The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Raziek]

STARTER STAGES!

We have made the starter list 5 stages as opposed to 7 or 9 because honestly, it doesn't make that much of a difference. In the typical ICs/Falco/Diddy scenario, you have FD, SV, and BF as starters. In a 7 stage list, you are going to (probably) add PS1 and Castle Siege (Maybe halberd instead of Castle). So...you went from having their best 3 to...their best 5? Sweet, that totally makes a huge diff-Oh wait it doesn't. That basically converted me to 5 starter.

If it doesn't make that much of a difference, you've just checkmated yourself. Assuming the goal is to reach the median of bias between both players, have more stages is always better. If you claim it doesn't make that much of a difference, great! Add those stages, and now the Game 1 stage is a better reflection of the actual matchup.

The more options you have the better. What is your reasoning NOT to include additional stages, ESAM?

If it doesn't make that much of a difference, why wouldn't you include some number of Halberd/PS1/Frigate/Siege/Delfino/PS2 just to make it that much more accurate?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I wanted more stages...however its a majority vote and I was pretty much the only person not going 5. I think Xyro or somebody wanted 9 and I wanted 7, and the other 5-6 wanted 5.

Also, if I were to make a 7 stage starter list, I would add PS1 and Halberd.

Another reason was that we (Everybody in the BBR-RC) witnessed a much higher rate of "Smashville?" with 7 stages than with 5 or 9. I saw smashville in 90% of 1st games at pound, and almost every single one at my tournaments. We figured with 5 stages there would be more diversity considering SV/FD are the 2 more grounded stages, and Lylat is an more aerial-based stage. Assuming Pound stagelist (PS1/CS) most strikes would go

FD/CS
Lylat/Yoshis/BF
PS1

YAY SMASHVILLE! That would happenbasically every time (You can switch the 2/1 and the 3, it would be the same thing).

Whoops double post ^_^'

 

[Raziek]

That doesn't answer my question.

If more is better, what was the reasoning for going with less?

If you can't explain the motivations of others, why did you just publicly support an inferior alternative, just now?

Is it because you think people are too lazy to strike with 9 or something?

Give me a real answer, not "Well I wanted x, but everyone else wanted Y."

Edit: Ninja'd. Reading new post.

Ok, so your reasoning to take 5 over 7 is there, but my question still stands regarding 9. What was the motivation to not go with 9?

 

[WindMajor]

Twinkie, please outline the reasons so that I dont' have to sift through the pages. People have different reasons.

Well I got lucky cause Raziek pretty much wrote a good chunk of what I was thinking. Actually, he wrote it better than I could write it.

Anyways, another point of mine would be that the difference between stages isn't as minor as you guys would think. For example, being able to ban FD, Battlefield, and SV against Falco is pretty monumental difference for Toon Link. Same with being able to ban FD, SV, and YI against ICs.

I'm glad that you supported 7 stages though, and I hope that you still can still do work for it in the BBRRC.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

For reasons against 9, some people saw it as benefiting MK (Which I hate as a reason honestly) with BF, Lylat, Delfino, Halberd, and CS as good MK levels. I'ma paste somebody's post and just leave it here without a name

ESAM claims the 5 starter system gives the 2 best stages to: Diddy, Falco, DDD, and ICs. Thinking about this now, I don't understand this since any player is in control of 3 stages. Going into any set they can guarantee themselves one of three stages. This means at best they can only get their 3rd best stage... But like lets look at things.
Switching to 9 stages adds 4 more. Every player gets 4 strikes so they are in control of 5 stages, guaranteeing one of them.

In the 5 starter system guaranteeing one of 3 stages, the following characters can guarantee themselves:
Diddy: FD, SV, YI (I'm not sure if YI or BF is better for him, but I can see YI being a tad more beneficial overall)
Falco: FD, SV, BF
ICs: FD, SV, YI
DDD: FD, SV, YI

Now with the 9 starter system guaranteeing 5 stages:
Diddy: FD, SV, YI, PS1, BF
Falco: FD, SV, BF, CS, PS1
ICs: FD, SV, YI, PS1, CS
DDD: FD, SV, CS, PS1, YI

Now remember that each opponent has 2 strikes so can strike the best 2 stages of your character, so at best you're only going to get your third best stage.

