The Nebraska 9 (PM Singles Stagelist)

[Kulprit]

What's up guys, it's HSC|Kulprit from Nebraska. I was one of the people who was a part of the creation of the "Nebraska 9" singles list that has recently been gaining some traction. It's been in discussion for awhile under the PM Reccomended Ruleset here: http://smashboards.com/threads/project-m-recommended-ruleset.396408/ , but I figured since the last ~12 pages are almost exclusively about the NE9 that a separate post seemed fitting since many people around the country need better access to the stagelist itself and don't want to go digging for it. Here's our scene's ruleset and singles stagelist. (Note: Our Doubles stagelist will be posted in a comment below, but the focus on this post won't be on Doubles, so that's why it separate.)

__________________________________________________

Heartland Smash Central Project M Ruleset:

* 4 stock, 8:00 minute timer
* Items OFF and set to NONE
* Buffer OFF
* Auto L-Cancelling set to OFF
* Pause set to HOLD
* Ties after the time limit are determined by stocks, then by percentage.
* If the match goes to Sudden Death due to a suicide move (Ganon's side-B, DDD's swallow, holding someone in a grab on a platform as it moves out of the boundaries, etc.), the player who initiated the move wins.
* DSR Modified: During the counterpicking process, a player is not allowed to choose any counterpick stage they have previously won on in the current set. Best of 5 Set counts have one exception to this: For Game 5 counterpick exclusively, the stage where Game 1 was previously played, is now available again for counterpicking and stage banning.
* All tournament sets will be best-of-3 except the following, which will be best-of-5: Winners Finals, Losers Finals, and Grand Finals. (Note: Our non-weeklies will have more best-of-5 sets, which will be noted on the event page.)
* In any best-of-5 sets, you can counterpick to a stage you have previously banned and you can change your bans for each game.
* Giga Bowser is Banned
* Wario Man is Banned

To decide the stage for the first game of the set, stage strike from the Starters stagelist in "1-2-1" fashion. Rock Paper Scissors is used to decide who is player A and who is player B:
1. Player A strikes one stage.
2. Player B strikes the next two stages.
3. Player A strikes one stage. The final stage left is the stage played for Game 1.

After each game:
1. Winner chooses their character
2. Loser chooses their character
3. Winner bans 2 stages
4. Loser chooses counterpick stage

Singles Stagelist:
2 bans

Starters:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Castle (Alt.)
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counterpicks:
Wario Ware
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Dream Land

__________________________________________________

Currently in PM's metagame, every scene uses their own stagelist and the meta can only evolve around each stagelist. So having 1 universal stagelist would allow the metagame to flourish and allow players to communcate information that's useful across the country. Speaking of across the country, a universially accepted stagelist makes it easier for travellers to expect the stagelist, and not having to practice differently (by playing on different stages stated in the ruleset).

__________________________________________________

In order to have the best possible stagelist for PM, the stagelist needs to be as balanced as possible. This means taking into consideration some traits like stage size, blastzone size, platforms, and more. All attributes are stated down below.

Balance of all stage attributes:

Stage Size:
3 small stages (GHZ/WL/FOD)
3 medium stages (SV/BF/BC)
3 large stages (PS2/FD/DL)

Ceiling Height:
3 low ceilings (WL/PS2/FD)
3 medium ceilings (BC/SV/BF)
3 high ceilings (FOD/GHZ/DL)

Blastzone Size:
3 small BZ's (WL/GHZ/FOD)
3 medium BZ's (SV/PS2/BF)
3 large BZ's (FD/BC/DL)

Plaftorm Stages:
3 flat/quasi-flat stages (GHZ/SV/FD)
3 "in-between" stages (FoD/BC/PS2)
3 heavily platformed stages (WL/BF/DL)

Walled Stages:
3 walled stages (GHZ/WL/BC)
3 semi-walled stages (FoD/FD/DL)
3 non-walled stages (BF/SV/PS2)

__________________________________________________

Sources:
SOJ's 3.6 Stage Data Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LJ2IRbVIcEYajsqt95JMQOPKKpsqfDzo5ZgfJvbdlg4/edit#gid=0
Lawnchair's Visual Stage Data: http://www.mediafire.com/download/k231fwv4w3gc6wp/StageGuide1_1.zip

 

[JesteRace]

Some extra cool stuff to notice.

When looking at stage size, blastzone width, and ceiling height, we have 1 small/3 medium/1 large of each of those categories in the neutrals, making the striking process balanced on both sides for game 1.

