Banning/legalizing a stage based on character matchup
alone is, in my view, illegitimate because character is chosen
after stage is chosen. There is nothing stopping you from learning a second character who complements your main by doing well on your main's less-favorable stages--I main Link and second Falcon, for example. That being said,
In Defense of Less Stage Variety:
[COLLAPSE="Hidden"]While I would personally lean towards more stage variety (and whaddya know, I'm "new" 8P), I do think that the limit to variety should be determined by whether any viable character--viable being based on how often that character is mained under the
current system--is made nonviable because more than one second must be learned to fully complement that character in terms of good/bad stages. Yes, there is circular logic present in a definition of "viable character" that is based on the current system, but changing the stage list will also change the system and, thus, the definition of a "viable character." In other words, making the stage list smaller would (ironically) benefit lower-tier characters because now you can main anyone you want and have a pocket Fox to take care of all those troublesome stages and matchups your main can't handle
[/COLLAPSE]To sum it up: I think the gravity of a stage's
presence should be judged based on how many characters that stage's presence makes
nonviable.
Ex: I main Character A. Stages 1-6 are legal stages. Character A is only good on Stage 1, so I choose to second Character B, who is good on Stages 2-6. Stage 7 becomes a legal stage. Character A is not good on Stage 7. No other character is good on Stages 2-7. Character A becomes nonviable.
In Defense of More Stage Variety:
[COLLAPSE="Hidden"]I'm going to be blatant here and say that I think it is wrong when one character is good on all the legal stages, or possibly all but one--I will loosely define this as "superviable." This is because, if this player gets a ban, this character cannot be CP'd. I know a lot of people want this "pure" player vs. player, skill vs. skill, but the fact is that no
single stage can possibly have no effect on
every matchup. The only way to mitigate this is to A) allow both players slightly-favorable CP's (which I honestly think the current list of neutrals pretty much does), and B) make sets bo5 so the set isn't decided based on one CP.[/COLLAPSE] To sum it up: I think the gravity of a stage's
absence should be judged based on how many characters that stage's absence makes
superviable.
I think we can make the "more stages" people happy if we ensure that every viable character has one unfavorable neutral and at least one unfavorable counterpick. Then we can make the "fewer stages" people happy if we institute bo5's (to ensure matches are not decided based on one CP) and Taj's Better Rule.
[COLLAPSE="Taj's Better Rule"]
A player may ban ONE neutral stage or ALL counterpick stages.[/COLLAPSE]Humongous wall of text, but that's my two cents on the issue. ㅎ>
*
