Stage Information Database and Q&A

[T-block]

so...what do we debate now?

What would it take for me to "prove" that Picto and Yoshi's Island are in the same league of randomness? Just out of curiosity.

Whether or not you guys wana help me legalize Japes or not.

Man there is so much redundancy in this statement.

"Whether" implies the "or not". You could have just said "Whether you guys wanna help me legalize Japes". =P

Of course I'll help, but the Japes argument is... strange to me, because people keep bringing up new things every time that stage is discussed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Shouldn't interfere with results? I completely disagree.

Sheik manages to take Marth's double jump with a f-air at low percents. His up-b won't make it back to the edge, so he aims for the platform. Call this point A. Scenario 1: the platform does not save him - he loses the stock. Scenario 2: the platform saves him - Sheik is obviously prepared for this, so she.... does what? Sheik can not guarantee taking Marth's stock anymore, no matter what she does. From point A, what is the difference between scenario 1 and scenario 2? Whether the platform decides to appear in that spot at that point in time, which is completely random.

Someone else brought up the scenario of two characters with poor recoveries trading blows and flying to opposite blast zones. Maybe they both use their double jump and clash aerials, so they're off-stage with only their up-b. Both characters can make it to where the platform rises, but no further. It saves one, but not the other.

Even in high percent situations, if the recoverer can only make it to the platform, and the platform saves him, all he has to do is hold shield. The platform rises faster than can be reacted to, so the edgeguarder must attack at the apex of the platform's path, as hoping to land a hit while it is rising cannot be done consistently. The recoverer holds shield and puts his shield up before the edgeguarder connects with an aerial, and suffers at worst an edge slip. At this point, the stock is no longer guaranteed by any means.

Sheik didn't necessarily deserve to take a stock from Marth in the first place. Like I said, always assume that the platform will come up.

The difference between a character being saved and a character being KO'd/damaged is also different. If Marth was saved by the platform, both players still have multiple options from there and it just turns into a "reset" of sorts. If a player is KO'd, etc..., they lose all of their options. It's the difference between a major advantage that will affect results, and a minor advantage that could maybe possibly slightly affect results.

Look at it objectively. Why does it matter that occurrences of randomness are restricted to two locations? In the end, this randomness still has the ability to affect a match drastically. Is there truly an objective reason as to why the platforms are okay, while Pictochat's drawings are not, or does it just feel better to be ****ed with by the platforms?

The randomness being restricted to two locations means that it is plausible for players to react to the randomness. That's all.

On the other hand, is it so unrealistic to believe that one day players will be able to expect all drawings at all times and plan around it? There are a finite number of drawings, and a rough timing guideline. You say it's impractical, but that's not obvious to me.

It's impractical because if you plan around one random event, another could screw you over.

Say you want to avoid the diagonal line, so you recover high instead (you're Meta Knight) suddenly the side-spikes appear (with the hit-box appearing before the animation, for some reason >_>) and you get KO'd. Alternatively, MK could have gone diagonally-high to the stage... and risk having one of the spikes from the spike pit (not sure what it's called, the one where spikes are placed along the stage and are walls) hit him and KO him... So lets say he recovers a little higher than that, OH NO! one of the fireballs appeared, the opponent waits for him to DI out and KOs him. Now imagine all of that... with a player pressuring your recovery as well.

What I'm trying to say is: Trying to prepare for everything on Pictochat takes away a LARGE amount of your options to the point where results could be affected purely due to randomness. Yoshi's Island, doesn't.

Also, I don't believe a ruleset can be created completely objectively. I just try to stay as objective as possible in situations where I can. Obviously, it's impossible to play the game with no randomness and playing the game with nothing banned for randomness is uncompetitive, so I have to take a subjective stance.