When looking at the platform categorization, one of each category is represented in each stage size. Just makes the ban/CP process that much deeper.

 

[Kulprit]

Reserving this comment for future Doubles updates (if there will be any)

Doubles Stagelist:
2 bans

Starters:
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Castle (Alt.)
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret

Counterpicks:
Fountain of Dreams
Green Hill Zone
Final Destination
Dream Land

 

[Smash John]

Thank you so much for putting this in a separate thread. digging through all those posts to find this again was a bit daunting

just for clarification, do you use 2 stage bans for both Bo3 and Bo5?

 

[Kulprit]

Thank you so much for putting this in a separate thread. digging through all those posts to find this again was a bit daunting

just for clarification, do you use 2 stage bans for both Bo3 and Bo5?

Yes we do use 2 bans for all sets. This is possible since we run the DSR Modified where it allows for the starter stage struck to as a counterpick for the rest of the set.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Thanks for posting this, I keep intending to look it up but get sidetracked through the other thread.

If you don't mind explaining, what was the reason for excluding delfino and having dreamland instead?

 

[JesteRace]

Thanks for posting this, I keep intending to look it up but get sidetracked through the other thread.

If you don't mind explaining, what was the reason for excluding delfino and having dreamland instead?

Some have stated it as a personal preference thing, basically saying that people can use either one if they wish. However, I have 3 main gripes with using Delfino as a replacement for Dreamland.

1. Dreamland may have an obnoxious ceiling, but it fits the necessary niche of "large in all size categories". Delfino... well, it's close, and the ceiling is more reasonable, but ultimately I don't feel the blastzones are wide enough to be considered a "large in all size categories" stage. So it skews the balance of the list.

2. The platforms moving aren't an inherent problem, but they make a lot of inconsistent layouts that make me think it doesn't work as a replacement for DL's static platforms.

3. It is a walled stage, which would slightly skew the stagelist towards walled stages

If it had only 1 or 2 of these issues, I could probally overlook it, but having all 3? Just doesn't jive for me.

 

[Scatz]

Funny enough, Lylat could technically replace Dreamland and not be called a medium stage, but no one likes it due to the ledges.

 

[Kulprit]

Funny enough, Lylat could technically replace Dreamland and not be called a medium stage, but no one likes it due to the ledges.

No, it couldn't replace Dreamland because it doesn't replace all 5 stage attributes stated in OP. It would only replace the Stage Size, Platform Stages, Walled Stages, and MAYBEEEEE blastzone size (it's in-between medium & large, so I'm leaning toward no since it would have to replace the largest on the scale). Thus, it skews the balance of the stagelist.

And there's also problems with the stage itself (bad edges, platforms too low) like you said, so I don't think it would make sense to replace it. We haven't ran Lylat since 3.02 days, so bringing it back would be pretty controversial, to say the least.

 

[Scatz]

I didn't say it was a perfect fit, nor am I trying to bring it back up. I just mentioned it because I see the attributes being closer than Delfino.

 

[DMG]

Small side blast zones are more noticeable. Stages with bigger blast zones tend to be noticeably wider, which throws off perception / realistic function of blast zone size. EX:

BF side blast to side blast is 448, stage width ~137

FD side blast to side blast is 492, stage width ~171

(FD side blast zone is 2nd among legal stages if you have DL legal, it's literally #1 if DL is gone)


Standing at the edge of either stage:

BF edge to side is ~ 155.5

FD edge to side is ~ 160.5


Despite an objective blast zone difference of almost 45 points, knee-ing someone at the ledge of both BF and FD almost kills the same (not sure how much 5 units translates into % differences for kills, point is the gap was super duper closed because of massive stage length)

Knee-ing someone on Delfino, PS2, or DP (stages tied for 4th largest side BZ among legals) edge actually kills faster than knee at BF edge. There is a disturbance in the force

 

[JesteRace]

That is why I have maintained that DP, Delfino, and PS2 have Medium blast zones. Battlefield is on the large end of medium for blastzones and its ceiling. It's also the smallest medium stage, though, so it balances out.

 

[DMG]

They are only medium near the stage edges. Closer to center stage you get, or any cross-stage kills, become way more noticeable than BF. Would be almost as inaccurate to say BF ceiling is lower than FD because of platform kills.

Stage lengths on some stages were fudged up imo. Defeats some of the purpose of side blast zone increases. I miss development already

 

[JesteRace]

They are only medium near the stage edges. Closer to center stage you get, or any cross-stage kills, become way more noticeable than BF. Would be almost as inaccurate to say BF ceiling is lower than FD because of platform kills.

