Why do we stage strike?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I guess my problem is, I don't really understand the purpose of stage striking. I didn't get it in Brawl, and I don't get it in Smash 4. What purpose does it serve? Why do we do it?

If the purpose of the first round is to provide "even ground", it sort of makes sense - after all, if you strike from a large list, you'll end up at a stage that doesn't significantly advantage either character unless the entire list is biased to significantly advantage that character (in which case there's a pretty obvious case to be made that that character is stronger in the matchup than previously assumed, and our perceptions of which stages are more or less advantageous should be "adjusted" accordingly).

However, if the purpose of the first round is to provide "simple ground" - a straightforward stage that does very little to influence player interaction, has no moving parts, and generally is what most people would consider "starter", what's the point of striking? Seriously, what is it? We've said right off the bat that we don't particularly care about character balance and a character's ability to adopt to a stage in the first round by limiting the list like this. We just want flat+plat with no distractions. So why strike? What point does it serve? By this philosophy, it seems to me that "starter" stages are essentially interchangable. Why not just randomly pick FD, SV, or BF?

And furthermore, if that's the purpose of the first round, there's the implicit assumption that these stages are somehow "more fair". "More competitive". If that's the case, why do we ever play on anything else? Why allow a stage like, say, Castle Siege if we admit right off the bat that it's significantly less competitive than FD, SV, or BF? Why have counterpicks in the first place if all they do is reduce competition? Why allow them if we don't care about a character's ability to adapt to different environments?





...Of course, the point I'm bumblingly and unsubtly trying to make is that this is wrong. Castle Siege is not "less competitive" than Final Destination or Smashville by any reasonable metric. Neither is Delfino, or Wuhu, or Pokemon Stadium 2. And we shouldn't segregate the first round like that. The entire reason stage striking in the first round makes any sense is because we are looking for "even" terrain - the field that is most balanced for the matchup. Sometimes, this isn't FD or SV - sometimes, a player can strike Battlefield and have one of the two best stages for their matchup. This should be a major red flag.

What we should be doing is striking from the full list. Eliminating the counterpick-starter distinction and allowing the first round to start on a stage which is actually neutral in the matchup, rather than artificially forcing it to a stage which may be a top counterpick for one of the parties involved. Remember, the worst case in striking with x stages is that your opponent gets his ((x+1)/2)th-best stage. With 3 stages, he might get his second-best stage. 13, he gets his 7th-best.

Now, I realize time constraints may be an issue. However, having run an event with 9 starter stages (and counterpicks which were very non-standard for the region), I've found that this really was not as big of an issue as people might think. But the important point here is that the larger your starter list, and the more varied, the better. The point is to avoid situations where, for a matchup with character X and character Y, the relative advantage looks like this:

Starter:
- Stage 1 (advantage ++ X)
- Stage 2 (advantage +++ X)
- Stage 3 (adantage ++++ X)
Counterpick:
-CStage 1 (Advantage +X)
-CStage 2 (Advantage -)
-CStage 3 (Advantage +Y)
-CStage 4 (Advantage ++Y)
-CStage 5 (Advantage +++Y)
-CStage 6 (Advantage ++++Y)
...Because you're handing character X a massive, unwarranted advantage in the first game - effectively giving him two counterpicks instead of one. This was unpalatable in Brawl, because the most powerful character in that game would have gained a lot from that system change, but in Sm4sh this is no longer the case.

TL;DR: SV/BF/FD starter lists are bad, and how good a starter list is goes up linearly with the number of stages on it.



RELEVANT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQH_LUdkfkY

I've seen a lot of misconceptions from new players about how our rulesets are created and why we have things the way they are, so I thought I'd put together a few history lessons. This is the first one.

If there's something you're curious about when it comes to rulesets, let me know in this thread and I might just make a video to clarify it. I wrote the language for most of the rules you guys use in your tournaments (yes, even Melee) so I have a pretty good idea where they came from!

http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2vhdje/why_we_use_stage_striking_an_informative_video/

 

[Pazx]

1. Yes
2. I've decided I like you a lot
3. I think this sort of discussion should probably be centralized here (however I'm always happy to see people noting the problems with our typical stage lists): http://smashboards.com/threads/stag...tages-my-easy-solution-to-stage-rules.382601/

 

[Raijinken]

Oh look more stage analysis I agree with!

At one point I'd tried addressing the "takes time" issue by clustering stages and banning by groups.

For instance, if you strike the Static group, you take out Battlefield, FD, and for example's sake I'll use Stadium2 PM which doesn't transform.
Striking the Dynamic Plat group would strike Smashville, Town&City, and again for example, Norfair PM, which has two moving platforms.
The list can go on and on, with s+1 categories resulting in s strikes made.

After that, either random from the remainders, or strike within the group. If you have five categories and five stages per category, you still have to only make two strikes per player to reach a stage.

On the positive side, that keeps the striking time growth unaffected by number of stages (only affected by number of categories). Players strike ban out a swath of unfavorable terrain in a single stroke.

The biggest downside that I can see is that it's not necessarily true that a character would dislike all stages in a category. Though a positive outcome of that would be that if, say, a group had a character's best AND worst stage for a matchup, then the player can at their discretion knock out that group, which would (depending on a lot of other factors) instantly reduce the potential disparity in stage favor (from a range of max-min to a range of (max-1)-(min+1), if you assume the remaining stage was completely neutral yet stricken.

 

[T0MMY]

I guess my problem is, I don't really understand the purpose of stage striking.

It provides a clear Stage the players may make an oath to use ("agree to").
Ultimately the competitors must agree to a Stage for competition to commence/conclude (insofaras software's end).

If the purpose of the first round is to provide "even ground", it sort of makes sense

Hard to say if it makes sense since you just quoted "even ground" without a previous definition. Not sure what source you were quoting there, so no sensible analysis can be reasonably made.

if you strike from a large list, you'll end up at a stage that doesn't significantly advantage either character

I don't see reason backing this up.
Would you rather I were to just believe a subjective "large list" statement? Hm... might remain skeptical here.

unless the entire list is biased to significantly advantage that character (in which case there's a pretty obvious case to be made that that character is stronger in the matchup than previously assumed, and our perceptions of which stages are more or less advantageous should be "adjusted" accordingly)

This would require a proof in regards to advantage to "that character" and reason why competitively viable stages should be "adjusted" (those quotes again) to attempt to balance a game when a competitive game should be balanced enough already.