For all the stages above I listed the stages in order of how good it is, decreasingly of course. I might be off a little bit, but it's close enough. By this I mean in the 9 starter system Falco's best stage is FD and his 5th best is PS1.

And similar to only getting your 3rd best stage in a 5 starter system, you can only get your 5th best stage in the 9 starter system.

So now ask yourself (the reader), is YI that much better than BF for Diddy?
Is BF that much better than PS1 for Falco?
Is YI that much better than CS for ICs?
Is YI that much better than.... YI for DDD? lol

The answer to me is no, not really. The change between their 3rd best stage in the 5 system and their 5th best stage in the 9 system doesn't differ too much. The only one that changes noticeably is ICs, but tbh it's a stretch and not too much of a change really. DDD doesn't change at all. Falco is about the same-ish imo. Diddy is about the same-ish imo, and it is the exact same if you think BF is his 3rd best stage in the 5 system instead of BF like I figured.

So really, as ESAM suggests the flaw in the 5 starter system and prefers the 9 system over it, nothing really changes.

So yea, the 9 system won't prevent the quality of those 4 characters having over powered stages in the 5 system. It just so happens that those 4 characters thrive on "neutralish" stages. You would need a 11 or 13 starter system before you really saw a noticeable change in their game 1 viability.

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for this >_>

 

[Alphicans]

Lol that person already posted that themselves in this thread haha.

That reasoning is really bad though :/. Watering down an advantage on a certain stage isn't convincing me.

 

[Orion*]

Honestly, I have no idea what even brought on this topic. This was the general trend ALL OF BRAWL until, what, the Apex stagelist was released and he did that SOLELY FOR OOC COMPETITORS WHO AREN'T USED TO THE STAGES!!!! He didn't do it because they were both unfair/made MK too powerful, he just wanted the stage list to seem more appealing on people coming from overseas that simply weren't used to the stages, basically the same as the japanese getting 2 bans or whatever he did (I honestly don't remember the rule).

Anyway, to discuss the actual reasoning...RC/Brinstar are very aerial based stages, obviously. This just so happens to be the best type of stage for the best character: Metaknight. However, there are stages that do this for the opposite type of character: Grounded characters. FD/SV/Pictochat are characters like Diddys/Falcos/ICs strong stages, and they are synonomous to RC/Brinstar for MK. If you ban either RC/Brinstar, you must also limit the grounded stages, even though there are infinitely more of them (SV, FD, BF, Castle, Pictochat, PS1/2).

Um...I haven't read the whole thread so if you have any other questions just ask.

Its quite funny though because both japan and europe know that you just make metaknight as a character hard to deal with when you have both of stages legal and no ban.

So you're saying that you don't want static stages as neutrals, you want neutral stages as neutrals and you believe that static stages are generally more neutral than dynamic ones?

Final Destination quite obviously doesn't fit the bill.

The things is, I honestly feel FD is balanced in most matchups between tournament viable characters. The main exceptions would between higher tiers vs non tournament viable characters.

Most of the matchups that are THAT bad on FD the losing character only loses "slightly" better on SV/BF/PS1/ect i.e. Falco vs ZSS.

Maybe this is the case if you are only considering hardcore counter-picks, but if I bring up PS2 or Delfino, both stages that require a wide range of diverse skills that no static stage provides, why would you disagree?

I personally think PS2 isnt that bad, however I still havent seen it in enough tournament play yet where I feel comfortable having it as a starter considering how little its usage is even when it is legal.

Delfino is definitely not a neutral stage... I have literally been using it as my favorite CP since 2008 bar a few matchups and while, it's more even than persay Brinstar/RC it can get ugly there.
Matches can bar down to a lot of stage gimmicks, timing out, relying on wall infinites, and abusing the **** blaszones on some parts.

That's not how the burden of proof works. It's your job to prove that what I said is incorrect (as I am arguing for the game's default).

