PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Every static stage should either be starter* or banned.
Either the stage is a fair test or it isn't. If there is character imbalance on one or more of the stages put in the game, (i.e., which we keep in the game; they don't do anything we HAVE to remove them completely for,) then that's how the game is.
Only something which makes the stage anti-competitive, I say because of that condition "static," could remove the 'presumption of fairness' which game elements are given in the Competitive Method. But such a case would have to go the whole nine yard and put the stage into banned. Either the scenario is fair or it isn't.
So, corollary: Final Destination is a starter, and sadly for people who hate ICs (me included), it must stay there. (Until such time as it might be shown ICs or some other character break the stage fully.)
To start putting even static stages out of basic stage status because of how our theory thinks matchups go, in the "bad to deny as Even, but not silly bad" range, is too volatile. It damages Smash as among its Fighter peers.
I want to further say that every stage which changes only on a precise, and completely scripted schedule, should either be starter or banned. (Static stages would count as particulars of this.)
They are, every bit as static stages, completely predictable, studiable (not a word?), knowable, and this means everything that happens there, a player can, through prior practice, be fully prepared for.
Stages which, rather, change on a precise schedule, but with points of random choice (basically, Pictochat) fall outside this, as a person cannot reasonably exhaust study of how the stage will play out. That is the principle I defend this by; that I think the set of all the stages, which a player can study exhaustively on their time, in reasonable time, in completion, are basic parts of the game and the set procedure should give them the highest regard.
*clarification
I say nothing about a stage like Pictochat. Understand that the above is not to say that any other stage necessarily must not be starter; I'm confident Yoshi's Island deserves starter, and actually all I'd have to do is drop the "schedule" condition to get it in there too, but I don't want to claim so much just now.
I do say that Delfino should be a basic stage, or banned. And the above is my reasoning.
This position does, I notice, commit me to Jungle Japes being starter or banned. This is only a problem between me and (some subset of) people who think Japes lopsides some character matchups. Well, if my principle has merit, I think the conclusion there would be that Japes has to be banned to stop that overcentralizing. But I would say Japes does not have overcentralization to the degree that needs banning, unless someone showed me that it really is overcentralizing, in which case, I'd say it should be banned, and would plead an objector to my position for why the facts mean the stage should be moved out of starter legitimacy to a middle ground.
I haven't seen a lot of upset about MLG having Japes banned. Maybe I'm out of date and Japes is already out of CP for people anyway? Such a one as mine might be comfort for those unsatisfied for lack of a 'hard line' against the stage.
In any case, the above principle is a hard line in both directions - IN (for all), or OUT (entirely) - which I think makes it (the argument for it) stronger. It speaks to absolutes, which we like to believe exist.
*~*~*~
I really think the notion of "X most fair stages" for our starter lineup needs to be poofed like so much smoke it is. I'm confident any talk of "fair to characters, overall", "fair to matchups, in a broad view", can have the nonsense in that language revealed through dialogue. If I see anyone making the definitions, I will respond.
Either the stage is a fair test or it isn't. If there is character imbalance on one or more of the stages put in the game, (i.e., which we keep in the game; they don't do anything we HAVE to remove them completely for,) then that's how the game is.
Only something which makes the stage anti-competitive, I say because of that condition "static," could remove the 'presumption of fairness' which game elements are given in the Competitive Method. But such a case would have to go the whole nine yard and put the stage into banned. Either the scenario is fair or it isn't.
So, corollary: Final Destination is a starter, and sadly for people who hate ICs (me included), it must stay there. (Until such time as it might be shown ICs or some other character break the stage fully.)
To start putting even static stages out of basic stage status because of how our theory thinks matchups go, in the "bad to deny as Even, but not silly bad" range, is too volatile. It damages Smash as among its Fighter peers.
I want to further say that every stage which changes only on a precise, and completely scripted schedule, should either be starter or banned. (Static stages would count as particulars of this.)
They are, every bit as static stages, completely predictable, studiable (not a word?), knowable, and this means everything that happens there, a player can, through prior practice, be fully prepared for.
Stages which, rather, change on a precise schedule, but with points of random choice (basically, Pictochat) fall outside this, as a person cannot reasonably exhaust study of how the stage will play out. That is the principle I defend this by; that I think the set of all the stages, which a player can study exhaustively on their time, in reasonable time, in completion, are basic parts of the game and the set procedure should give them the highest regard.
*clarification
: Actually, by 'starter' I don't mean 'starter' in the sense of our current ruleset; but rather, if there were some ruleset with some set procedure for stages, whichever category is the "primary" one of stages, the one with the most freedom for players to use and force to be used, is what I mean. Since that condition would probably include "this stage can be played in a game 1", 'starter' seems a good term, but I don't necessarily agree with striking as it is, the CP ban system, etc.
I say nothing about a stage like Pictochat. Understand that the above is not to say that any other stage necessarily must not be starter; I'm confident Yoshi's Island deserves starter, and actually all I'd have to do is drop the "schedule" condition to get it in there too, but I don't want to claim so much just now.
I do say that Delfino should be a basic stage, or banned. And the above is my reasoning.
This position does, I notice, commit me to Jungle Japes being starter or banned. This is only a problem between me and (some subset of) people who think Japes lopsides some character matchups. Well, if my principle has merit, I think the conclusion there would be that Japes has to be banned to stop that overcentralizing. But I would say Japes does not have overcentralization to the degree that needs banning, unless someone showed me that it really is overcentralizing, in which case, I'd say it should be banned, and would plead an objector to my position for why the facts mean the stage should be moved out of starter legitimacy to a middle ground.
I haven't seen a lot of upset about MLG having Japes banned. Maybe I'm out of date and Japes is already out of CP for people anyway? Such a one as mine might be comfort for those unsatisfied for lack of a 'hard line' against the stage.
In any case, the above principle is a hard line in both directions - IN (for all), or OUT (entirely) - which I think makes it (the argument for it) stronger. It speaks to absolutes, which we like to believe exist.
*~*~*~
I really think the notion of "X most fair stages" for our starter lineup needs to be poofed like so much smoke it is. I'm confident any talk of "fair to characters, overall", "fair to matchups, in a broad view", can have the nonsense in that language revealed through dialogue. If I see anyone making the definitions, I will respond.
