We need to revisit why FLSS is no longer being pushed-

[Tobi_Whatever]

No, walkoffs make it so easy.

Well, I got #burned.
I still believe that FLSS provides a more fair average stage selection, even if this situation would ended up killing me.

 

[DavemanCozy]

But this is the point of your OP and this whole thread right ? All of this is based on empirical observation and if my arbitrary conclusion wasn't right then this discussion wouldn't exist in the first place.
But those are your own beliefs. The competitive viability of a stage is dependant on the players' criterias for what an ideal competitive scenario is and thus many stages from a 9-13 stagelist are unpopular. A very large stagelist may find a niche of players that like diversity, but it will never appeal to the majority.

@ Tobi_Whatever & @ DavemanCozy : don't worry we just have to ban sheik, smashville and diddy kong, easy. Problem solved :^)

We should actually think about playing coin mode. The melee community obviously didn't give it a chance, and no one has given it a chance to flourish as the true competitive meta. We could even make a funny 4chan meme out of it and call it Coin Mode, Wario only with Castle Siege as the only stage.

 

[Pazx]

Reporting back after this:

I've decided to change my ruleset to FLSS with 9 stages because I think I can deal with the only downside being it supposedly taking longer as it's both more intuitive for newer players (I've seen this first hand) and likely makes for more balanced "game one"s. It undoubtedly promotes stage diversity too if people aren't lazy. Will report back after trialing it and seeing what people think.

Edit: FWIW I didn't really care for FLSS before this but I thought it was worth trying.

So we've had 2 events with 9 stage FLSS now and I honestly think it sucked simply because Delfino is a garbage stage that doesn't belong in any stage list with fewer than 12 total stages. Halberd is pretty meh too, probably just outside the top 10 if we rank stages from most to least deserving of a place in a stagelist. Literally the only thing these two stages have over the other candidates is popularity, probably largely due to familiarity (Brawl + being legal a lot of the time).

FLSS itself was okay, I still saw a lot of matches starting on SV/T&C and overall to a lot of people it felt like a slower way to get to the same stage. For me, personally, I started on Smashville more than I ever did with 5 starters. I think there was a few instances of people striking to DL64/Duck Hunt and I saw Halberd get picked for game 1 one time. I've now switched to 7 starters (striking 2-3-1, is this the optimal strike pattern and is it better than 5 starters 1-2-1?) and 2 counterpicks, but the counterpick bit is subject to change.

I think 13 stage FLSS is fine and I think 9 (or 11) stage FLSS can work if you pick the correct stages. IMO the best combination for stages 8 and 9 would be Halberd + Kongo (small and large blast zones) or some combination of Skyloft, Castle Siege and Wuhu Island.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

We're likely going to run seven stages for full striking from here on out as opposed to the starter/counterpick distinction we tried at our last monthly with ten stages (five starters, five counterpicks). Halberd, Castle Siege, and Delfino are becoming increasingly less used in Michigan, and the general unpopularity with those stages in particular and not to mention not wanting to get janked out is making us see that there really is no point in having them around anymore.

I'm pushing for 2-3-1 stage striking for our weekly tournament series because I want to see this in practice compared to 1-2-2-1.

As an aside, those who say Sheik's best stage is Smashville...I don't fully agree with that. Sheik loves room to move around, and in my particular case as a Luigi, with mobility and no options to deal with projectiles, I outright strike Final Destination and Duck Hunt when I win because I know as a player that my best shot as Luigi is to not have flat stages that hinder him that greatly. On Battlefield platforms give him coverage to at least avoid some needle attempts and the base stage is cramped enough to my advantage to hone in on her by approaching with fox trots, powershields, and not over committing. Smashfield isn't the greatest for me but not impossible by any means and neither is Town & City for mobility and the potential of being timed out, but I'd rather at least strike the worst offenders if I want an even remotely close shot at winning.

Where did the idea that Sheik's best stage was Smashville even come from? She can string forward airs on any stage, and Smashville is no different. Is it because people get faired to death for sitting on the edge of the moving platform closest to the platform?

 

[Ajimi]

I've now switched to 7 starters […] and 2 counterpicks, but the counterpick bit is subject to change.

I honestly think the S/CP logic is more flawed than whatever stages are allowed inside it. If you think Delfino is garbage, it is garbage at full time. Personally I'd rather ban it entirely rather than put it in a CP list. Thanks for your input though, it was interesting.