I could throw that "burden of proof" **** back at not only this post but half the things you say outside of this particular thread LOL but I'm going to actually just respond.

Besides that, the data is pretty obvious. Why is it that Donkey Kong, Samus and Jigglypuff don't win tournaments if there planking is so broken?

It isn't a matter of being healthy for the game, if you are going to introduce this rule to surgically limit a legit strategy that you don't like, I'd suggest also introducing a "No Blizzard against Ganondorf rule". Oh, also no Up Tilt against Jigglypuff, no Tornado against Donkey Kong, etc...

1. You're "double standard" is using all character specific and move specific examples. This is legitimately one universal tactic that bogs the game down.
2. Brawl will be boring. (that matters actually, lol we want sponsors and hype)
3. The risk reward ratio vs characters that can plank bar MK, is still obnoxiously stupid even if its not on some unbeatable ****. Approaching (something that finally is being incorporated a Lot more into brawls metagame Finally LOL) is beyond the most unsafe thing. Its probably better unless its at top level where you can assume your op will not make a mistake for 8 minutes to just wait and hope they **** up than do anything.

At a higher level, its essentially like, even if youre at low percents and the ops at high if you approach then you risk getting hit offstage or ledge trapped (2 of the most crappy positions in the game to be in and your opponent literally... does NO work for it). Theres no thought involved. The game will not revolve around skill.

What? Thinking in a way which will help the community in the long run? You realize how a metagame works right? Someone discovers a powerful tactic, someone else discovers a tactic to counter it, etc... If we just go around banning things with no justification the metagame won't develop properly and we'll be left with a less skill-based game.

Im specifically talking about the way you said you want to just shape peoples opinions, like yours or anyone elses is that much better than anothers- at least thats what it led on to me.

if thats even true the fact that you even think somebody has the authority to do that is awful lmao. also what the hell is the we in that post LMAO

Good job missing the point. I said that it isn't necessarily used to run the timer. You can't prove that people are planking just for a time-out

Exactly why theres a LGL? you can plank... you just cant stay there forever until the clock runs out.

The way of telling if something is stalling or not is asking yourself "Would people still do it if time wasn't a factor?".

Not indefinitely... because the match has to end. And nobody smart would approach someone in that position lmfao. Hence once again, making an LGL is probably the easiest way to deal with problem

Alright, let's say your right and it is impossible to objectively determine match-ups. It is now completely pointless to create a starter list, as the main point of it (even ground for game 1) is impossible to determine.

So... we would just end up striking from every legal stage, basically.

That actually wouldnt be so bad... if the end result wasnt worse because it would actually just be either
A. "hey these rules are stupid, wanna go SV?!!??"
-sure-

B."hey these rules are stupid, wanna go SV?!!??"
-nope-
*picks mk*
-fuuuu.....-
*picks mk*

Err, we aren't making it worse, we are keeping it how it is. If you think that is already bad, play a different game.

A. ummm who's we?
B. LMFAO at you telling me to play a different game. At least I actually put time into brawl, and the community before I talk about it.
C. What are you keeping it as? Legitimately, everyone including yourself is suggesting rule changes because they are all different based on your region.

-Hence the point of having a unity ruleset
-Hence the point of trying to form the most optimal and agreeable ruleset

I've already explained why surgically balancing the game is dumb.

Yet youre for a MK only LGL? isnt that surgical?

stuff

More is NOT always better though. that's all I have to really say about it, idc about anything else.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

*shrugs* well it is a pretty damn good reason Alphi.

At this point it is basically "I think it does" vs "I think it doesn't," and you can't really say who is wrong and who is right.

Hell, when I played Gnes at MLG Dallas, I did much better on SV than on PS1 (Until I suicided on SV). PS1 isn't even in this 5 stage starter list...

Also, a powerful tool is going to their best stage first. If you can beat Diddy on FD, you just won game 1 and you scared the diddy. If you lose, he can't go back and you can ban his 2nd best stage, leaving the 3rd best stage which would be the neutral if you struck the opposite way.

