The New Stage Discussion Thread: Operation Lava Kill

[Skler]

Alright, this is a thread for discussing what stages should/shouldn't be legal.

I think first we should try to define what makes a stage tournament worthy. I'm not very good at this, so let's hope somebody who can word this better comes in and helps.

1. Negligible Random Factor- Nothing random should change the game too much. It's ok to have a random effect that is clearly advertised and gives the players ample time to react, but it still needs to leave the core of the game unchanged and not have a huge difference on the match itself. Ex. Brinstar Depths

2. The Game Must Go On- A stage shouldn't force both parties to cease fighting and start fighting the stage. Ex. Icicle Mountain

3. The Stage Must Not Change the Game- If a stage removes a large facet of the game (edgeguarding, actual approaches) it should immediately be eliminated. Ex. that really awful Kongo Jungle stage and anything with a walkoff edge.

4. The Stage Must not Over-centralize the Game- If a stage has one clearly dominant strategy/character that can not be beaten it should not be legal. Ex. Circle camping and being Fox on Hyrule, the rock on that really awful Kongo Jungle stage, Fox on Green greens, Fox on a lot of stages.


Ok, let's get this discussion going!

 

[Pink Reaper]

Brinstar should be neutral.

 

[Skler]

**** that, we're killing the lava. KILLING IT.

 

[N64]

I have no real issue with the current stage list. Brinstar could stand to go, but i'm not overly concerned about removing it. I also don't feel any stages warrant unbanning.

As far as stage criteria, I usually follow a few things (which are mostly already noted):
-A stage should not have random elements which have a considerable effect on the outcome of a match.
-A stage should closely follow the expected and accepted flow of gameplay. Stages that deviate too far from this (i.e. stages with walkoff ledges or no grabbable ledges) should be removed, as well as stages that overcentralize gameplay to an 'undesirable' one (subjective, but including stages that heavily enforce camping or highly unorthodox play).
-A stage should not overcentralize gameplay to one tactic that is deemed too powerful on that stage.

All of these are subjective of course (i.e. how great of an effect from random elements are we allowing), but it's what I go by. Essentially we want stages that promote competative play.

 

[SleepyK]

Very dislike brinstar due to lava
Still on that pokestad over FoD for a netural

Very still on my pokefloats theory - only legal when psyduck is onscreen

 

[ArcNatural]

I like the current stage list because as long as you remember to ban Brinstar the next two bad stages that most characters that like Brinstar would use is the DK stage and Dreamland. Almost all the other stages (unless you play Link) are usually unfavorable to those characters.

I think that's the main issue. If you remove Brinstar your essentially removing another advantageous stage for Peach/Jiggs/Falcon not just Brinstar which is usually the autoban (at least vs Peach/Jiggs).

I know it's probably flawed logic, but that's just my take on it. But yeah if you remove Brinstar other characters would probably have a better chance to win sets. Just like how when green greens/corneria were removed Foxes took a hit.

 

[Skler]

I feel like any stage that is an autoban should be banned because there's pretty clearly something wrong with it. Leaving Brinstar up is essentially saying "If you play Peach/Puff your opponent has no ban." Puff and Peach still have KJ64 if you give Brinstar the boot, and Dreamland to fall back on if that gets banned by their opponent. Battlefield isn't even bad for them and neither is FoD! It's not like they're wanting for stages, they're just used to having more amazing CPs than they know what to do with (as was Fox up until this ruleset).

Is there any other stage that has to be treated like this? If you're against a Fox you don't automatically ban RC, and that's probably the closest any character has to the domination that is Brinstar. It's only Brinstar that forces a ban. I know Peach and Puff aren't the best in the game, but they don't need an arbitrary stage boost to save them.

It doesn't help that Brinstar has a powerful random factor, though it does give you some warning. If you're hit off the stage and the lava suddenly drops you're going to die instead of popping up like you expected, whereas it can save your opponent who had the foresight NOT to get hit off the stage when the lava was going to drop. It also overcentralizes (Puff/Peach) and changes the game by having a passable floor and no real walls for wall teching/grapple recoveries. It also screws with the game when there's only one platform open. Honestly the stage is full of little things that make me hate it even when there's no peach/puff involved. Oh, the stage also ruins projectiles due to its fleshy parts.

