The Project M Ruleset - Stages

[Zolom]

This has to happen eventually. There needs to be an official ruleset for Project M stages for tournament play. As it stands, there is no official stage list for PM, and there is a bit of controversy on what is to be allowed and what isn't. What should the neutral, counter-pick, and banned stages be? How do we even go about doing it? What happens in the future when the stages change, as they surely are? Do we make it a social, general community consensus decision? Do we elect certain members of the community to decide for us? Do we just let the PMBR make the stage list for us via their stage pick screen? Do we just let it be a TO decision every time without any generalities?

Because the game is so young, we have the opportunity to decide all of these things. We are the community, and this is a decision that the community has a say, and in truth the ultimate decision, in. A large majority of us play competitively, meaning a large majority of us have a need for an official ruleset. Therefore, is it our job to see that it happens.

So, where do we begin? The last thing I want is a bunch of folks posting their stage lists. I feel that would end up just causing debates between players on what is or isn't allowed and why. While this will and needs to happen eventually, this isn't the time for it. I feel the first major step would be asking the questions I previously asked and take it from there, one step at a time.

Do we make it a social, general community consensus decision? Do we elect certain members of the community to decide for us? Do we just let the PMBR make the stage list for us via their stage pick screen? Do we just let it be a TO decision every time without any generalities? Does anyone have any other options off the top of their head as to how we begin the process? What do you all think?

Strongbad, I know you frequent these boards (obviously... your game and all) and your (or any other members of the PMBR) input and feedback would be nice. I realize it is probably a question you cannot answer due to "vows of secrecy" but if you can, does the PMBR have any intention of creating what they believe to be a stage list?

 

[leelue]

Play skyworld. More.

 

[Strong Badam]

The PMBR does not function like the MBR and BBR do. While we have several high level players and prominent TOs in our midst, the PMBR is much more like Nintendo than it is a traditional "Back Room" for a game. We make the game, we balance it, we hype it up, we make you all happy, and that's where our job stops and your jobs begin. We will not make an official stage list because 1. We make the game but it's ultimately you all who play it more than (most of) us and 2. It's not our place to tell you how to play the game we've created. Furthermore, there's not exactly a consensus on stagelists within the PMBR. Members like JCaesar and Rat run much more liberal stagelists with stages like Metal Cavern, Skyloft, Rumble Falls, and Pokemon Stadium 1 legal (If it's on the first page, it's probably legal). In contrast, my stagelist is fairly small, with only 12 stages available for selection. This is mostly borne of a distaste for the large amount of counterpick redundancy in more common rulesets, where a stagelist is advertised as offering "more diversity" when in fact it just forces players to ban what is effectively the same stage multiple times. I tried running group ban lists, but they make too many assumptions on why players ban stages. Maybe I'm banning Dracula's Castle not because it's large, but because it has walls and I'm fighting Ike or Mario? A more liberal list often has me banning PS1 and PS2 and Smashville or YS & FoD & Metal Cavern etc., where I'm not really even thinking about my stage bans, when we can instead just cut to the chase and leave out the most commonly banned stages and reduce the amount of bans to 2 and make the banning process less complicated and daunting for new and veteran players alike. Lastly, a big point of my stagelist that is most relevant in bo5 sets is the concept of allowing players to change their ban. Let's say you in game 1 against a player using Fox. You naturally ban stages like PS2, Rumble Falls, and Dracula's castle to prevent yourself from getting camped. All of the sudden game 2 he switches to Marth, a character whose stage capabilities are much different from Fox's and necessitate a whole different set of stage bans. Thanks to most common rulesets, you can't change your bans if you win either of game 2 or 3. With mine, you're able to re-adjust your bans based on new information you've gathered about your opponent and their playstyle, making for a more interesting set that rewards adaptation more deeply.
But hey, that's just my opinion, there's no necessarily right or wrong stage lists.
As long as Delfino is banned. Screw you Oracle.

