Stage Information Database and Q&A

[Life]

Have fun Dirt.

Anyway, I guess I should say my idealism has been clearly outvoted. So reluctantly, this'll be a more stage-restrictive ruleset than I had imagined.

And that means no OSF. So I'll ask again.

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT MK?

Banning him is unreasonable to implement. Leaving him totally free leaves him overpowered (not technically proven, but widely accepted). OSF got vetoed. LGLs are arbitrary. Air time, even more so (don't hurt me BPC). I can't really think of anything else (believe me, check my old endgame statistic limits thread, I've tried)

 

[T-block]

Honestly, I don't see the point in this endeavour. It's cool if we want to discuss our own ideal ruleset as a project, but if we want it to be adopted... we're going to have to do something special. There's no reason for anyone to take a ruleset out of here over Unity, just because they've already got momentum and power.

I think our efforts are best put into creating a good ruleset (as good as possible anyways) with one-stock Food...

 

[WindMajor]

Or perhaps to just make a combined effort to try to change the stage list in the Unity Ruleset.

 

[T-block]

^Or that, although that is a difficult road and I have a feeling some people won't want to waste their time...

...but we can start by defending the legalization of Pictochat ^_^

 

[WindMajor]

Yeah, we'd have to really outdo ourselves.

 

[Life]

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

There's a reason people are calling it the Disunity Ruleset already.

If we're going to push for alterations to the Unity Ruleset, we need to come together on a few things:
1. Japes. Obvious what to do here, but still.
2. Picto. IDC about Picto, personally.
3. The starter list. Do we get PS1/PS2/whatever over FD? Do we add the two stages to make it seven? Could we get away with adding CS/Delf and pushing for nine?
4. Norfair. Go for it, or no?
5. LGL. WE NEED TO SOLVE THIS GUYS.
6. Other stages. Do we push for them? If so, when?
7. Is there anything else I missed?

If we're going to write our own ruleset to compete with Unity, shouldn't we work to differentiate it from Unity? Otherwise, what would be the point? We'd basically just be rewriting Unity, and there's no real reason to not use Unity if they're so similar. No change.

But if it's suffiicently different from Unity, then people who have problems with Unity as it exists currently could get behind it (and this is why Raz is so important). Then either the Unity set has to move our way to pick up our set's support (mission accomplished) or the Unity set will go the way of 3.1 leaving ours as the remaining authoritative one (MISSION DOUBLE ACCOMPLISHED--or is it? Would restrictive-types try something like this if ours becomes standard?).

But if it's TOO different, the community will rally to Unity because there'd be too many perceived (if not actual) problems with ours. No change.

There's a sweetspot this set would have to hit. IMO it's about here:

1. Add Japes. (Obviously.)
2. Ban Picto. (Again, I'm personally neutral, but we're trying to be different and appeal to Unity's problems.)
3. PS1 and PS2 for starters.
4. Yes to Norfair. (Differentiation, plus MLG had it and GGs)
5. Leave LGL the way Unity has it, maybe plus-or-minus a little. (There's really no good answer...)
6. Not immediately. (Next-best stage after Norfair is what, Greens? DP? PTAD? The first is the only really viable one at this time, because MLG had it)
7. How about a handicap in Sudden Death rounds, to speed the process? Maybe 60-100%.

Got it?

 

[ElDominio]

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

There's a reason people are calling it the Disunity Ruleset already.

If we're going to push for alterations to the Unity Ruleset, we need to come together on a few things:
1. Japes. Obvious what to do here, but still.
2. Picto. IDC about Picto, personally.
3. The starter list. Do we get PS1/PS2/whatever over FD? Do we add the two stages to make it seven? Could we get away with adding CS/Delf and pushing for nine?
4. Norfair. Go for it, or no?
5. LGL. WE NEED TO SOLVE THIS GUYS.
6. Other stages. Do we push for them? If so, when?
7. Is there anything else I missed?

If we're going to write our own ruleset to compete with Unity, shouldn't we work to differentiate it from Unity? Otherwise, what would be the point? We'd basically just be rewriting Unity, and there's no real reason to not use Unity if they're so similar. No change.