However, if the purpose of the first round is to provide "simple ground" - a straightforward stage that does very little to influence player interaction, has no moving parts, and generally is what most people would consider "starter", what's the point of striking?

It appears that you define "simple ground" here with the use of the hyphen (liking that hyphen).
And I agree with a rhetorical question "why strike then?", but there probably is a rhetorical answer to that rhetorical question.
See below.

We've said right off the bat that we don't particularly care about character balance and a character's ability to adopt to a stage in the first round by limiting the list like this. We just want flat+plat with no distractions. So why strike? What point does it serve? By this philosophy, it seems to me that "starter" stages are essentially interchangable. Why not just randomly pick FD, SV, or BF?

Good questions, but just because those questions remained unanswered to you does not mean that the lack of evidence is reason to prove the proposition that striking is not viable. That would be an appeal to ignorance.

Spoiler

I'll give you a few solid reasons why striking would be valuable to the players still:
Stages still have an affect on competition, even if they are minor ones they may still be enough to determine a winner.
Players may have personal strengths on Stages.

And furthermore, if that's the purpose of the first round, there's the implicit assumption that these stages are somehow "more fair". "More competitive". If that's the case, why do we ever play on anything else?

The reasoning shows competitive players should use competitive Stages. So, yeah, that's why we see this happen naturally in a competitive environment. If there is a problem, it is most likely found with someone not wanting to play competitively with competitive players in a competitive environment.

Why allow them if we don't care about a character's ability to adapt to different environments?

Characters don't adapt to environments, players do.

...Of course, the point I'm bumblingly and unsubtly trying to make is that this is wrong.

I'll await the reasoning needed to support that claim.

Castle Siege is not "less competitive" than Final Destination or Smashville by any reasonable metric. Neither is Delfino, or Wuhu, or Pokemon Stadium 2.

So they are "less competitive" because of other reasons?
/rhetorical question <= I can learns it

And we shouldn't segregate the first round like that.

Seeing as only one Stage can be used at a time via software it'll have to be segregated somehow. And I would also suggest not using a word that implies racism (i.e. segregate).
Otherwise I'm awaiting reasoning.

The entire reason stage striking in the first round makes any sense is because we are looking for "even" terrain - the field that is most balanced for the matchup.

May not be the case.
Your "simple ground" is a stronger argument seeing as it was well defined and didn't run into a logical mess. So I'd suggest going with that until a stronger argument is made to update it.

Sometimes, this isn't FD or SV - sometimes, a player can strike Battlefield and have one of the two best stages for their matchup. This should be a major red flag.

No, because a player still would have the ability to choose a different character when they see their opponent may have an advantage if the strike goes that route. See spoiler

Spoiler

If striking is used where my opponent is going to be determining the choice between Battlefield or Duck Hunt (these stages were chosen so obvious point can be made obvious) then I am a fool to choose Little Mac if my opponent is maining someone like Diddy Kong, Mii Brawler, or another character with a strong upwards striking attack (there's a lot of them).

What we should be doing is striking from the full list.

Let's pause a moment before making a conclusion prior to finding the clues that lead us to a conclusion.
I just walked with you through your path of reason. In doing so we found:
1) Striking clarifies which Stage the players should be agreeable to use (this shows it is viable to use).
2) No reason was given that a "large list" doesn't advantage either character (it was claimed, but not backed up, see above).
3) "Simple ground" was not reduced to an unreasonable proposition nor does it appear to violate competitive principles.
4) The claim that "even ground" is "wrong" had no evidence backing it up, so cannot be logically entertained.
5) Therefore it is standing right now that "simple ground" is stronger than "even ground".
6) Competition stresses rewarding Player Skill (via Competitive Principles). Character matchup does not determine competitive viability.

These are the points I hit while following you so far. Quite a path you cut already, but ready to proceed!

Eliminating the counterpick-starter distinction and allowing the first round to start on a stage which is actually neutral in the matchup, rather than artificially forcing it to a stage which may be a top counterpick for one of the parties involved.

If that is your solution, then please define what is "actually neutral" (interested both the definition of "neutral" and also what qualifies "actually").

Remember, the worst case in striking with x stages is that your opponent gets his ((x+1)/2)th-best stage. With 3 stages, he might get his second-best stage. 13, he gets his 7th-best.

Yeah, pizza topping dilema. Nobody ends up completely ok with the contrived result begets. 7th best is nth most disliked.

I've found that this really was not as big of an issue as people might think.

Subjectivity does not belong in rulesets.
People who have a contrary opinion would find this reasoning worthless. The best you can hope for is preaching to the choir - coincidentally look what happens when people do this. All the supporters ring in and yet nothing is changed. Why? Because there's many more who have contrary opinions and simply having contrary opinion is not enough power to sway their beliefs. What sways beliefs is something "heavier", so whoever anchors their arguments to a solid logical foundation then gains a lot of swaying power and that's when change happens.

But the important point here is that the larger your starter list, and the more varied, the better.

"Better" is subjective.
Yes, more can mean more varied, but does not entail "better".
Rock/Paper/Scissors with more options means more varied but does not mean it is "better" competitively.

TL;DR: SV/BF/FD starter lists are bad, and how good a starter list is goes up linearly with the number of stages on it.

TL;DR: A claim of "I'm right, you're wrong" is like every other groundless claim - not anchored to logical reasoning, just fluffy opinion, so it doesn't have much power to sway belief. Hard evidence which lead to proofs lead to changing beliefs and building from a foundation for progress to be made.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What a coincidence, I was just browsing my old PS2 thread on AiB. Look who decided to show up. Hello, old friend.

One thing to say right off the bat: when I refer to "player" in terms of stage selection, I'm referring to a hypothetical player whose stage preferences are entirely in line with what benefits their chosen character. For example, a german Metaknight main might CP those ICs to SV just out of personal preference, but this hypothetical player would aim for Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, or Frigate.

Additionally, I am using as an important premise that a character's ability to adapt to different environments is an important part of what constitutes a "good" character. It is not something that can be ignored. If a character instantly falls apart the moment the stage shifts or changes or a platform is introduced, we must consider that an intrinsic weakness of the character. This is such a fundamental part of the mechanics of smash that I don't think anyone can reasonably reject it.


I'm going to have to mix up the order of some of your post here for convenience's sake, just a quick disclaimer.

Hard to say if it makes sense since you just quoted "even ground" without a previous definition. Not sure what source you were quoting there, so no sensible analysis can be reasonably made.