A small point, but I'd really prefer if people started using the term "Starter" instead of "Neutral." The term Neutral tends to imply that all 5 or 7 of the stages struck from are fair in a majority of matchups, which not only isn't the case in most situations (I've seen the case made for "Remove FD from the Neutrals list! It isn't Neutral!" five billion times), isn't the point of the stage striking system. The starter list is designed with the purpose of presenting a list of stages that test a generally agreed upon as highly regarded skillset, and then each player strikes the most extreme ones until what remains is the most "Neutral" "Starter" for that matchup.

Anyway, we'll do what we can to make the first page of the stage select screen in-line with the more popular stagelists, and in some cases when we've re-tooled a previously universally banned stage (a recent example is Lylat Cruise) we'll move it to Page 1 as a nod and reminder to everyone to give it a shot. But as I stated, we've no intention of officially putting our stamp on any one stage list. We've discussed in the past of forming a subset of the PMBR made up specifically of high level tournament players for the purpose of acting like the MBR or BBR, but as you can see that never came to fruition. Will it? If the community voiced an interest in it, that'd likely increase its chances. You never know~

 

[\Apples]

+1 for your recognition of stage redundancy.

 

[Phaiyte]

I think I'm one of the only people that actually enjoys playing on Hyrule 64 in a competitive scene.

 

[Paradoxium]

I've always felt we should move away from the standard flat plus platforms format, but that's just my opinion.

 

[mudkyp]

Shoutouts to platforms

 

[The_NZA]

Can we use this topic to discuss the most commonly debated stages and their legality? Namely, Halberd, Skyworld, Norfair, Castle Siege? Are all four of these autobans for you guys? Castle Siege isn't for me, and I don't know why for sure Skyworld would be.

 

[Oracle]

As long as Delfino is banned. Screw you Oracle.

Sorry the stupid escaped zoo animal you main has trouble swimming

I like running diverse stage lists but sb does have a point about stage redundancy. Theres so few instances where you would ban yoshis but not wario ware, or ban dreamland but leave open castlevania or sse. that and the problem of every ceiling being super low leaves a good deal to be desired from the stage list. That being said, i still try and keep it diverse with lots of unique counterpicks like delfino and port town. i take a very sirlin esque approach: if it doesn't have the potential for rewarding a worse player or leading to extremely degenerate gameplay, then i keep it. every new stage is a new set of platform layouts, blastzones, and edges to get used to , and that imo leads to a very deep stage counterpicking aspect of tournament play.

that being said, im still working on the most efficient and fair way to have bans. in theory, group bans are by far the best way because you group stages with like characteristics and eliminate stages that your opponent would be best on, forcing them to pick from whichever option they think is best (fox is benefitted from small blastzones and big stages, so if you ban the group with both,then he has to pick big stage to run around OR small blastzone to kill earlier). However, im now fairly certain that its impossible to give 100% homogenous groups because of how diverse the cast is, as well as making it harder to pick from other aspects like platform layout or walls/no walls. also, its really confusing for newer players and usually takes a lot of time. having x number of bans works fine, but in a big stagelist you risk x not being large enough (although this problem is theoretically solved by a stagelist with fewer overlaps in stage designs).

aside from redundancy, i have few qualms with the front page stagelist. skyworld and skyloft can be kind of dumb (on skyworld if you dropdown and doublejump with lucas without holding back, you hit your head on the stage because his double jump sends you very slightly forwards, and skyloft has issues with the angles of the steps and so on). I dislike that the bottom part of castle seige tilts because that can save or completely screw a recovering player, which imo can be a little too large of a reward for stage control, or take reward away from stage control. cavern is also weird because of the angles, but i don't have much problem with the size.

final note: pmbr PLEASE fix the diagonal line transormation of pictochat taking the ledge away because other than that, the stage is pretty damn awesome

 

[Juushichi]

Oracle and Strong_Bad have more or less covered my general opinion on stagesets and stuff. My starters are probably more diverse than what you will/would see at Big House 3, for example... because I value a bit more creative stage layouts at the first game as necessary compared to the tri-play layout. There's always going to be a bit of arbitrary decision making from the TO based on what they value and this is both a very good thing that the PMBR has not taken an "official" stance on stages because it allows TOs to potentially flex their own thinking and establish a criteria that works for them, but also slightly a hindrance because differences in player philosophies could cause disputes or something. I am of the opinion that the former is a lot more valuable than the latter, so there's that. An example of changing philosophies can be shown in my own opinion change as a tournament runner and through getting feedback from my players (a very important step in a TOing process and in testing in general). This is what I ran for my last officially run tournament, Air Bud: Sky High and my potential changes based on reflection and feedback from players/other TOs under them. Even as I go through the process with my arbitrary criteria, it's hard at some stages--- Singles in particular.