This idea of randomness is really called into question when we examine YI vs. Pictochat. You say that where we draw the line for randomness is a subjective assessment, and I agree. How much is acceptable is subjective and cannot be defined non-arbitrarily. However, how much is still vague. What aspects of randomness are we examining? Are we looking at how drastic the effect could be? Are we looking at how often random events happen? Or do we just look at the overall effect on a match in general? Perhaps a mix of all of these? Does one have more weight than the others? You can dismiss randomness discussion as subjective, but don't you think these questions are worth looking into?

The only criteria for randomness we need to look at it is "Will this effect results at the highest achievable level of play?" You're making it sounds a lot harder than it actually is imo.

I think that's fair.

I also argue that Pictochat gives consistent results (and by consistent I mean the inconsistency is in the same league as YI) given two players who understand how to play the stage, but that's a lot harder to prove =(

I'd like to see you prove that, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I really like Pictochat, and my opinion on it's legality has changed umpteen-billion times... It just seems like too much from my point of view.

 

[Ghostbone]

As Grim has mentioned, Both players can react and adapt to the ghosts on YI, only one player can react to some on the transformations on Pictochat. That's the biggest difference.

Anyway temple should obviously be legal

Spoiler

When using that hybrid full stage list striking thingy that (I think?) InCom made.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yes, it was InCom.

I have no idea why we debate about stages anymore, we can just do HFLSS >_>

 

[MK26]

@tblock: to be honest, im not sure. there probably isnt enough competitive picto footage to make a hypothesis, and even if there is how are we to know how much knowledge of the stage each player has?

@akaku: kirby is almost completely personal preference, and cp'ing to your opponent's weak points rather than your own strong points - ex. cp rainbow cruise against grounded characters, lylat cruise against spacies, ps1/2 against characters that dont like them...

 

[T-block]

This is SUCH a delicious post. Oh my god this will be fun.

Sheik didn't necessarily deserve to take a stock from Marth in the first place. Like I said, always assume that the platform will come up.

Sheik didn't deserve to take the stock? F-air gimps happen... all it takes is for Sheik to read a double jump from Marth. I don't see how you can get away with saying Sheik didn't deserve to take the stock. If this happened on Battlefield, and Marth didn't have that random chance of being saved, would you say then that Sheik didn't deserve the stock? Put another way, who are you to say what Sheik DESERVES?

Sheik can assume that the platform will show up. She can do so and react perfectly if it does. What can she do? She can probably f-air/b-air again? Let's say she even gets the hit in before Marth is able to shield. It doesn't matter. Yes, Sheik gets another hit in and that's great. However, now Marth has his double jump and up-b back, and Sheik is not guaranteed to hit him out of his double jump again by any means. Marth went from a position where he was definitely going to die to a position where it was very likely he would recover. What determines whether he would be able to get into that position? Random chance.

You're missing the other side of the scenario here. Yes, you can say the Sheik should know that the platform could come up, and should accept that the stage can save her opponent in that position. Absolutely. However, since you insist on looking at whether it can affect the match, consider the scenario where Marth is saved, and the scenario where Marth is left to die and ask yourself: what separates these two situations?

Players assuming that the platform will rise does not mitigate the effects of randomness completely. Let's say this scenario plays out. Marth gets hit out of his double jump by Sheik's f-air and will be ledgehogged by Sheik if he goes for the ledge. He up-b's, and aims to fall where the platform will rise. I pause the replay here. Now let me ask you this: will Marth lose his stock? You won't be able to answer. This is, without a doubt, randomness affecting a match.

The difference between a character being saved and a character being KO'd/damaged is also different. If Marth was saved by the platform, both players still have multiple options from there and it just turns into a "reset" of sorts. If a player is KO'd, etc..., they lose all of their options. It's the difference between a major advantage that will affect results, and a minor advantage that could maybe possibly slightly affect results.

How can you in one post say this:

I see no objective difference in forcing players to not use a powerful defensive option that (arguably) breaks a stage (Pirate Ship) and not using a powerful offensive option that breaks a stage (WarioWare).

...and then in the next post say this?

The difference between a character being saved and a character being KO'd/damaged is also different.