Even ground: ground where neither player (and by extension because of the paradigm of "mains" their character) sees a significant supplement or detriment to their abilities relative to the other stages. For example, we can obviously agree than in the ICs/MK matchup in Brawl, Rainbow Cruise was not even ground; and thus ICs mains taken there in game one saw a significant detriment to their abilities. But what's our point of comparison? The answer should be "the other stages" - there's no dictate from on high that says that SV is the benchmark we should go by, and there's no real reason to see it as such.

If that is your solution, then please define what is "actually neutral" (interested both the definition of "neutral" and also what qualifies "actually").

A neutral stage is a stage which best represents the mean spread of the matchup over all competitively viable stages. That is, the stage where neither player gets a significant advantage relative to the mean over all stages. This is based on the above-mentioned ability to adapt as a factor in the matchup and directly follows as a result - if a stage is competitively viable, it needs to be considered for this; if it is not, then it needs to be removed from the stagelist.

This would require a proof in regards to advantage to "that character" and reason why competitively viable stages should be "adjusted" (those quotes again) to attempt to balance a game when a competitive game should be balanced enough already.

Ah, see, this is the trick - the reason I use scare quotes there is because the real "adjustment" is considering the matchup only on those handful of very similar stages, or straight-up not caring about a character's ability to perform on different environments. This is ridiculous - it's like if, in Tekken, we only ever played on infinite stages and said we just don't care what the character is capable of when it comes to walls. Because the stage is such a built-in part of the game, it's absolutely reasonable to consider "can a character play effectively on multiple environments". What isn't reasonable is to look at, say, Little Mac only in how he acts on omega stages and ignore everything else.

The reasoning shows competitive players should use competitive Stages. So, yeah, that's why we see this happen naturally in a competitive environment. If there is a problem, it is most likely found with someone not wanting to play competitively with competitive players in a competitive environment.

Right, now here's where this reasoning falls apart: I see almost no tournaments running FD/SV/BF as the only stages, but I see them making the hidden assumption that those are the most competitive stages by a significant margin, that they are the things we should measure by.

My whole argument, once you strip away the justifications, basically boils down to this:
1. Tournaments running FD/SV/BF as starters are assuming that these stages are considerably more competitive than other stages in the list
2. However, if that is the case, then those other stages should be removed
3. We don't remove them, because we understand the loss it would be to competition
4. Ergo, we should not treat those stages as "special"
5. Ergo, the sole reasoning available for small starter lists falls apart

So they are "less competitive" because of other reasons?
/rhetorical question <= I can learns it

If they are less competitive to a degree that makes a difference, then they shouldn't be on the stagelist at all. That's the logic here. That these stages are not significantly unequal with regards to competitiveness, and that therefore holding up certain stages over all others on the basis of "competitiveness" is unreasonable. FWIW, I consider pretty much every stage recommended by Amazing Ampharos (he's got a list of 13 or so), plus one or two others to be of "equal competitive value". Yes, I consider Skyloft to be of equal competitive value to Smashville. Come at me, bro.

I don't see reason backing this up. [Large lists lead to stages that advantage no-one]
Would you rather I were to just believe a subjective "large list" statement? Hm... might remain skeptical here.

The reasoning is fairly simple, and described at the bottom of the post - if your starter set contains all the best stages in a matchup for one character, you have handed that character one of his best stages relative to the list. You cannot reasonably compare it otherwise. Every single stage has advantages and disadvantages for certain character types, even a stage that does nothing but sit there and be flat (it provides a significant advantage to characters who thrive on grabs and who have lousy aerials, such as ICs and Little Mac). You cannot separate the fight from the stage it takes place on.

Now here's the trick: in the ICs/MK matchup, FD/SV/BF hands ICs their three best stages as starters - the MK gets to pick "Do I fight them on their best stage or their second-best stage". Strike from the whole list, and you might say "oh, the ICs are disadvantaged" - but what stage did they get? Their worst stage? Nah, they struck that one. Did they get their second-worst stage? Nah, they struck that one? Their third-worst? Only if the stage list only has 5 stages, in which case the MK also got their third-worst stage. How can you reasonably call that "disadvantage"? The only way we can justify that is by comparing relative to certain hand-picked stages. But then we have to justify that decision, and so far, I haven't seen any such justification short of "these stages are more competitive". Well great - so why even play the others?

(The assumption I'm making here is, of course, that every stage we allow on the stage list is very similarly competitively viable - but if that assumption is wrong, the correct move is to start banning stages that aren't competitively viable.)

Yeah, pizza topping dilema. Nobody ends up completely ok with the contrived result begets. 7th best is nth most disliked.

And that's the point. That's why it's neutral to the matchup. In reality, we can't always pick a stage that perfectly embodies the neutral of the matchup. It often doesn't exist. We're looking for the mean, it can only give us the median. However, with large stagelists like this one often without many stages that provide strong polarizing influences (certainly we have nothing in Sm4sh that compares to Rainbow Cruise in Brawl), we can reduce the likelihood of that happening. And as usual, any problem present with this in full list striking cannot be made better by reducing the stagelist - best case, you've gotten the median again; worst case, you've gotten a stage which does not embody the neutral in the matchup.


--

Stuff that's considerably less relevant to the main point:

Spoiler

No, because a player still would have the ability to choose a different character when they see their opponent may have an advantage if the strike goes that route. See spoiler

Spoiler

If striking is used where my opponent is going to be determining the choice between Battlefield or Duck Hunt (these stages were chosen so obvious point can be made obvious) then I am a fool to choose Little Mac if my opponent is maining someone like Diddy Kong, Mii Brawler, or another character with a strong upwards striking attack (there's a lot of them).

That is an option, I'll agree. It's just not one that fits in the paradigm that most players adhere to. Most players have one character or team at a high level. This is true over every fighting game (unless you're running a low tier with hard counters - you'd have to be an idiot to pick your T.Hawk against FilipinoChamp or your Bowser against CO18), over the entire line, for an assortment of reasons I'd rather not get into here.

It provides a clear Stage the players may make an oath to use ("agree to").
Ultimately the competitors must agree to a Stage for competition to commence/conclude (insofaras software's end).

Hardly. Random is still an option, and given the way we consider stages like FD and SV, hardly an unattractive option. I mean, they do that in Tekken and Soul Calibur, and the stages in those games are of fairly great meaning - the difference between a stage that's closed-in in Soul Calibur and a stage which is not is incredibly meaningful for characters like Nightmare and Astaroth (at least, in SC3 - I kind of stopped following the series, but I still know that there are some characters who have better ring outs and some characters who have better wall combos).