 

[Raziek]

The major issue with that refutation is that it assumes that the purpose of the 9-starter is to balance out the advantage gained by the flat stage crew. (Diddy, Falco, etc) This is not so. The purpose of the starter stage list is not to arbitrarily hand out advantages to different characters. The imbalance with the aforementioned characters is a symptom of the problem, but it isn't the problem. The problem is that the Median of Bias is not correctly displayed under the current system.

I'm going to lay this out as clearly as possible for later use:

The goal for Game 1 of a tournament set (stage-wise) is to provide a stage that neither party finds strong advantage on, nor strong disadvantage. This goal is referred to as the Median of Bias, which I will formally define below.

Median of Bias: The stage resulting from proper striking between two characters, with each party intelligently removing the stages that grant their opponent advantages, or removing ones that hinder them.

In almost all cases, the MoB will be a stage that is not very polar, such as Lylat Cruise, or Pokemon Stadium 2. (if people ever actually gave it a chance) This is the goal.

As a quick preface, one issue that frequently comes up is the stance that people believe static stages are best for starting Game 1 on. This is a large flaw in the logic of a tournament set, and is where the "Full List Striking" mentality comes in.

When we decide whether or not a stage will be legal for tournament play, that stage should be considered legal under ALL circumstances, not just as a counterpick. If it is ok to play on, why should it not be ok to play on for Game 1? To say a stage can be legal only as a counterpick is no different than the common error people make when addressing on-stage and off-stage play in the case of LGL's. The two are no different conceptually, and should be evaluated equally.

In effect, this gives rise to "Full List Striking", which WILL ALWAYS result in the most accurate MoB for Game 1, because you have performed the striking process on ALL legal stages, not just a small subset.

However, as a TO, I'm capable of recognizing that striking from the Full stage list is not entirely practical in a tournament environment. In some cases it can slow things down, and it is for this reason that the distinction between "starter" and "counterpick" is made. Not to evaluate whether one stage is better than another, but simply to expedite the striking process by eliminating many of the commonly polar stages.

With all this in mind, the problem with the current 5 starter system is that the balance is improper. Regardless of how small the difference is, the current list does NOT provide an accurate MoB for the characters who will play on it.

This can be most concretely demonstrated by looking at an example match-up between Ice Climbers and Game and Watch, for example. Game and Watch is a versatile character who enjoys many of the stages in the game because of their multiplatform layouts, conditions under which he excels. Ice Climbers on the other hand, prefer flatter, static stages, because it caters to their playstyle.

Do not individually attack my example strikes, because I do not play either of these characters. This is simply being done to demonstrate my point.

In the current list, this matchup would likely go to YI or BF, since GW will strike FD and probably SV. (If not SV, then YI, which changes little)

However, simply by including the other stages considered legal in the Unity Ruleset:

Battlefield
Battleship Halberd
Final Destination
Brinstar
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Smashville
Delfino Plaza
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Frigate Orpheon
Pictochat
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokémon Stadium 2
Rainbow Cruise

It's quite clear to see the balance shifts DRASTICALLY, because Game and Watch has a larger number of advantageous stages. The true MoB for a match-up exists on the stage found when ALL stages are considered, not just a small subset.

To this extent, including more stages provides a more accurate Median of Bias, and in turn, a more accurate reflection of the actual Match-up. If a character is only good on three or four stages, why should they receive a reward over a character who enjoys the majority of the stagelist?

TL;DR: If a character is good on many stages, they are a better character. Restricting the number of starters to small numbers shifts the Median of Bias towards characters who do not deserve that advantage, and is artificially and arbitrarily affecting the metagame.

There are additional benefits to including more starters, as well.

Not all players of a character will like a certain stage, and may strike it out of personal distaste. (I happen to dislike SV, despite it being good for Marth) To this effect, including more stages also refines the Median of Bias between PLAYERS, not just characters, because it allows them to strike to their tastes, not just "Auto-strike FD and SV (or YI)".

I have personally used a larger starter list (at least 7 or 9) at all of my events for a long time. It greatly increases depth by increasing the number of stages frequently played on, and it provides more accurate and competitive stages for Game 1, that more accurately reflect the median of bias between both players AND characters.