- Singles | Starters [7 stages]
Battlefield | Pokemon Stadium 2 | Smashville | WarioWare | Green Hill Zone | Dracula's Castle | Yoshi's Island: Brawl
BF | PS2 | SV | WW | YI:B | FD | DC
- Singles | Counterpick: [9 stages] [One ban.] [Maybe two bans now?]
Halberd | Dreamland 64 | Norfair | Skyloft | Pokemon Stadium | Final Destination | Metal Cavern | Fountain of Dreams | Castle Seige
HAL | DL64 | NOR | MC | FoD | CS | LC | SL | GHZ

---

- Doubles | Starters [5 stages]
Battlefield | Final Destination | Pokemon Stadium 2 | Smashville | Yoshi's Island: Brawl
BF | FD | PS2 | SV | YI:B | DL64 | SSE:J
- Doubles | Counterpick: [5 stages] [One ban.]
Norfair | Dracula's Castle | Dreamland 64 | Green Hill Zone | Metal Cavern
NOR | DC | LC | KJ64 | SL

 

[The_NZA]

So you have Norfair as legal counterpick. Can you talk about that for a second? Is there anything wrong with Norfair?

 

[Juushichi]

Yeah, I tried Norfair legal as a counterpick at the last tournament that I hosted. My thoughts behind it were primarily that I had seen that was not a particularly picked stage and conceptually, I thought it was pretty good. I started to play on the stage here in Columbus and tried it out in a few MUs, between characters and stuff. The most notable thing that I observed was that I could run away from Lucas with Fox and engage him on my terms, lol. But this was mostly friendlies and stuff.

As a tournament stage, I was taken there as Marth/GnW/Sheik and I played primarily against like Wario... Jigglypuff, played a few games against the local Pit player recently. I also counterpicked the stage in doubles against Ally/Xatic and SoulPech/Carls at one of the Michigan Ranbats. Overall, I heard that the players didn't like the stage much (doubles) because it was relatively clustered and hectic.

In singles I noticed that the top platform is a tad bit high so it creates a clear divide when transitioning between the main platform and the larger platform above it. This possibly allows for a bit more hardcore camping, but I'm not entirely sure that it enables camping that is bad enough that it should be banned. For now, I'm willing to test it more.

I'm actually surprised that no one mentioned how I don't have YS on any of my lists.

Also, what are people's thoughts on Kongo Jungle in doubles? Singles?

 

[B.W.]

I actually am a little confused as to how you don't have YS on your list, but you have WarioWare as a starter.

 

[Juushichi]

I would rather have small stage with 4 platforms and close blastzones than 3 and having YS on to me is kinda like having PS1 on.

...why?

 

[B.W.]

WW's blastzones are closer to the stage than YS, and the platforms in WW make it a lot less neutral of a stage than YS.

 

[mudkyp]

Yeah the position of the platforms in Wario Ware are very different than Yoshi's Story and while it's obvious the blast zones can be compared, I think Wario Ware definitely weighs into a match-up based outcome far more than Yoshi's Story.

 

[Scythe]

As one of the main TOs in the chicago scene and having run many PM tournaments with large stagelist with 3 bans, I have to say it's a bit too much for the players and going through the stage process in between games can be realy cumbersome. For the most part I like the stagelist being used at TBH3 maybe with some slight changes but whatever.

 

[Strong Badam]

Yeah the position of the platforms in Wario Ware are very different than Yoshi's Story and while it's obvious the blast zones can be compared, I think Wario Ware definitely weighs into a match-up based outcome far more than Yoshi's Story.