But if it's suffiicently different from Unity, then people who have problems with Unity as it exists currently could get behind it (and this is why Raz is so important). Then either the Unity set has to move our way to pick up our set's support (mission accomplished) or the Unity set will go the way of 3.1 leaving ours as the remaining authoritative one (MISSION DOUBLE ACCOMPLISHED--or is it? Would restrictive-types try something like this if ours becomes standard?).

But if it's TOO different, the community will rally to Unity because there'd be too many perceived (if not actual) problems with ours. No change.

There's a sweetspot this set would have to hit. IMO it's about here:

1. Add Japes. (Obviously.)
2. Ban Picto. (Again, I'm personally neutral, but we're trying to be different and appeal to Unity's problems.)
3. PS1 and PS2 for starters.
4. Yes to Norfair. (Differentiation, plus MLG had it and GGs)
5. Leave LGL the way Unity has it, maybe plus-or-minus a little. (There's really no good answer...)
6. Not immediately. (Next-best stage after Norfair is what, Greens? DP? PTAD? The first is the only really viable one at this time, because MLG had it)
7. How about a handicap in Sudden Death rounds, to speed the process? Maybe 60-100%.

Got it?

What's wrong with Picto again?

 

[BSP]

Go look at the disunity ruleset thread

 

[ぱみゅ]

1. Japes. Obvious what to do here, but still.
2. Picto. IDC about Picto, personally.
3. The starter list. Do we get PS1/PS2/whatever over FD? Do we add the two stages to make it seven? Could we get away with adding CS/Delf and pushing for nine?
4. Norfair. Go for it, or no?
5. LGL.
6. Other stages. Do we push for them? If so, when?
7. Is there anything else I missed?

1. Add Japes. There's nothing wrong with it. "Strong camping spot" is not a good argument, "Falco is too good there" is a character trait. "Klaptrap" is lol.
2. I really don't want to start discussing Picto ATM
3. I think we all here agree on using Full Stage Strike System.
4. Another good aoption to add.
5. LGLs I'm neutral on LGLs.... I tried and proposed a timeout tie-break alternative, but it just got ignored.
6. YI:M? is the only currently banned one I'd support to the end. =P
7. IDK, infinites? I'm neutral on pretty much everything else....

 

[Tesh]

Honestly, I don't see the point in this endeavour. It's cool if we want to discuss our own ideal ruleset as a project, but if we want it to be adopted... we're going to have to do something special. There's no reason for anyone to take a ruleset out of here over Unity, just because they've already got momentum and power.

I think our efforts are best put into creating a good ruleset (as good as possible anyways) with one-stock Food...

If we can flesh out a decent ruleset together, maybe it will at least get picked up for side events and people can at least try it out. There is always hope that people could like it MORE.

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

There's a reason people are calling it the Disunity Ruleset already.

If we're going to push for alterations to the Unity Ruleset, we need to come together on a few things:
1. Japes. Obvious what to do here, but still.
2. Picto. IDC about Picto, personally.
3. The starter list. Do we get PS1/PS2/whatever over FD? Do we add the two stages to make it seven? Could we get away with adding CS/Delf and pushing for nine?
4. Norfair. Go for it, or no?
5. LGL. WE NEED TO SOLVE THIS GUYS.
6. Other stages. Do we push for them? If so, when?
7. Is there anything else I missed?

If we're going to write our own ruleset to compete with Unity, shouldn't we work to differentiate it from Unity? Otherwise, what would be the point? We'd basically just be rewriting Unity, and there's no real reason to not use Unity if they're so similar. No change.

But if it's suffiicently different from Unity, then people who have problems with Unity as it exists currently could get behind it (and this is why Raz is so important). Then either the Unity set has to move our way to pick up our set's support (mission accomplished) or the Unity set will go the way of 3.1 leaving ours as the remaining authoritative one (MISSION DOUBLE ACCOMPLISHED--or is it? Would restrictive-types try something like this if ours becomes standard?).

But if it's TOO different, the community will rally to Unity because there'd be too many perceived (if not actual) problems with ours. No change.

There's a sweetspot this set would have to hit. IMO it's about here:

1. Add Japes. (Obviously.)
2. Ban Picto. (Again, I'm personally neutral, but we're trying to be different and appeal to Unity's problems.)
3. PS1 and PS2 for starters.
4. Yes to Norfair. (Differentiation, plus MLG had it and GGs)
5. Leave LGL the way Unity has it, maybe plus-or-minus a little. (There's really no good answer...)
6. Not immediately. (Next-best stage after Norfair is what, Greens? DP? PTAD? The first is the only really viable one at this time, because MLG had it)
7. How about a handicap in Sudden Death rounds, to speed the process? Maybe 60-100%.