 

[Marc]

We got rid of Brinstar a while ago because of how ridiculously good it is for Jigglypuff and the acid providing interference which (in our arbitrary opinion) was too much.

 

[Skler]

Exactly. Brinstar is terrible.

Discuss.

 

[Divinokage]

You can also simply learn the stage. I observed that most players have a hardtime adapting to a stage like this and this is why they lose. This is true for all stages. If you don't practice on every stage then already you are gimping yourself for a better chance to victory. A game like smash requires you to use the stage to your advantage with a character of your choice. It's not a traditional fighting game since there are platforms and death zones on the sides. No matter how narrow the stagelist gets, you still have to learn them.

So as for brinstar, I just don't see how is it super good for Jigglypuff, basically any character with a good hit that sends the opponent horizontally can kill Jigglypuff fairly easily. The stage basically forces Jigglypuff to approach at times because of the lava and then you can get free hits if you space correctly. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. I don't mind playing any character on that stage. If you learn it, then nothing random is going to happen to you.

And then there's KJ64, if let's say you ban Brinstar, do you guys realize that KJ64 is basically Hell for Marth? He can't even edgeguard Ganon and Falcon which both have the worst recovery in the game on that stage. lol. Also for Marth, it's pretty **** hard to sweetspot the edge as well. I mean if you are going to say that Brinstar boosts Puff/Peach, you have to look the other way as well about how some stages completely nerfs other characters. But again it's about learning the stages, I'm sure some of you are not willing to do it/haven't thought of it that way.

 

[Marc]

That's why you also ban KJ64. :3

 

[Divinokage]

What's left after that? At some point every stage is going to get banned and then smash will be unplayable due to broken things we found in the metagame. lol. Any stage will already have a slight advantage for some characters if used correctly. I mean I played M2k's Sheik on FD, it felt like even worse than any CP stage that I could of picked to win vs him lol. It really felt like I have 0% chance to win. A good Sheik on FD is disgusting.. and it's also probably faceroll vs Falcon too with free re-grabs.

So, you guys want to say that certain stages boosts certain characters when there are even more broken strategies that can be used on neutrals vs other characters like I mentioned above. Is it really the way to go.. to remove all CPs? The CPs that we have right now in the current stagelist is pretty good.. I don't think it over-centralizes anything.

 

[Marc]

We use:

Starter (for stage striking)
Battlefield
Dream Land 64
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams (Yoshi’s Story in teams)
Pokémon Stadium

Counterpick
Yoshi's Story

Those six stages are the European standard pretty much, the configuration can differ. It's unlikely the stage list will get any smaller as not enough people would want to change anything about it. You can still argue character advantages of course, but what's why we reintroduced stage bans as well. Counterpicking has never been considered a major aspect of competitive play over here and stage hazards are kept to a minimum.

 

[Divinokage]

We use:

Starter (for stage striking)
Battlefield
Dream Land 64
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams (Yoshi’s Story in teams)
Pokémon Stadium

Counterpick
Yoshi's Story

Those six stages are the European standard pretty much, the configuration can differ. It's unlikely the stage list will get any smaller as not enough people would want to change anything about it. You can still argue character advantages of course, but what's why we reintroduced stage bans as well. Counterpicking has never been considered a major aspect of competitive play over here and stage hazards are kept to a minimum.

Ok but clearly PAL version is more balanced than the NTSC version yes? It's a big difference in the top tiers and how they are played.

 

[Druggedfox]

Random note: KJ64 played as falco/falcon should essentially force jiggs/peach to ban that stage. I think KJ64 is honestly an entirely ******** stage because of the possibilities of certain camping strategies. Characters with slow vertical mobility (anyone can look at rockcrock vs pink shinobi, and peach isn't even that great a character to stall with) get entirely destroyed by that stage.

This might be a bit extreme, but I'm all for no "weird" stages being counterpicks. I might be missing something, but I don't understand the need for such stages. Rather than having a ban option and wasting that option on banning any one of the three stages (RC,KJ64,Brinstar)... why even keep them?