What is the objective difference, when in the end whether a stock is lost is determined completely by chance? What is the objective difference between you having your stock taken away from you and your opponent having his stock returned to him? Why is it okay just because both players have options after the platform pops up? You are looking at this in the wrong way. Marth is GIVEN options. GIVEN. He goes from free-falling to his death to landing on a platform, and he is magically granted these options, and his stock, just because the stage decided that it would be a good idea to have the ghost pop up at that point in space and time.

"Maybe possibly slightly affecting" results? Are you serious? This is a STOCK DIFFERENCE. That's one third of the match. If your opponent is saved at low percents, that is a significant shift.

The randomness being restricted to two locations means that it is plausible for players to react to the randomness. That's all.

Being able to react doesn't change the fact that the outcome of a match was potentially swayed. Stocks can still be returned even if you react perfectly, as shown in the Sheik-Marth example.

It's impractical because if you plan around one random event, another could screw you over.

Say you want to avoid the diagonal line, so you recover high instead (you're Meta Knight) suddenly the side-spikes appear (with the hit-box appearing before the animation, for some reason >_>) and you get KO'd. Alternatively, MK could have gone diagonally-high to the stage... and risk having one of the spikes from the spike pit (not sure what it's called, the one where spikes are placed along the stage and are walls) hit him and KO him... So lets say he recovers a little higher than that, OH NO! one of the fireballs appeared, the opponent waits for him to DI out and KOs him. Now imagine all of that... with a player pressuring your recovery as well.

What I'm trying to say is: Trying to prepare for everything on Pictochat takes away a LARGE amount of your options to the point where results could be affected purely due to randomness. Yoshi's Island, doesn't.

I'll have to rethink this part. Not a whole lot of thought went into the original point.

Also, I don't believe a ruleset can be created completely objectively. I just try to stay as objective as possible in situations where I can. Obviously, it's impossible to play the game with no randomness and playing the game with nothing banned for randomness is uncompetitive, so I have to take a subjective stance.

Yes, but your stances contradict each other.

The only criteria for randomness we need to look at it is "Will this effect results at the highest achievable level of play?" You're making it sounds a lot harder than it actually is imo.

Oh man... I WISH that was what we were looking for, but it is most certainly not. This criterion would DEFINITELY see Yoshi's Island banned along with Pictochat. Frigate Orpheon would probably have to go as well, unless Olimar were banned from CP'ing it.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

So guys...

I did elo rankings for my region.

I'm ranked 77/89 with a rating of 880 (base rating is 1000)... in a weak region... I blame stacked pools for several tournaments in a row and sucking *** at the Falco MU.

Time for me to step it up.

Oh, MK26, you're at 46/89 with a rating of 968, since you don't really check the regional forums.

 

[Kuro~]

Yar cool discussions. I'll be posting here more frequently now~

 

[T-block]

Hallo Kuro. Hope you stick around ^^

 

[WindMajor]

You should fill out the format in the OP Kuro, so I can add you to the crew.

 

[Kuro~]

You should fill out the format in the OP Kuro, so I can add you to the crew.

Username: Kuro~
Name: Tre, TJ, or Will.
Location: APK BOI!!!! (Apopka, Florida lol)
Stance: Moderate
Tier: Rising?
Mains:
Secondaries:
Favourite Stage(s): Depends on which character I always had "fun" on picto but competitively...i'd prolly have to say Lylat or Yoshi's Island for neutrals and Frigate for CP.
Other: Willy Wonka:"Everything in this room is eatable, even *I'm* eatable! But that is called "cannibalism," my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies. "

 

[Akaku94]

@MK26 Then I have been doing it right after all thanks!

I think the randomness from Picto and the randomness from YIB are not equally influential on a match.

On YIB, in any situation, either the cloud appears or it doesn't. The player can optimize his strategy for one, or balance between both relatively easily, because there are only two possibilities.

