Varied Competitive Brawl Stagelist.

[Max Ketchum]

Then apparently every single opponent I've played at a tournament misunderstands this concept. Please enlighten me on the exact definition of stage striking, then.

And for the record, it's "C'est la vie".

 

[thesage]

Just explain to him what stage striking is jeez.

Stage striking is when there are an odd number of neutral stages, the two players/teams strike off stages until there's only one left. The first match is then played on that stage.

 

[Hylian]

Then apparently every single opponent I've played at a tournament misunderstands this concept. Please enlighten me on the exact definition of stage striking, then.

And for the record, it's "C'est la vie".

o.O Typo lol.

Tu parle francais?

Anyways, since you asked:

You are using the random process to choose the first stage in which you just choose random. You make eliminate one stage from the random set only for the first match so that if it comes up on neutral it won't be played the first time. This was from MLG and what you are talking about. This is not stage striking.

Stage Striking(Or, the California Knockout Rule) is where both players take turns striking neutrals until there is only one left. They then play on that stage. You need an odd number of stages for this to work fairly, which is what he ment by: "Good luck stage striking with 4 neutrals". By this process, you can have many neutral stages, and both players will still be playing on one they like.

For example:

Neutrals:
FD
Smashville
PS1
Battlefield
Yoshi's.

My opponet strikes PS1.
I strike Yoshi's.
My opponent strikes Smashville.
I strike Final Destination.

We play our first match on Battlefield.

This eliminates the luck factor of having random on for the first stage.

So there, now you know.

 

[Max Ketchum]

Oui, je parle francais.

I've heard that method being used as well, but I've never actually used it in tourney. I was aware of the existence of that, just didn't guess it when we were on the subject.

 

[Deoxys]

The stage is banworthy anyway.

Really? Why?

Distant Planet...lol...are you serious? Walkoff edges, Bulborb, waterfall thing, extremely limited floor space...yeah.

Yoshi's Island = walkoffs.

Other people already refuted these right? One walkoff is not that big of a deal.

Luigi's Mansion, lol...ceiling hax and major camping. Watch Toasty vs. Plank.

Read the OP. Now read the SBR ruleset. OP assumes you know the SBR ruleset, which you don't. Toasty vs. Plank is what happens when dumb TOs don't use an 8 minute, SBR-recommended ruleset, and when a player doesn't know how to keep his eye on the clock. Lol at blaming the stage for that.

BTW, Jungle Japes has ceiling hax and major camping, yet it is on list B, so your argument doesn't even hold up anyway.

Why the hell do you like Skyworld so much? It's an awful stage. Ceilings are pretty stupid, especially when they can spike you to your death. It's just as unfair as GHZ. FD is fairer than Yoshi's because it doesn't completely **** with some characters due to the slant on the stage. Falco especially hates that stage.

First of all, I hate Skyworld, but that doesn't mean diddly regarding whether or not it should be banned. Don't fight them in the "cave" if the floors are broken/almost broken and you're worried about being spiked. Compairing it to GHZ is insane.

Striking only works for the first time the stage shows up on random. It wouldn't hold up tournaments much at all.

Well, other people covered this already, too.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I like List A's neutrals but list C's counterpicks. besides mario circuit, green hill and yoshi's island pipes

 

[Deoxys]

I like List A's neutrals but list C's counterpicks. besides mario circuit, green hill and yoshi's island pipes

So what do you dislike Skyworld for enough to ban?

 

[MdrnDayMercutio]

lol, you're like the only person I ever see argueing for Skyworld.

 

[Rockin]

List A seems too strict...and I can see a way where player A may get an early advantage against Player B. If Player B bans one neutral stage, and bans another neutral stage in order to force them onto their best stage (let's say FD), then it'd be totally unfair, cosidering the type of character and player they're facing. If there was a rule saying that they can only ban counter stages, then it'd still look stupid.

List B seems fair. I have no issues with it seems. It seems to be friendly for all types of characters and shows a chance of winning the match.

List C seems laxed, but it's still not that much of an issue. This just gives specific characters a chance to win, while encouraging smarter bans and stage strikes.