Actually, I've never considered this before (because I just ban brinstar, and pick falco on KJ64 to laugh at people), but as I'm typing this post the idea is seeming more and more appealing. We have:

FD
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Fountain of Dreams
Pokemon Stadium

Is there any character on the viable side of the tier list that can't deal with those, given one ban? In fact, shouldn't stages serve to make the game more viably competitive overall? Honestly, I am still a bit iffy about FoD and Pokemon Stadium (both seem a bit less neutral than the rest to me) but the concept of having only some arrangement of those is very appealing to me.

Having only those stages really forces players to understand the ins and outs of the neutrals, rather than relying on semi-gimmicks to win. Brinstar? The stage can be split in the middle in a way that can make matchups pure evil to play (Mango says hbox is gay? I wonder if he ever rewatched him vs ChuDat on brinstar). Additionally, the lava burns through the stage without actually being visibly covering it, which often allows for lucky shifts in momentum. I appreciate the fact that a player should know the stage, but it's like placing invisible mines, and expecting the players not to take just a step too close. If they entirely avoid those areas, it severely limits the area you can play in which, once again, makes for death matchups. It's not a stage that promotes any sort of standard competition.

KJ64 is just as bad with camping; I honestly think no one has exploited this yet, but that peach/jiggs should get instant losses on that stage unless they are significantly better than their opponent if the falco knows what he's doing. That's only the beginning of it. The ledges make it nigh impossible for certain characters to reliably recover, and the barrel often plays a role that is far stupider than what Randal does on yoshi's story. Sure, you can use the timer to figure out where it is, but it's ultimately sheer luck when you get hit off the stage near it. On yoshi's, the majority of the time it's not too hard to hit your opponent off if they go for the cloud; as Kage said, however, it makes edgeguarding ganon for marth plain stupid.

Rainbow Cruise... I honestly haven't played on it enough to give an accurate analysis, so i'll save ranting for later.

I'm going to edit in later (gotta grab food now) why I think the neutrals are ideal for competitive play by themselves; but gotta run.

Tl;dr? Forget the counterpick stages, we're fine with just the neutrals.

 

[Skler]

It doesn't help that Brinstar has a powerful random factor, though it does give you some warning. If you're hit off the stage and the lava suddenly drops you're going to die instead of popping up like you expected, whereas it can save your opponent who had the foresight NOT to get hit off the stage when the lava was going to drop. It also overcentralizes (Puff/Peach) and changes the game by having a passable floor and no real walls for wall teching/grapple recoveries. It also screws with the game when there's only one platform open. Honestly the stage is full of little things that make me hate it even when there's no peach/puff involved. Oh, the stage also ruins projectiles due to its fleshy parts.

I'd like somebody to address these points, as I think Brinstar is banworthy even without peach/puff.

 

[Slhoka]

I'm also in favor of getting rid of counterpick stages. And by that, I do not mean a few specific stages, but the whole counterpick category.

I recently tried to create a complete ruleset that leaves no room for misunderstanding. I wondered for a long time which stages I could pick for starters and for counterpicks. The French community agrees more or less on the fact that the 6 stages mentioned by Druggedfox are starters. The problem is, we needed 3, 5 or 7 stages to allow stage striking, so at first we added KJ before banning it and making one or 3 of the 6 stages counterpick (either BF, PS, FoD and YS).

I always felt it was pretty stupid, because all of these 6 stages can arguably be considered starters or counterpick. So I went for an hybrid solution : I got rid of the counterpick category and considered all 6 starters. Then the players use a stage striking procedure identical to 5-starter rulesets, leaving 2 stages left. Then random is used to choose the stage of the first game, unless both players agree on one of them.
Many players complain that the always play their first game on BF because of stage striking, and while I don't have any statistical data to back this theory, I'd tend to think BF it the most frequent stage for a first game. This ruleset system could add variety while still allowing the players to avoid playing on stages they don't like.

What do you guys think of that ?

 

[Marc]

Remen and me also recently came to the conclusion Battlefield is probably the most neutral stage. Interesting to see it was the same for you.

 

[SleepyK]

battlefield is probably the most neutral stage, i agree. the only issue is gimping some recovery choices, but that's not a huge factor as opposed to the stuff that can happen on other stages.