On Picto, there are a mazimum of 27 options, making optimization nearly impossible. However, this is ok, because of a few facts:

1) a new drawing appears every 13.33 seconds. This means that if a transformation has just appeared within the last 5-10 seconds, there is only one possibility: no change

2) no drawing appears twice until al 37 have appeared once. With an 8-minute timer, this means that no drawing appears twice in a match. If a drawing has already appeared, it can be taken out of the equation.

With both of these in mind, let's look back at the MK example.

Say you want to avoid the diagonal line, so you recover high instead (you're Meta Knight) suddenly the side-spikes appear (with the hit-box appearing before the animation, for some reason >_>) and you get KO'd. Alternatively, MK could have gone diagonally-high to the stage... and risk having one of the spikes from the spike pit (not sure what it's called, the one where spikes are placed along the stage and are walls) hit him and KO him... So lets say he recovers a little higher than that, OH NO! one of the fireballs appeared, the opponent waits for him to DI out and KOs him.

If MK was knocked off the stage right after, for example, the house had appeared, he wouldn't have to worry about a damaging drawing unless he is still recovering at least 10 seconds later. If the spikes, fireball, "spike pit," or any other drawing that would affect his recovery had already appeared, he could plan knowing that that particular drawing cannot appear.

So, I think that YIB and Picto have different kinds of randomness, but that both are within a player's ability to deal with.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Actually I'm pretty sure you CAN fail most microgames without getting hurt. Shielding a damaging microgame won't give you the win if you were instructed to dodge or avoid it. I think the giant man with the sledgehammer (grounds you) is the only one you can't shield.

Roll/Spotdodge

I really feel pirate ship is a much different story though. Unlike microgames, its 99.9% impossible for your opponent to force you into the perfect spot under the ship and then KEEP you there long enough for it to be considered stalling. Its also nearly impossible to accidentally stall there for a long time. Pirate Ship seems a bit more viable to me compared to Norfair and Japes because other than the spots under the rock and ship, it doesn't appear to be a massive camp fest easily abused by metaknight. Though, the top platform on the mast of the ship could make air camping a paradise.

Why did you even mentioned MetaKnight here?
And no, air camps are unlikely if the one being camped knows what they are doing: most wait for opponents to be grounded sooner or later, and platforms are too fwe and too small to even consider aircamp a problem.

T-block: that post almost convinced me that YI should be banned...

but, as tesh said, there is random in brawl. If I go for a dair-fsmash as kirby and trip my opponent, I could get a kill, but have no chance whatsoever if he doesnt. If I'm a recovering Luigi knocked out of my double jump, getting a misfire could save my life or prevent an edgeguard opportunity (alternatively, a misfire at the wrong time could actually prevent me from recovering!). Smashville's platform could prevent an early gimp if it starts in the right place. Whether rock or grass is chosen near the end of a game on PS1 could vastly change my chance of timing my opponent out. Olimar on Frigate.

Brawl has random elements. Some can cause stock losses. Legalizing or banning such randomness is by necessity a subjective assessment. imo pictochat crosses that line, for reasons ive stated elsewhere, while yi brawl does not

Bolded and sized.
The end of that post makes it lose any sense. Really, you just wrote a lot to say "imo"...

I personally think that the point where we ban a stage is the point where, among two players of significantly different skill levels but equal stage knowledge, it's unreasonable to expect the more skilled player to win most of the matches they have. On YI, a high-level player with knowledge of the platforms should probably be able to mitigate their effect on the match, no matter how much his mid-level opponent tries to abuse them. Perhaps he'll avoid going for gimps, and maybe he'll use them himself, but he'll prevent the randomness from turning the tide of battle.

Isn't that knowing how to use the stage well? The "more sklilled one" has all the other places to outplay opponent.

On Picto, on the other hand, even with a fair amount of stage knowledge there are a significant number of things out of your control ("he grabbed me! please dont be missiles please dont be missiles please dont be missiles")

"You can't control" doesn't means "You can't avoid or take advantage from".

that will, over the course of a series of matches, cause the mid-level player to win some that he should lose. Heck, it might even butcher a game or two that he had in the bag. Think of it like a standard deviation - the high-level player will probably still win more games and most sets in the long run. but the standard deviation of set counts on Picto will be much higher than, say, YI.