Stage lengths on some stages were fudged up imo. Defeats some of the purpose of side blast zone increases. I miss development already

Well, yeah, but pretty much anyone on the offense is going to be trying to push you towards the edge unless they are a vertical killer, so edge to BZ matters just as much as center to BZ. If one is large and the other is medium, then I don't think that's enough to be considered a "large blastzones" stage.

 

[Ripple]

I don't agree with having DSR modified. It allows for a stage to be CP twice in the set against people which should not happen at all.

I have always ran, " you cannot CP any stage you have won on if you picked it"

but allow people to go back to the strike stage

 

[DMG]

DL may be the only stage to fit that qualification then. Still, stages like WL and GHZ have blast zone differences matter more because their stage width doesn't shift 35-50 points from BF. Surprised how wide they crafted some of these stages

Edit:

I don't agree with having DSR modified. It allows for a stage to be CP twice in the set against people which should not happen at all

There's only one DSR mod most people are looking to use. For Game 5, the Game 1 Starter is newly available for picking and banning. Game 1 Starter is not a strict CP that one side chose (both sides had input on striking and picking), and if it were to develop into a favorable stage from char swaps or other facets, the opponent may still chose to ban it for Game 5. Any stage won on would be banned from re-picking in this (aside from Game 1 stage for Game 5)


For 9 stages, it's either mod DSR, change ban count to 1 for Bo5 sets, or change ban count to 1 for all set counts


It's cleaner to use 10 stages IMO and just stick with consistent 2 bans, but people complain about Yoshi Brawl / Norfair / x 10th stage choice

 

[JesteRace]

DL may be the only stage to fit that qualification then. Still, stages like WL and GHZ have blast zone differences matter more because their stage width doesn't shift 35-50 points from BF. Surprised how wide they crafted some of these stages

Nah, I'd say FD and BC are just large enough in both categories. You are right though. The huge variance in all this BS makes things tougher than need be.

 

[nimigoha]

You should include a rule for port priority. I like having winner of RPS choose either striking first and last or picking their port, then the loser of RPS gets the other option. Then RPS for port after each game maybe? I don't know.

 

[DMG]

RPS for port after each game could be construed as a bit less fair. A person playing a Snake player may never get port advantage by losing all RPS, or he may keep port advantage for the entire set by winning all RPS. Forcefully alternating port picks, or giving most recent Losing player port pick, is more fair. Even if a set ends up 2-1 on port advantage, that's better than 2-0 or 3-0.

Old Brawl rules iirc had a clause that you rotated port advantage to the other player, regardless of win/loss record in the set. You won port for Game 1? Game 2 you always gave it back to them, even if they won the match. I believe that was the old rule. Usually did not come into play unless Snake was playing lol

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah priority doesn't really matter unless *southern drawl* thurr's a snake in mah game!

I would say "just make Snake always get Port 1 or Port 4 for consistency's sake" but then... Snake dittos...

I could get behind the RPS for strike or port then giving port choice to the loser.

 

[DMG]

Some areas give higher seed strike pick. Could just roll with that and also RPS Game 1 for any port disputes (when requested).

 

[Kulprit]

I don't agree with having DSR modified. It allows for a stage to be CP twice in the set against people which should not happen at all.

I have always ran, " you cannot CP any stage you have won on if you picked it"

but allow people to go back to the strike stage

There's only one DSR mod most people are looking to use. For Game 5, the Game 1 Starter is newly available for picking and banning. Game 1 Starter is not a strict CP that one side chose (both sides had input on striking and picking), and if it were to develop into a favorable stage from char swaps or other facets, the opponent may still chose to ban it for Game 5. Any stage won on would be banned from re-picking in this (aside from Game 1 stage for Game 5)

For 9 stages, it's either mod DSR, change ban count to 1 for Bo5 sets, or change ban count to 1 for all set counts

It's cleaner to use 10 stages IMO and just stick with consistent 2 bans, but people complain about Yoshi Brawl / Norfair / x 10th stage choice

This part is more on me since in the rules, I do state that Game 1 starter is allowed for the rest of the set, mostly due to me not knowing how to word the DMG DSR. In technical terms, how would you word your DSR, DMG ?

 

[Ripple]

also, TN9 should explicitly state that you can

1. CP your own bans
and
2. your ban choices can change during a Bo5.

with bans being able to change, being CPed to a stage you lost on, while still possible, isn't likely to happen since you can now switch a ban

 

[Kulprit]

also, TN9 should explicitly state that you can

1. CP your own bans
and
2. your ban choices can change during a Bo5.

I thought these rules were kosher already & were just accepted in other scenes? I've never thought about including rules to clarify those 2 things since I thought they were just assumed.

