Stage Information Database and Q&A

[Life]

Referring to what stage you go to. Back to the starter? And we still haven't resolved Game 1 yet.

 

[MK26]

if both game 1 and game 7 have drawn then one player won 3-2

and a game 1 draw goes to whichever stage was struck last

 

[Tesh]

Thats unfair to the person that struck first though. the 2nd to last and last stage struck are the same.

 

[MK26]

coin flip from the last two struck stages?

 

[Raziek]

No good, that's now introducing randomness.

 

[Chuee]

No good, that's now introducing randomness.

I like randomness though.

 

[Raziek]

Randomness is tolerable, but not in this particular situation.

 

[John12346]

For crap's sake, the rematch with progressively higher handicaps will work better than this.

Under the OSF ruleset, use this:
If the game goes to time and both players have tied percentages, the timer will be reduced to 1 minute, and both players will play with a 150% handicap. If the rematch also goes to time, and both players have tied percentages, Sudden Death will be played out. There will be a ledge grab limit of 3 for Sudden Death.

or

If the game goes to time and both players have tied percentages, the timer will be reduced to 1 minute, and both players will play with a 100% handicap. If the rematch also goes to time, and both players have tied percentages, another rematch will be played with a 200% handicap. If this rematch also goes to time, and both players have tied percentages, Sudden Death will be played out. There will be a ledge grab limit of 3 for Sudden Death.

I like the first one better. It gets sets done quicker.

 

[Ghostbone]

1 minute gets timed out really easily
Especially when neither player will want to approach because they're at kill percents (especially when all the opponent's moves are fresh)
Increase it to 2 minutes.

 

[Kuro~]

I personally don't agree with the one stock 3 minute thing . May i ask why food is added?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So if someone tries to stall by planking/IDC/etc..., the other player can just eat food to regain the percentage lead.

 

[John12346]

And ghost, keep in mind that, since each piece of food is random and heals different amounts of HP, it's heavily unlikely that a timeout will end in a draw anyway.

The awkwardness of approaching is punishment for both players stalling out a 3 minute match to the end without a legitimate winner being declared.

 

[Kuro~]

So if someone tries to stall by planking/IDC/etc..., the other player can just eat food to regain the percentage lead.

Just go to the other side and wait...they'll be out of LG's and lose cuz they exceeded. Or learn to stop non-frame safe planking...aka anyone other than mk. WHo, btw, has a lgl of 35 now.

 

[T-block]

Note that the ruleset doesn't have an LGL. Adding food is an alternative to LGL.

 

[Life]

Kuro, the point of one-stock food is that it makes stalling borderline impossible. You can't hit somebody once and then perfect plank to victory. LGLs solve this, but you either have to 1. put it on everyone so non-broken planking like Pit's or ROB's suffers, or 2. put it on only MK, which is very artificial. (Or you could ban MK, but good luck out-of-state if you do.)

Funny, under these rules Pit's planking is arguably better than MK's since he can deal damage from the ledge, lol. But you can still attack him...

Note that John's rule does have a LGL tho, but only to prevent stalling during Sudden Death.

Also, rock-paper-scissors for victory? But you can still draw that out... there is something kind of poetic/ritualistic-in-a-good-way about both starting and ending an impossibly close set with what is effectively the most fundamental fighting game possible. (Even more so than actual fighting, LOL)

 

[Kuro~]

Note that the ruleset doesn't have an LGL. Adding food is an alternative to LGL.

I'm sorry i missed that part.

Kuro, the point of one-stock food is that it makes stalling borderline impossible. You can't hit somebody once and then perfect plank to victory. LGLs solve this, but you either have to 1. put it on everyone so non-broken planking like Pit's or ROB's suffers, or 2. put it on only MK, which is very artificial. (Or you could ban MK, but good luck out-of-state if you do.)

Funny, under these rules Pit's planking is arguably better than MK's since he can deal damage from the ledge, lol. But you can still attack him...

Note that John's rule does have a LGL tho, but only to prevent stalling during Sudden Death.

