Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[FerrishTheFish]

I don't like bans with the current stagelist. Real men don't need to ban their one slightly unfavorable stage to win a set. If you're going to narrow down the number of legal stages by that much, just learn the ****ing stages. I swear, do I have to link Kal's ten gazillion predictions that banning stages is a slippery slope?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Having a stage ban in a set and banning stages are totally different

 

[ShroudedOne]

I agree with "learn the stages," but my character doesn't really have a bad stage (besides PS, I guess). So there's some bias on my part.

 

[Strong Badam]

just learn the stage instead of banning it

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Having a stage ban in a set and banning stages are totally different

What you're suggesting (making it an option to not play on FD) is no different from officially removing it from play. Why? Because you don't like it. Thus, I reference Kal's posts which predict this exact happenstance.

As a side note, I dislike stage bans in sets because the small number of available stages makes that unnecessary, redundant, and just plain silly. DSR(M) + stage bans = only 4 available stages for a set.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

So stage bans in the ship of fools ruleset is bad too.. I guess puff players should have no choice but get CP'd to corneria every set and ICs to rainbow cruise. You know those stage lists were balanced around the idea that each player could remove a stage from the list, right?

As for only having 4 stages after 2 bans -- wouldn't they be 4 stages that both players agree are more fair for the competition? The same way that the stage both players strike to is the agreed most fair starting stage.

 

[Lovage]

having at least 1 ban is absolutely mandatory

 

[Deleted member]

I enjoy being CG'd personally

i like playing zelda against your and cactuar foxes where you both laser camp me and infinite me back and forth in a 2 vs 1.

cause i still won.

GET YO *** WHOOPED

scumbag fox players

 

[Kal]

having at least 1 ban is absolutely mandatory

Why do you feel this way? It's never really mandatory. You always have the option of merely switching to whatever character best handles the counterpicked stages. But, to keep things "sane," we allowed people one ban when stages like Brinstar and Mute City gave characters like Falco and C. Falcon a hard time. It was a pragmatic solution that made a lot of sense with a large stage list. With six stages, there's really no reason to call a stage ban "mandatory" anymore.

Again, I'm not saying I disagree with having a stage ban. I just find it strange that smashers are so entitled as to feel they deserve to not have any disadvantages. The mindset has switched from "learn to win on your bad stages" to "you should be able to ban your bad stages."

 

[FerrishTheFish]

So stage bans in the ship of fools ruleset is bad too.. I guess puff players should have no choice but get CP'd to corneria every set and ICs to rainbow cruise. You know those stage lists were balanced around the idea that each player could remove a stage from the list, right?

As for only having 4 stages after 2 bans -- wouldn't they be 4 stages that both players agree are more fair for the competition? The same way that the stage both players strike to is the agreed most fair starting stage.

... Sveet, do we have to repeat this "read my posts" "no, you read my posts" BS? Let me define some terms for you to make my crystal-clear argument even more crystal-clear. "Stage Banning" refers to the practice which allows the winner of the previous game to disallow the loser from CPing him to a certain stage. "Stage Illegalizing" refers to officially removing a stage from legal play.

Now, I said that allowing "Stage Banning" when there are only 6 legal stages and DSR(M) is in play is silly and redundant. This is one argument that I made expressing one opinion which I hold.

I also said that having the option to completely remove FD from play during a set in which "Stage Banning" is not allowed is tantamount to simply "Stage Illegalizing" FD. I stated that Kal has made a lot of posts saying that "Stage Illegalizing" is a slippery slope. What that statement means is that the current ruleset, which "Stage Illegalized" a lot of stages, would only encourage people to lobby for the "Stage Illegalization" of even more stages. The logic here is that the current ruleset has encouraged you to lobby for the "Stage Illegalization" of FD, which is exactly what is happening. This is a second argument that I made expressing a second opinion which I hold.

I shall now make a third statement to express a third opinion which I hold. Even if bans and DSR(M) are both in play in a single set, what is the guarantee that the four remaining stages are completely balanced? I could complain that Falcon gets trashed by Sheik on BF, FoD, and YS, at least one of which will always be available because my ban + DSR(M) can only strike two, whereas his ban + DSR(M) could strike DL and PS which are Falcon's two best stages in the MU (if you don't agree with this, then consider it a hypothetical argument), and thus the act of "Stage Banning" and narrowing down to four stages actually unbalances the stagelist.