I personally find the skillset that WarioWare tests to be far more interesting and unique than that of Yoshi's Story AKA Really Small Battlefield Guest Starring Randall the ****.

 

[B.W.]

Strong Bad just likes how WW makes DK's u-air chains way too good.

 

[The_NZA]

I sort of wonder if we can afford to take a Starcraft approach to maps, and rotate stages in by season...Like maybe have a set of 5 neutrals and 5 counterpicks, and every "season" switch out a CP and Neutral for a different CP and Neutral.

 

[Wrestlemania]

I always have Kongo64 as a legal stage in Doubles for 64, Melee, and PM. It is not the best stage but it is just big enough for teams and the variety of platforms creates an interesting experience.(I usually have it in place of Castle Siege.)
I tried allowing Hyrule64 as a counter pick once but is is just so big and Isai's Hut creates a **** storm of chaos.
I also never allow Castle Siege, as the transitions and the tilting are BS. I have found a new found respect for Halberd though. I used to really dislike that the platform moved around but it is really not that bad, and the canon attack is easy to avoid. Plus I like to think of who ever is firing the canon as my buddy(Yet to be named).
I also think that Skyworld is a great stage, It has the standard 3 platforms but they are outside a small base platform and it is easy to "Battlefield" someone.
I think that covers most of the debated Stages.

 

[DMG]

"My buddy Carl"

 

[TreK]

What's the general consensus on that SSE stage ? Too big ?
I've only played it a couple times, and even if the matches were significantly longer, I wasn't bored or even annoyed. Then again, as an Ivy main, I may be biased on the topic of camping :3

 

[SSS]

My dearest PMBR. Are there any plans to modify more stages? Like, for example, making Rainbow Cruises only the ship, etc., etc.? Just wondering.

 

[Juushichi]

I always have Kongo64 as a legal stage in Doubles for 64, Melee, and PM. It is not the best stage but it is just big enough for teams and the variety of platforms creates an interesting experience.(I usually have it in place of Castle Siege.)
I tried allowing Hyrule64 as a counter pick once but is is just so big and Isai's Hut creates a **** storm of chaos.
I also never allow Castle Siege, as the transitions and the tilting are BS. I have found a new found respect for Halberd though. I used to really dislike that the platform moved around but it is really not that bad, and the canon attack is easy to avoid. Plus I like to think of who ever is firing the canon as my buddy(Yet to be named).
I also think that Skyworld is a great stage, It has the standard 3 platforms but they are outside a small base platform and it is easy to "Battlefield" someone.
I think that covers most of the debated Stages.

I play KJ64 in friendlies and stuff a lot, I like the stage but can understand why it might not be on. I like the stage and I think it's really really interesting in terms of doubles and stuff. (Maybe more if the barrel got fixed and maybe only shot up or something.

CS, I've been very iffy on for a while. The inital stage layout is kinda awkward and P:M doesn't seem to handle inclines very well... The tilting on the second transformation is pretty annoying and I've been killed by it plenty of times, but I probably wouldn't really throw it out because of my personal dislike (unlike YS which really just seems pointless?)

I've love Halberd and it will always be legal in some sort of respect for me. I'm not sure if it works well enough in doubles... would have to test it, but I have always had an affinity for the stage. I'd try to have it on as much as possible.

I do like Skyworld. For a while, I treated it like a more interesting DL 64. When I cut down stages though (I kinda want my stagelist to be moderately sized), it kinda fell to the wayside with Drac's and Dreamland 64 still in it.

WW's blastzones are closer to the stage than YS, and the platforms in WW make it a lot less neutral of a stage than YS.

...Heh. It's 2013 and people are still talking about neutral stages. C'mon guys. I've been someone (from Brawl) that has been clamoring for "Starter" to be the distinction between your pretty moderate stage to more polarizing (but not too much, you know arbitrary things) Counterpicks. In my own list, I value more of a variety of the moderate stages that allow for different character skillsets/strengths/etc to be tested through layouts. Platform, stage size, blastzones... though maybe not the last one in PM as much yet. The goal of the first stage being played on in the matchup is something that is the most comfortable for the matchup. I don't think 50 shades of BF, FD with a platform and no walls, FD, and Frozen PS1 with better ledges will always be the "most neutral" stage in a MU between possibly 40 characters that do a lot of things differently.

