The real reason Japan is better than America

[da K.I.D.]

For the record I dont think a lot of you have been around as long as i have.

So just for everyones knowledge, Back in the melee days, the reason a starter stage list existed was because the first match was selected by random out of that list of starter stages.

Since we dont do that anymore, what flayl and Akaku are saying makes by far the most sense.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Thank you for the [indirect] response to my question. I knew it was the case, but I'm still not sure when the stage strike system was implemented. It still feels like something new to me but I started following the game in 2006 when random was still being used.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Sorry about that, I actually didnt see you actually ask the question when I posted that.

I think stage striking really became a staple thing a little after brawl came out probably around the time of the first apex and the first revival of melee. 08-09

 

[DMG]

This isnt true. I used to try this at many tournaments I went to, and I was told that playing game 1 on one of the neutral stages was mandatory.

??? Who said that? I've never heard of a TO saying "you and your opponent cannot agree to play on x stage"

 

[Arcansi]

??? Who said that? I've never heard of a TO saying "you and your opponent cannot agree to play on x stage"

DeLux.

Among everyone else in the URC, I believe (or atleast the majority.)

 

[-LzR-]

I don't see what's so wrong about starting on Frigate on game 1. Almost all the time it's much "fairer" than FD that is damn always a starter when it's such a powerful stage.
Yes, bringing in the FD card.
Next time I host, I'll try a full stagestrike system. If they don't like it, they can gtfo.

 

[Arcansi]

I don't see what's so wrong about starting on Frigate on game 1. Almost all the time it's much "fairer" than FD that is damn always a starter when it's such a powerful stage.

That whole set loses consistency with the rest of the tournament.

If DeLux was here he could expand more probably.

 

[xDD-Master]

I don't see what's so wrong about starting on Frigate on game 1. Almost all the time it's much "fairer" than FD that is damn always a starter when it's such a powerful stage.
Yes, bringing in the FD card.
Next time I host, I'll try a full stagestrike system. If they don't like it, they can gtfo.

inb4allgamesareplayedonsv

 

[ぱみゅ]

I tried it here. It was awesome.
A lot of matches started on Delfino, some on Castle Siege, even one on Brinstar.

 

[da K.I.D.]

That sounds awesome.

 

[-LzR-]

That whole set loses consistency with the rest of the tournament.

Those are nice words that don't mean anything.

 

[Life]

There is yet hope, then? (re: kyo)

 

[Yikarur]

people still overrate FD lol

 

[Flayl]

Those are nice words that don't mean anything.

Basically the URC is going out of their way to ban the gentlemen's agreement. Meaning you can't play stages that aren't listed as playable for whatever you're doing, because it's not fair for everyone not part of the gentlemen's agreement.

Whatever.

 

[-LzR-]

The post I quoted had nothing to do with the gentlemen's agreement. I hadn't even noticed anyone mention it in the thread. I was simply saying Frigate and such are totally fair to have as starters as the stages are not nearly as good as FD or anything.
Then he mentioned something about consistency. I don't get it. What's inconsistent?

 

[Flayl]

Didn't this discussion start here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13986819&postcount=644

 

[-LzR-]

What I was talking about had nothing to do with that post however.

 

[Akaku94]

Honestly, I don't see why we have a "starter" list to begin with. All it does is take some arbitrary definition of "fairness" and pick stages that match it, rather than let the players decide what the most neutral stage for that matchup is (which is what flssing does).

 

[Kink-Link5]

We have a starter stage list because it is a carry over from when the first match was played by random select.

 

[Akaku94]

Well, it's not anymore, so let's ditch the list

 

[Kink-Link5]

I agree as long as the stage list is an odd number, most likely 7. If it's an even number, at least one stage has to be a counterpick.

 

[Akaku94]

Of course; I don't have it with me now, but with flssing and 2 stage bans you could probably have a 19 or even 21-stage list... I'll post one here soon.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'd rather keep the stage list within a set down to around 5 personally. That means proportionally more stage bans as the number of stages allowed increases, and there are some characters (MK) who do stupidly well on more than half the stages that it would be weighted in his favour if both players banned the same number of stages. For example, if there were only 7 playable stages, 1 ban per player, and 5 of the 7 stages were in a characters favour, then that character has little to worry about when stages are banned, then struck.

 

[Akaku94]

Ok, here's the list, just to give you an idea:

Battlefield
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination
Frigate Orpheon
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Norfair
PictoChat
Pokémon Stadium 2
Port Town Aero Dive
Smashville
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Brinstar
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Pokémon Stadium
Rainbow Cruise
Onett/Distant Planet

It includes a few borderline stages, but with 2 bans and flssing, more stages are better.

 

[Kink-Link5]

What do you strike against MK in that stage list?

 

[Akaku94]

I'd rather keep the stage list within a set down to around 5 personally. That means proportionally more stage bans as the number of stages allowed increases, and there are some characters (MK) who do stupidly well on more than half the stages that it would be weighted in his favour if both players banned the same number of stages. For example, if there were only 7 playable stages, 1 ban per player, and 5 of the 7 stages were in a characters favour, then that character has little to worry about when stages are banned, then struck.