 

[Kal]

The best way to look at it, in my opinion, is that you'll never have this "perfectly balanced" game. You'll never even get close. So, rather than artificially trying to make it perfectly balanced, which would more or less require you to butcher the game, keep the rules simple. Giving each player one stage ban to prevent a single awful scenario makes sense. But, at this point in time, we've already removed those scenarios with these scrubby bans to every single stage that doesn't look like Battlefield or Final Destination. By allowing additional bans, we're basically doing this twice.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

... Sveet, do we have to repeat this "read my posts" "no, you read my posts" BS?

I don't know, are you ever going to respond to the arguments I present or are you going to always deflect?

Here let me walk you through your post here. I'm going to strike through all the stuff that has been repeated or is totally unimportant.

Let me define some terms for you to make my crystal-clear argument even more crystal-clear. "Stage Banning" refers to the practice which allows the winner of the previous game to disallow the loser from CPing him to a certain stage. "Stage Illegalizing" refers to officially removing a stage from legal play.

Now, I said that allowing "Stage Banning" when there are only 6 legal stages and DSR(M) is in play is silly and redundant. This is one argument that I made expressing one opinion which I hold. feel free to review my previous post for my response

I also said that having the option to completely remove FD from play during a set in which "Stage Banning" is not allowed is tantamount to simply "Stage Illegalizing" FD.

Now here is a new argument and an elaboration of a previous one.

I stated that Kal has made a lot of posts saying that "Stage Illegalizing" is a slippery slope. What that statement means is that the current ruleset, which "Stage Illegalized" a lot of stages, would only encourage people to lobby for the "Stage Illegalization" of even more stages. The logic here is that the current ruleset has encouraged you to lobby for the "Stage Illegalization" of FD, which is exactly what is happening. This is a second argument that I made expressing a second opinion which I hold.

I haven't lobbied for FD to be banned, period. If you would like to see what I feel is the best ruleset, please look into the tournaments I have ran and the rules they use. I hosted one a few days ago and will be hosting another soon. FD has been legal at them all.

I shall now make a third statement to express a third opinion which I hold. Even if bans and DSR(M) are both in play in a single set, what is the guarantee that the four remaining stages are completely balanced? I could complain that Falcon gets trashed by Sheik on BF, FoD, and YS, at least one of which will always be available because my ban + DSR(M) can only strike two, whereas his ban + DSR(M) could strike DL and PS which are Falcon's two best stages in the MU (if you don't agree with this, then consider it a hypothetical argument), and thus the act of "Stage Banning" and narrowing down to four stages actually unbalances the stagelist.

Well, first off, the sheik players in your example would only be able to remove 1 between DL and PS, not both. DSR-variations simply don't allow you to repeat stages.

As for the "completely balanced" claim, you tell me what "completely balanced" means and I'll answer that. As for a set of stages that are more balanced than the alternative, I would say yes, since both players have chosen to remove the worst stage for them in the match-up.

 

[Mahone]

The current stage list is trash...

If there's one thing i hate, its settling, and the current list settles so much it should be in Catan

If ur gonna get rid of like 80% of the stages due to randomness, then get it over with and lets just play bf and fd only...

Ofc everyone hates cging so lets just play battlefield...

Poke stadium is such a ****ing dumb stage i cant believe its still on...

I kinda like bf, yoshis, dland because it usually leads to a even stage, a slight advantage stage, and a slight disadvantage stage for most chars and most mus...

Also if we did bf only, think of how fast tournies would run... No striking, no cps, no time out dl strats, no peach bomber stalling (i think), no stallin for cloud...

Hell, we could save enough time to do bo7s/bo9s

Also, we would look more respectable to the FGC, if anyone cares about that (fd would look better but this community dislikes cgs a lot)

Also also, i would ****ing hate bf only and miss weird cps and would prefer to play with then but i hate settling more

 

[knightpraetor]

balancing stages is hard..ah well...also changes are liable to make people who play characters who were effectively nerfed pissed...it's all just politics in the end

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I don't know, are you ever going to respond to the arguments I present or are you going to always deflect?