But, if that's what you feel... that's great. I would probably still play on your stage list or whatever basic list most people use. I'll lament that some more (imo) interesting stages got tossed to the wayside, but I'll still play because I can adapt.

 

[Wrestlemania]

What's the general consensus on that SSE stage ? Too big ?
I've only played it a couple times, and even if the matches were significantly longer, I wasn't bored or even annoyed. Then again, as an Ivy main, I may be biased on the topic of camping :3

SSE is a Starter in doubles for me instead of Yoshi's. In singles I can definitely see why it is too big though.

 

[DMG]

SSE Jungle is massive, but I could see it as a CP for Doubles. I think it's decent there, just don't CP Fox there or you'll have a bad time.

 

[B.W.]

I call them starter stages, but starter stages should be as neutral of a stage as possible. Meaning it doesn't heavily effect matchups.

 

[Vigilante]

I usually run a liberal set, and I adjusted it over time with feedback, removing some less popular stages for competition. I'm a very shy person, so I actually hate TOing though, lol.

 

[Juushichi]

I call them starter stages, but starter stages should be as neutral of a stage as possible. Meaning it doesn't heavily effect matchups.

what does this even meeeeeeeaaaaaaan

there are 37+ characters man

what is the definition of "heavily effect matchups" dawg for 37+ characters man, please tell me

and please tell me why BF/SV/PS2/DL/FOD/FD/YS are the most neutral stages possible for over 37+ characters and XXX Matchups

 

[SpiderMad]

I play KJ64 in friendlies and stuff a lot, I like the stage but can understand why it might not be on. I like the stage and I think it's really really interesting in terms of doubles and stuff. (Maybe more if the barrel got fixed and maybe only shot up or something.

Barrel skills add tons of depth to the game bro, it might be possible to get a 0% survival rate from the barrel spending the majority of its loop downward; but I don't think that can happen even remotely often: even then who cares because you either took that chance when entering to survive or were hit into it.

 

[Nemiak temp]

Yoshi's Story best stage ever. YS Only 2014

 

[Oracle]

im seriously considering removing yoshis story for brinstar

is there something wrong with me?

 

[~Frozen~]

I'd actually be interested in seeing a more unique stage list of varying layouts like Brinstar, straying a bit further from the "Flat + 3 Flat platforms" type.

 

[Juushichi]

I actually really like Brinstar, but the slopes/inclines don't seem to interact organically like it did in Melee.

People don't like Brinstar though...

Also, shoutouts to DBDI stage discussion.

 

[\Apples]

It's not any of those stages as an island, but their existence as a chain.

Not that it's a good chain...

 

[B.W.]

My list for starters is probably much different and much smaller than most. I don't consider most of those stages to be neutral.

 

[DMG]

im seriously considering removing yoshis story for brinstar

is there something wrong with me?

As in remove it from starter, or remove it from legality? I wouldn't completely remove Yoshi's and just toss in Brinstar: even swapping them in starter list sounds kinda funky. I don't play on Brinstar much, so is the acid the same as Melee/functionality of the stage?

 

[Oracle]

as far as i know its the same. also, adding brinstar is not the only change i would make the the stagelist, just that brinstar would be added and yoshis would be removed (prob replaced with ww for starter)

 

[Strong Badam]

I call them starter stages, but starter stages should be as neutral of a stage as possible. Meaning it doesn't heavily effect matchups.

No. You can't do this. You absolutely cannot even begin to determine whether or not a stage is even generally neutral for 1190 matchups. The starter list is designed with the purpose of presenting a list of stages that, after each player strikes the most extreme ones until what remains is the most "Neutral" "Starter" for that matchup, the result is a fair starting stage for the set. It doesn't even pretend that each individual stage on the list are fair for every or most match-ups. That's what the strikes are for.