If a character (like MK) does stupidly well on more stags, then that's an inherent character trait that makes that a better character. ICs shouldn't get as many good stages as G&W, for example. I personally think that one of the main reasons Falco and Diddy are so high is that they are artificially buffed by the starter list, while characters that are good on a wide variety of stages are nerfed by having to play on a bad stage for them game 1.

 

[Arcansi]

What I was talking about had nothing to do with that post however.

It looked like it did. I apologize then.

If a character (like MK) does stupidly well on more stags, then that's an inherent character trait that makes that a better character. ICs shouldn't get as many good stages as G&W, for example. I personally think that one of the main reasons Falco and Diddy are so high is that they are artificially buffed by the starter list, while characters that are good on a wide variety of stages are nerfed by having to play on a bad stage for them game 1.

Actually, all characters should get an even(or otherwise balanced) amount of stages that're good for them.

In an optimized game.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Diddy's so high because he does decently against MK and has good stage control on almost anything that isn't Delfino. Falco's high mostly because of pew pew pew pew pewpew pewpewpewpew, with some other factors such as good punishment options.

 

[DMG]

MK with that stage list would be no fun for people lol

Strike the "neutral" starters while the other guy is forced to strike RC etc

And MK gets Game 1 on something like Frigate everytime

Not to mention you have horrible stages on there that shouldn't be legal period. Onett? No

 

[The Ben]

Why shouldn't they be legal? I've never seen a legit theory on why stages get banned, or at least not one people apply with any sort of consistency.

 

[da K.I.D.]

as liberal as i am with my stage lists, even I can agree that permanant walk off stages are unfit for tournaments.

 

[Akaku94]

Onett is the one level-ground walkoff that is potentially viable because of the cars. However, you could go with Distant Planet instead (another quirky but not broken stage).

 

[Akaku94]

Actually, all characters should get an even(or otherwise balanced) amount of stages that're good for them.

In an optimized game.

In an optimized game, every mu is +0. This isn't an optimized game, and stage diversity within a character is an inherent strength. G&W, Kirby, and the like deserve to start on a good-but-not-great stage because they are good on more stages. Meanwhile, ICs, who are terrible on many CPs, get to start on a good stage (sometimes a great one) under most starter lists.

EDIT: Double post... thought I would be ninja'd

 

[Life]

It kind of depends on the walkoff. For example, DP and Onett give you options to hit the opponent (or at least make them move) without endangering yourself as much (water/pellets and cars, respectively) while DP(again) and Pipes are arguably less problematic because of the slope making attacks safer on shield (or something like that).

And walkoff camping is a terrible idea with food on, but that would be too easy <_<

I would get rid of GGs/Picto before DP.

/ninja'd, apologies for not posting quicker akaku

 

[Akaku94]

lol.

I think Picto is more viable than many people think, but that's a completely different discussion... I'll wait until the stage boards put one up

Ditto with Greens; nothing particularly broken except temporary walls (which doesn't affect most mus imo...)

 

[da K.I.D.]

I agree with the DP and the greens points.

Pictochat is the poster child for "very fair/neutral to a majority of the matchups in the game, after you take the time to learn the intricacies of the level" type stages

 

[Akaku94]

Picto is the poster child for "zomg the stage iz soooo hard and you're fighting the stage not the player and it takes no skill because it iz all about luckzzz."

I would say it's the poster child for "Learn the stage and quit b****ing, n00bs," but that honor goes to PS2!

 

[-LzR-]

PS2 has gotten me so many amazing kills and hits and everything as the opponent sucked using the stage while I was good at it. That stage is kinda neutral and just because everyone gets to slide more doesn't mean it's unfair.

Pictochat though... Very random, can be dangerous and many transistions are hard to react to and might even kill you. Dedede chaingrabbing and a wall suddenly appearing and all that stuff is bad.
We have a lot of proof of bull**** happening there in Finland. A much much much worse player beat on of our good players because he starter jabbing and the moment he did it, a really small wall appeared and they both were stuck in it, while the other guy jabbed him to 180% and killed him.
Yeah, totally fair.

 

[The Ben]

Well...yeah, that would be fair. The "worse" player played to the level and won for it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

There is yet hope, then? (re: kyo)

We'll have another one with URC-13 as starters.
Without MK, just to see what changes.

people still overrate FD lol

They only overrate FD because Diddy, Falco, ICs and DDD/Pikachu.
Saying the stage is too good for other characters is probably going way too far.

If a character (like MK) does stupidly well on more stags, then that's an inherent character trait that makes that a better character. ICs shouldn't get as many good stages as G&W, for example. I personally think that one of the main reasons Falco and Diddy are so high is that they are artificially buffed by the starter list, while characters that are good on a wide variety of stages are nerfed by having to play on a bad stage for them game 1.

THIS.
OH.SO.MUCH.THIS.

Pictochat though... Very random, can be dangerous and many transistions are hard to react to and might even kill you. Dedede chaingrabbing and a wall suddenly appearing and all that stuff is bad.
We have a lot of proof of bull**** happening there in Finland. A much much much worse player beat on of our good players because he starter jabbing and the moment he did it, a really small wall appeared and they both were stuck in it, while the other guy jabbed him to 180% and killed him.
Yeah, totally fair.

Oh boy, here we go again.
*avoiding discussions atm*