Simply adding 4 of the following stages to the starter list would go a long way towards improving things:

Delfino Plaza
Pokemon Stadium 2
Pokemon Stadium 1
Castle Siege
Battleship Halberd

I've yet to see a good argument for having 5 or 9, so if someone wants to step up, I will address it.

 

[MK26]

^^this man knows his stuff

but i think that for the ruleset to not be viewed as a joke youd have to exclude ps2 from the starter list, regardless of whether or not its the most neutral stage in the game (which it just might be, or its just that nobodys taken the time to figure out what they can exploit)

 

[Orion*]

****** can write a big post

I really stopped reading when I saw "Median of Bias"

 

[fUddO]

You know, the fact that PS2 is never picked in tournament sets, despite being a legal counterpick speaks volumes about its neutrality. Part of the reason no one picks it is probably because it doesn't offer a significant advantage.

 

[Orion*]

You know, the fact that PS2 is never picked in tournament sets, despite being a legal counterpick speaks volumes about its neutrality. Part of the reason no one picks it is probably because it doesn't offer a significant advantage.

Or.... people don't understand it in tournament play enough yet and don't want to have bull**** happen to them in tournament lol

 

[WindMajor]

I really stopped reading when I saw "Median of Bias"

Dude you're missing out.

 

[Raziek]

I really stopped reading when I saw "Median of Bias"

This is because you're as bad as Xyro due to incapability to actually read and address a legitimate argument. If you won't read, you have no entitlement to claiming your opinion as better than another.

You have no place in debates, Orion.

You know, the fact that PS2 is never picked in tournament sets, despite being a legal counterpick speaks volumes about its neutrality. Part of the reason no one picks it is probably because it doesn't offer a significant advantage.

This.

Or.... people don't understand it in tournament play enough yet and don't want to have bull**** happen to them in tournament lol

Then actually give it a shot, like I have. Host small tournaments, play it in Money Matches. You want to prove it broken, challenge people to money matches and abuse the **** out of it. Until you do, you have no ground to stand on.

 

[Tesh]

Just popping in here to ask why we assume stages are broken with no proof, but we can't just assume MK is broken and ban him?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Holy **** Raziek, that was an amazing post.

I understand that sentiment, but again we have to do it in practicality and acceptance. The BBR tried to make a ruleset that was fit for competitive play. Do you know what happened? It was regarded as a joke and, at MAX, 3 TOs used it once. We can't go by what is competitively sound, so we have to do a middle ground.

Now, regarding your Median of Bias, I agree with you. However, our stagelist itself is biased towards some characters.

As ground stages we have
BF, FD, CS, PS1, PS2, SV, Pictochat, Yoshis,

As air stages we have
RC, Brinstar, Frigate, Delfino

In between are Lylat and Halberd

We are already skewing the MoB because we are choosing which stages are in our ruleset in the first place, which is where the argument becomes terrible. Why not just strike down from EVERY stage. That will TRULY determine the MoB, not just the ones we have in the ruleset.

When we draw the line for what stages will and will not be on the ruleset, we are already influencing Match-ups in a rather large way. Where do we draw the line, exactly?

 

[Orion*]

This is because you're as bad as Xyro due to incapability to actually read and address a legitimate argument. If you won't read, you have no entitlement to claiming your opinion as better than another.

You have no place in debates, Orion.

Or... its the middle of the night in my time zone and I'm way to lazy to read that bull**** right now lmao.

I honestly don't even know if I agree or disagree with what youre stating (nor do I honestly care, I wasnt even trying to debate you)- However I do know that you don't have to write walls of text to get a point across lmao.

It's a waste of time and I have absolutely no intention of getting "involved" over a smashboards debate- It requires to much time lol

Then actually give it a shot, like I have. Host small tournaments, play it in Money Matches. You want to prove it broken, challenge people to money matches and abuse the **** out of it. Until you do, you have no ground to stand on.

I don't want to prove it broken.

I'm just giving an opinion that not enough people know how to play on it properly enough to want to use it in a setting where it could cost them money, especially larger sums.
There was no ground, and once again LOL you try to make a debate out of something that wasn't there.