I'll add a rule where it explicity states those 2 things, though. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Ripple]

I state this because this rule isn't even clearly stated in melee and scenes still debate this. MI and IL I know for sure doesn't allow the first rule.

other scenes may do what we do also.

 

[Boiko]

Just to add more support to what Ripple is saying, in Long Island tournament Bo5 sets, you cannot change your bans. Ever scene does something different, so it's important to clarify.

 

[nimigoha]

Just to add more support to what Ripple is saying, in Long Island tournament Bo5 sets, you cannot change your bans. Ever scene does something different, so it's important to clarify.

Even if the opponent changes their character?

Or are you using stage first still?

 

[DMG]

Ya those rules have never been 100% clarified across scenes. The 2 ban interpretations are thus:

1. Stage bans = removed from play entirely

2. Stage bans = removed only from your Opponent's picking options

Traditional interpretation has been #1.

#2 opens up a couple new scenarios, debatable how much impact they have. Most people incorrectly assume that when you ban a stage under #2 interpretation, that you're "freezing" it for your own use later and the opponent can't stop this. The opponent is also free to ban the same stage under #2 rules so that neither player can use the stage. You can see where that might be unpopular ("He banned FD, but I have to ban FD also or he can pick it later???")

I am fine with #2 so long as the rules are clearly described. Strategy legit changes based on how bans are interpreted, there should be 0 confusion and a lot of work put into ensuring this. All events should be clear in their rules on how stage bans are interpreted, it's an overlooked issue until someone wants to pick their own ban (if the rules aren't clear about not doing this) and then the TO gets involved etc


As for shifting bans, this has become more common over time but the old rules were indeed static bans. Ban type only affects 3/5 sets, but it's becoming more accepted to let bans shift. It makes total sense: as a set develops, you learn more about the opponent and their character strategies. With character first being pushed for PM, having shifting bans to accomodate character changes is also ideal. Otherwise, static bans when you try and cover multi-mains becomes almost irrelevant.

Wording for shifting bans = "Stage bans are selected after each Game. Stage bans last for one Game."


My DSR wording: "During the Counterpicking process, a Player is not allowed to choose any Stage they have previously won on in the current Set. Best of 5 Set counts have one exception to this: For Game 5 Counterpick exclusively, the stage where Game 1 was previously played, is now available again for Counterpicking and stage banning."


You could shorten it a bit but I think that's a decent articulation. Also for anyone unclear before, yes mine bans people from picking any stage they have won, not just any pick they have won. Something feels wierd about winning on your opponent's CP, then you flip around picking it again later. Chose not to allow that in mine, you could modify it to allow that if people somehow prefer?

 

[.alizarin]

i'd normally be okay with this list but the visuals on bowser's castle give me headaches and strain my eyes. while it's a minority from what i can tell, other people have issues with that stage's visuals too. just something to consider.

 

[DMG]

Ya it's not ideal. Norfair is also wtf

 

[JesteRace]

i'd normally be okay with this list but the visuals on bowser's castle give me headaches and strain my eyes. while it's a minority from what i can tell, other people have issues with that stage's visuals too. just something to consider.

Nebraska's build not only switches Bowser's Castle Alternate to the default, it also changed the lava color to a dimmer blue. From what I understand, this was not hard and should be easy for any scene or tourney that has a significant problem with the visuals.

 

[.alizarin]

i can get behind a visual switch, i just think the accessibility and convenience will be hit a little bit since the standard build isn't like that. i imagine that the main setups for streaming and whatnot will have the modified visuals, but there's no guarantee that everybody that brings in a setup will have that change put in, especially if they don't have problems with the visuals by themselves. i just think that logistically it'll be obnoxious to manage.

 

[JesteRace]

i can get behind a visual switch, i just think the accessibility and convenience will be hit a little bit since the standard build isn't like that. i imagine that the main setups for streaming and whatnot will have the modified visuals, but there's no guarantee that everybody that brings in a setup will have that change put in, especially if they don't have problems with the visuals by themselves. i just think that logistically it'll be obnoxious to manage.

Well, I've seen similar issues in Sm4sh where people main one of the DLC characters but not all of the setups have those characters (hell, some don't have Dreamland). In this case, people who want to play DLC characters are prioritized for setups that have them. Could do the same for PM, couldn't we? People who have issues with BC's visuals could be prioritized for setups that have the visual switch?

