Just out front... Can we stop talking about Pictochat, at least for the moment? IMO there are more important goals, and **** we can all agree on...
Note: The following is just my opinions and take on the controversial issues people have been bringing up. None of this is official from the BBR-RC.
*PS2 is legal?*
At first glace, this stage seems messy. Physic changes aren't normal to competitive Brawl. However, unlike Pictochat, nothing on this stage is random and all transitions are adaptable. Furthermore, the transitions that may not benefit your character in a MU can be easily camped out just as most players do on PS1 during most of the transitions, as approaching is incredibly unsafe in those situations. What's even better is that the neutral state of the stage is better than on PS1, due to the ledges not having the ability to gimp certain characters. Even during DM's Skype Ruleset Discussion, the majority wanted this stage. So this stage won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
You know, I have to feel at least somewhat responsible for this. Sanity wins. Yay.
*Rainbow Cruise or Brinstar, Can't have Both?*
I have a feeling this wasn't even brought up initially. But it might have been, I'm not sure. What was more interesting was last night during DM's Skype Ruleset Discussion, when we got to this part, we were all drawing blanks. The stages alone are hard to justify banning. Which do you choose? Rainbow or Brinstar? The reason people want one of the two stages gone is because of MK having technically a free counterpick with both on the same stage list. But out of everyone in the discussion, no one really could figure out which should go over the other, and it ended up with both staying. There are more alternate suggestions, such as having two bans or limiting MK only further, but that's a whole other discussion.
If I didn't main MK, I would probably ***** and moan bitterly about
needing to win game one to have a chance against an MK in the set (until I realize "oh wait, I have a free counterpick game one"), because these stages
are really ****ing good for Metaknight. TBH I've come to
like the german way of not having both legal (usually RC gets the boot), because it kind of makes sense, if only because having both legal is very dangerous for the metagame.
I would seriously like to propose my idea of two stage bans again.
http://allisbrawl.com/forum/topic.aspx?id=172104
With two stage bans, not only does the RC-Brinstar problem stop being one, but the JJ-whatever or Norfair-whatever problem is made milder by quite a bit. I sincerely recommend that you guys look in to it. I have been running an extended list with multiple stage bans in my Brawl- events, and while I have to say that it's not
quite the same game, the effect is the same–if a character like Bowser comes along who absolutely wrecks your *** on multiple stages, then you don't have to worry quite as much.
*FD as a starter?*
This was discussed during the starter stages being put together. It was pretty split from what I remember, but it was decided against on the initial release to help have the ruleset be taken more seriously. Yes, it means if you're fighting Diddy, ICs, or Falco you're almost guaranteed game 1 to be on BF. But for the time being until it can be better discussed it's a better alternative than having the ruleset looked at as too extreme for removing a starter stage that has been used as a starter in just about every single Brawl tourney to date. But do not worry, this will be discussed more in future updates.
To be honest, I think that the most productive thing at this point is not "replace FD with PS1" or something like that, I think it's "Add PS1 and CS/DP/whatever to the starter list". FD (or more precisely, the FD/SV/BF combination) simply
isn't as big of an issue with 7 starters. And the more starters you get, the more valid "just strike it" becomes to any "standouts" like CS or PS2... Or, in fact, FD.
The question of "what's the 7th starter" remains open, sure, but I think just saying "we're going to upgrade to 7" and then figuring out the details is best. Even if you won't place PS2 as a starter, CS is really very balanced (when was the last time you saw it counterpicked in a tournament set? I think DDD even usually goes for FD over CS!), and Delfino provides a nice counterpiece to stages like FD and SV in most matchups.
Does FD really skewer MU ratios? To answer this question, you have to compare it to something else. More so than the other current starters? What characters benefit so heavily from keeping a FD a starter? Falco (I thought BF was his best stage)? Diddy? Sonic?
Ice climbers, Diddy, and Falco are the big ones. All three of these characters have FD, SV, and BF among their best stages in pretty much every matchup. And guess what? In this starter list, they can guarantee one of those. Is that really a good thing? It seems to me like it makes the starter list almost inherently dysfunctional if a certain subset of characters can guarantee one of their top stages.