I really like that european list, but i'm hesitant to remove RC and KJ64 because my RC has "I'm on A Boat" on it and my KJ64 has that monster hunter skin that steelia made.

aesthetics and jokes aside, they're both pretty bad stages.

slhoka, that idea i think is pretty good. keeping striking and letting the game choose between two stages is pretty clever.

Skler, the only point i'd like to refute is that apparently, the lava on brinstar follows a set pattern. other than that, it sux and eff dat

 

[Druggedfox]

@Slhoka

Then with those 6, those would be the only allowed stages for counterpicking as well? That's what I'm voting for, anyway.

Hmm, example scenario:

Marth vs fox

Marth bans DL64
Fox bans FD
Marth bans PS
Fox bans FoD

Random select between Yoshi's and Battlefield unless they agree otherwise?

Current scenario:

Marth bans DL64
Fox bans FD and FoD
Marth gets his pick between the other two...

So the difference essentially comes down to the fact that in the first scenario, its random or they agree. In the second scenario, the marth player gets to pick the stage he wants... maybe I picked a weird scenario, but if that holds consistently... then the random method actually works far better.

I'm not thinking on it too much, but if anyone wants to point out a situation where the current stage striking method works better, please do. I'd want to test this idea out some, and just go 1 ban for each player no non-neutral stage allowed. Another important (bolded) question: Are there any matchups that are particularly upset by neutrals only 1 ban?

Comments? Answers to my questions?

 

[Deleted member]

the more i think about it, the more i'd be okay with a "DL64 only" stage list.

>_>

edit: sami i think you're stabbing at theory too much.

 

[pockyD]

battlefield only

anyway, what's the point of getting away from stage striking and introducing the big random button again? how does the random method work "better" at all?

if games are being played on battlefield, it's a pretty clear indicator that it's likely the most 'neutral' stage for the matchup; why would we decide to randomly only play the most 'neutral' stage 50% of the time?

boogles the mind

and also ignores the potential effect that enabling/disabling stages has on the randomizer, especially with the popularity of ragequitting

 

[Druggedfox]

@Pocky

Our current state striking method, as I presented it, leaves the player with first strike to take his choice of the last two stages. I would much rather a random selection between two stages that both players are fine with than the initial player getting a free personal preference choice. There is also the other option of both players agreeing between the two remaining ones.

The current stage striking method definitely gives an advantage to the initial striker. Any "_____ only" honestly isn't a good approach because it skews certain matchups. Sure, battlefield comes up a lot, but saying "Battlefield only" completely caters to players who prefer the stage, or characters that perform better on it. Ultimately, even outside of character advantages on stages, personal preference based on playstyle plays an enormous role in stage choice. Limiting it to any one stage makes far less sense than what I (and slhoka) have tentatively suggested.

 

[pockyD]

The notion of a balanced stage is, in fact, ALREADY constrained by the ruleset. A rule of "___ only" simply redefines what is "fair"/balanced, not make the choice unfair/imbalanced. If it favors a certain playstyle, so be it! That is simply the optimal playstyle, which players can either emulate or play suboptimally! If you don't think ANY ruleset suffers from this issue, you're being naive.

The inherent problem with ANY randomness in stage selection is that it intentionally muddles up the notion of a 'fairest' choice. Given two stages, it's almost certain that one is more "fair" than the other by ANY metric of fairness; why don't we enforce the use of that stage instead of leaving it up to chance? Same logic applies (and probably more clearly) to 3 stages and up; one is obviously the median, and under the 'fairness' described by stage striking, that is the stage that SHOULD be played.

The system may give the initial striker a TINY advantage if the other player has no knowledge of the other players' preferences, but in most cases, this simply is not relevant (either that or you likely need to re-evaluate your personal striking strategy). The fact of the matter is, stage striking GUARANTEES that you will not play on either of your two worst stages; single ban and random only guarantees one. In fact, many people who have played me (i.e. Hyuga) can probably attest that, against people whose game knowledge I respect and in certain matchups, I often name my two bans off the bat, giving my opponent the choice of any of the 3 remaining strategies. Why? because the system is predictable, which is really all that matters to me.

I'm fine with ANY '___ only' ruleset out of the currently legal stages; if for some reason a stage is too broken to be played, it shouldn't be legal to begin with!

In the two scenarios...