Got it?

Don't worry about Unity at all InCom. This isn't about being strikingly different from Unity or being opposed to it. If we all want this to be a good ruleset, we should build it up sensibly and make it effective. There is nothing wrong with keeping a 300% stalling rule for infinites (kind of pointless for 1 stock matches though) or other obviously top notch common sense rules. I don't want Norfair in for the sole purpose of being different from Unity.

Basic ideas:
1 stock matches
Food level medium (?)
Bo9 sets standard with Bo13 or 15 for Semi Final and up.
DSR STAYS
If we have a liberal stagelist, I think DSR should be kept. The point being that I STILL don't want to see MK counterpicking RC/Brinstar 4 times in a 9 match set. With DSR on, It requires more stage knowledge and more diversity to be able to hold an advantage. Even if you go MK for a Bo9 set, if you have to CP 4 times, you would need 5 CPs (one for your opponent to ban and 4 to play on). So Brinstar, RC, Delfino, Frigate etc. would all be needed to pull out the win. Not just Brinstar/RC. You eventually have to CP slight advantages to take the set or switch characters to keep CPing massive ones.

This could also help keep strongest possible advantages from influencing the set too greatly, such as Olimar on Yi:M, or DDD on Green Greens etc.

Handicap 10% standard.

This is to stop people that might attempt to "camp from the get go" since the timer will be short. Pushing stage control from the start is essential. It would take 1 or 2 food spawns to bring yourself back down to 0 if you want to go attempt ledge stalling after that, your opponent doesn't have to kill you, just damage you a little with his safest moves to bring you above 0 while he heals.

3 Minute Timer

I don't mind timeouts, but 3 minutes should do fine for most stages and matchups.

All infinites and chaingrabs legal
Until we can accurate rate all matchups and then decide how bad is too bad, we should not me removing infinites and chaingrabs to make matchups easier. They aren't the only things that make a matchup bad. Just as you could turn Marth:Ness from 70:30 to 55:45(?) by removing the chaingrab, you could remove Sheik's chain and ftilt and suddenly Ganondorf doesn't do so poorly against her. These things are just as enforceable and just as wrong as removing infinites and chaingrabs.



Stagelist?

7 stage starters (there will be 4+ cps in ever set so I'm not sure how much this matters to me)

SV
BF
Lylat

PS1
PS2

YI:B
Halberd

If 9?
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination (I favor this over CS for my top 9 because it doesn't have the walkoffs or the minor issues of CS


CP only?
Brinstar(Not quite hardcore air imo, some ground games can function fine depending on matchups, MK is the only issue here)

Castle Siege (in my top 10, but I don't know if I favor is over CS for my final ground balance stage)

---11-----This is my start stage cutoff.

CP fo sho
Distant Planet (probably my pick for "starter #12, unfortunately I need a #13 to keep it proper, perhaps Pirate Ship could fill that gap eventually)

YI:M (hardcore ground stage imo, more than FD perhaps, due to the lack of edgeguarding on this stage)

RC (truly air based, there is no avoiding recovery or semi-recovery situations)

Jungle Japes. ( I can get behind this stage for 1/9th of a set perhaps, the super campiness of it is less dynamic than RC, which makes it easier to avoid slip ups though)

Norfair ( I find the stage structure to be VERY risky when there is a mobility gap between characters. Sonic, Wario and MK can all destroy most matchups here and only really have to fight when the lava brings things down to 1 platform (probably only once or twice on a 3 minute timer)

Pirate Ship (not quite sure what to do with this stage, there are some major glitches in controlled areas of the stage. Rudder camping can easily be objectively banned if food, handicap, 1 stock doesnt solve it completely. I don't feel this stage should be banned though.



"Borderlines" I Don't like at all
PTAD (the ledgeless main platform will **** everyone that goes near even with MK imo)
The random way it chooses not to stop at locations is more troublesome than Delfino because there is no way to know ahead of time where it might stop.

