The Issue with defining "Neutral" stages

[QrowinSP]

Hey guys, I'm not a real participant in the competitive scene (Just a long time spectator), but there's a question about stage legality that I've alway been confused about, and it's a topic that often comes up in the discussion of neutral vs counterpick lists, and that that there's an idea of an objective measure of neutrality.

What is Objective Neutrality?

I often see people talk about how some stages should be counterpick stages exclusively because they are less "Neutral" than other stages, which is to say they offer certain characters significant advantages over other characters. Now, we could always decide which stage is neutral by gut, but I think we can all agree that that is not an accurate method of determining this. So what can we do? Well, first let's define how neutrality is used as a word.

"The neutrality of a stage is inversely proportional to the degree to which the stage skews the matchup between any two characters."

Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Stages that do not skew matchups are neutrals, ones that do are counterpicks or banned. However, before we can use this definition, we need to answer one glaring question: What norm are the stages skewing the matchup away from? For us to have any meaningful measurement of deviation from the norm, we need a well defined norm in the first place. In other words, we need some standard for how slanted every matchup between any two characters should be without taking into account interference from the stage. But this is an impossible task, because to do so you would need to get matchup data for matches that don't take place on a stage. There is no such thing as a match that does not take place on a stage.

Any possible "Norm" we could decide on based on known matchup data is completely arbitrary, because all matchup data is taken with stages as a relevant variable that cannot be excluded. Therefore, this isn't enough to decide what stages are neutral. One thing we could do is choose one stage we feel is neutral, such as smashville, and use matchups on that stage as the norm, but it will be completely, 100% arbitrary and will have 0 actual foundation in any sort of logical theory.

Now, some people might argue that we just need take into account the individual properties of each stage, to see how they give specific, definable advantages or disadvantages to certain kinds of characters. But we run into the exact same problem, and that's a lack of any norm to base our judgement on. Take the following two statements:

1. Final Destination is a stage that offers Little Mac a major advantage. As a character with a weak aerial game, he benefits from the lack of platforms. Battlefield, which does not have this notable advantage for Little Mac, is more neutral as a result.
2. Battlefield is a stage that offers Little Mac a major disadvantage. As a character with a weak aerial game, he is hurt by the abundance of platforms. Final Destination, which does not have this notable disadvantage for Little Mac, is more neutral as a result.

Now, which of these statements are correct? Each one asserts that one of the stages (BF or FD) is the norm and that the opposite stage deviates from said norm. Both are equally factual, however, I'd actually assert neither is a truly correct statement. The only statement I'd say is correct is:

3. Little mac performs better on Final Destination than he does on Battlefield. As a character with a weak aerial game, he benefits from the comparative lack of platforms.

The problem we inevitably run into is the following question: In a ruleset where FD is a counterpick and not a neutral, Little Mac is a worse character. He will be lower on the tier list than he is in the ruleset where FD is a neutral. So the question we need to ask is this: is the place on the tier list where Little Mac truly "belongs" the higher position or the lower position? If he moves from the lower position to the higher position due to a change in the ruleset making FD a neutral when it was once a counterpick, is that an "Unfair" advantage that he's being allotted?

So how would I suggest we define neutrality? Well, I don't know the right answer, I more wanted to get people thinking about this. But I will offer 3 suggestions that I feel are logically consistent.

1. Abandon the idea of neutrality. There is no counterpick list, all legal stages are equally legal.

This is already a popular idea. Assert that any affect that the stagelist has on the tier list is completely arbitrary and that no however the tier list ends up, it will be just as fair as a tier list where a counterpick list exists. In other words, There is no norm on which we decide how neutral or deviant a stage is.

2. Create a list of legal stages before deciding which are counterpicks and then choose counterpicks based on which ones are outliers.

This is the choice that makes the most sense if you want stages to have the least impact on the viability of individual characters on the first game every match. If a character is good or bad on one neutral stage, it's likely going to be the case on all the other ones. In this case, The norm is based on the average qualities of every legal stage.

3. Abandon the idea that certain characters are inherently stronger than others and chose stages for the neutral list that make as many match ups as possible as close to 50/50 as possible.

In other words, we make neutral the stages that "Low Tier" characters do better on and make any stages that favor "High Tier" characters counterpicks. This choice will be in an attempt to bring the game closer to true balance and maximize character viability. In this case, The norm is based on a nonexistant, ideal stage in which every matchup in the game is strictly 50/50.