Firstly, as long as both players knows what they're doing, stage can sometimes have bad scenarios, but not really screw their game.
Now, Stage is not universally broken, it takes a special skill to take advantage of it, so if your ability to take advantage for randomness is better than opponents', why game can't get a little more even (Mr.GnW, for example)?

Yar cool discussions. I'll be posting here more frequently now~

Prepare your brain for massive walls of text, trolling, antitrolling, colliding ideals and discovering thigs you didn't know.
Welcome to the boards.

It's impractical because if you plan around one random event, another could screw you over.

Say you want to avoid the diagonal line, so you recover high instead (you're Meta Knight) suddenly the side-spikes appear (with the hit-box appearing before the animation, for some reason >_>) and you get KO'd. Alternatively, MK could have gone diagonally-high to the stage... and risk having one of the spikes from the spike pit (not sure what it's called, the one where spikes are placed along the stage and are walls) hit him and KO him... So lets say he recovers a little higher than that, OH NO! one of the fireballs appeared, the opponent waits for him to DI out and KOs him. Now imagine all of that... with a player pressuring your recovery as well.

What I'm trying to say is: Trying to prepare for everything on Pictochat takes away a LARGE amount of your options to the point where results could be affected purely due to randomness. Yoshi's Island, doesn't.

You do NEVER prepare for a single event on Pictochat. You won't recover high/low because of certain action probably happening. You always aim for the Safety Zone while the stage is blank and adapt to everything else, while discarding possible scenarios through the transormations appears (they're not 100% avoidable because of opponent's actions, but they won't randomly screw you if you know what you're doing).

 

[T-block]

1) a new drawing appears every 13.33 seconds. This means that if a transformation has just appeared within the last 5-10 seconds, there is only one possibility: no change

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[WindMajor]

OP updated and such.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[MK26]

Bolded and sized.
The end of that post makes it lose any sense. Really, you just wrote a lot to say "imo"...

I say in the sentence before that that an acceptable level of randomness is a subjective argument, and in my opinion, picto crosses the line.

(Green = subjective words)

Isn't that knowing how to use the stage well? The "more sklilled one" has all the other places to outplay opponent.

I tried to make sure to distinguish between stage knowledge and character knowledge - if they both know how to use the specific stage equally well, then the player with a significantly higher level of general smash knowledge and ability (ie tech skill, mindgames, execution) should win most of the time. My point is that that probably doesn't happen as much as it should on Picto to justify legalizing it.

"You can't control" doesn't means "You can't avoid or take advantage from".

Of course not. A game on Frigate is drastically different dependent on if the stage stays on side 1 or side 2. Even if you are able to adapt, it doesn't mean the outcome won't be significantly different depending on what is effectively a coin flip. Picto is similar in that sense, but is more of a dice-roll-random-chance-of-****-happening sort of deal.

Firstly, as long as both players knows what they're doing, stage can sometimes have bad scenarios, but not really screw their game.
Now, Stage is not universally broken, it takes a special skill to take advantage of it, so if your ability to take advantage for randomness is better than opponents', why game can't get a little more even (Mr.GnW, for example)?

In that case, perhaps your stage-specific skill is greater than your opponent's, so it doesn't really apply to the ban criteria. If I suck in general but can wreck on RC, whereas my opponent is PR'd but can't play on the stage, is it banworthy because I beat him on it? Or do I have a greater depth of knowledge of the stage, which i used to my advantage? I'll argue with you until i have carpal tunnel in favour of the latter.

@MK26 Then I have been doing it right after all thanks!

np bro, you're coo-

13.33 seconds

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

 

[T-block]

I'm totally changing my custom title to that.

Then when people ask me what it means...

Ima be like

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

 

[WindMajor]

It's the amount of time that a T-Block takes to fall down in Tetris when you don't hold down.

Really really.