Don't pull this bull**** on me. I directly addressed your points. You ignored mine and instead relied on strawman and ad hominem.

Let's review. Your points:

So stage bans in the ship of fools ruleset is bad too.

This is an obvious strawman. I never said that stage bans are inherently bad--hell, I never even SAID the word "bad"--I said that stage bans when so few stages are available and DSR(M) is in play are silly and redundant. I have had to say this multiple times because you either can't or won't listen. Stage bans when so few stages are available and DSR(M) is in play are silly and redundant. Stage bans when so few stages are available and DSR(M) is in play are silly and redundant. Stage bans when so few stages are available and DSR(M) is in play are silly and redundant.

As for only having 4 stages after 2 bans -- wouldn't they be 4 stages that both players agree are more fair for the competition?

As for the "completely balanced" claim, you tell me what "completely balanced" means and I'll answer that.

Uh, problem. You invent this idea of "more fair for the competition," then try to place the burden of proof on me by telling ME to define an idea that YOU came up with? YOU invented "more fair," YOU ****ing define it.

Also, I directly addressed your point. You claimed that narrowing down the list from 6 to 4 made the stages "more fair for the competition." I specifically and directly disagreed. Narrowing down the list from 6 to 4 does not necessarily make the set "more fair" (although I used the word "balanced" rather than "fair"--this doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is ultimately on YOU who came up with this idea in the first place). I gave you an example which you promptly ignored under the pretense that I don't understand how DSR(M) works, which is an obvious ad hominem.

In my example, to win a bo3 the Falcon could win on a favorable stage if he gets the chance to CP (in my hypothetical scenario of stage advantages, this would mean DL or PS), then because of DSR and the Sheik's ban he would also have to win on a neutral or disadvantageous stage (in my hypothetical scenario of stage advantages, this would mean FD, YS, BF, or FoD--and before you try to confound the argument with semantics, I'm only implying that he can take the Sheik to a favorable stage no more than once if the Sheik bans properly, and zero times if he never loses a game and never gets the chance to CP). The Sheik only has to win on two favorable stages because DSR plus the Falcon's ban can only strike 2 of her 3 favorable stages. Sheik will always have at least one favorable stage available to her, Falcon will not. If stage bans are removed from this scenario, BOTH players will always have at least 1 favorable stage to CP to instead of just ONE player. BOTH sides have favorable stages available instead of just ONE side. How is that "less fair" than only ONE side having favorable stages to CP to? (And yes, this means I am asking YOU to define this "more fair" idea which YOU invented)

This is not a "deflection." This is "responding to the arguments you present." So tell me: what does "more fair for the competition" mean? How can you define "more fair" in such a way that giving advantageous options to only one side is "more fair" than giving identically advantageous options to both sides?

Here let me walk you through your post here. I'm going to strike through all the stuff that has been repeated or is totally unimportant.

Hypocrisy. I have to directly address your points, but you don't have to address mine; you just have to call them "repeated" or "totally unimportant" and strike through them. You know why I have to "repeat" arguments? BECAUSE YOU DON'T ADDRESS THEM. You don't get to ignore my arguments once, and from then on deflect or disqualify my arguments just because I've had to repeat them.

 

[Kal]

I think Ferrish is trying to say that stage bans, when so few stages are available and DSR(M) is in play, are silly and redundant.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Well, that and I'm also getting flustered and frustrated with online AND real life, and taking my anger out on Sveet like a kindergartener (always a good plan ).

 

[Bones0]

Idk who said something that made me think of this, but just because we've narrowed the stage list to 6 stages doesn't mean bans shouldn't be used.

The goal of a set should always be to play the 3 (or 5) most fair and evenly matched games possible.

I believe everyone is familiar enough with my 1-5 stage list explanation? (1 is worst stage, 5 is best, 3 is one struck to, etc.)

Playing stages 3, 1, and 5 is dumb. Games 1 and 5 essentially mean less in this example because they are harder counterpicks. I think everyone can agree sets that play on 3, 2, and 4 are going to be much more skill oriented, and less biased towards how good a stage is for either character.