Its literally like you just spew salt out 99% of the time, then randomly make some large *** post that I'm apparently supposed to take the time to read

 

[Raziek]

This is a DISCUSSION topic, Orion. If you post, your opinion can and will be brought into contention and attacked based on the merits of its content. If you don't have anything constructive or important to say, don't post.

I don't want to hear your excuses.

As for your actual opinion, that's still irrelevant to the fact that many of those that HAVE played on PS2 (seriously, and taking the time to learn it and explore options) support it as s starter. (Or at very least, guaranteed CP) Most other people haven't played it extensively, as you've said. All credible testimony supports the stage as being very balanced.

@ESAM: I'll get to that in a moment.

 

[Orion*]

This is a DISCUSSION topic, Orion. If you post, your opinion can and will be brought into contention and attacked based on the merits of its content. If you don't have anything constructive or important to say, don't post.

I don't want to hear your excuses.

@ESAM: I'll get to that in a moment.

Exactly.

My opinion is that, essentially 99.9% of the people heres opinion are either garbage, dont care, trolls, or still are learning about the game, but arent at a point where their opinion can be cleanly formulated (as we all are) and while you waste time debating about it, I'll be either

A. Having an awesome life which I thoroughly enjoy
B. Getting better at the game

Thank you for saying its a discussion thread btw. Because all I see is debates, trolls, flames, arguments, whining, or trolls. I really feel like if people put half the time they put debating this game into actually play it we would have such a better community lmao

 

[Raziek]

Holy **** Raziek, that was an amazing post.

I understand that sentiment, but again we have to do it in practicality and acceptance. The BBR tried to make a ruleset that was fit for competitive play. Do you know what happened? It was regarded as a joke and, at MAX, 3 TOs used it once. We can't go by what is competitively sound, so we have to do a middle ground.

First off, thank you for actually reading it.

Second, yeah, I know exactly how it goes. I used the EXACT 3.1 list long before you actually released it, oddly enough.

However, I disagree in that we CAN and SHOULD go with what is competitively sound, but we have to take baby steps. You have in your hands the perfect tool to do this: a National Ruleset with plenty of TOs backing it, and the ability to PERIODICALLY make small tweaks, rather than shock the system with an instant and huge change. (See: Public reaction to 3.0)

This is how I realized these changes in my local community, and it's how you can do so on a nation-wide scale, if the time and effort is put in to do so.

I would like to speak with you further about pursuing such avenues, if possible, but I'll contact you privately about that. Onward to the rest of your post:

Now, regarding your Median of Bias, I agree with you. However, our stagelist itself is biased towards some characters.

As ground stages we have
BF, FD, CS, PS1, PS2, SV, Pictochat, Yoshis,

As air stages we have
RC, Brinstar, Frigate, Delfino

In between are Lylat and Halberd

We are already skewing the MoB because we are choosing which stages are in our ruleset in the first place, which is where the argument becomes terrible. Why not just strike down from EVERY stage. That will TRULY determine the MoB, not just the ones we have in the ruleset.

I'm aware of that issue, but there's a couple caveats that come with this. The first is that it's not always completely practical in an actual tournament setting, which is why we make the first necessary concession to limit the number of stages involved to a "starter list".

Because we make this concession, we should be striving to include the LEAST polar set of stages as possible.

As for the "True" median of bias, I again, agree with you. There are many stages not included that can and should be included in striking, despite not being legal. In the ideal full striking system, the only banned stages would be those that are anti-competitive INDEPENDENT of what character is selected. So:

WarioWare
Any stage with a hard circle
Any stage with super-hardcore Cave of Life.

But, as already mentioned, this isn't practical. While there's technically no problem with having Bridge of Edlin in the starter list, most people will reject this idea outright. It's for this reason (preventing the "This is a joke!" reactions) that I focus on more practical modifications to the ruleset.

When we draw the line for what stages will and will not be on the ruleset, we are already influencing Match-ups in a rather large way. Where do we draw the line, exactly?

This is rather subjective, and would require more 1 on 1 discussion that is impractical to do in a post.