Characters don't adapt to environments, players do.

Yes, but your character (again: people tend to main one or two characters and we should, in stage analysis, reasonably consider players 'bound' to characters) says a lot about how you adapt. To bring up the prime example again (because Smash 4 doesn't, to my knowledge, have anything quite as blatant), if you are a Metaknight main in Brawl, you can adapt to virtually any environment. If you are an ICs main, you can still adapt, but your character is far more likely to suffer from environments that don't adhere to flat or flat+plat.

 

[Asdioh]

Let's pause a moment before making a conclusion prior to finding the clues that lead us to a conclusion.

Why do you insist on this? There is nothing wrong with stating the conclusion you come to and then giving the reasoning that leads you there. In fact, I think this method helps the reader. I, personally, don't know what the point of your post was, because it just seemed like you were in the mood to argue, so you took every paragraph from OP's post and made counterpoints. If you had started with your conclusion, or thesis if you will, I would have understood what I was reading, and why.


Also, don't we choose characters before stages? I'm a bit confused there.

 

[T0MMY]

Why do you insist on this? There is nothing wrong with stating the conclusion you come to and then giving the reasoning that leads you there.

Inductively starting with a conclusion and then fishing for answers to that conclusion is what defines being presumptuous. It may be that there is a possibility of it being innocuous, but I think it is more probable that one will end up being both bias (short-sited logically/closed-minded) and result in "grasping at straws".
I think I say it in my respose below that it isn't necessarily declared "wrong" to be a presumptious person who blindly grasps at straws, but there clearly is a stronger approach to reasoning through deductive logic.

Also, don't we choose characters before stages? I'm a bit confused there.

I'm unsure what rules are standard, but I have seen people back out from Stage Menu and change characters, which may result in a blind choice.

What a coincidence, I was just browsing my old PS2 thread on AiB. Look who decided to show up. Hello, old friend.

Oh, hi. I didn't notice the name of the who posted the content, so I gave a rather candid response.
Sorry Pokemon Stadium 2 didn't work out competitively. I honestly didn't care to see it not used by and large as it didn't offer much depth for the complications is produced.

One thing to say right off the bat: when I refer to "player" in terms of stage selection, I'm referring to a hypothetical player whose stage preferences are entirely in line with what benefits their chosen character.

Can't say I have ever seen that definition before. Usually a player is one which plays.
In competition we don't "play" so much as we "compete" and the word "player" is used as in-game reference since the software has ports for Player 1 (P1), Player 2 (P2), etc.
This is more widely accepted as a definition and I'd prefer to work with standard english words; any deviations should be clarified as quotation marks would communicate a source being quoted or the connotation of something sneaky going on.
The use of "player" appears to be a switcheroo definition, thus a sneaky attempt to waylay an argument with semantics. Not something I'm interested in pursuing as hypothetical players take back seat to real life people who actually compete in real tournaments.

Additionally, I am using as an important premise that a character's ability to adapt to different environments is an important part of what constitutes a "good" character.

Competitors adapt to environments, characters are simply images on a monitor and executed programs that have functions based on said competitor's inputs.
Just sayin'.

It is not something that can be ignored. If a character instantly falls apart the moment the stage shifts or changes or a platform is introduced, we must consider that an intrinsic weakness of the character. This is such a fundamental part of the mechanics of smash that I don't think anyone can reasonably reject it.

Falls apart? Zero Suit Samus has her armor fall apart immediately upon entering a round, and I think R.O.B. being assembled in the beginning suggests that he was once apart.
But your failure to understand how someone can reasonably reject such a notion is once again an appeal to ignorance and does not mean there is no reasonable contrary conclusion.

Even ground: ground where neither player (and by extension because of the paradigm of "mains" their character) sees a significant supplement or detriment to their abilities relative to the other stages.

One may be left wondering what this ground is you speak of, however I think this is at least workable for communication now. Thanks for defining that.
One issue at hand with that statement is the suggestion that a player's ability relies on stages. Ability, or skill, would include Stage knowledge for the matchups regarding their choice of character (character knowledge is an ability). So it appears like you would have that backwards, that a Stage is not a detriment to a player's (competitor's) ability but a competitor's ability is tested by the Stage competed in.

For example, we can obviously agree than in the ICs/MK matchup in Brawl, Rainbow Cruise was not even ground; and thus ICs mains taken there in game one saw a significant detriment to their abilities.

Although it is a possibility that we can agree, it still remains that it could be disagreed with. And with the issue of denial of consequence regarding competitor vs character, I'd say it's more likely a reasonable person would actually disagree with you.

But what's our point of comparison? The answer should be "the other stages" - there's no dictate from on high that says that SV is the benchmark we should go by, and there's no real reason to see it as such.

You seem to have built yourself a shabby looking strawman there. Denying that there is no god dictating which Stage should be used is not a valid argument.

A neutral stage is a stage which best represents the mean spread of the matchup over all competitively viable stages.

Subjectivity is not the basis for setting competitive rules. The concept of what is "best" is subjective. Therefore this definition of neutral stage should not be used in rules.

That is, the stage where neither player gets a significant advantage relative to the mean over all stages.

The way this can be interpreted is that in the case of a competitor who is by far better on a Stage than all other competitors then that Stage would not be considered useable for tournament.
Kind of absurd, I think.
I think in competitive terms when using competitive rules for competitions. One competitive principle is reward to skill. So a competitor who gains advantage from practical investment into skill should be rightly rewarded and entitled to declaration of "winner" if the results screen indicate.

Ah, see, this is the trick - the reason I use scare quotes there is because the real "adjustment" is considering the matchup only on those handful of very similar stages, or straight-up not caring about a character's ability to perform on different environments.

I'll repeat (and may not apply to you):

This would require a proof in regards to advantage to "that character" and reason why competitively viable stages should be "adjusted" to attempt to balance a game when a competitive game should be balanced enough already.​

If the game is competitive we can play it competitively. If it is not, we should move on to another game.
Will let the jury get back to that though.

Right, now here's where this reasoning falls apart: I see almost no tournaments running FD/SV/BF as the only stages, but I see them making the hidden assumption that those are the most competitive stages by a significant margin, that they are the things we should measure by.

Hidden reasons will probably be considered delusions unless you can make the hidden reasons obvious. One viable way of doing this is through reasoning in argument. So I'll see what you have next.