Pictochat (the random factor here is too much of a threat competitively imo. I do love watching people get gimped by the face and the line, but its not right for tourney play.)

WaioWare (its in the same boat as picto imo) I enjoy playing on it, but the random factor is a problem.

Everything else is banned. food, handicap, 1 stock can perhaps solve walkoff camping in a complex way, but I feel it degerates the game regardless. Onnet may fit borderline on this ruleset but I would want to keep it out anyway.


An LGL would be purely cosmetic imo. Especially with such a low timer. We could put at at like 50 (which is ridiculously high for a 3 minute timer) and leave it alone, but I still wouldn't want to punish Pit, Samus, ROB etc. for playing a ledge based projectile game if that suits them. They still need to score more hits than their opponent can heal with stage control.

Did I miss anything?

 

[T-block]

If we can flesh out a decent ruleset together, maybe it will at least get picked up for side events and people can at least try it out. There is always hope that people could like it MORE.

Yeah, but it'd have to be very different. That's what I'm saying - go big or go home. And it looks like you're going big =)

I'm liking Tesh's thoughts on this... that is already a ruleset I would definitely consider for a side event.

 

[BSP]

If I called all the stages that could be played game 1 a neutral list, would I be implying that I'm going for the most balanced stages?

In other words, starter and neutral should not be used interchangeably correct?

 

[ぱみゅ]

In theory, yes. In practice, no stage meets both qualities (neutral- a 50:50 MU. starter- median of bias, no advantages/disadvantades for any character) for all and every Matchup, not even most of Matchups.

 

[Life]

In OSF I generally go for Bo7 and Bo13 -- this eliminates any "takes too long" arguments because the total timer is actually less than the current rules.

And if we're going to be as different as possible, why not use hybrid CP system?

The point I was trying to make, though, is that if we make the stages too different people will say "screw this" and ignore us. And in order to have enough stages for OSF to function properly, we have to dive into DP, PTAD, Pipes, etc. which are ALL VERY LEGIT STAGES but will likely cause an allergic reaction of sorts to the public.

I just had a thought: what if we increase the timer by one minute on Norfair to help deal with camping there? (In OSF I mean)

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I just had a thought: what if we increase the timer by one minute on Norfair to help deal with camping there? (In OSF I mean)

Why would you increase the timer on only one stage? Sure, Norfair's layout might enable camping more than the layout on other stages, but does that really justify doing this? What about stages that encourage camping less than whatever standard amount of camping is acceptable for 3 minutes? Should they have only a 2 minute timer?

 

[Life]

Fair enough.

 

[Tesh]

In OSF I generally go for Bo7 and Bo13 -- this eliminates any "takes too long" arguments because the total timer is actually less than the current rules.

And if we're going to be as different as possible, why not use hybrid CP system?

The point I was trying to make, though, is that if we make the stages too different people will say "screw this" and ignore us. And in order to have enough stages for OSF to function properly, we have to dive into DP, PTAD, Pipes, etc. which are ALL VERY LEGIT STAGES but will likely cause an allergic reaction of sorts to the public.

I just had a thought: what if we increase the timer by one minute on Norfair to help deal with camping there? (In OSF I mean)

We aren't trying to be "as different as possible". We don't want to toss out good things, or put in bad things to make this ruleset more different. I honestly feel that PTAD is a horrible stage that makes edgeguarding extremely ******** 90% of the time.


Bo9 x 3m= 27m assuming all games time out. Bo3 x 8m - 24m assuming all games time out. Thats not really so bad imo.

 

[Life]

We aren't trying to be "as different as possible". We don't want to toss out good things, or put in bad things to make this ruleset more different. I honestly feel that PTAD is a horrible stage that makes edgeguarding extremely ******** 90% of the time.

I don't think we're on the same page.

You are trying to make the perfect ruleset. That is all well and good, and I can get behind it. I was originally trying the same thing.

For now, I am trying to make a ruleset that is better than Unity, but that will actually be adopted. While things like OSF are excellent rules (and millions of times better than 3-stock LGL) the community as a whole is not receptive to change at all. Pipes and DP are fine stages (we agree on this, correct), but the community as a whole hesitates to adopt them if we try all at once. I'm trying to make a ruleset that hits the sweetspot between "so similar to Unity that we should just use Unity because it has incentive" and "DP? Screw this, let's stick with Unity". People perceive flaws in Unity (no Japes, Picto, odd LGL, poor starter list, RC/Brinstar dilemma), which we should try to correct and, in the same ruleset, push for things we've been asking for (such as Norfair) so the community says "I might not like Norfair, but everything else is so much better than Unity, I can get behind this." When people realize that Norfair isn't nearly as bad as they thought, THEN we can push for more obscure stages and OSF and hybrid striking.