1) Game 1 is on a set stage. Player A always has a 60-40 advantage
2) Game 1 is on a variable stage. 60% of the time, player A has an 80-20 advantage; 40% of the time, player B has an 80-20 advantage

The "math" works out such that they're equivalent, but situation 1 gives significantly better (read: more consistent) results.

 

[Druggedfox]

Limiting the game only to one optimal play style severely hinders competitive play. You're thinking backwards here. Some falco players hate battlefield, some love it. If we arbitrarily select Battlefield as the stage for all first matches, we've given an advantage to certain players for absolutely no reason. All matchups shouldn't be based off what the overall is considered "more neutral".

I also don't see why your way works any better than mine. Our current way of stage striking guarantees you won't play on your two worst stages... yes... How does my way work? The exact same? ... I don't think it should be necessary to repeat myself, but here it's quite obvious that you don't play on your two worst stages the way I had it set up:

Marth bans DL64
Fox bans FD
Marth bans PS
Fox bans FoD

Fox's two worst stages are FD and FoD... my way of leaving it to random and/or players agree still guarantees that you don't play on your two worst stages. In fact, I don't see why this matters to you, seeing as "I often name my two bans off the bat, giving my opponent the choice of any of the 3 remaining strategies."

If that's what you do anyway, why does my way not work for you? You still get two ban two stages, it's just that for the last selection between Battlefield and Yoshi's, your opponent doesn't get a free select of the stage they prefer. Instead, you have an equal chance of getting a personal preference. This is also entirely ignoring the fact that both players can agree to a stage choice of the last two. In normal stage striking, the marth gets his pick between BF and Yoshi's... I see absolutely no reason why the first player striking should get an automatic choice for his/her personal preference.

That said, we could just limit the neutrals to 5, and still take the same approach. Either way, both your suggestion and the standard stage striking don't solve the problem that one player will consistently have a personal preference over the other player. Will that make a difference in the long run? Maybe, maybe not. Is there a reason for that advantage? Not at all.

You're fine with any "___ only"? Let's pick FD only and make ganon non viable (since apparently sheik vs ganon on FD is a joke). Alternatively, we could always just pick DL64 and move the metagame towards falco simply sitting on the top platform, jumping and dairing peach's approaches. Obviously that's a bit of oversimplification, but when one stage is guaranteed to be the starter, it'll move the game towards a situation where people want that guaranteed win on the first stage. This is fine and all, if we don't want competitive play to advance; with that, it'll just deterioriate into certain overused strategies over and over, without expanding and enriching the game. None of the neutrals really work out as a "____ only" because each and everyone one of them has something debatable about them, or something wrong with them. That's why stage striking as a concept is so much more effective than having a set stage: it caters to all matchups rather than forcing the game to revolve around particularly limiting matchups and strategies.

 

[SleepyK]

japan

lol

 

[pockyD]

Limiting the game only to one optimal play style severely hinders competitive play. You're thinking backwards here. Some falco players hate battlefield, some love it. If we arbitrarily select Battlefield as the stage for all first matches, we've given an advantage to certain players for absolutely no reason. All matchups shouldn't be based off what the overall is considered "more neutral".

There IS a reason: we're deciding that the playstyle that works the best on battlefield is the ideal playstyle that we want to reward. Whether this is an arbitrary decision or one based on reasoning is something else, but prominently rewarding an adaptability to randomness is something I am NOT very much in favor of

I also don't see why your way works any better than mine. Our current way of stage striking guarantees you won't play on your two worst stages... yes... How does my way work? The exact same? ... I don't think it should be necessary to repeat myself, but here it's quite obvious that you don't play on your two worst stages the way I had it set up:

Marth bans DL64
Fox bans FD
Marth bans PS
Fox bans FoD

Fox's two worst stages are FD and FoD... my way of leaving it to random and/or players agree still guarantees that you don't play on your two worst stages. In fact, I don't see why this matters to you, seeing as "I often name my two bans off the bat, giving my opponent the choice of any of the 3 remaining strategies."

but what did we gain?

If that's what you do anyway, why does my way not work for you? You still get two ban two stages, it's just that for the last selection between Battlefield and Yoshi's, your opponent doesn't get a free select of the stage they prefer. Instead, you have an equal chance of getting a personal preference. This is also entirely ignoring the fact that both players can agree to a stage choice of the last two. In normal stage striking, the marth gets his pick between BF and Yoshi's... I see absolutely no reason why the first player striking should get an automatic choice for his/her personal preference.