 

[The Milk Monster]

I would have to say, B being the most logical choice.
It's got a good balance of CP's and Neutrals.
I like C just as much, just a couple counter's that aren't cool, Green Hill Zone, Port Town, Corneria is about all that I disagree with about C.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Hylian, I wouldn't mind the C list. The only problem I have with it, is that your always going to be playing on a starter map. Why not have 2 stage strikes for the first round pick and loser picks? Instead of having starter stages. Every stage is a counter pick stage. If you don't think so, you guys are the n00bs, skyflyer, greenstreet, soth. I've been here alot longer than all three of you combined.

 

[SothE700k]

Hylian, I wouldn't mind the C list. The only problem I have with it, is that your always going to be playing on a starter map. Why not have 2 stage strikes for the first round pick and loser picks? Instead of having starter stages. Every stage is a counter pick stage. If you don't think so, you guys are the n00bs, skyflyer, greenstreet, soth. I've been here alot longer than all three of you combined.

...
Are you still talking? -_-

 

[CaliburChamp]

...
Are you still talking? -_-

Yes, because I believe in this idea very much. Tournament hosts don't have to allow a bunch of stages like on my list. Just get rid of starter stages and allow all stages to be counter pick stages, while giving your opponent a chance to strike ban 2 stages that you chose, allowing a fairer chance. I'm not going to give up on this idea.

 

[petrie911]

List C is my favorite. With the stage striking system, the starters can have a bit more variety, since you can strike any ones that are particularly bad for you/good for your opponent. I also think people are way too ban happy with stages. The banlist for C is perfectly good, except maybe for Port Town. And what's everyone's problem with GHZ again?

 

[Kikuichimonji]

List A seems too strict...and I can see a way where player A may get an early advantage against Player B. If Player B bans one neutral stage, and bans another neutral stage in order to force them onto their best stage (let's say FD), then it'd be totally unfair, cosidering the type of character and player they're facing. If there was a rule saying that they can only ban counter stages, then it'd still look stupid.

You should always ban your weakest/their strongest stage. You should have banned FD if you were B. Unless you're saying that player B has two weak stages.

 

[Deoxys]

lol, you're like the only person I ever see argueing for Skyworld.

A lot of other members aren't sure it should be banned, I'm just the only one who's pretty sure it shouldn't be. It did pretty well when the SBR voted on it, for what it's worth.

Hylian, I wouldn't mind the C list. The only problem I have with it, is that your always going to be playing on a starter map. Why not have 2 stage strikes for the first round pick and loser picks? Instead of having starter stages. Every stage is a counter pick stage. If you don't think so, you guys are the n00bs, skyflyer, greenstreet, soth. I've been here alot longer than all three of you combined.

What is this guy talking about? I don't follow... Also, it's clunky to have an excess of starters to have to strike.

what's everyone's problem with GHZ again?

A grab against someone who can CG you = a stock almost anywhere on the stage. Characters like DDD can camp really effectively when their grab = a stock.

 

[petrie911]

What is this guy talking about? I don't follow... Also, it's clunky to have an excess of starters to have to strike.


A grab against someone who can CG you = a stock almost anywhere on the stage. Characters like DDD can camp really effectively when their grab = a stock.

-He wants every stage to be considered for a starter...which really doesn't make sense. You can safely ignore it.

-Oh. I was under the impression that the slopes interfered with CGs. IIRC that was why Pipes is allowed.

As for the starter stages, you can speed up striking using the 1-2-2-1 method, or, if you really want things to go fast for the 9-starter list, 2-4-2. They're still fair, and, in fact, with 7 starters 1-2-2-1 is arguably more fair than just alternating, but they go faster.

 

[Oracle]

Super conservative ftw!

 

[Kikuichimonji]

As for the starter stages, you can speed up striking using the 1-2-2-1 method, or, if you really want things to go fast for the 9-starter list, 2-4-2. They're still fair, and, in fact, with 7 starters 1-2-2-1 is arguably more fair than just alternating, but they go faster.

Why would these be faster or more fair than alternating? I don't follow your logic.

Person A has a matchup-specific list of stages in his head he wants to strike, from most to least. Person A strikes their worst stage. Person B does the same. In fact, I would argue that if both players knew the matchup, it wouldn't matter at all for fairness who chose in what order, since picking a stage is a zero-sum game (an enemy disadvantage is an advantage for you).