IMO the best combination for stages 8 and 9 would be Halberd + Kongo (small and large blast zones)

Slight off-topic, but what do you think about 64 Peach's Castle ? It is controversial, but less than Halberd (I think ?). Also maybe it can promote vertical KOs (the ramps discourage horizontal KOs + the ceiling is pretty low when on the bridge), when Kongo discourages them ?

(striking 2-3-1, is this the optimal strike pattern and is it better than 5 starters 1-2-1?)

I'm pushing for 2-3-1 stage striking for our weekly tournament series because I want to see this in practice compared to 1-2-2-1.

I think this is a very interesting subject for 7 stages FLSS, but didn't get much answers in the stage legality thread.

1-2-2-1 is visually nice but hasn't the "strike first and last" rule (advantages player 2).
2-3-1 also seems nice, but aren't the first two strikes the weakest of the lot ? P2 as an advantage over P1 ?
1-3-2 same thing in reverse, P1 gets to choose from three remaining stages, which is a great advantage.
1-1-1-2-1 and 1-2-1-1-1 both seem fairer, but are "ugly" and not very handy to memorize.

 

[Pazx]

I honestly think the S/CP logic is more flawed than whatever stages are allowed inside it. If you think Delfino is garbage, it is garbage at full time. Personally I'd rather ban it entirely rather than put it in a CP list. Thanks for your input though, it was interesting.


Slight off-topic, but what do you think about 64 Peach's Castle ? It is controversial, but less than Halberd (I think ?). Also maybe it can promote vertical KOs (the ramps discourage horizontal KOs + the ceiling is pretty low when on the bridge), when Kongo discourages them ?



I think this is a very interesting subject for 7 stages FLSS, but didn't get much answers in the stage legality thread.

1-2-2-1 is visually nice but hasn't the "strike first and last" rule (advantages player 2).
2-3-1 also seems nice, but aren't the first two strikes the weakest of the lot ? P2 as an advantage over P1 ?
1-3-2 same thing in reverse, P1 gets to choose from three remaining stages, which is a great advantage.
1-1-1-2-1 and 1-2-1-1-1 both seem fairer, but are "ugly" and not very handy to memorize.

I agree with your first bit, I don't believe Delfino (and Halberd to a lesser extent) belong on a stagelist as counterpicks or starters (in FLSS) unless the stagelist is rather large. I don't own Peach's Castle though so I can't comment there.

In regards to striking, I always spend a very very long time thinking about whether it's optimal to strike first or second. With 2-3-1 striking I genuinely can't decide which is stronger. Unless you know absolutely nothing about the opponent and their character then going first is a completely valid option. It's honestly easier for me to make a decision with 5 or 9 stages (I prefer going first in both instances as I think the very first strike isn't particularly weak if you can work out just one of the stages your opponent likes more than you).

 

[Ajimi]

As I understand it, the firsts strikes are weaker because you use them to remove stages that your opponent may have removed instead of you if he striked earlier. So you may have used them better another way, but you couldn't know it at the time (because you were first), so the strikes are weaker. With 2-3-1 P1 has the two weakest strikes, when P2 can remove three at once (which is a lot) after that. Also same reason why the last strike is the strongest, because the less stages there is the more powerful each strike becomes (and vice-versa). Maybe I'm misleading though.

 

[Pazx]

As I understand it, the firsts strikes are weaker because you use them to remove stages that your opponent may have removed instead of you if he striked earlier. So you may have used them better another way, but you couldn't know it at the time (because you were first), so the strikes are weaker. With 2-3-1 P1 has the two weakest strikes, when P2 can remove three at once (which is a lot) after that. Also same reason why the last strike is the strongest, because the less stages there is the more powerful each strike becomes (and vice-versa). Maybe I'm misleading though.

I understand the premise, I'm arguing that 2-3-1 is actually more balanced than 1-2-1, which IMO favours the first person to strike (as the last strike is stronger than the first strike is weak).

 

[RIP|Merrick]

I gave 2-3-1 a try at a tournament I hosted. After a few matches people were accustomed to it very fast and even heard some say they preferred it over 1-2-2-1. Thanks!

 

[[Deuce]]

But this is the point of your OP and this whole thread right ? All of this is based on empirical observation and if my arbitrary conclusion wasn't right then this discussion wouldn't exist in the first place.