 

[T-block]

That makes absolutely no sense. But I <3 you for trying.

Sorry if it seems like we're being mean, Akaku =P Pictochat's drawings are not predictable timing-wise. There's an interval of around 6-9 seconds of blank time within each drawing. The 13.33 number floated around this place for like... a year before anyone even bothered to verify it. Most people are aware now, but not everyone is unfortunately =(

 

[ぱみゅ]

I say in the sentence before that that an acceptable level of randomness is a subjective argument, and in my opinion, picto crosses the line.

(Green = subjective words)

I tried to make sure to distinguish between stage knowledge and character knowledge - if they both know how to use the specific stage equally well, then the player with a significantly higher level of general smash knowledge and ability (ie tech skill, mindgames, execution) should win most of the time. My point is that that probably doesn't happen as much as it should on Picto to justify legalizing it.

Subjectivity is fine. But too much of it is just bias.
In my opinion, you opinion is biased.

Of course not. A game on Frigate is drastically different dependent on if the stage stays on side 1 or side 2. Even if you are able to adapt, it doesn't mean the outcome won't be significantly different depending on what is effectively a coin flip. Picto is similar in that sense, but is more of a dice-roll-random-chance-of-****-happening sort of deal.

So? problem is that you have too much to learn?
There's a lot of scenarios on Picto, that doesn't mean you can't prevent and adapt to them.

In that case, perhaps your stage-specific skill is greater than your opponent's, so it doesn't really apply to the ban criteria. If I suck in general but can wreck on RC, whereas my opponent is PR'd but can't play on the stage, is it banworthy because I beat him on it? Or do I have a greater depth of knowledge of the stage, which i used to my advantage? I'll argue with you until i have carpal tunnel in favour of the latter.

So... do you agree that stage skill is fair, good and necessary? Then why would you argue with me?
inb4imostlikelywordeditpoorly.jpg

 

[MK26]

Biased how?

The point i was trying to make is that a stage is competitive if, when two players of even stage skill but vastly different character skill face off in a series of sets, you can reasonable expect the stronger player to win more. How big of a skill gap? That's subjective. How many is 'more'? Subjective. Does Picto adhere to that reasonable expection? Again, subjective, but my position is that it does not. T-Block's is that it does. I am unsure how to defend my assertion.

'In favour of the latter' means I agree with you in that case. But you can't really use the results of two players, one of whom is stronger on a stage and the other who is stronger in general, to argue stage legality, because the benefits of stage-specific knowledge vary wildly from stage to stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1) a new drawing appears every 13.33 seconds. This means that if a transformation has just appeared within the last 5-10 seconds, there is only one possibility: no change

Please stop saying this. It's simply not true.

2) no drawing appears twice until al 37 have appeared once. With an 8-minute timer, this means that no drawing appears twice in a match. If a drawing has already appeared, it can be taken out of the equation.

As time passes the stage becomes progressively less dangerous. It's still a 1/8 chance by the end of the match.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The point i was trying to make is that a stage is competitive if, when two players of even stage skill but vastly different character skill face off in a series of sets, you can reasonable expect the stronger player to win more. How big of a skill gap? That's subjective. How many is 'more'? Subjective. Does Picto adhere to that reasonable expection? Again, subjective, but my position is that it does not. T-Block's is that it does. I am unsure how to defend my assertion.

Different opinions, i do not blame you.
problem is that stage legality must overcome opinions and do whatever is healthier for the game. We all probably have been doing it from a wrong perspective.

'In favour of the latter' means I agree with you in that case. But you can't really use the results of two players, one of whom is stronger on a stage and the other who is stronger in general, to argue stage legality, because the benefits of stage-specific knowledge vary wildly from stage to stage.

The benefits of character knowledge vary wildly from character to character.

As time passes the stage becomes progressively less dangerous. It's still a 1/8 chance by the end of the match.

It's actually much, much less as long as you're correctly positioned. Opponent may force you to get out of that position, and you may or may not be screwed by that, again, because opponent forced you to (redundancy trying to make my point louder).