The difference between FD and stages like RC and Brinstar is that FD doesn't disable options. RC and Brinstar, with their heavy emphasis on aerial combat, do.
Define disable and options. You
can try to set up a banana fortress on Brinstar, it just won't last long and won't be very effective. You
can try to run away and laser camp on RC, it just won't work well. You
can try to air camp, juggle, and chase offstage on FD, it
just won't work as well.
Furthermore, you have used an extreme. Rarely do extremes work to convince others. More often they bring about skepticism. In this case, you suggested Brinster and RC as starters:
- How are they "the other side of the spectrum?" I didn't think FD was so far off to one side. On the other hand, RC and Brinstar shut down and severely limit the options of a majority of characters.
- The point of starter stages is to provide a net balance of stages. If you agree that RC and Brinstar are extremes of one spectrum but cannot sufficiently defend FD as the other, it wouldn't create a balanced starter list.
FD is
the very edge of its class. It is the single most "grounded" stage in the game (other than Bridge of Eldin, which is banned). It provides the most extreme advantage to characters who enjoy wide, flat spaces; to characters who specialize in projectile walling; to characters who need long reaches to CG off; to characters who need a lot of space to avoid juggling issues; to characters who can't deal with moving elements/hazards. It's not that hard to figure out... RC and Brinstar are virtually polar opposites to FD. While I will admit that the claim "FD is as bad as RC or Brinstar" (balance-wise) is off-base ever so slightly, "FD is as bad as Frigate" really isn't that far off the mark at all.
Finally, I want to address the idea of stage striking. If we agree that no stage is balanced, but we can effectively provide a balanced group of stages, then the point of stage striking is to give the players the option to compromise what stage is within the best interests of both players. Thus, and I emphasize this, we should focus on ensuring the group of stages is balanced first. I don't see RC and Brinstar as balancing some other stage specifically because there aren't that many characters that can effectively play on it. FD... I can't think of one character that performs abnormally bad on it. I'm surprised to see people so passionate about the subject of changing FD into a counterpick and am still curious about the validity of their argument.
"I can't think of one character that performs abnormally bad on it"... Nope, but I can think of quite a few matchups...
Wario does abnormally bad on it against Dedede
Metaknight does abnormally bad on it against ICs
Ike does abnormally bad on it against Falco...
Etc. You're thinking in absolutes. There is no absolute performance, only relative. You can't claim "FD isn't a bad stage for anyone" when it clearly is a bad stage in many matchups for many characters. It doesn't actively hinder them, but it passively hinders them by making their opponents that much stronger.
Furthermore, there may be "more balanced" stages in brawl, when compared to others. However, figuring out exactly what those are is hard (and especially in cases like CS and PS2, people aren't likely to accept it–PS2 is a counterpick for Yoshi and MAYBE Lucas, potentially G&W in a very long set. In most matchups it's obscenely well-balanced. But nobody would ever take it as a starter seriously)–you have to go through each stage, matchup by matchup, and figure it out, relative to all the other stages... There's a much easier way of doing this: make every stage a starter. Obviously, this has logistical problems when you try to use it (striking from 13 or 15 stages... could take a while), but even in larger starter lists like the 9-stage list, you get a good idea of these things (assuming people don't just say, "**** it, SV?"). This is why large starter lists are so good. It helps destroy any "misconceptions" regarding which stages are
really balanced (if BF, SV, AND FD get struck
most of the time, just as a hypothetical example, then it means something:
those stages are probably not very balanced), and really gets us useful data on stage usage.
Speaking of useful data on stage usage, FD was banned in between 30% and 1/3rd of all sets at MLG. If this doesn't say something about the stage's balance, then what
does?
I still have nothing against FD as part of a 7 or 9 starter stagelist, it's just this issue that, say, Falco can
always strike you to BF or SV (both
really good stages for him in most matchups)... It's like having YI/Picto/BF as a starter list and wondering why people are complaining about Pictochat; it's because it sticks out like a sore thumb (balance-wise), and because of its presence, DK and Sonic can always guarantee YI; usually their go-to counterpick after stage banning, as their "fair" stage in round one.