For bo3, we should absolutely stick with 1 ban per player, but we should get rid of DSR because it only punishes the player who wins game 1. If you don't want to play the stage you lost on game 1, ban it. Otherwise, suck it up. People will complain "oh, I only lost on a single stage!" If you lost on the same stage twice, either you stage struck and banned like an idiot or you lost on the most fair stage twice. Either way, you deserve to lose.

Now for bo5, you can get away with no stage bans because you end up playing all of 1-5, not just 1, 3, and 5. However, it still seems dumb to me because 1 and 5 are still often throwaway matches that are much more easily won. It essentially becomes a bo3 anyway unless someone is able to win in spite of a major stage disadvantage. I'd instead prefer bo5 to give each player a single ban, and get rid of DSRm. This means you strike to 3, and the loser can cp 2, 6, or go back to 3. That's 3 stage choices that are entirely reasonable when it comes to how plausible winning on them is. The same goes for game 3 where the winner of game 1 can cp 4, 6, or 3 as well. This also doesn't include times when players have differing views on which stages are the best/worst for them. Players VERY OFTEN strike to a stage you consider in your favor or ban a stage you wouldn't have cped anyway. Having stage bans almost becomes a mini stage strike to further ensure the tightest battles are being played while still maintaining almost 100% stage variation. This is also not an attempt to artificially balance the game. I view it as the equivalent of playing a bo5 instead of bo3. The only thing to consider here is whether the lack of stage variety sacrifices more than the increased fairness of the stages. There's very few matchups where stages are almost unanimously auto-banned, and even they change over the years (YS used to be considered a hard cp for Marth vs. a lot of chars that are seen picking it themselves today). With such a small decrease in stage variation, I would answer YES, it is very much worth it.

 

[Kal]

If you want to try and force the matches to be as fair and evenly matched as possible, you wouldn't allow people any choice. The point of these rules has always been to prevent excessively powerful techniques and over-reliance on specific tactics. In particular, DSR is to prevent reusing the same stage to win over and over, and stage bans are to prevent using a single stage that your opponent happens to be especially weak on. It has never been in the interest of making things evenly matched, and I don't think it should be. But this matter of opinion is obviously the crux of the issue. I personally agree with Ferrish; if you're going to go out of your way to remove all but six stages in the interest of this scrubby notion of "fairness," then it's redundant to further grant the players bans for use in-game.

You should also realize that not everyone agrees with your opinion (even though you went out of your way to make it bold and give it a size 4 font). I have no problem with individual matches being uneven. Within your little "1-5 stage list explanation," it wouldn't bother me if matches alternated between 1 and 5 after a particular player won the match on 3. Especially since this idea of it being a player's "worst stage" depends entirely on him sticking to a single character.

It's like the Smash community has shifted from "no johns" to "it's unfair that my character sucks there, ban it."

Well, that and I'm also getting flustered and frustrated with online AND real life, and taking my anger out on Sveet like a kindergartener (always a good plan ).

Well, after so many straw man arguments, it's understandable that you would get frustrated.

 

[Lovage]

lol, get this brawl "if the stage is hard pick a better char" bull**** out of here, i have no tolerance for that drivel

 

[Divinokage]

You would probably say that if you didnt play Fox.

 

[Lovage]

i wouldn't say that because i'm not a ***** virgin

 

[Kal]

It's apparently just too difficult for Lovage to post constructively.

 

[The Star King]

You would probably say that if you didnt play Fox.

Um... wouldn't playing a good character make him more likely to say that?

 

[Kal]

I think that's what Kage meant.

 

[Cactuar]

He's far too busy massaging his own... post... constructively...

 

[The Star King]

I think that's what Kage meant.

Wha? He meant the opposite of what he said? I'm confused now.

 

[Kal]

I think what he meant was "if you didn't play Fox, you would agree with the statement 'if the stage is hard pick a better char.'" i.e., I think Kage just misspoke.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Let me preface this post by saying that I'd be fine with either bans OR DSR(M), just not both. I'd personally prefer DSR(M), but I'd be fine with bans if DSR(M) was removed.

The goal of a set should always be to play the 3 (or 5) most fair and evenly matched games possible.