That said, we could just limit the neutrals to 5, and still take the same approach. Either way, both your suggestion and the standard stage striking don't solve the problem that one player will consistently have a personal preference over the other player. Will that make a difference in the long run? Maybe, maybe not. Is there a reason for that advantage? Not at all.

They did NOT gain anything; the second player had two chances to remove a stage by 'personal preference', whereas the first player only had one at that point. It's not like they're on even footing when the final ban is made; player 2 has had much more say up to that point

You're fine with any "___ only"? Let's pick FD only and make ganon non viable (since apparently sheik vs ganon on FD is a joke). Alternatively, we could always just pick DL64 and move the metagame towards falco simply sitting on the top platform, jumping and dairing peach's approaches. Obviously that's a bit of oversimplification, but when one stage is guaranteed to be the starter, it'll move the game towards a situation where people want that guaranteed win on the first stage.

This is PRECISELY how most people already play and practice! Why do you think most people play friendlies on 'neutrals' only?

Any narrowing of the definition of 'neutral' (as in defining that fountain of dreams is the only 'neutral' stage) does not conceptually change anyone's mindset at all!

This is fine and all, if we don't want competitive play to advance; with that, it'll just deterioriate into certain overused strategies over and over, without expanding and enriching the game. None of the neutrals really work out as a "____ only" because each and everyone one of them has something debatable about them, or something wrong with them. That's why stage striking as a concept is so much more effective than having a set stage: it caters to all matchups rather than forcing the game to revolve around particularly limiting matchups and strategies.

It doesn't 'deteriorate' into that; that's where it already is!

The counterpicking system is there to promote player creativity and adaptability; the neutral stage is there to ensure a level playing field! Do you want a $1000 finals set determined based on whether yoshi's story or dreamland was randomly selected from the magic box?!

Anyway, stage striking is effectively one stage, but that stage varies depending on the matchup! Best (not really 'best', but certainly 'better') of both worlds, since we get to have the 'fairest' stage vary as it should

 

[Druggedfox]

I'd rather have a $1000 final be decided based on yoshi's story vs DL, than the second player getting his choice between the two. The thing is, in most matchups there are 2 stages it'll come down to that are fairly neutral either way. In marth fox, that's BF and Yoshi's story. No matter who strikes first, it'll probably come down to those two stages, period. So although the second player had "more say" in the end, the first player gets his personal preference, and there's nothing the second player could have actually done about it without putting himself at a larger disadvantage.

Playing on one stage only doesn't change people's mindset? Look at japan. It affects the playstyles of their characters SO much. I mean, if we did FD only... as far as I can tell, ganon becomes unusable. Marth has a permanent advantage over spacies. Platform games as a concept cease to exist... it definitely changes people's mindset in what characters they choose, and what strategies they abuse, and I don't see how anyone can deny that...

 

[Pink Reaper]

any time you have stage striking the player who strikes last will have the most control over where you play. This is an unavoidable fact and switching to "Strike down to 2 and then random" does not change that. Stop being dum sammie.

 

[Druggedfox]

Chances are that the last two stages are the stages that will remain regardless of who strikes first. So yes, it does make a difference. No matter who strikes first in marth vs fox, it comes down to BF vs Yoshi's... unless one of them has insanely odd stage preferences or is from Florida (in which case they won't ban FD).

 

[pockyD]

Chances are that the last two stages are the stages that will remain regardless of who strikes first. So yes, it does make a difference

With stage striking,

Chances are that the last stage is the stage that will remain regardless of who strikes first. So no, it does not make a difference

 

[Pink Reaper]

I'd just like to point out that using Fox/Marth as an example is silly.

Marth as a character is strongest on Neutrals and out of pretty much any list of neutrals he has more stages that are in his advantage when compared to Fox. So in any given situation of striking as long as Marth has 2 strikes(to strike his most disadvantageous stage and whatever the **** he feels like striking) he will always come out on top.

THIS IS A CHARACTER ADVANTAGE not a problem with striking itself. Its like saying Rainbow Cruise is a bad stage because the ICs dont function properly there, you're technically arguing character flaw not the stage itself.

