place!

 

[Raziek]

How exactly does this proposition unfairly skew the favor to the loser of Game 1?

Game 1: Played on a Stage Striked neutral. Player 1 wins, barely.
Game 2: Played on a CP. Player 2 wins.
Game 3: Played on a Stage Striked neutral, just like the first game. Player 1 will most likely still have the advantage, anyway, only now it's not because we're handing him a free win.

It still skews the favor to the winner of game 1, just not as extremely. Where is all of this loser is in the better position crap coming from? Do you guys mean better than in the current system?

Because I'm pretty sure that's the point. That the OP thinks the current system gives too much favor to the winner of Game 1.

The loser is in a better position both compared to the current system, and compared to the winner of Game 1.

Like has been mentioned, the winner of Game 1 has to win On two neutrals.

The loser has to win on a neutral, and his CP.

How is that at ALL fair?

The winner of game 1 SHOULD have an advantage. Why? He was good enough to win Game 1! There shouldn't be any of this "babying the bads" crap.

Edit: You ninja'd this part in after I responded. X_X

I think people are forgetting that the proposed system isn't taking away a counterpick from the winner of match 1; it's never awarding a counterpick to the winner of match one. That's an important difference. No one has a "right" to a counterpick, here. Player 1 (in the above scenario) isn't getting screwed, because something wasn't taken away from him... he simply never had it in the first place!

Why shouldn't the winner of Game 1 be able to counter-pick? He lost a game, he should get to counterpick. That's all that the loser did, he just happened to lose Game 1, not Game 2.

Edit 2: To re-iterate to make my point:

The winner of Game 1 EARNED his advantage. Why are you trying to take it away?

 

[T-block]

The proposed system is flawed because it's unfair. Say P1 wins the first game, and P2 wins the second on his counterpick. If P1 wins the third game, then he has won the set with two games on supposedly "fair" stages. If P2 wins the third game, then he has won the set on one "fair" stage, and one CP. P2 has to do less work to win the set. The current system does place a lot of emphasis on the first game, but at least both players have to do the same amount of work to win the set.

As for changing the CP system, I do agree that there is room for improvement. What happened to Dastrn's system that was proposed and supposedly tested? That showed promise imo, and I'd like to see more come from it.

 

[Raziek]

The proposed system is flawed because it's unfair. Say P1 wins the first game, and P2 wins the second on his counterpick. If P1 wins the third game, then he has won the set with two games on supposedly "fair" stages. If P2 wins the third game, then he has won the set on one "fair" stage, and one CP. P2 has to do less work to win the set. The current system does place a lot of emphasis on the first game, but at least both players have to do the same amount of work to win the set.

As for changing the CP system, I do agree that there is room for improvement. What happened to Dastrn's system that was proposed and supposedly tested? That showed promise imo, and I'd like to see more come from it.

Dastrn's system is essentially what was proposed by Sunshade in THIS topic, and it's also flawed. All you have to do is play MK and you break it completely.

Edit: I'll also add my response to his system when it was brought up in my topic.

I like the idea as a means of picking the first stage..... but to me, it feels like it sucks the power right out of counter-picking. If the stages you can choose from are ones your opponent doesn't mind going to, doesn't that somewhat defeat the point?

Counter-picking should be an advantage for the player who does so skillfully. Players like myself put a lot of work into being fluent on all stages, and being able to take players to stages they aren't comfortable on is something that can, and should be exploited, for the purposes of the counter-pick.

For the first stage, striking the whole list would probably work nicely. However, I would personally disagree with removing a player's ability to play their favorite stage. I'll use myself as an example here.

I'm notorious for being extremely skilled on Norfair. I've only ever lost a match once on it, to someone vastly superior in skill to me. Because of this, word gets around, and most people ban Norfair against me. To counter-act this, and maintain a competitive edge in counter-picking, I learned other, equally difficult to adapt to, stages. These include things like Distant Planet, Port Town Aero Dive, Jungle Japes, and a variety of other stages that are strong against certain characters.

Because of this, my opponent cannot keep me from taking them SOMEWHERE that I have the advantage, which in my opinion, is the purpose of a counter-pick. Forcing people to work under pressure, in uncertain situations. If I can't pick a stage that does that, doesn't that defeat its purpose?

There's a reason we call it a COUNTER-pick.