I disagree. What it sounds like you are saying is that we should attempt to balance each individual game rather than the set as a whole. That sounds good in theory, but in practice I just don't think it can be done. I think the goal of a set should be to be balanced as a whole. Stage-based imbalances will always exist, but if we know in which direction the imbalances point, we can still attempt to balance the set as a whole, and probably better than we can balance each individual game. Let me outline my issues with your theory:

ISSUE #1: Suppose we are trying to balance a certain MU. Suppose this MU is extremely double-edged, like the Marth-Fox MU (for the sake of argument, humor my ignorance of this MU), where every stage gives either Fox or Marth some sort of advantage, however small. If we try to balance the set by balancing each individual game, we'd end up picking the stage that confers the smallest advantage (let's say DL gives Fox a small advantage, smaller than the advantages conferred on either character by all the other stages--again, just humor me) and forcing every game in the set to be played on that stage. The advantage given in each individual game is small, but the net advantage over the course of the set is decidedly in Fox's favor. Even if DL takes a Marth 50-50 Fox MU and makes it a Marth 45-55 Fox MU, the Marth could only expect to win a bo3 42.5% of the time against a Fox of equal skill when he ought to win the set 50% of the time. Sure, Marth lost on the "most fair" stage twice, but the "most fair" stage still wasn't all that fair.

ISSUE #2: Suppose I play Falco and am playing a set against a Fox. Suppose we're pretty evenly matched, I win game 1 by a hair and he wins game 2 by a hair. I take him to FD for game 3 because it's an even stage (just humor me here, I don't play Fox or Falco) and I think he'll stick, and when he does I pull out my pocket Marth and CG him to death four times in a row. He'd be completely defenseless against that because he's still banning stages under the assumption that he's about to play a Fox-Falco MU, which is the only assumption he can reasonably make unless I have a well-known and chronic history of CPing Foxes to FD and then pulling out my pocket Marth when they stick. In other words, it is impossible to balance the stages around the MUs as long as we keep picking the stage before we pick our characters.

ISSUE #3: Suppose we figure out a way to overcome Issue #2. This would pretty much have to involve picking characters and then having some impartial third party pick the stage. Assuming that said third party has no biases or non-mainstream opinions on MUs, what parameters could this third party use to pick the "most fair" stage (or stages, if we're following my philosophy)?

Can the third party use current metagame and/or "generally accepted" opinions on the given MU? Even if there were unanimous agreement on MU percentages and such, that's problematic because it precludes metagame evolution and also because it only applies to the highest level of play. If a Marth isn't good at CGing, FD's lack of platforms might not help him so much vs. an equally-skilled Fox who could possibly exploit FD's large size. If a Fox isn't good at shield-pressuring, PS's low ceiling might not help him so much vs. an equally-skilled Puff who could possibly exploit PS's low platforms and lack of a center platform. The fact is, the vast players are not at the peak of the metagame. There are only 10 players in the top 10, after all.

Can the third party use player skill? If he could do that, there would be no point in playing out the set. It'd only be somewhat feasible if both players had exactly "equal skill," which, despite the fact that I use it all too frequently, is an extremely slippery term which practically requires the two players to be literally identical. Let's suppose that there are two equal players that aren't identical. For example, Falcon A specializes in comboing and Falcon B specializes in grabbing and techchasing, and both are identically mediocre in both each other's specialties and in every other aspect of play. Since small stages and low platforms favor Falcon A whereas large stages and absence of low platforms favor Falcon B, this is effectively Issue #1. We might propose PS (large stage, low plats) and BF (small stage, no low plats) as theoretical compromises, but even these stages are going to be imbalanced. I would think that most people would attempt to compromise by going BF, then PS, (then BF, then PS for bo5) but eventually the third party would have to make a decision as to which stage to go to for game 3 (or game 5). A responsible third party would, in that case, decide the stage--and therefore the expected outcome of the set--with a coin flip, an action that essentially could have saved a ton of time if he'd just done it before game 1 and decided the set right there. After all, the point of a set is to be balanced to the point where two players of equal skill have only a 50-50 chance of winning the set, and the best way to do that is a coin toss.