Baby steps, Tesh.

Bo9 x 3m= 27m assuming all games time out. Bo3 x 8m - 24m assuming all games time out. Thats not really so bad imo.

If we're going to push for OSF, we need to address as many potential criticisms as possible (remember, this is a very stubborn community) before presenting it officially. People are GOING to yell "this takes too long" no matter what we do. If we can show that it actually takes less time than Bo3, it'll be greatly helpful.

Also, remember the nine-minute timer? Bo3 @ 9m = 27m sets too, and time was considered the main problem with that. That extra three minutes per set really adds up when you consider how many rounds are in a tournament.

 

[Tesh]

9 minute timer is pointless because it doesn't address stalling issues. Its not about the extra time in a set. Its the fact that adding that minute to the timer doesn't really help most of the time.

As far as baby steps, I can't really agree there. I think if we have a philosophy or idealism, we should go for it and not cave against unreasonable pressures.

 

[Life]

9 minute timer is pointless because it doesn't address stalling issues. Its not about the extra time in a set. Its the fact that adding that minute to the timer doesn't really help most of the time.

I agree in general. It wasn't made to deal with stalling, though, it was made for matchups that are likely to time out even legitimately (Diddy versus Wario was the usual example) and time was cited as the reason it's not a good solution to that.

As far as baby steps, I can't really agree there. I think if we have a philosophy or idealism, we should go for it and not cave against unreasonable pressures.

Again, I really want to agree. But remember:

For half these people, idealism is Japan ruleset. We're trying to show them that stages are not bad, and they're too stubborn/idiotic to realize it. Thus we give them the sample-size version (Norfair) and if they like it they might come back for more.

 

[Tesh]

No need to insult them. Having a different set of ideals doesn't make them idiots. Just as they don't want to play on Norfair, it could be argued that we are also too stubborn to play on FD/sv/bf only.

 

[Life]

*tags BPC*

If you've proven over and over again that your rules are less arbitrary and more competitive and somebody else's rules, and they still insist on using their rules, then what?

 

[Tesh]

Then they just wanna play the way they want to play. Just like we do. If someone else has a philosophical ideal that static empty stages are better for competition, how exactly do you change a core belief like that? Its one thing to argue different degrees in the same philosophy, like whether or not Pictochat is too random, or if Brinstar is too good for MK, but convincing people that the way they think is completely wrong....

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Pretty much... Logic says "NO YOU ARE A MORON".

 

[Timic83]

Me and Grim had some warioware matches last night

believe us the topic you will see is unbelievable

lets just say we have an amazing new neutral, and i for one welcome our new microgame overlords

 

[Ripple]

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."
Friedrich Nietzsche

this should be our motto

 

[Life]

What if the latter group is demonstrably wrong?

 

[T-block]

They are not objectively demonstrably wrong in this case.

If BPC links me his blogpost I swear I'm going to explode.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

To expand on what T-Block said (or at least on how I interpret it).

There is no objectively correct/best stagelist, simply because elements that are acceptable for player A, can be unacceptable for player B.

Let's take Pictochat as an example. One group says the level of randomness is acceptable, the second group says otherwise. Who is right? You can't prove it because it's a subjective line, drawn by every player depending on what they think is acceptable for competitive play.

To expand on that, that line can be drawn pretty much everywhere. I would argue that one shouldn't look at each stage itself, but rather the elements that are present on every stage, select an amount of cirteria and then look at what stages fit that criteria.