Also, rock-paper-scissors for victory? But you can still draw that out... there is something kind of poetic/ritualistic-in-a-good-way about both starting and ending an impossibly close set with what is effectively the most fundamental fighting game possible. (Even more so than actual fighting, LOL)

I could see that now. It's not game changing either. I however completely disagree with 1 stock 3minutes. It just seems so...bleck. Idk how to explain it lol. Well i could, just too tired lol.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The reason you have one stock is because no item heals a stock, so if you lose the stock lead, you can still get planked out.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Honestly, the only practical problem with one stock is that it buffs infinites. I doubt it's enough to alter the metagame too much though.

 

[T-block]

Does it? Not by a significant amount.

Sure, one set up means the game, but each game is worth less.

Which reminds me, I think bo9 is better than bo7 to replace a bo3 3-stock set.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Yeah, it's why I said "I doubt it's enough to alter the metagame too much though."

I do want some testing done to be sure. I believe that CPs should offset it enough, but untested theory is still just theory.

 

[Tesh]

Problem with LGLs like the one you see in Unity is that is nerfs characters that aren't broken on the ledge or may have trouble dealing with RCO lag. I've gone pretty high of ledge grabs with Ganondorf because of RCO lag forcing me to be extremely patient on the ledge. Also Pit is a character that somewhat reasonably fights from the ledge and could possibily sustain a lead from there if he can punish you grabbing food.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Does anyone have the frame data on eating food? It seems too fast to punish unless you're basically on top of your opponent.

Universal LGL is moronic anyways. Well, LGLs in general, but if we have to, just MK plz

 

[Tesh]

Well its not going to hurt as much as tripping obviously. Tripping is a free tech chase even if your opponent didn't get lucky with the initial animation.

There is only an animation if you try to do jabs or ftilts I believe. Picking it up with an aerial or dodge won't change your frame data. In a boxing situation, if a piece of food pops up just as you are jabbing or ftilting, that 15 or so frames could get you hit by some numbskull Sonic tossing out a frame 18 smash (me).

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Huh, it's ~15 frames? That's kinda bad, but it still needs to be CQC to have any detrimental effect, and it probably won't happen that often on Medium items.

 

[Kuro~]

But...one stock makes such short matches. I like having 3 stocks and having to outwit my opponent and making them frustrated. And that would mean no 3 stock bragging rights

 

[sunshade]

But...one stock makes such short matches. I like having 3 stocks and having to outwit my opponent and making them frustrated. And that would mean no 3 stock bragging rights

Most matches in other fighting games tend to take 50-60 seconds, matches in brawl take 5-6 minutes.

1 stock matches in brawl are long by comparison to nearly all other fighting games.

 

[AuraStUrm]

Most matches in other fighting games tend to take 50-60 seconds, matches in brawl take 5-6 minutes.

1 stock matches in brawl are long by comparison to nearly all other fighting games.

Well, you have to take into account that most single games in a set in other fighters are 2 out of 3 rounds, so each game in the set takes about 5 minutes or so.

Full sets in Brawl don't generally take too much longer than full sets in other games, unless someone is camping the whole set.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

We're talking about Brawl here, right?

Yeaaaaah, someone will be camping the whole set, guaranteed.

 

[T-block]

But...one stock makes such short matches. I like having 3 stocks and having to outwit my opponent and making them frustrated. And that would mean no 3 stock bragging rights

You can brag about 5-0'ing or 6-0'ing them instead =)

Well, you have to take into account that most single games in a set in other fighters are 2 out of 3 rounds, so each game in the set takes about 5 minutes or so.

Full sets in Brawl don't generally take too much longer than full sets in other games, unless someone is camping the whole set.

Are you serious? It's not at all uncommon for a Brawl set to take upwards of 15 minutes. Neither player has to be camping for some matchups to go to 5+ minutes, and if the players are close and we see a third game...

 

[AuraStUrm]

Eh, I was playing off of a lot of assumptions there - 5 minutes per game isn't a very common occurrence in other fighters.