What do you guys think? How do you think the concept of neutrality should be handled by the Ultimate competitive rulesets?

 

[X1rom]

I'd say neutral stages are stages that don't give characters a significant disadvantage. Since almost every stage has platforms, I'd say Battlefield doesn't give Little Mac a significant disadvantage but final destination gives him an advantage. Also an interesting note: In the past there have been only a few number of legal stages which could've given certain characters an advantage. Since there seems to be much more legal stages in ultimate this could change the balance of the game.

 

[Epok]

Thank you for this post. As a competitive smash player and retired TO, the terms counterpick / neutral are pretty subjective. If someone could create a defining guideline of what physical qualities a neutral stage has, I could potentially jump on board. But saying that something has a “significant advantage or disadvantage” is a little unscientific imo.

 

[X1rom]

Thank you for this post. As a competitive smash player and retired TO, the terms counterpick / neutral are pretty subjective. If someone could create a defining guideline of what physical qualities a neutral stage has, I could potentially jump on board. But saying that something has a “significant advantage or disadvantage” is a little unscientific imo.

Significant advantage and disadvantage is a way to allow for subjectivity. It's a sort of guideline while also allowing to examine each case by it's own.

 

[Epok]

The problem is that there is no clear way to determine how significant something needs to be in order to deem a stage appropriately neutral or counterpick. It becomes opinionated. With 75+ characters, a case by case solution is unrealistic. It’s unrealistic to determine stages categories by that many match ups. FoD and BF have always been considered by the broad smash community as the “fairest” stages. And there are still viable reasons why you could label them as conterpicks because of certain character matchups. If that’s the case you can argue that with many other stages and this becomes messy fast.

I think the cleanest thing to do is have a stage be tournament legal or not. Counterpick and neutral categories make the whole process convoluted.

 

[QrowinSP]

I'd say neutral stages are stages that don't give characters a significant disadvantage. Since almost every stage has platforms, I'd say Battlefield doesn't give Little Mac a significant disadvantage but final destination gives him an advantage. Also an interesting note: In the past there have been only a few number of legal stages which could've given certain characters an advantage. Since there seems to be much more legal stages in ultimate this could change the balance of the game.

What you're doing here is exactly the process I outlined as my second suggestion, though you might not realize it. The decision of whether it's a disadvantage or an advantage is completely arbitrary either way, you are simply choosing to have the more common result as a baseline for convenience sake. It's still not anymore "Correct" to say that platforms are neutral vs no platforms than it is to say the opposite, it just makes for a better ruleset in the long run if we run with that assumption.

 

[ClaTheBae]

All stages, even neutrals, favor certain characters. In that sense, all legal stages are in some form a counterpick.
Melee has many examples of this. Fox and puff favor Dream Land so they have room to camp and move around. Falco's commonly go to Yoshi's. Marth will often take a space animal to FD.
The concept of a neutral stage is sort of nonexistent and I definitely agree that it's a little odd and somewhat redundant to have them and counterpicks differentiated.

 

[chipndip]

I think Battlefield is as close to a "neutral" stage as you'll get.

Smash is balanced around the existence of platforms. FD not having them takes major elements out of the game that are kind of important to its identify, but platforms doing crazy stuff mid-match isn't exactly "neutral" either. Also, uneven ground hurts some characters more than others, which some stages, like Yoshi's Island/Story, have, but Battlefield doesn't.

From all possible angles, Battlefield makes the strongest candidate for a truly "neutral" stage to work around when making comparisons/contrasts for other stages. It brings enough of everyone's strengths and weaknesses without overdoing it in any specific direction. FD is a "decent" candidate, but the lack of platforms makes avoid projectile spam pretty dang rough.

 

[Epok]

But it is also tr

I think Battlefield is as close to a "neutral" stage as you'll get.

Smash is balanced around the existence of platforms. FD not having them takes major elements out of the game that are kind of important to its identify, but platforms doing crazy stuff mid-match isn't exactly "neutral" either. Also, uneven ground hurts some characters more than others, which some stages, like Yoshi's Island/Story, have, but Battlefield doesn't.