My whole argument, once you strip away the justifications, basically boils down to this:
1. Tournaments running FD/SV/BF as starters are assuming that these stages are considerably more competitive than other stages in the list
2. However, if that is the case, then those other stages should be removed
3. We don't remove them, because we understand the loss it would be to competition
4. Ergo, we should not treat those stages as "special"
5. Ergo, the sole reasoning available for small starter lists falls apart

1) Where do you get this?
2) Why?
3) Ok
4) Who is doing this and what is "special" (those quotes again).
5) This conclusion does not follow from the premises. And why two conclusions??

If they are less competitive to a degree that makes a difference, then they shouldn't be on the stagelist at all. That's the logic here. That these stages are not significantly unequal with regards to competitiveness, and that therefore holding up certain stages over all others on the basis of "competitiveness" is unreasonable.

Jumping around too much here. None of this makes sense without your core reasoning making sense.
Sorry, but will have to get back to what you are saying here after that is sorted.

FWIW, I consider pretty much every stage recommended by Amazing Ampharos (he's got a list of 13 or so), plus one or two others to be of "equal competitive value".

Why?

The reasoning is fairly simple, and described at the bottom of the post - if your starter set contains all the best stages in a matchup for one character, you have handed that character one of his best stages relative to the list.

This is a conditional statement. You'll have to show where the condition actually happens before it really matters.
Let me know what you find.

Now here's the trick: in the ICs/MK matchup... But then we have to justify that decision, and so far, I haven't seen any such justification short of "these stages are more competitive".

Maybe you should read my writings.
Again, just because you don't see (or don't want to see) the contrary argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I see a pattern here with argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Well great - so why even play the others?

By and large nobody does.
Like I said, if it is reasonably within competitive values and naturally happening I would think the only problem is someone not wanting to compete in a competitive environment with competitive players. If this is a case, offer something better and let the free market create a standard out of it.

(The assumption I'm making here is, of course, that every stage we allow on the stage list is very similarly competitively viable - but if that assumption is wrong, the correct move is to start banning stages that aren't competitively viable.)

Well put, just gotta follow the clues to a sound argument and enjoy.
But inductively starting with a conclusion and then forcing supporting premises is usually the more difficult and weaker approach to that. I'd suggest starting with fundmentals that are widely accepted as true and examine the evidence which leads to a solid conclusion.

And that's the point. That's why it's neutral to the matchup.

Therein lies a big potential of a problem as well.
Competitors who are happy to agree to play on a Stage like Final Destination or Smashville won't choose that process because they are MORE LIKELY to agree to what they see as a more competitive stage then end up on a lukewarm or disliked stage AT BEST.
This is also why people don't just sprinkle a pizza with their combined favorite toppings - a vegetarian is not going to be happy with that pepperoni all over their garlic and peppers even though they got rid of the sausage and bacon.

In reality, we can't always pick a stage that perfectly embodies the neutral of the matchup. It often doesn't exist.

Because "neutral" is subjective which is disaster in the making of both Stages and pizzas.
So I am wondering why you would push this process so much.

That is an option, I'll agree. It's just not one that fits in the paradigm that most players adhere to.

Not with that attitude.
Until there's a better option, a not-perfect option is the best option (and arguing something is not perfect runs into nirvana fallacy, so can't even go there).

Most players have one character or team at a high level. This is true over every fighting game

King of Fighters would like to have a word with you.

Hardly. Random is still an option

That is still agreeing to a Stage - it is agreeing to a Stage which is picked randomly.
See how competitors agreeing is actually necessary?

Yes, but your character says a lot about how you adapt.

Why would I agree to that statement? Needs evidence to back it up.

if you are a Metaknight main in Brawl, you can adapt to virtually any environment.

As a R.O.B. main who had to adapt to both environment and character MU jank as well as many other circumstances, I find this statement to be complete rubbish.
However I'd find a nice middle ground with you if it were hyperbole and meant it is by far much easier to utilize and exploit the environment with Meta Knight than most any other character. But this kind of defeats the purpose of the statement, so I'll just leave it at rubbish.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey T0MMY? Not to be a jerk, but could you rewrite that without pretending you don't know what a metaphor is? I think you know exactly what I mean when I say "fall to pieces", and at that point my eyes glazed over and I said, "**** it, done reading". I'm sure you have an interesting argument to make, but the way you present it makes it downright painful to read.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It's not like I love to cherrypick, but I DO love to cherrypick!

1) Where do you get this?
2) Why?
3) Ok
4) Who is doing this and what is "special" (those quotes again).
5) This conclusion does not follow from the premises. And why two conclusions??

Unless I'm mistaken, this small list (well, BPC's list you responded to) is the whole point of this thread:
"Why do people strike those 3 stages?" is a partly rhetorical, partly satirical question.
BPC's list was made under the assumption that people who decided Apex's stagelist made the assumption that out of the listed stages, three are particularly more fair than others. If that is true, what is the point of having MORE than those fairest stages?


That's the main hypothesis. But that's it, it's an HYPOTHESIS.
You're questioning the hypothesis in which questions a baseless assumption (Apex's), you're forcing the Original Poster to defend his idea, but it can't be answered because it's about a baseless assumption AND A SOLUTION TO IT.
It's like he's proposing a way to lift stuff up and you're questioning him about how gravity works in the first place.

 

[T0MMY]

Hey T0MMY? Not to be a jerk, but could you rewrite that without pretending you don't know what a metaphor is?

I will if you promise not to pretend that you don't have a sense of humor. Obviously I know what a metaphor is, the colorful language I used was to keep these kinds of conversations from being melodramatic.

So, I will uphold my end of the promise, and here is the rewrite (contained within the spoiler):

Spoiler

What a coincidence, I was just browsing my old PS2 thread on AiB. Look who decided to show up. Hello, old friend.

Oh, hi. I didn't notice the name of the who posted the content, so I gave a rather candid response.
Sorry Pokemon Stadium 2 didn't work out competitively. I honestly didn't care to see it not used by and large as it didn't offer much depth for the complications is produced.

One thing to say right off the bat: when I refer to "player" in terms of stage selection, I'm referring to a hypothetical player whose stage preferences are entirely in line with what benefits their chosen character.

