• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Three neutrals, two counterpicks, one best rule set

Skler

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,518
Location
On top of Milktea
I think the game would be a better competitive game if we changed the ruleset to only have 5 legal stages, 3 of which are neutral and 2 of which are counter picks.

Obviously the neutrals would need to include one small stage (Yoshi's or FoD), one medium stage (Battlefield) and one large stage (Dreamland 64).

Why do I think this is a good idea? It makes stage striking simple and removes the neutrals most people seem to dislike (FD, FoD/YS) from being a first pick. It also makes counter picking (for stages) less important, as the one ban goes further when there are fewer stages. Don't like small blast zones? Ban Yoshi's. Hate big stages? Ban Dreamland. **** the police? Ban battlefield.

I know what you're thinking -- "But Skler, that would require getting rid of Stadium." Stadium is currently our only counter pick, and it introduces more randomness than any other stage. It's odd having 5 fairly neutral stages and then seeing the stage that transforms on the list. Stadium is legacy, and the community doesn't even seem to like it (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=327037)

I personally think the 3 neutral, 2 CP list is a better choice than the 5 neutral, 1 CP list we have right now. Using the 3 neutral, 2 CP list allows for actual gameplay to be rewarded more than the counter picking and stage advantage game. It also lets players have more say in how the game will be played (Hate chain grabs? ban FD. Hate camping? Ban DL64).

Thoughts?
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
In a 5 game set, given that there are no bans, you cannot force a round on FD without having PS to counterbalance. It would have to be a 3 legal stage ruleset, remain with 6, or remove FD/PS and have 3 neutral + FoD as CP(which the euros are testing atm iirc).
 

Skler

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,518
Location
On top of Milktea
My problem with 4 stages is that in a BO5 set, assuming you win game 1 and 2 on different stages, your opponent basically gets to pick for you on game 3 (he has one ban and DSR prevents the other 2 stages from being options). I don't like the idea of one person getting counterpick advantage twice, whereas the other person only gets it once.

I think having 1 ban and 5 stages is better than 0 bans and 4 stages.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
He doesn't have a ban. In a BO5 set with 4 stages, you'll always have 3 CP options, as it would be DSRM with 4 stages, as opposed to DSR with 5+. The only stage you would not be allowed to pick is the stage that you last won on.
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
I don't even see why the term "neutral" is still thrown around in stage discussion. Neutral is an abstract concept that varies by playstyle, match-up, metagame advancements, etc. and can't really be defined accurately enough for the purpose of stage legality discussion, IMO. The term is a TTWWADI ("That's The Way We Always Did It") perpetuated somewhat by MLG rulesets, and we should move forward avoiding it. Should seem a reasonable goal for someone that agrees the status quo is not sacred, eh Skler?

We all know that it's only because Stage Striking hadn't been thought up yet, and Random with 1 ban per player was used to determine the first match of a set, that we used the distinction between Neutral and Counterpick to prevent absurdities like PokéFloats being played game 1. Even now, the only reason the distinction is necessary is due to the inherent drawback of the Stage Striking system requiring an odd number of stages to have fair strikes; it is not a valid justification for banning Pokémon Stadium, or else it'd have been used when the 2010 list came out that had Brinstar, Kongo Jungle and Rainbow Cruise legal.

Stage legality is largely based on what arbitrary point on the spectrum we feel that the variation from the standard FD/BF-type stages is too great to be allowed in tournament, which we've also determined as the standard by arbitrary means of something like "as little inconsistent impact on the result of a match as possible (within reason), also no retardedly strong stage-specific avoidance strategies, also **** moving stages," which we all just kind of agree on so no one minds. Naturally, over time that point has moved lower and lower and we've arrived at the stagelist we use today. At the moment, that point is after Pokémon Stadium and before Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise and so forth. There is admittedly a larger gap on this spectrum between Pokémon Stadium and the other 5 on the current stagelist, than there is between any of the other 5, but that gap is also far smaller than the one between Pokémon Stadium and the recently banned Brinstar/Kongo Jungle/Rainbow Cruise group. I also feel that the current point, after taking popular (high level) opinion into account, is probably the best point in existence. There's some disagreement, of course; Hax believes we should move to a BF-only stagelist, while people like KishPrime believe that a higher point is better, but this is to be expected.

As an aside, I've thought that Mute City is a far better competitive stage than Kongo Jungle, and probably RC/Brinstar as well, for a while now. It was probably banned before Kongo Jungle due of a combination of Armada using it really well at Genesis 1, the sheer number of FF mains and their tendency to hate janky stages like that, and Pound 4's stagelist.
 

DoH

meleeitonme.tumblr.com
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,622
Location
Washington, DC
In a 5 game set, given that there are no bans, you cannot force a round on FD without having PS to counterbalance. It would have to be a 3 legal stage ruleset, remain with 6, or remove FD/PS and have 3 neutral + FoD as CP(which the euros are testing atm iirc).
What's the warrant/reasoning behind this statement? Why does PS balance out FD's effects on sets?
 

KishPrime

King of the Ship of Fools
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
7,802
Location
Indiana
I think I consider KJ among the least competitively interesting stage of all of the stages I'd consider legal...even worse than Japes.

<_<

Not that this conversation will ever go that direction.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
The game is perfectly fine to be played on corneria. Gets boring, but idk if thats necessarily a ban criteria. MK2 is broken, ban that ****. Onett would be interesting if there weren't cars. Bring back pokefloats!


Sveet out
 

Redd

thataintfalco.com
BRoomer
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
4,133
Location
Richmond, Virginia
I find Corneria to be almost if not as fair as PS lol. Some epic tourney matches have been played on it and I never heard complaints until Fox started upping his metagame.
 
Top Bottom