 

[Kulprit]

Updated OP w/ DMG Modifed DSR:

Spoiler: DMG's DSR

* DSR Modified: During the counterpicking process, a player is not allowed to choose any counterpick stage they have previously won on in the current set. Best of 5 Set counts have one exception to this: For Game 5 counterpick exclusively, the stage where Game 1 was previously played, is now available again for counterpicking and stage banning.

Note: I changed it slightly to where it would allow Player A to counterpick to a stage that Player B chose previously and Player A won on.

and clarified swapping bans in Bo5's:

Spoiler: Bans in Bo5

* In any best-of-5 sets, you can counterpick to a stage you have previously banned and you can change your bans for each game.

 

[.alizarin]

Well, I've seen similar issues in Sm4sh where people main one of the DLC characters but not all of the setups have those characters (hell, some don't have Dreamland). In this case, people who want to play DLC characters are prioritized for setups that have them. Could do the same for PM, couldn't we? People who have issues with BC's visuals could be prioritized for setups that have the visual switch?

i totally get that and i can definitely see it being done. it's just one extra thing that you have to be aware of and manage. i just think that you guys should be very aware of potential issues that might slow down tournaments, is all. you could end up with out of state people who are need/prefer some other version coming into a very vanilla bc region and causing setup shortages, people just not showing up with enough of the changed bc causing clogs, etc. hell, according to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBPM/comm..._love_to_the_tos_of_paragon/cuvxxq6?context=3
http://paragon.vsgaming.org/rules

smash 4's dlc caused some serious problems. you'll also notice that in the second link, they noted in the rules that dreamland was part of the stagelist. i'd blame part of this stuff on a lack of specificity and a divide in tournament rulings, but i'm thoroughly convinced that a ton of people just dont' read the rules and just show up to places. paragon was also a major, so management is significantly more difficult and the issue may not be as significant in smaller tournaments and when we recognize this pitfall, but you know, caution is a pretty good policy.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Updated OP w/ DMG Modifed DSR:

Spoiler: DMG's DSR

* DSR Modified: During the counterpicking process, a player is not allowed to choose any counterpick stage they have previously won on in the current set. Best of 5 Set counts have one exception to this: For Game 5 counterpick exclusively, the stage where Game 1 was previously played, is now available again for counterpicking and stage banning.

Note: I changed it slightly to where it would allow Player A to counterpick to a stage that Player B chose previously and Player A won on.

and clarified swapping bans in Bo5's:

Spoiler: Bans in Bo5

* In any best-of-5 sets, you can counterpick to a stage you have previously banned and you can change your bans for each game.

Does that imply you cant do that on bo3?

I hate when rules differ in different sized sets.

 

[JesteRace]

Does that imply you cant do that on bo3?

I hate when rules differ in different sized sets.

It wouldn't come up in a bo3 though?

 

[DMG]

Bo3 Set Counts are not long enough for ban shifting to occur. As for this Mod-DSR, it's the smallest modification to accomodate keeping 2 bans with 9 stages in Bo5. The alternatives were clear and either worse off OR controversial

1. Reduce to 1 ban in both 2/3 and 3/5 --- This idea is not very well liked, but it's consistent

2. Reduce to 1 ban just in 3/5 --- This idea has some support, but it's not consistent and promotes a very different meta based on bracket location

3. Add a 10th stage and keep 2 bans across the board --- This idea people are down for, but finding a 10th stage everyone agrees to is hard (Yoshi, Norfair, Lylat, custom stage, and other options all have backlash)

 

[mimgrim]

If only Castle Siege wasn't so detested by people.

Though I am surprised by the traction BC Alt is gaining as I have only really seen adversion to the stage. At least whete I live it is prettt hated. Then again where I live the majority wants DL as a starter soooooo, yea.

 

[JesteRace]

Castle Siege is a super interesting stage to me, but it just doesn't fit in the balance of our list. It's hard to pin down where it would fit in any sort of list. If you consider it a small stage, then it doesn't really work, because if you replace any of the current small stages, you lose out on a stage with small blast zones (Castle Siege's are definitely medium iirc) and there are no medium or large stages that have small blast zones to make up for this (Unless you wanna try running Rumble Falls, which, GG homie). If you consider it a medium stage, you might able to work around it, but that's a stretch. It's a bit smaller than Battlefield, which is already the smallest medium stage.

But, yeah, even outside of that, Nebraska tried Castle Siege out and it did not go well at all.