 

[Druggedfox]

That was a generic example; pick any other character matchup, the logistics of it will work the same.

@Pocky... would you like to back that up?

In my example, if a fox player strikes first (and thus last as well) you'll probably end up on yoshi's story more often. On the other hand, I know a lot of marth players prefer battlefield, so if he was to pick between the two, he gets his BF because its easier to edgeguard fox there. I see no way in which your statement is right... as that directly disproves it.

The last two stages being the same, as I claimed, makes a lot of sense, and I could give you any matchup example to prove that. In your scenario, its quite clear that player preference will consistently make a difference in the last stage picked. I'll give a not fox/marth example, since apparently that's flawed:

Fox/peach

Fox bans FoD
Peach bans FD and Yoshi's story
Fox player prefers the ability to play campy, so he goes DL64 OR fox player prefers keeping peach close, and goes battlefield.

Peach bans FD
Fox bans FoD and battlefield/DL64
Peach bans yoshi's story, and in essence got to pick between BF/DL64.


In the first example, the fox player got his pick based on his personal play style (and his knowledge of his opponents' because at a high level, players often know each other). In the second example, the peach got to pick between the two. That sounds like a difference to me.

Edit: If this matchup isn't a good example either, you can pick another one, PR and it'll be the same. Sure, some matchups actually WILL end up on the same stage regardless, but the majority of matchups, in fact, will not.

 

[pockyD]

well, the gist of it is that the ENTIRE STRIKING PROCESS is based on your personal playstyle; that's not a factor that's limited to the last strike - it's present the entire time

I'm in the middle of some work stuff right now but I'll go into more detail (i.e. repeating what I said a few posts up in slightly different words and quoteblock form) later if I remember

 

[Tero.]

Why would Peach strike FD and not Stadium?
Why would Fox prefer BF over DL/FoD?

 

[Druggedfox]

Why would Peach strike FD and not Stadium?
Why would Fox prefer BF over DL/FoD?

I wasn't including stadium in that last post, because I was addressing the particular problem with having one person pick the last stage, which only works in the current 5 stage scenario. Thus, FD would be the strike.

Why would fox prefer BL over DL/FoD?

FoD has a high ceiling AND you can't camp peach (which is the only reason DL is okay) and the platforms **** with your game more than peach's. Peach can also score ridiculous dsmashes on that stage that just don't make it worth it.

Battlefield vs DL64 is a personal preference thing. There are lots of fox's that prefer to be able to pressure the peach, rather than camp the peach out. They might also like the smaller platforms, which make for easier guaranteed tech chases on peach. On the other hand, if they want to be able to run away, DL64 is the obvious choice. I've seen fox players go both ways, which is why I specifically noted the "BF/DL64".

@Pocky

I'm well aware the striking process is based on personal play style; that doesn't change the fact that one player gets an advantage by ending up on a stage (in many, not all cases) they caters to his style, arbitrarily.

 

[unknown522]

Brinstar should be banned. Lava is gay. Floaties are too good there. Come characters get punished harder than others by virtue of the level.

Stadium should not be neutral (Fox shouldn't be able to have a chance to have walls on a neutral). The other parts of the stage are pretty good.

KJ64 is ok and should stay a CP.

 

[Deleted member]

as a fox player i'd definitely rather fight peach on fountain than BF or DL64. float bair edge guards are horrific on BF.

i think you're debating smash theory too much, and no one wins that game.

 

[Pink Reaper]

stop stealing my lines mow

 

[ArcNatural]

I'm all for Brinstar being banned.

The fact is that Brinstar MAJORLY swings a lot of matches, especially for mid tiers against Peach/Jiggs. In terms of Top tiers it's not a huge problem to ban Brinstar and deal with the repercussions of KJ64 or DL64 (Unless your Marth lol).

This may weaken the Jiggs push of being amazing as well. I don't think it will stop Hbox or Mango obviously but it can bring the games closer.

I do wish there was a stage we could bring back in, but really they have been argued to death and they are not really that viable.

In the possibility of adding stages, might we want to consider a ditto viable list that caters to all characters? IE in case of a ditto, these stages are allowed as CPs?

Anyone like that idea?