The Official P:M Edmonton Thread!

[Alphicans]

I like Mike's idea but agree we should favour *options* for the time being, if there is a disagreement we should allow a standard list thats "dumbed down" at least for legal stages, just to resolve conflict.

Stages that fly away should not be considered legal, as it can really mess up characters without a vertical recovery (believe it or not, Ike gets screwed hard by moving stages)

Counterpick though, because they're not BAD stages.


Regarding the PR, I think the PR is cool, but I don't think we should take it too seriously, we all know how those end up. Unless you guys want to appoint a board who can agree on these things or make it 100% information based but then we'd have to work together to make a formula (and actually put it into excel so we can't mess it up)

Lol Brad. There will be no counterpick stages. All stages will be turned on and we strike from the entire list. In a match with ike, these stages will never be played on cause of reasons you mentioned (unless of course you're wrong), but in other match-ups maybe halberd is the best starter.

EDIT: As a side note, this stage list and method seems to be the only rational way to do things. The division between starter and CP has always been arbitrary, meaning it was decided by people's subjective preferences and doesn't accurately describe any meaningful difference between stages. Ideally every stage should be turned on because the line between "CP" and "banned" is also completely arbitrary, but luckily from experience we can know that those stages will always be striked first (although this doesn't prove they're not good starter stages :/).

 

[Stevo]

yeah I also agree with at least trying out that ruleset.

but... we chose characters before we strike the stages right?

2nd match how do we decide which of the 2 remaining stages are played first?

what if one or both players want to change character?

does this happen before or after picking which remaining stage is played next?

etc.

 

[Alphicans]

Characters chosen first for sure. Otherwise the method doesn't work since the point is to find the most balanced stage for the two characters. I'd assume we just choose the 2nd stage based on traditional rules as in the loser picks stage, winner picks character and loser picks character... Although that looks to give the loser of game one a bit of an advantage.

I am thinking that this method is ideal for character locking since the 3 stages will be the most balanced for the two characters vsing, but afterwards there is potential for abuse. What was the solution to this Mike? Or was this even seen as a problem?

 

[victra♥]

i figured after each game the 2 players would strike 8 stages each again with the loser selecting the last stage from the 3 remaining to avoid the problems associated with character switching.

That way the loser is still given a slight enough advantage that is still fair to the winner of the previous match

edit: the more i'm thinking about mike's stage selection rule, the more i'm liking it. It really just gives both players of each match a chance to reduce the huge stage pool to set of stages that's considered most neutral between both players, with the loser selecting a stage which he may hold preference to out of the 3 stages that are left.

 

[Alphicans]

How do you determine the 8 stages? Now it's just getting too messy.

 

[victra♥]

well since the order of the initial 8 strikes don't seem to matter, 1 player strikes 8 stages he doesn't like, and then the 2nd player strikes 8 stages.

the remaining 3 are considered the most neutral between both players and the match is randomed with the 3 remaining stages.

this process is repeated after every match, but the loser of the previous match chooses the stage from the remaining 3.

yeah??

 

[T-block]

Choose characters.
Strike down to three stages; note three remaining.
Strike down to one stage; play.
Loser picks stage out of the remaining pool, winner picks character, loser picks character.
Repeat for game 3 if needed.

What's the problem with this? Giving the loser an advantage has been the set precedent not only in Smash, but in most competitive games, where it's applicable.

Yeah, character locking is ideal from a principles perspective, but it's by no means necessary for this system. I don't really see any "abuse" present that wouldn't be present in the legacy counterpick system.

 

[Alphicans]

I guess I was assuming dave's stupid rule was in place. For this it'd be best not to use it.

 

[GHNeko]

Spoiler

imo.

feel free to alter it a bit, but it can work.


also yay victraaa <3

way to be a leader :V

 

[Stevo]

I still hate how characters are picked before stage fo the first match, but selected after the stage thereafter. and why strike down to 3 stages for a certain matchup only to possibly completely change the matchup afterwards for the remaining 2 stages

 

[T-block]

Interesting... my biggest issue with that though is how the stages are going to be sorted into groups... because for one, "starter" doesn't make sense as a classification within this context, and more importantly, I feel like any division would be made presuming a higher understanding of the game than what we actually have (which is an issue I have with the traditional CP system too).

 

[Alphicans]

^Agreed. Deciding how to group stages together is going to be way too convoluted and will be up for too much interpretation.

 

[GHNeko]

Disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by starter not making sense as a classification.

By starter, it would mean x amount of stages that the TO would classify as starter stages.

Like BF, or Smashville, or PS2. You know?

As for how to group stages together, using broad, simple traits to be all encompassing, but simple and easy to agree on is the ideal way to go.


ie what i provided in my example, or something like.

Group 1: Starters
Group 2: Starter/Mild Counterpicks
Group 3: Moderate Counterpicks
Group 4: Extreme Counterpicks.

Where the prefix would refer to the intensity of the unique attributes of the stages. The higher the intensity (ie more hazards, uncommon layouts, very unique traits, etc), the further down the group list it would place.