For example, some criteria that are generally seen as unfit for competitive play are circles and walkoffs, so stages that have those elements are excluded. Depending on the chosen criteria, one can end up with vastly different stagelists. Someone could say that a third party (i.e. stages) damaging/KOing players is uncompetitive, and combined with the current criteria, he would get something like this:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Delfino Plaza
Luigi's Mansion (you could probably argue for a circle here and exclude it)
Frigate Orpheon
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Lyat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Melee (depending on how the research on this one turns out, it could be excluded for having a permanent walkoff)
Rainbow Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1

You could even go a step further and exclude stages with different transformations and end up with this list:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Luigi's Mansion (you could probably argue for a circle here and exclude it, the different states could be seen as transformations I guess, not sure)
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Lyat Cruise
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Melee (depending on how the research on this one turns out, it could be excluded for having a permanent walkoff)
Rainbow Cruise

That leaves us with a grand total of 8 stages at best, 6 if you can apply the criteria from above to LM and YIM. We're getting pretty close to Japan here, wouldn't you say?


tl;dr
As long as a set of criteria is consistently applied to all stages and legal stages are based on those criteria, you probably can't refute it. If you want to try anyway, have fun, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Ripple]

we have too many stickies

 

[ぱみゅ]

To expand on what T-Block said (or at least on how I interpret it).

There is no objectively correct/best stagelist, simply because elements that are acceptable for player A, can be unacceptable for player B.

Let's take Pictochat as an example. One group says the level of randomness is acceptable, the second group says otherwise. Who is right? You can't prove it because it's a subjective line, drawn by every player depending on what they think is acceptable for competitive play.

To expand on that, that line can be drawn pretty much everywhere. I would argue that one shouldn't look at each stage itself, but rather the elements that are present on every stage, select an amount of cirteria and then look at what stages fit that criteria.

For example, some criteria that are generally seen as unfit for competitive play are circles and walkoffs, so stages that have those elements are excluded. Depending on the chosen criteria, one can end up with vastly different stagelists. Someone could say that a third party (i.e. stages) damaging/KOing players is uncompetitive, and combined with the current criteria, he would get something like this:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Delfino Plaza
Luigi's Mansion (you could probably argue for a circle here and exclude it)
Frigate Orpheon
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Lyat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Melee (depending on how the research on this one turns out, it could be excluded for having a permanent walkoff)
Rainbow Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1

You could even go a step further and exclude stages with different transformations and end up with this list:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Luigi's Mansion (you could probably argue for a circle here and exclude it, the different states could be seen as transformations I guess, not sure)
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Lyat Cruise
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Melee (depending on how the research on this one turns out, it could be excluded for having a permanent walkoff)
Rainbow Cruise

That leaves us with a grand total of 8 stages at best, 6 if you can apply the criteria from above to LM and YIM. We're getting pretty close to Japan here, wouldn't you say?


tl;dr
As long as a set of criteria is consistently applied to all stages and legal stages are based on those criteria, you probably can't refute it. If you want to try anyway, have fun, I'm looking forward to it.

SuSa made a thread saying pretty much that a while ago.

He went much deeper by removing any random/scrolling/changing elements, and ended with about 5 stages that included Japes lol

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Me and Grim had some warioware matches last night

believe us the topic you will see is unbelievable

lets just say we have an amazing new neutral, and i for one welcome our new microgame overlords

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis.

Wall of text.

This is why we should give up.

 

[Tesh]

Here is an idea, InCom. For same stock same percent timeouts, Unity (and general rulesets) do a 1 stock 3 minute rematch. Now this won't work for us because we are already doing 1 stock 3 minutes regular games. 1 option is to play out sudden death for a short version of what we have. But I have something else in mind

What if same stock same percent timeouts were counted as a win for both players? If the stage is perhaps "too campy" for that matchup, DSR would prevent anyone from going there again (since both players won).

I know its a bit blurry for CPs though. Its either that or handicapping people back to near the percents they were at when the match ended.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

SuSa made a thread saying pretty much that a while ago.

He went much deeper by removing any random/scrolling/changing elements, and ended with about 5 stages that included Japes lol

I know, but apparently some people like to forget stuff like that, so I figured I'd bring it up again. Also, iirc SuSa argued with randomness for the most part, something that is rather hard to measure, whereas I didn't use it as an argument at all (besides WarioWare I guess).

This is why we should give up.

I hope you're implying that you don't disagree with what I said and not that you think it's complete bs.

Also why give up? Maybe you should just change your goals slightly? How about not making THE stagelist, but rather making a few different ones and presenting those? Then you could explain the advantages and disadvantages of each list and people can decide what they want to go with. Something like that?