However, as already mentioned, I'd like to talk to you further on the subject, but at the very LEAST I think it can be agreed on that the current system does not adequately support the idea of a Median of Bias, and moving towards more starters is a step in the right direction.

Personally, I believe 9 is as far as you can go before it begins to get cumbersome, and if we agree that 7 doesn't make an adequate impact, 9 is the place to go.

 

[NO-IDea]

Great posts Raziek concerning the topic. But, after reading what Orion originally posted,

Or.... people don't understand it in tournament play enough yet and don't want to have bull**** happen to them in tournament lol

he was only picking fun at a common truth (why stages like PS2 aren't given a try.) He never stated his opinion on the balance of the stage. He was not attempting to spawn a debate, not attempting to stir up trouble or deny your post (he didn't even read it, so how could he rightly do so?) He was trying to have fun while making a point.

The key for everyone here who wishes to participate is to assume that not everyone is here to attack or debate. Some are here to listen in on what's happening. And sometimes, listeners won't have time to fully read posts. Furthermore, don't look for attacks and read their posts carefully.

*You did add a TL;DR though, so Orion's post was unnecessary.*

@ESAM: The BBR tried to make a ruleset fit for competitive play without properly discussing with the community its reasoning. (Who cares if the ruleset was competitively sound if the community didn't understand why?) The point of the BBR is to cater to the community. And it failed.

Standards need to be implemented so people have a common ground to go off on. (When you first learn a subject in school, you are taught that field's vocabulary and the core values of its theories/philosophies before you attempt to discuss complex topics.) They need to go over terminology and act as mediators and break down arguments so everyone can understand. Not just drop a bomb on the public. It makes them seem pretentious when they're not and furthers the distance between them and the typical player they should be serving.

All in all, I would argue that they should attempt to take extreme steps again in implementing a competitively sound ruleset. But next time, guide players with reasoning into it, not pressure them with "This is how we believe the competitive format should look like. Questions?" on some generic thread where 50+ active users complain and they know they can't respond to them all.

 

[fUddO]

Could do something like have every character board name their top 5 stages and worst 5 stages. Any remaining stages, if any, would fit on a starter list. After that, the stages that show up the least could be added until the optimum number to remove player bias is left, (be that 3,5,7 or 9) that is to be decided.

Just an idea.

 

[MK26]

ffs i literally had that exact idea like 3 days ago
right down to picking 5 and not any other number
except it would be on a personal level and not character-specific

 

[Orion*]

The problem is all of that would be very matchup specific :/

 

[fUddO]

The problem is all of that would be very matchup specific :/

Just because ICs vs. Pit on FD is better for ICs doesn't make FD a worse stage for Pit in pretty much every other matchup. That one case definitely isn't enough to knock it out of Pit's top5, and I doubt it would for the majority of characters. Besides, even if this method doesn't have the intended result of creating the optimal starter list, it would still be interesting information to know.

 

[MK26]

if you phrase the question right it'd be easy to get a good answer

like 'list the 5 stages you are most likely to counterpick and five you are most likely to ban in an average regional tournament set in your area, taking into account your main and the characters your opponents commonly play.'

 

[Bloodcross]

ORiON PLEASE

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE AN INTELLIGENT POST THAT HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THEORY-CRAFTING THAT BAD STAGES LIKE PS2 SHOULD BE NOOTRAL THEN YOU DON'T BELONG HERE!!!!!!!!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@orion: I didn't respond because first I got lazy, then Ghostbone dealt with it.

@Starter discussion: Raziek is 100% right. Chibo's post was not only made earlier in the thread, it was also thoroughly debunked.

 

[Bloodcross]

btw razeik, didnt your region have mk banned?

please excuse my possible ignorance

 

[Raziek]

At one point, yes.

That is no longer the case, primarily due to people wishing to travel Out of Province to nationals in the US.