From all possible angles, Battlefield makes the strongest candidate for a truly "neutral" stage to work around when making comparisons/contrasts for other stages. It brings enough of everyone's strengths and weaknesses without overdoing it in any specific direction. FD is a "decent" candidate, but the lack of platforms makes avoid projectile spam pretty dang rough.

But it’s also true that there a a multitude of characters that are at a clear disadvantage on battlefield. If you’re a character that needs room to run around and pressure from above your opponent the battlefield is not goid for you. Zoning characters are also at a disadvantage. I really don’t think it can proven there’s one truly neutral starting stage, or even a criteria that everyone can agree on.

 

[chipndip]

But it is also tr


But it’s also true that there a a multitude of characters that are at a clear disadvantage on battlefield. If you’re a character that needs room to run around and pressure from above your opponent the battlefield is not goid for you. Zoning characters are also at a disadvantage. I really don’t think it can proven there’s one truly neutral starting stage, or even a criteria that everyone can agree on.

Well, we do have a means. It's already in the game.

Why else would Sakurai go out of his way to make an FD and Battlefield version of every stage? Those types of stages can be used as a standard for "well-rounded types of stages". Everyone's going to be affected differently by any variable in any game, but the point is to define a standard to work with for competitive play.

Once you get to a point of arguing for very skewed stage designs being held as some type of standard (stages with a ton of vertical/horizontal ground to cover, for example), we get to a point of playing mental gymnastics with framing. Battlefield may seem like it "offers an edge" to some characters, but you can easily say "Little Mac just generally isn't good because he sucks when he has to jump, and this game's full of instances where you need to jump", rather than saying "Battlefield is unfair to Little Mac". Even if we said this, there's still FD.

So, if I were to fully round out my opinion on this, between FD and Battlefield, there isn't a lot of ground left to cover as far as "stage fairness" goes, imo. The two cover the spectrum pretty well, and the rest of it you can honestly pin on character viability. If you need more stages for viewership reasons or what not, just use stages that refrain from moving too far from the standard that BF and FD set.

 

[Epok]

Well, we do have a means. It's already in the game.

Why else would Sakurai go out of his way to make an FD and Battlefield version of every stage? Those types of stages can be used as a standard for "well-rounded types of stages". Everyone's going to be affected differently by any variable in any game, but the point is to define a standard to work with for competitive play.

Once you get to a point of arguing for very skewed stage designs being held as some type of standard (stages with a ton of vertical/horizontal ground to cover, for example), we get to a point of playing mental gymnastics with framing. Battlefield may seem like it "offers an edge" to some characters, but you can easily say "Little Mac just generally isn't good because he sucks when he has to jump, and this game's full of instances where you need to jump", rather than saying "Battlefield is unfair to Little Mac". Even if we said this, there's still FD.

So, if I were to fully round out my opinion on this, between FD and Battlefield, there isn't a lot of ground left to cover as far as "stage fairness" goes, imo. The two cover the spectrum pretty well, and the rest of it you can honestly pin on character viability. If you need more stages for viewership reasons or what not, just use stages that refrain from moving too far from the standard that BF and FD set.

Im pretty sure Sakurai put in bf variants because there was a huge demand for it, more than for competitive play.

Your second paragraph is exactly what the community does all the time. Constantly splitting hairs.

If everything can be argued as a counterpick, including starters what’s the point of the categories?

That’s why I think stages should just be be either legal or not. Full list on all games in a match. No starters or counterpicks. There are plenty of stages that are diverse, yet solid for competition that allows players to have a fair game one with proper stage striking.

Having some stages be “more fair than others” is a weak argument based off a work around for a limited stage pool back in melee. I respect its importance then considering I TOd my fair share of melee. But it’s not necessary anymore to have starters and counterpicks .

 

[Tesh]

I'm on the side of FLLSS, but I've been around long enough to know the community won't go for it. I believe that if a stage is considered generally healthy for competitive play (elements that consistently result in devolving the level of gameplay are not present). I think it may be worth sectioning off the stages that lack symmetry though. Frigate and Castle Siege (hazards off) I think should both be legal.


I feel the stage lists in melee and brawl just had to conform to deal with severe balance issues and Smash 4 simply didn't have many stages worth playing, but Ultimate could keep us a healthy diverse stage list finally where we don't have to axe stages to weaken top tiers artificially