 

[Kantrip]

Battlefield
Delfino Plaza - Transformations
Yoshi's Island - Ghosts, platform tilting, shy guys
Lylat Cruise - Stage tilting that is random depending on background scene
Bridge of Eldin - Walk-offs, random appearance of bomb and stage changes
Smashville - Moving platform that starts on random side, balloon appears
Rumble Falls - Scrolling, ruins fights
Skyworld - Circle camping, platform along bottom, stage "changes" when broken
Castle Siege - Has transformations, walk-offs
WarioWare, Inc. - Random minigames with random rewards
Pokémon Stadium 2 - Transformations with random factor
Battleship Halberd - Stage changes, laser bomb and arm target a random player
Shadow Moses Island - Walls, walk-offs, stage changes when broken
New Pork City - Circle camping, random one-hit chimera
PictoChat - Random obstacles appearing
The Summit - Scrolling, anti-gravity, stage changes, fish can eat players
Norfair - Random lava waves and other obstacles
Mario Circuit - Car appearances, walk-offs
Frigate Orpheon - Random darkness, stage changes when it flips, moving platform
Distant Planet - Random rain, creature that can eat you, plants with random number
Mushroomy Kingdom - Scrolling, walk-offs
Port Town Aero Dive - Has random transformations
Final Destination - Heavily skewed matchups
Mario Bros. - Circle camping, random enemies
Green Hill Zone - Walk-offs, stage changes when broken, random spin signs
Luigi's Mansion - Circle camping, stage changes when broken
Spear Pillar - Circle camping, random legendary with random moves
75 m - Circle camping, random things thrown, walk-offs
Flat Zone 2 - Walk-offs, different transformations
Big Blue (Melee Stage) - Scrolling, circle camping, stage changes
Green Greens (Melee Stage) - Random wind and apple events, random blocks
Jungle Japes (Melee Stage) - Klap Trap timing gives a disadvantage, water rushing
Hanenbow - Circle camping, stage changes when hit
Pirate Ship - Random events (rock, air, bombs, red lion, catapault)
Pokemon Stadium (Melee Stage) - Random transformations, walls
Onett (Melee Stage) - Random car appearances, walk-offs
Brinstar (Melee Stage) - Random lava, stage changes when broken
Corneria (Melee Stage) - Random lasers and other ships, wall
Temple (Melee Stage) - Circle camping
Yoshi's Island (Melee Stage) - Walk-off, stage changes when broken

When it comes down to it, and there are more complaints that I've heard for all the stages, is this what everything will come to? Honestly, some arguments against stages are ridiculous, but these things have all been brought up.

So... 3 stocks, MK only, Battlefield?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Mario Bros. - Circle camping, random enemies

Excuse me, but I'd like to see someone circle camp on Mario Bros. with 4 pink Sidesteppers running around (or more realistically even, 2).

But anyway, something being bad on a stage doesn't make it ban-worthy.

 

[ぱみゅ]

But anyway, something being bad on a stage doesn't make it ban-worthy.

When pointing this, always remember to bring Smashville's balloon.
Best.Argument.Ever.

 

[Life]

Here is an idea, InCom. For same stock same percent timeouts, Unity (and general rulesets) do a 1 stock 3 minute rematch. Now this won't work for us because we are already doing 1 stock 3 minutes regular games. 1 option is to play out sudden death for a short version of what we have. But I have something else in mind

What if same stock same percent timeouts were counted as a win for both players? If the stage is perhaps "too campy" for that matchup, DSR would prevent anyone from going there again (since both players won).

I know its a bit blurry for CPs though. Its either that or handicapping people back to near the percents they were at when the match ended.

I was thinking one-stock, one/two-minute rematches with handicap at 200-300%. Food prevents planking out (to a point), and percent makes offense much stronger. If THAT match gets timed out... srsly? IDK.

 

[ElDominio]

I was thinking one-stock, one/two-minute rematches with handicap at 200-300%. Food prevents planking out (to a point), and percent makes offense much stronger. If THAT match gets timed out... srsly? IDK.

Why 200-300%? Why an arbitriary number? Who decides what percent is "fair" and what isn't?

*cries*

 

[chaosmaster1991]

The game says 300%, so wouldn't it be easiest to just go with that?

And if that one gets timed out they deserve to play a real SSD.