Basically, it comes down to what Kal has been saying all along: There is no "fair" Melee. There is no "balanced" Melee. There is no "perfect" Melee. It doesn't exist and we can't create it (unless God decides to personally descend from Heaven and tell us how we should program Project: Melee). All we can do is get rid of blatantly, disgustingly unfair situations as best we can, and we've pretty much done that by narrowing the legal stagelist down to 6. Our SJR (skill-to-jank ratio), at least with regards to what we currently know of the metagame, is as good as it's ever going to get. If we narrow down the stages further, we remove more skill than jank; if we reduce these six down to just four, we remove from relevancy the sorts of skills that flourish on the other two. And I don't think that's something that anybody wants.

 

[Kal]

Strictly speaking, every ruleset that provides all options to both players is fair. Random character, random stage, 2 minute time is "fair." That is another reason I find this "fairness" thing so silly. Any rule you throw in should have a good justification. It's typically untrue that any particular rule actually makes things fairer. So I think, on the whole, most rules are poorly justified. In particular, this notion people keep pushing about imbalance, as though it's somehow the fault of the game because the player chooses to stick to a character who is weak on a certain stage, is nonsensical and, even if it weren't, is not alone justification enough for a rule regarding stage bans.

I agree with Ferrish on this one. I prefer DSR over allowing stage bans simply because you are decreasing the already extremely small number of stages for no good reason. DSR's justification still holds: that fear of a player being able to win on only one stage still exists in a stagelist comprised of six stages. But the worry of a single stage which allows a player to overpower his opponent where he otherwise could not isn't going to happen when we've (scrubbily; had to throw that in there, sorry) banned all of the stages that allow this to happen in the first place. There's no longer any good reason for allowing stage bans, really.

 

[Bones0]

Okay, it seems I'm being misunderstood. I never said anything about making certain matchups play on certain stages to make the matchup even. THAT IS DUMB, and anyone who thinks like that is ********. The way I am coming at it is fairness in terms of a game to game basis. Stages 1 and 5 are obviously less "fair" than stages 2 and 4. Playing more radical counterpicks reduces the skill gap by making stages more relevant than the players playing on them. By getting rid of DSR (which arbitrarily bans the last stage won on whether either players thinks that should be the case or not), we can allow players to use bans to keep all of the matches in a set more fair.

Does the Fox vs. Kirby mu seem fair if they stage strike? Obviously not. Obviously most people would agree that the matchup is closest to 50-50 on [insert stage here]. However, the rule set should never discriminate based on subjective or flexible statements (not everyone agrees which stage makes the matchup closest to even, or Kirby's best stage may change over time). If Kirby loses on even his best stages, that just means Kirby is bad. When you look at the more even matchups, it becomes pretty obvious that the set as a whole becomes more skill-based (i.e. less upsets) when you play stages that are less radical cps.


As far as DSR goes, I think I did a sufficient job of explaining why that is dumb in my last post. I at least agree that having BOTH bans and DSR reduces stage variety way too much.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Bones0, glad to hear we agree on at least ONE point 8D Sorry for misinterpreting you, I'll try to better address your argument this time.

I still think DSR(M) is superior to bans for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you claimed that DSR only punishes the player who won game 1. Assuming the players intelligently struck to the stage, then they at least believe it is, at worst, their opponent's 3rd best stage. DSR therefore only disqualifies the winning player's 3rd best stage, which could hardly be called a "punishment."

Secondly, you claimed that stage bans help reduce radical CPs. I think that the current stagelist already gets rid of radical CPs, and that the six remaining stages are pretty reasonable. Obviously, this is opinion, but I think it's a pretty universal opinion that the six currently legal stages are reasonable/roughly balanced/boring/whatever.