The thing is, it's the groups that have to be agreed upon. Once that is done, then you can argue for what stage goes where, which shouldnt be hard if you keep the categories general/broad enough so that there is leeway/leg room/breathin room for change and shifting.

If you get too specific, then you get too subjective.

 

[T-block]

Hmm... okay I see your point Stevo.

What about something more like vic's interpretation?

• Choose characters, double blind
• Strike down to one stage using a fair order (9 strikes each)
• Winner picks character, loser picks character
• Strike down to one stage from full list using an order that gives loser a slight advantage (better strike order, or strikes one extra stage, etc.)
• Repeat

My concern with that is whether the community will tolerate so much overhead to a set, but if we're willing, I think we might be on to something.

 

[Alphicans]

How do you determine what should be a starter? What are the simple traits? How do you categorize them together? And how will you even know the traits are appropriate for categorization?

 

[GHNeko]

What stages would normally be considered starter? Identify common traits and use them as a base line. The further a stage deviates from the base line, the less of a starter the stage is. It's a community effort. The baseline has to be identified and set by the community. Keeping it simple allows for easy identification and categorization.


It's not hard.

Make a list of what you would consider starter worthy, and then start identifying common traits, and go from there. It requires collaboration and communication too, as well as reason and the ability to bend a bit.

 

[T-block]

Neko, there's a school of thought that says a starter isn't defined by any characteristics (especially not by lack of hazards or lack of movement), but rather by whether the stage is fair for the matchup in that if both players were to strike from all stages, they might end up on it.

Out of curiosity, what inspired the grouping idea? What grouping do you use?

 

[Kuraudo]

Charizard can act out of his glide attack. HELL YES!

 

[Stevo]

Hmm... okay I see your point Stevo.

What about something more like vic's interpretation?

• Choose characters, double blind
• Strike down to one stage using a fair order (9 strikes each)
• Winner picks character, loser picks character
• Strike down to one stage from full list using an order that gives loser a slight advantage (better strike order, or strikes one extra stage, etc.)
• Repeat

My concern with that is whether the community will tolerate so much overhead to a set, but if we're willing, I think we might be on to something.

that might be the way to go, though I am not sure I will enjoy it lol

 

[GHNeko]

Neko, there's a school of thought that says a starter isn't defined by any characteristics (especially not by lack of hazards or lack of movement), but rather by whether the stage is fair for the matchup in that if both players were to strike from all stages, they might end up on it.

Out of curiosity, what inspired the grouping idea? What grouping do you use?

From what I've learned and seen, starters were birthed from "neutrals"; the age old term that defined stages that were the most...neutral ie the stages that were least likely to impact match ups and were most fair. it was eventually turned into "starters" because the "neutrals" weren't really all that neutral lol. Thus traits in stages that least impact MUs/are generally most fair/have a well balanced variety of strategies/abusable tactics&traits arent as extreme or abundant are the ones that would be considered fair and thus starter worthy.

At least that's how i learned and remember it.

Grouping was birthed from the desire to allow a large stage list (which is a + for me as a liberal) while tackling the problems of ban invalidation (where you ban a stage, but another extremely similar stage exists, defeating the purpose of the ban) and waste of valid and legal CPs that just don't make the cut due to small and/or conservative stage lists.


My groups consist of:

Group 1: Starter
Group 2: Starter/CP
Group 3: Moderate CP
Group 4: Extreme CP

Usually 20-24+ stages.

My CP system encourages stage knowledge and mastery and neutralizes the lopsided advantage the loser is given with a traditional CP system, placing more emphasis on player skill, character mastery, match up knowledge, and stage knowledge/mastery, thus utilizing more of the games' stages, and creating a deeper, more fluid "metagame" that revolves around abuse of stage mastery on multiple stages and knowledge of the game and its match ups. It also is intended to slow down the development of the "metagame" by creating a fuller plate that takes longer to digest because there is more content (see: more stages in play). Lastly, it's just really nice to see broad stage diversity, as i feel it would create more entertaining games and draw the players deeper into the competitive world as the seek to master more and more.

That's what I'm trying to get at. That's my ideal goal.

 

[KlTHKlN]

Lol Brad. There will be no counterpick stages. All stages will be turned on and we strike from the entire list.

You mean besides any unplayables, I assume? I honestly havn't played every single stage to see if they've been fixed, but like theres gotta be one or two that just arn't viable.

and yeah, I realized how mike's thing would work, my point was for those who are... lets say "not in the loop" or opposed, I was just trying to allow for fair and equal opportunity, as with my tournament because it's still so early, I probably intend to allow pretty much any stage ruling as long as both players agree. and in the event of a non-agreement we could simply revert to a simplistic "heres your basic stages, random of the 5 or strike, or whatever" just to be fair, just for those who prefer simple conservative play over the extravagant style of mike.

Regarding that, yeah wins/loss stage picking is weird,I'd almost say let the loser pick from the last round? (so 5) instead of 3? so that it opens a window for stage countering and then gives them kind of an ace in the hole character pick afterwards?