2sleepy right now, I probably didn't replied well... I might do tomorrow.

 

[MK26]

Different opinions, i do not blame you.
problem is that stage legality must overcome opinions and do whatever is healthier for the game. We all probably have been doing it from a wrong perspective.

For the most part I agree, but when determining how much randomness we want to allow in Brawl, that is a matter of opinion. It's possible to make a smart, informed decision that isn't 100% objective.

The benefits of character knowledge vary wildly from character to character.

And thats where you argue character legality, not stage legality.

 

[Ghostbone]

So I don't mean to interrupt the Picto discussion (of which I keep changing my mind on, currently I'm leaning towards ban and would rather it banned at tournaments, but I can see legitimate arguments for its legality).

But I have recently come to the conclusion that Dave's stupid rule should be abolished, or at least in its current form, where it applies to game 1.
Basically it punishes someone for winning, and why should someone be punished for winning? Why should that option to counter-pick a certain stage be taken away from them? Why should they be allowed to counter-pick a stage if they lost on it, but not when they've won on it?

You can bring up that it might increases stage diversity, but it would only increase stage diversity in the case that the player wins game 1.

If it's to make matches fairer, than that's still a problem. (let's say we're using the unity ruleset with two stage bans) Player 1's using Falco, Player 2 MK.
So game 1 would be on Battlefield. (assuming SV is better for Falco, i don't really care which is better but for this example let's assume SV is)
If Falco wins, MK will counter-pick his 3rd best counter-pick, then Falco will counter-pick his 4th best counter-pick.
Why is it fair that MK basically gets a stronger counter-pick than Falco?
If Falco loses than they both get their 3rd best counter-pick, which is fairer.

Anyway we basically have two situations.
1. The one just described above, where a player will end up with a worse counter-pick than his opponent, just because he won game 1.
2. Dave's stupid rule will have no effect, the match that game 1 was on won't be counter-picked by either player, so what's the purpose of Dave's Stupid Rule in this instance?

Basically I think that Dave's stupid rule should be amended to not applying for game 1, though for other games it's fine.

 

[Akaku94]

Well, there goes my first point... but at least I have my second

As time passes the stage becomes progressively less dangerous. It's still a 1/8 chance by the end of the match.

You know what, forget it

Anyway, glad T-block explained what was going on... that's the last time I check the Wiki for stage mechanics

Moving on, ghostbone's got a good point about Dave's stupid rule... but I was under the impression that the rule only applied to CP games, not the first one...

*winces in preparation for correction

 

[Ghostbone]

Currently, if you win on a stage in any game of a set you're not allowed to counter-pick that stage later in a set.
So you're not allowed to counter-pick the stage you won game 1 on, which I think is silly for the reasons above.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So I don't mean to interrupt the Picto discussion (of which I keep changing my mind on, currently I'm leaning towards ban and would rather it banned at tournaments, but I can see legitimate arguments for its legality).

But I have recently come to the conclusion that Dave's stupid rule should be abolished, or at least in its current form, where it applies to game 1.
Basically it punishes someone for winning, and why should someone be punished for winning? Why should that option to counter-pick a certain stage be taken away from them? Why should they be allowed to counter-pick a stage if they lost on it, but not when they've won on it?

You can bring up that it might increases stage diversity, but it would only increase stage diversity in the case that the player wins game 1.

If it's to make matches fairer, than that's still a problem. (let's say we're using the unity ruleset with two stage bans) Player 1's using Falco, Player 2 MK.
So game 1 would be on Battlefield. (assuming SV is better for Falco, i don't really care which is better but for this example let's assume SV is)
If Falco wins, MK will counter-pick his 3rd best counter-pick, then Falco will counter-pick his 4th best counter-pick.
Why is it fair that MK basically gets a stronger counter-pick than Falco?
If Falco loses than they both get their 3rd best counter-pick, which is fairer.