Thirdly--and this builds directly on my second point--I think that the point of DSR/bans (whichever) ought to be for the sake of diversifying the set. Like I said, we've narrowed it down to six reasonable stages. If I play a ton of serious random-stage games with someone and win most of the time on most of these six stages, it ought to be clear that I am to some degree the better player, or at least more deserving of advancing should I encounter this person in bracket. To beat this person most of the time on most of the stages, I have to have greater mastery than this person in multiple areas of skill and be better able to apply those skills to more stages. If my Fox loses a bo3 to a Marth by losing on FD twice--I know it seems like FD is getting a bad rap from me, it's just an example--yes, it's my fault for CPing like a dumb*** (if banning YS vs. Marth makes me a dumb*** -.- ) but at the same time I could argue, "He won because he is better at CPing and CGing," because those are pretty much the two skills our set just tested. Bans wouldn't necessarily fix this problem: If I lose on the same stage twice, it's only because I was busy striking/banning stages that were even worse for me. The point is that DSR(M), compared to bans, forces the players to test more areas of skill before one of them is declared superior to the other. That's why I think DSR(M) is better than bans.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I've missed some things in this thread and i'm not going to bother catching up. Instead I will posit a question.

Having only DSRM means the most balanced stage doesnt get played. To explain, assuming the players choose the best stage for themselves in the match-up at all times, the stage that is most fair between players will not be chosen (it will be the 6th stage in a bo5 or one of the 3 non-played stages in a bo3).

Having only Stage Bans means the most balanced stage doesnt get played in a bo3, but the least balanced stages don't either. In a bo5, the least balanced stages won't be played but the most balanced stage will.

This is assuming the definition of balanced is determined by the players and their selections of stages and bans.


Which do you think is better? Discuss.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Well, Sveet, I'd like to point out that the "most balanced" stage will always be played in game 1, irrespective of bo3 or bo5, irrespective of bans or DSR(M), if both players stage-strike properly and if the definition of "most balanced" aligns with the players' opinions, irrespective of how correct or incorrect they might be. Having DSR(M) means the "most balanced" stage won't decide the set on its own, because the "most balanced" stage according to the players' opinions might not be very "balanced," where "balanced" in this case means, "Not altering the theoretical, 'in a vacuum' MU between two characters."

And by "theoretical, 'in a vacuum' MU," I mean the expectation value of the outcome of a match on a random stage (from the six legal stages) between two given characters in the hands of high-level, equally-matched players.

And yes, I realize that I just inadvertantly advocated for random stage-select for every match in a set. Come at me, bro.

 

[The Star King]

Kal! Sveet is leaving for a week! This is the chance you've been waiting for.

When the skies are dark, but the fire of the stars pierces through the night! - that is when the crown of the heavens shall grant you the golden opportunity. Use it well, and you shall soon experience the sweet taste of victory.

 

[onionchowder]

Having only DSRM means the most balanced stage doesnt get played. To explain, assuming the players choose the best stage for themselves in the match-up at all times, the stage that is most fair between players will not be chosen (it will be the 6th stage in a bo5 or one of the 3 non-played stages in a bo3).

Having only Stage Bans means the most balanced stage doesnt get played in a bo3, but the least balanced stages don't either. In a bo5, the least balanced stages won't be played but the most balanced stage will.

I don't follow. I thought the "most balanced stage" will be the first stage chosen (defining the "most neutral" Neutral stage as the "most balanced" stage). Explain?

 

[Dr Peepee]

I always thought Peepee liked FD vs Peach, for some odd, masochistic reason. Guess not, haha.

it's not really that bad

if I had experience in it I doubt I'd mind it at all tbh

i like playing zelda against your and cactuar foxes where you both laser camp me and infinite me back and forth in a 2 vs 1.

cause i still won.

GET YO *** WHOOPED

scumbag fox players

totally don't remmeber this

who are you again and what are your tourney results?

Kal! Sveet is leaving for a week! This is the chance you've been waiting for.

When the skies are dark, but the fire of the stars pierces through the night! - that is when the crown of the heavens shall grant you the golden opportunity. Use it well, and you shall soon experience the sweet taste of victory.

ye

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

umbreon mow

best zelda next to cosmo imo

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I don't follow. I thought the "most balanced stage" will be the first stage chosen (defining the "most neutral" Neutral stage as the "most balanced" stage). Explain?

Of 6 stages there is no middle. Assume first stage (strike) is one side of the middle. Of the remaining 5 stages (minus game 1), in a bo5 the stage that won't get chosen would be the other middle.

 

[onionchowder]

Yeah, but the first stage is always struck from an odd number of stages. When I say "middle" i mean "middle of the neutrals"