I meant to say that 2 stock, 5 minute games would be closer to the matches in other fighters, but it got kind of lost.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

2 stock has the stalling problems though.....

 

[Ghostbone]

But you have more matches in total so it balances out.

And I hardly think not being able to 3-stock someone is a legitimate complaint for a ruleset.

 

[Tesh]

Just JV 2 stock them if you wanna make em feel bad. Get em to kill percents and then gently push them offstage without killing them until you can collect enough food to get back down to 0. THEN kill them.

BAM, owned. Do this 5 games in a row to 10 stock someone in a Bo9 set.

 

[BSP]

So if you guys haven't checked out those match slips, I suggest you do so. This is what I see:

Despite Pictochat's inherent randomness and game altering potential, people were not afraid enough to ban it that much. It actually wasn't even played that much. Despite the theorycraft, by looking at the numbers, it really wasn't a "problem" when legal.

FD, should be obvious. Either we increase the starter pool, or find a substitute in the five starter list. What would be a good addition? Hmm...maybe a stage that wasn't banned much? We've got both Poke stadiums, siege, and more

 

[Tesh]

There are many ways to interpret that data. If you aren't Sonic, Diddy Kong or Donkey Kong, there isn't much of a reason to CP Pictochat over something else. If you have confidence in your abilities you might not even try to bank on the random factor there.

Even watching M2K vs ADHD at KTAR, some totally bogus stuff happened to M2K on pictochat, but he won by so much that it didn't matter in the end. It did however randomly swing things out of his favor.

As for FD, it was counterpicked about as much as Brinstar and RC combined. While you may say that means FD isn't starter material, lets look at SV eh? Counterpicking 300+ times compared to the 200 FD has or the 200 MKCPs have. Does that mean SV is not starter material? Despite being the most played starter even with a 9 stage starter list?


Though I suppose you could also say that SV is counterpicked alot because of so many MKs and the need to take them somewhere "fair" and "neutral"

 

[BSP]

You're right about Picto, I'm jumping to conclusions.

But for SV vs FD, look at how many times it was banned compared to FD. Why do people ban a stage? Because it gives their opponent an advantage.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That's not the only way to interpret the data.

 

[BSP]

I see what you mean. Disagree with me if you want, but I'm just giving my opinions that can be supported with the data.

You can definitely disagree with this, especially since I can't prove it, but I wouldn't doubt SV's high number of counterpicks (which just means played on after game1) just to the fact that players either:

don't want anything to get in the way
can't think of a better option

"Counterpick" is deceiving in the case you mentioned tesh, as it only means the stages played after game 1. If a starter is the most played stage,, but also the least banned, that's most likely because we see it as pretty fair.

Times banned is more important IMO when you're looking at a stage's neutrality. Yes, the FD numbers were high because of MK, but that doesn't negate the fact that for 12/26 characters it was the most banned stage. That should say something about whether or not it gives advantages.

I'll do some calculation for myself; I'm going to look at the percentage of bans each stage received without looking at MK's bans (stage's bans - MK bans on that stage)/(total bans-MK's bans (2230 btw))

I BS'd the rounding though with decimal places, but it'd only be like .1 differences anyway

FD 16.5%
BF 4.5%
Brinstar 19.5%
CS 2.4%
Delfino 3.3%
Orpheon 4.3%
Green Greens 4.5%
Halberd 8.3%
LC 3.1%
Norfair 8.7%
Pictochat 1.5%
PS1 1.8%
PS2 .5%
RC 11.5%
SV 1.3%
Yi (brawl) 4.3%

My interpretation of it:

The top three banned stages were Brinstar, FD, and RC. This is no surprise really with brinstar and RC, as many characters ban them to avoid having to deal with MK there.

Even without MK's bans boosting the number, FD is still the second most banned stage. It has no place in the starter system if it's being avoided more than the stages in our CP section lol

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

For a lot of characters FD is the best CP against MK, so the huge influx of MK usage banned it.

Some other characters like Wario banned it because it is his worst stage as well.

 

[MK26]

rr, that list is without mk's bans included
ie lots of characters other than mk were banning fd