Anyway we basically have two situations.
1. The one just described above, where a player will end up with a worse counter-pick than his opponent, just because he won game 1.
2. Dave's stupid rule will have no effect, the match that game 1 was on won't be counter-picked by either player, so what's the purpose of Dave's Stupid Rule in this instance?

Basically I think that Dave's stupid rule should be amended to not applying for game 1, though for other games it's fine.

Good question. Why would falco ever want to pick the median of bias for round one?

The thing with banning the starter stage via DSR is quite simply that realistically, you'd never have to go back there. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case because for quite a few chars, their third-best stage is the round one starter.

 

[T-block]

I was originally going to post what BPC posted.

But remember that there are other factors that influence a player's stage choice. Personal comfort, for example, is one, and it would be wrong to ignore it.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Indeed. I am incredibly comfortable, for example, on Delfino Plaza, and regardless of whether I'm playing Dedede or one of my other characters it is my CP of choice.
Sure, I might be better off taking people to FD as Sheik or YI:Brawl as Lucario, but I'm more comfortable on Delfino.

 

[Chuee]

Hello everyone.
Today I'm going to show why Skyworld is a legit CP.
Here is my evidence:
edit:
add me to OP
Username: Chuee
Location: KY
Stance: Liberal or Conservative: SV only
Tier: nope
Mains:
Secondaries: every other character
Favourite Stage(s): SV
Other: No items, MK only, Smashville

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Oh wow, a stage crew. Add me to the OP, ad I'll try and get on more when I'm not working.

Username: Tarmogoyf
Name: Walker
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Stance: Liberal, but pragmatic
Tier: Ummm, I'm the second best player in my state. (means little, it's NM)
Mains:
Secondaries:
Favourite Stage(s): Battlefield, Jungle Japes

 

[WindMajor]

OP has been updated

 

[Akaku94]

Cool... a "crew!"

Username: Akaku94
Name: Ben
Stance: Liberal Stages, Conservative Politics!
Tier: Slightly above Ganondorf
Mains:
Secondaries: :zelda/sheik:
Favourite Stage(s): PS2, Pictochat

 

[WindMajor]

Done and such

 

[Life]

Name: Walker
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Walker New Mexico Ranger? huck:

Anyway, I might go and just post a full ruleset unilaterally, idk.

 

[Kuro~]

So, what are the biggest arguments against having Japes legalized? What evidence supported that it polarized matchups for certain characters? Were there big names involved? Just curious cuz i don't see how Japes got banned in the first place.

 

[Ghostbone]

Good question. Why would falco ever want to pick the median of bias for round one?

The thing with banning the starter stage via DSR is quite simply that realistically, you'd never have to go back there. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case because for quite a few chars, their third-best stage is the round one starter.

Well my point is essentially that in a set, one character basically has an extra stage banned against him, because he won the first game, and I don't think that's fair.

 

[Life]

So, what are the biggest arguments against having Japes legalized? What evidence supported that it polarized matchups for certain characters? Were there big names involved? Just curious cuz i don't see how Japes got banned in the first place.

Mostly, it's because Falco and DK can do annoying things (apparently). I still subscribe to the "if it's worse than MK on his counterpick, don't bother with it" theory. Also, because a handful of people may still think the croc is random. Also, the water might be... something. IDK.

 

[Tesh]

Random doesn't matter, people feel that the croc is too strong of a hazard. Though I feel the fact that its extremely predictable, easily SDIed makes it a minor issue. The water adds an interesting element to an otherwise boringly symmetric stage. Characters with poor recoveries can avoid an edgeguarding situation with an otherwise useless tactic (fast fall airdodge).

I have seen a DK up b under the main part of the stage over and over, but its not something he would be able to do against characters like MK. Some characters would only be able to hit him by sealing their own fates. Its funny how similar that situation would be to the homing attack stall debate. Its only viable on 1 stage and vs certain characters, so perhaps fd should be banned if japes is banned. We can't ban the repeated use of a B move as stalling right?

InCom, BSP, Espy, help me out here. Perhaps we have something?