Can't say I have ever seen that definition before. Usually a player is one which plays.
In competition we don't "play" so much as we "compete" and the word "player" is used as in-game reference since the software has ports for Player 1 (P1), Player 2 (P2), etc.
This is more widely accepted as a definition and I'd prefer to work with standard english words; any deviations should be clarified as quotation marks would communicate a source being quoted or the connotation of something sneaky going on.
The use of "player" appears to be a switcheroo definition, thus a sneaky attempt to waylay an argument with semantics. Not something I'm interested in pursuing as hypothetical players take back seat to real life people who actually compete in real tournaments.

Additionally, I am using as an important premise that a character's ability to adapt to different environments is an important part of what constitutes a "good" character.

Competitors adapt to environments, characters are simply images on a monitor and executed programs that have functions based on said competitor's inputs.
Just sayin'.

It is not something that can be ignored. If a character instantly falls apart the moment the stage shifts or changes or a platform is introduced, we must consider that an intrinsic weakness of the character. This is such a fundamental part of the mechanics of smash that I don't think anyone can reasonably reject it.

But your failure to understand how someone can reasonably reject such a notion is once again an appeal to ignorance and does not mean there is no reasonable contrary conclusion.

Even ground: ground where neither player (and by extension because of the paradigm of "mains" their character) sees a significant supplement or detriment to their abilities relative to the other stages.

One may be left wondering what this ground is you speak of, however I think this is at least workable for communication now. Thanks for defining that.
One issue at hand with that statement is the suggestion that a player's ability relies on stages. Ability, or skill, would include Stage knowledge for the matchups regarding their choice of character (character knowledge is an ability). So it appears like you would have that backwards, that a Stage is not a detriment to a player's (competitor's) ability but a competitor's ability is tested by the Stage competed in.

For example, we can obviously agree than in the ICs/MK matchup in Brawl, Rainbow Cruise was not even ground; and thus ICs mains taken there in game one saw a significant detriment to their abilities.

Although it is a possibility that we can agree, it still remains that it could be disagreed with. And with the issue of denial of consequence regarding competitor vs character, I'd say it's more likely a reasonable person would actually disagree with you.

But what's our point of comparison? The answer should be "the other stages" - there's no dictate from on high that says that SV is the benchmark we should go by, and there's no real reason to see it as such.

You seem to have built yourself a shabby looking strawman there. Denying that there is no god dictating which Stage should be used is not a valid argument.

A neutral stage is a stage which best represents the mean spread of the matchup over all competitively viable stages.

Subjectivity is not the basis for setting competitive rules. The concept of what is "best" is subjective. Therefore this definition of neutral stage should not be used in rules.

That is, the stage where neither player gets a significant advantage relative to the mean over all stages.

The way this can be interpreted is that in the case of a competitor who is by far better on a Stage than all other competitors then that Stage would not be considered useable for tournament.
Kind of absurd, I think.
I think in competitive terms when using competitive rules for competitions. One competitive principle is reward to skill. So a competitor who gains advantage from practical investment into skill should be rightly rewarded and entitled to declaration of "winner" if the results screen indicate.

Ah, see, this is the trick - the reason I use scare quotes there is because the real "adjustment" is considering the matchup only on those handful of very similar stages, or straight-up not caring about a character's ability to perform on different environments.

I'll repeat (and may not apply to you):

This would require a proof in regards to advantage to "that character" and reason why competitively viable stages should be "adjusted" to attempt to balance a game when a competitive game should be balanced enough already.​

If the game is competitive we can play it competitively. If it is not, we should move on to another game.
Will let the jury get back to that though.

Right, now here's where this reasoning falls apart: I see almost no tournaments running FD/SV/BF as the only stages, but I see them making the hidden assumption that those are the most competitive stages by a significant margin, that they are the things we should measure by.

Hidden reasons will probably be considered delusions unless you can make the hidden reasons obvious. One viable way of doing this is through reasoning in argument. So I'll see what you have next.

My whole argument, once you strip away the justifications, basically boils down to this:
1. Tournaments running FD/SV/BF as starters are assuming that these stages are considerably more competitive than other stages in the list
2. However, if that is the case, then those other stages should be removed
3. We don't remove them, because we understand the loss it would be to competition
4. Ergo, we should not treat those stages as "special"
5. Ergo, the sole reasoning available for small starter lists falls apart

1) Where do you get this?
2) Why?
3) Ok
4) Who is doing this and what is "special" (those quotes again).
5) This conclusion does not follow from the premises. And why two conclusions??

If they are less competitive to a degree that makes a difference, then they shouldn't be on the stagelist at all. That's the logic here. That these stages are not significantly unequal with regards to competitiveness, and that therefore holding up certain stages over all others on the basis of "competitiveness" is unreasonable.

Jumping around too much here. None of this makes sense without your core reasoning making sense.
Sorry, but will have to get back to what you are saying here after that is sorted.

FWIW, I consider pretty much every stage recommended by Amazing Ampharos (he's got a list of 13 or so), plus one or two others to be of "equal competitive value".

Why?

The reasoning is fairly simple, and described at the bottom of the post - if your starter set contains all the best stages in a matchup for one character, you have handed that character one of his best stages relative to the list.

This is a conditional statement. You'll have to show where the condition actually happens before it really matters.
Let me know what you find.

Now here's the trick: in the ICs/MK matchup... But then we have to justify that decision, and so far, I haven't seen any such justification short of "these stages are more competitive".

Maybe you should read my writings.
Again, just because you don't see (or don't want to see) the contrary argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I see a pattern here with argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Well great - so why even play the others?

By and large nobody does.
Like I said, if it is reasonably within competitive values and naturally happening I would think the only problem is someone not wanting to compete in a competitive environment with competitive players. If this is a case, offer something better and let the free market create a standard out of it.

(The assumption I'm making here is, of course, that every stage we allow on the stage list is very similarly competitively viable - but if that assumption is wrong, the correct move is to start banning stages that aren't competitively viable.)

Well put, just gotta follow the clues to a sound argument and enjoy.
But inductively starting with a conclusion and then forcing supporting premises is usually the more difficult and weaker approach to that. I'd suggest starting with fundmentals that are widely accepted as true and examine the evidence which leads to a solid conclusion.

And that's the point. That's why it's neutral to the matchup.

Therein lies a big potential of a problem as well.
Competitors who are happy to agree to play on a Stage like Final Destination or Smashville won't choose that process because they are MORE LIKELY to agree to what they see as a more competitive stage then end up on a lukewarm or disliked stage AT BEST.
This is also why people don't just sprinkle a pizza with their combined favorite toppings - a vegetarian is not going to be happy with that pepperoni all over their garlic and peppers even though they got rid of the sausage and bacon.