 

[Attila_]

i've only read the last few pages, but figure i'll put in my two cents anyway.

in australia, we've fd as a cp for ages now, and its been a pretty hot topic of discussion.

basically what it boils down to is who you wish to support: flat stage characters or everyone else (mk fits in here).

you can't say that fd as a stater skews mus; who's ratios are we working with anyway? the starter list itself defines the ratios, and as reputable players, its up to us to decide how we influence these numbers.

personally, i opt to neutralize the most common mus in my region, namely, high tiers vs each other, and high tiers vs mk. although it may not seem fair to neglect mid and low tier characters, i feel that it is more important to make things fair for the bulk of my community.

in this sense, and after a bunch of number crunching, i have deduced that fd in a 5 stage list (replacing lylat or ps1) produces the most amount of fair mus, and as such, i rally for it to become a starter stage. crunch the numbers with your own characters, and if you do so honestly, most people should come up with the same conclusion.

i've dabbled with the idea of 7 or 9 stage starter lists, but they generally result in the same stages being chosen, and if not, tend to favour a character who would win the mu anyway.

i'm not overly fussed with cps at his point; a set is generally decided by the first match. although i do think stages that swing mus wildly in one characters favour (brinstar is a huge culprit here) should most probably be banned.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Can someone point out to me why FD being a neutral or CP even matters? We have stage striking to cover its inclusion as a CP, if you want to call it that. And including more starter stages beyond 5 means you are using traditional CPs anyway. So, unless you want to go to a 3 stage method, I do not see why things have to change with FD.

 

[DeLux]

Is it safe to copy and paste this to the rules section of my tourney or are there plans in place to make modifications based on 56 pages of discussion?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can someone point out to me why FD being a neutral or CP even matters? We have stage striking to cover its inclusion as a CP, if you want to call it that. And including more starter stages beyond 5 means you are using traditional CPs anyway. So, unless you want to go to a 3 stage method, I do not see why things have to change with FD.

A few things...

1. "Traditional CPs"? Shouldn't matter. At all. PS2 and CS are traditional CPs, but they are really well-balanced, competitive stages, and they make for really good starter stages.
2. ICs best stages in most matchups: FD, SV, BF. How many of those are in the current starter list? How many can you strike.
Falco's best stages in most matchups... Getting the point here? You cannot strike away all of the stages that are flat-out amazing for them in this ruleset. By offering more starters, you not only prevent characters from getting their best stages (with 7 starters, what is the very best stage you can get? The 4th-best for your character in the matchup. 9-starter? 5th-best. 5 starter? 3rd... And tbh I'd consider that a problem in some matchups), you also leave more up to player choice, as opposed to "forced strikes".

 

[Attila_]

Can someone point out to me why FD being a neutral or CP even matters? We have stage striking to cover its inclusion as a CP, if you want to call it that. And including more starter stages beyond 5 means you are using traditional CPs anyway. So, unless you want to go to a 3 stage method, I do not see why things have to change with FD.

because in some mus, its a forced strike, while lylat/ps1 might not be. this means you may be forced to play on another stage you'd rather not play on.

but at the same time, fd seems to generate the most amount of fair mus imo.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@shmot: wut? Let's see your data... I find that highly questionable.

 

[theunabletable]

Alright, let's say your right and it is impossible to objectively determine match-ups. It is now completely pointless to create a starter list, as the main point of it (even ground for game 1) is impossible to determine.

So... we would just end up striking from every legal stage, basically.

well that's assuming that the point of starters is supposed to be matchup based.

pvp based stages should be used first round, not gimmicky ****.

oh noticed that BPC responded to my post a while back, gonna edit in stuff

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

well that's assuming that the point of starters is supposed to be matchup based.

pvp based stages should be used first round, not gimmicky ****.

oh noticed that BPC responded to my post a while back, gonna edit in stuff

Ah, this untenable line of logic. Do me a favor and justify this for me: why is PvP so drastically important round one, and not rounds two and three? To me, this line of logic seems to say very hard, "FD/BF/SV only plz". And of course, it completely ignores that PvP is still more than present on multiple stages. You want to make the claim that CS is not PvP-centric? PS2? PS1? Delfino?

 

[Attila_]

@shmot: wut? Let's see your data... I find that highly questionable.

check the australian stage discussion threads, ask around, or go through your own characters mus yourself.