Its not right. We're having this discussion because of exactly the flaws in your point. Top players with bias have too much swing with the TOs. A bunch of whining to further their particular agenda and boom another piece of legitimate ruleset ignored when it poses no problems, and is a more legitimate mode of operation for competition.

But those are your own beliefs. The competitive viability of a stage is dependant on the players' criterias for what an ideal competitive scenario is and thus many stages from a 9-13 stagelist are unpopular. A very large stagelist may find a niche of players that like diversity, but it will never appeal to the majority.

Honestly that's your opinion as well.

 

[[Deuce]]

I understand the premise, I'm arguing that 2-3-1 is actually more balanced than 1-2-1, which IMO favours the first person to strike (as the last strike is stronger than the first strike is weak).

2-3-1 is quite interesting, although I much prefer 9 stage lists.

 

[Ajimi]

Pazx RIP|Merrick
Sorry to bring up the subject again, but I was recently arguing about 2-3-1 striking (7 stages) with someone : for him, this method is "really really bad" because it heavily favors J2. Striking 3 stages in a row gives J2 "too much control" over stage selection, because it's "more than half of the remaining stages".

It kiiiind of makes sense I guess, but at the same time striking more stages in a row without knowing what your opponent think is also risky. There was a bit more discussion, but it ended on that point. I do not know how or what answer to him, even if I do not agree with him.

 

[Pazx]

Pazx RIP|Merrick
Sorry to bring up the subject again, but I was recently arguing about 2-3-1 striking (7 stages) with someone : for him, this method is "really really bad" because it heavily favors J2. Striking 3 stages in a row gives J2 "too much control" over stage selection, because it's "more than half of the remaining stages".

It kiiiind of makes sense I guess, but at the same time striking more stages in a row without knowing what your opponent think is also risky. There was a bit more discussion, but it ended on that point. I do not know how or what answer to him, even if I do not agree with him.

I don't really know if that's valid criticism. In fact, I haven't really heard any valid criticism of 2-3-1 or 7 stage striking in general. The second-last strike always leaves your opponent with 2 stages to choose from, any striking order that ends in X-2-1 has the second last strike being exactly half of the remaining stages so I'm not entirely sure why striking more than half of the remaining stages is an issue. Each player strikes the same number of stages, and it's been designed that neither player has all of the strong strikes or all of the weak strikes.

If people don't like it that's fair enough I guess, not a lot to be done.

1-2-1-1-1 and 1-1-1-2-1 are options, but even between the two of them they slightly favour one player over the other.

 

[Cheap Shot]

I have a question regarding FLSS. Say you're using a 9 stage FLSS system; when the loser goes to counterpick a stage, how many bans would the winner receive? 2 or 3?

 

[Pazx]

I have a question regarding FLSS. Say you're using a 9 stage FLSS system; when the loser goes to counterpick a stage, how many bans would the winner receive? 2 or 3?

Either 1 or 2, more commonly 2. This isn't a question specific to FLSS, though.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

Pazx RIP|Merrick
Sorry to bring up the subject again, but I was recently arguing about 2-3-1 striking (7 stages) with someone : for him, this method is "really really bad" because it heavily favors J2. Striking 3 stages in a row gives J2 "too much control" over stage selection, because it's "more than half of the remaining stages".

It kiiiind of makes sense I guess, but at the same time striking more stages in a row without knowing what your opponent think is also risky. There was a bit more discussion, but it ended on that point. I do not know how or what answer to him, even if I do not agree with him.

I think 2-3-1 for seven stages is tried and true and just works. Wasting needless amounts of time only striking 1 stage per person doesn't make sense to me when the optimum procedure is there, and it's been shown over time how muddy things can get over a slow process like 1-1-1-2-1, not to mention the impractically of the way its setup.

I guess to argue his point on "not knowing what your opponent thinks is risky", at this point I would hope being someone who has labbed up their main for months to a year now that they would know the general stages your character prefers versus not so much. Like I don't care who you are, but I refuse to face a Sheik on a flat stage or with high camping tendencies such as the likes of Final Destination and Duck Hunt as Luigi. Plus it's not like drawing out the stage striking process is going to make knowing what your opponent is thinking for a stage choice any more easy. All it does in my experience is arbitrarily lengthen what should be a fairly quick process.

It's cool your friend disagrees, but in my experience in some bad tournaments with the likes of 1-1-2-1-1-2-1 (for at the time nine stage stage lists) being the stage striking order, it's just muddy. It's just more logical sense to get them all done in the least amount of back and forthing as possible.