In reality, we can't always pick a stage that perfectly embodies the neutral of the matchup. It often doesn't exist.

Because "neutral" is subjective which is disaster in the making of both Stages and pizzas.
So I am wondering why you would push this process so much.

That is an option, I'll agree. It's just not one that fits in the paradigm that most players adhere to.

Not with that attitude.
Until there's a better option, a not-perfect option is the best option (and arguing something is not perfect runs into nirvana fallacy, so can't even go there).

Most players have one character or team at a high level. This is true over every fighting game

King of Fighters would like to have a word with you.

Hardly. Random is still an option

That is still agreeing to a Stage - it is agreeing to a Stage which is picked randomly.
See how competitors agreeing is actually necessary?

Yes, but your character says a lot about how you adapt.

Why would I agree to that statement? Needs evidence to back it up.

if you are a Metaknight main in Brawl, you can adapt to virtually any environment.

As a R.O.B. main who had to adapt to both environment and character MU jank as well as many other circumstances, I find this statement to be complete rubbish.
However I'd find a nice middle ground with you if it were hyperbole and meant it is by far much easier to utilize and exploit the environment with Meta Knight than most any other character. But this kind of defeats the purpose of the statement, so I'll just leave it at rubbish.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The use of "player" appears to be a switcheroo definition, thus a sneaky attempt to waylay an argument with semantics.

Then use the term "shoobeedoo" if it pleases you. The point is that I have a way to describe what I'm talking about. In an ideal competitive setting, a player will pick stages entirely based on what gives them the largest advantage, and will be perfectly comfortable on all stages. There wouldn't be things like an MK picking SV against ICs due to comfort reasons. That's what I'm talking about. That hypothetical scenario. Because that's what we ought to be arguing about. Personal preference is a layer above that, and if a person's preferences handicap them in a ruleset, that's not the ruleset's problem. If a person wants to pick a stage which is technically worse in the character-character matchup, then we shouldn't consider that in the ruleset, because that is them handicapping themselves. It's like if a Ryu decides he doesn't want to spam fireballs - that's his business, and we have no business adjusting the ruleset (or tier list, or matchup chart, or anything) around that.

Competitors adapt to environments, characters are simply images on a monitor and executed programs that have functions based on said competitor's inputs.
Just sayin'.

What were you saying about semantics?

But your failure to understand how someone can reasonably reject such a notion is once again an appeal to ignorance and does not mean there is no reasonable contrary conclusion.

Okay, enough of this sidestepping. Do you disagree? If so, please provide a reason why.

It's not an appeal to ignorance. It's an appeal to are you ****ing kidding me. This is like saying "fireballs are not an integral part of the competitive design of street fighter and therefore it's no problem if we ban them". It's asinine. Even if we reduce the stagelist to SV/BF/FD/T&C, you can still see the clear effect that stages have on characters, and you can clearly see a character like Little Mac suffering from a more varied/airborne platform layout. You'd have to reduce the game to one stage in order to make this design element not apparent.

Let me put it another way.

"If a character instantly falls apart the moment the stage shifts or changes or a platform is introduced, we must consider that an intrinsic weakness of the character. This is such a fundamental part of the mechanics of smash that anyone who rejects knows nothing about competitive game design and really shouldn't be involved in serious discussions about the stagelist."

That's the point of these statements. To find a middle ground. The socratic method. To find where we agree, and work from there. But if you disagree with that statement, then there's no point in continuing, because not only is there no middle ground to be found, but you're also wrong, and so wrong that you're really not worth talking to. It's like someone who claims that the Bowser-Megaman matchup is even - they clearly have no idea what they're talking about and should be summarily ignored.


I'm not even going to bother with the rest, because getting mired down in endless line-by-line responses leads to both of us missing the forest for the trees, as you did almost constantly in your post.

 

[cot(θ)]

Inductively starting with a conclusion and then fishing for answers to that conclusion is what defines being presumptuous. It may be that there is a possibility of it being innocuous, but I think it is more probable that one will end up being both bias (short-sited logically/closed-minded) and result in "grasping at straws".

There's a big difference between the mental process of starting with a conclusion and trying to rationalize it, and putting your thesis at the start of your post when communicating the results of that mental process.

The order in which someone communicates their ideas isn't necessarily the order in which they were conceived.

Edit: Realized my post was entirely irrelevant to the thread. As a Mega Man / Little Mac player, I personally find Smashville to be a very "neutral" stage for most of my matchups. But I still like playing on different stages, and I do like the idea of having all legal stages as starters.

 

[RESET Vao]

A balanced and quick method to start a set instead of wasting loads of time in tournaments.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A balanced and quick method to start a set instead of wasting loads of time in tournaments.

Care to elaborate on that at all?

 

[Unclesatan]

I will if you promise not to pretend that you don't have a sense of humor. Obviously I know what a metaphor is, the colorful language I used was to keep these kinds of conversations from being melodramatic.

I'm sorry but I have to say this: your posts hurt my eyes. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read that and assume you're joking. I understood what he was talking about in it's entirety, yet you pick apart his words in every post you make as if you have no idea what he's saying... that's hardly a healthy addition to this discussion in my opinion.

With that being said, I would really like the starter list to simply contain the whole list. For one, it would be far less confusing for newcomers to actually understand, and two there are some characters who are simply better on certain stages despite the person playing them, which might actually be the reason the current tier list favors specific characters.

For instance, Megaman is amazing on Delfino against someone like Ness (Megaman is great at sharking and thrives on shorter ceiling stages, giving Megaman more options to exploit Ness' weakness to juggling and air vulnerability, whereas if Ness attempts to shark and fails, chances are, he dies.), but on a stage such as Battlefield or even Smashville, Ness has the obvious advantage. In all instances, Megaman has quite a disadvantage (assuming the skill level of both players are even) against a Ness on all the starter stages, but as soon as counter-pick comes along Megaman has the chance to level out the playing field with a pick like Delfino.

Of course the argument could be made "don't play Megaman on the first round", but why should that even be acceptable? If we want a more balanced game, we should start tailoring it to allow a larger stagelist in general. There is a large portion of characters that thrive on maps that aren't on the starter list, and that large portion of characters will stay practically unused until the starter list either expands by alot or the starter list is abolished entirely, simply because nobody wants to chance a loss on the first round to a character's top 3 best stages. I predict that allowing a larger stagelist will change the tier list dramatically.