 

[victra♥]

I accidentally edited this post instead of posting a new one lol

 

[Stevo]

yes, it has always been an issue with me lol

why can't I pick my character after the stage for the first match?

If we strike to yoshis, why can't I pick Bowser then?

 

[Kuraudo]

Thing is that if you selected the stages first, and you realized that you had Final Destination, anyone who knew how to play Ice Climbers could go "OH HEY. FREE GAME!" or my Sonic. The list goes on.

Character first, stages second. Always made sense to me.

 

[victra♥]

Okay so for now how does everyone feel about using this as our stage rule set?

17 Legal Stages for Doubles and Singles
Battlefield
Dracula's Castle
Dream Land 64
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams
Green Hill Zone (singles only)
Kongo Jungle 64
Lylat Cruise
Metal Cavern (singles only)
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokemon Stadium 2
Rumble Falls
SSE: Jungle (doubles only)
SkyWorld
Smashville
Temple/SkyLoft (doubles only)
Wario Ware Inc.
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Yoshi's Story Melee

Rules

• Both players choose characters, double blind
• 7-8-1 Striking system
• Winner picks character, Loser picks character
• Winner gets # bans
• Loser selects stage
• Repeat

Or something along those lines? That way the winner has an adequate number of bans to choose from.

And it's simple and quick, and not too different from the the standard rule-set that we are used to.

The legal stages should be obvious especially without the need of any classifications like "cp" or "starter"

 

[Kuraudo]

I think SkyLoft lags with more people, doesn't it?

 

[Crusayer]

Stages still lag in brawl?

Wow. I thought it was just loading issues for some things.

 

[victra♥]

how many bans do you think would be appropriate? i would say probably 3 would be good, if you need any more and you no longer have stage johns, you have skill johns

 

[GHNeko]

WHAT AN AKWARDLY DIFFERENT CP SYSTEM.

I've never seen it before.

I wonder how well it'll work lol.

 

[victra♥]

how decent is online project m?

 

[GHNeko]

Terrible. Unless you're desperate, don't bother lol.

This is counting dmz'd and usb'd wiis. >:

Brawl has mando 6f input lag online for smooth gameplay purposes

 

[Stevo]

Thing is that if you selected the stages first, and you realized that you had Final Destination, anyone who knew how to play Ice Climbers could go "OH HEY. FREE GAME!" or my Sonic. The list goes on.

Character first, stages second. Always made sense to me.

if it is such a free game, then learn to play ice climbers, or pick an ice climber counter for the first game just in case. Or don't strike to FD.

no johns

people are so stuck on the idea they should be able to play their "main" for every match

Okay so for now how does everyone feel about using this as our stage rule set?

17 Legal Stages for Doubles and Singles
Battlefield
Dracula's Castle
Dream Land 64
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams
Green Hill Zone (singles only)
Kongo Jungle 64
Lylat Cruise
Metal Cavern (singles only)
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokemon Stadium 2
Rumble Falls
SSE: Jungle (doubles only)
SkyWorld
Smashville
Temple/SkyLoft (doubles only)
Wario Ware Inc.
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Yoshi's Story Melee

Rules

• Both players choose characters, double blind
• 7-8-1 Striking system
• Winner picks character, Loser picks character
• Winner gets # bans
• Loser selects stage
• Repeat

Or something along those lines? That way the winner has an adequate number of bans to choose from.

And it's simple and quick, and not too different from the the standard rule-set that we are used to.

The legal stages should be obvious especially without the need of any classifications like "cp" or "starter"

sure

 

[victra♥]

sad life neko haha thanks though.

it's so hard to have a main. Too many fun characters.

 

[Stevo]

Yeah true.

and I only really started playing sheik in melee because the ruleset is designed to make bad characters always bad.

I would actually play bowser and DK on yoshis

or Roy on FD

etc.

but in the ruleset you could just strike their good stages and ban them and such

 

[victra♥]

yeah but that's not so much of a problem now due to all these balancing changes.

 

[Stevo]

true
<3 Project M

 

[GHNeko]

man you guys are going to LOVE P:M in the future.

 

[victra♥]

i'm already fully erected, neko

 

[GHNeko]

so you guys are gonna put up videos right?

 

[KlTHKlN]

Thing is that if you selected the stages first, and you realized that you had Final Destination, anyone who knew how to play Ice Climbers could go "OH HEY. FREE GAME!" or my Sonic. The list goes on.

Character first, stages second. Always made sense to me.

Couldn't that just work reversely as well? Oh hey you picked bowser, I'mma enjoy some free (well I dunno, a bad bowser stage)

but of course, as with all games, if either of these things are a problem then we should assume that that aspect is poorly made. Developers developers developers. Thats why a lot of fighters have silly games that come out that are just dumb, games using street fighter style have characters that are just 100% unviable and it never has any receding action, the good thing about Project: M is even if that issue exists, there is a better way to fix it then say "oh well, maybe we should make a silly rule regarding this"

so you guys are gonna put up videos right?

At my tournament I intend to record as much as possible, but the honest fact is recording is taking a backseat to ensuring I can get attendance and setups and everything to work in general, so you never know.