 

[Raijinken]

I'm sorry but I have to say this: your posts hurt my eyes. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read that and assume you're joking. I understood what he was talking about in it's entirety, yet you pick apart his words in every post you make as if you have no idea what he's saying... that's hardly a healthy addition to this discussion in my opinion.

With that being said, I would really like the starter list to simply contain the whole list. For one, it would be far less confusing for newcomers to actually understand, and two there are some characters who are simply better on certain stages despite the person playing them, which might actually be the reason the current tier list favors specific characters.

For instance, Megaman is amazing on Delfino against someone like Ness (Megaman is great at sharking and thrives on shorter ceiling stages, giving Megaman more options to exploit Ness' weakness to juggling and air vulnerability, whereas if Ness attempts to shark and fails, chances are, he dies.), but on a stage such as Battlefield or even Smashville, Ness has the obvious advantage. In all instances, Megaman has quite a disadvantage (assuming the skill level of both players are even) against a Ness on all the starter stages, but as soon as counter-pick comes along Megaman has the chance to level out the playing field with a pick like Delfino.

Of course the argument could be made "don't play Megaman on the first round", but why should that even be acceptable? If we want a more balanced game, we should start tailoring it to allow a larger stagelist in general. There is a large portion of characters that thrive on maps that aren't on the starter list, and that large portion of characters will stay practically unused until the starter list either expands by alot or the starter list is abolished entirely, simply because nobody wants to chance a loss on the first round to a character's top 3 best stages. I predict that allowing a larger stagelist will change the tier list dramatically.

The "Don't play Megaman on the first round" argument really extends back even to older arguments in favor of stage revision. If you shouldn't play Megaman any time your opponent can stagepick easily against Megaman, you basically shouldn't play Megaman (if, for instance, he is unfavorable on all starters). You're more likely to win by picking someone favorable on those starter stages, and thus Megaman falls to a pocket gimmick pick, or a comfort pick if you really just doubt your ability or matchup knowledge on other characters. But at this point I'm just repeating the same observation we've heard plenty of times. How should it be fixed?

I like the idea of removing the "counterpick" distinction and making all legal stages legal at all points in the stage selection process. RockPaperScissors to determine who strikes first, and repeat each round. I don't even think the "winner bans three" scenario is really proper, in some cases that can shut out the loser's options yet again. I'd limit winner stagebans to one, or even test the results of banning none at all (the loser lost round 1, so give them complete stage control for round 2 and see what happens). There are pros and cons to any of these methods, but trying them is the only real way to figure out how well (or poorly) they work.

 

[RESET Vao]

Care to elaborate on that at all?

Sure. Essentially I just think the more neutral stages in a ruleset, the more time people spend striking and thinking of them. X extra time on Y amount of games does add up a little bitty. I almost always Gentleman's Agreement SV.

 

[Raijinken]

Sure. Essentially I just think the more neutral stages in a ruleset, the more time people spend striking and thinking of them. X extra time on Y amount of games does add up a little bitty. I almost always Gentleman's Agreement SV.

In other words, pick the "fairest" stage and just go there every game?

I like it from a practical standpoint (after all, why bother even having five stages if players always prefer a specific one), but from a dynamics and stagnation standpoint, it's the purest form of removing the stage from the equation. If the existing system encourages picks that are strong on starter stages, that'd further encourage picks strong specifically on Smashville. Not terribly unlike how on For Glory, you play characters good in lag and on Final Destination, because they have an innate advantage. It results in a stagnant metagame, at least while balance patches aren't expected.

 

[RESET Vao]

No no, I described Striking itself as a quick method to sort it all out. I couldn't agree more with the triple neutral FD/SV/BF in Sm4sh.

But anyone who doesn't chose SV is lame or plays Ganondorf.

 

[ぱみゅ]

BPC already addressed it but here I go: "Just picking SV" is not optimal.
We here are talking about an optimal scenario where both players look for what it's more convenient to them and their character choice. Smashville DOES offer advantages and disadvantages and several characters will strike it out.
Also, if both players know and have clear what their goal is, they won't spend that much time striking.

 

[Raijinken]

Wouldn't it be cool if, some day, years down the road, a "most-fair" stage is determined for every matchup, and the matchup determines the stage as part of ruleset? That'd be kinda neat. Except then player comfort can get screwed over.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No no, I described Striking itself as a quick method to sort it all out. I couldn't agree more with the triple neutral FD/SV/BF in Sm4sh.

But anyone who doesn't chose SV is lame or plays Ganondorf.

Congrats, you're everything wrong with Smash. Yes, all 4,

 

[T0MMY]

I'm sorry but I have to say this: your posts hurt my eyes. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read that and assume you're joking.

Pretty sure calling people crazy is not the best way to get people listening. I've found politely asking for clarification to be much more effective. If polite questions hurts your eyes I would suggest you stop reading?

But the post was not for you, I did as BPC requested and took out the humor that was taken literally. I upheld my end of the deal for sake of finding what is best for the discussion at hand.

The order in which someone communicates their ideas isn't necessarily the order in which they were conceived.

Likewise, it does not mean the inverse either - I did explain that it could be inoccuous, so focusing on how it could be presumptuous does little than just try to cause conflict seeing as my suggestion was from my experience that helped me learn how to think through clearer and communicate with people more effectively - I was simply passing along the info to be helpful. And hopefully it helped.

 

[Unclesatan]

Pretty sure calling people crazy is not the best way to get people listening. I've found politely asking for clarification to be much more effective. If polite questions hurts your eyes I would suggest you stop reading?

I never called you or anyone crazy but ok. I think very few people took most of the things you said as polite, hence their heated responses, that was my point.

Regardless I won't take this thread off topic, just forget it and continue discussion

I for one am an advocate for a full stagelist, and on my next tournament I host I'm going to implement a full stagelist from round 1 and will be experimenting with various banning patterns to find out what feels most comfortable. Nobody I've talked to is against it, so this is good.

 

[Overswarm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQH_LUdkfkY

I've seen a lot of misconceptions from new players about how our rulesets are created and why we have things the way they are, so I thought I'd put together a few history lessons. This is the first one.

If there's something you're curious about when it comes to rulesets, let me know in this thread and I might just make a video to clarify it. I wrote the language for most of the rules you guys use in your tournaments (yes, even Melee) so I have a pretty good idea where they came from!

http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2vhdje/why_we_use_stage_striking_an_informative_video/

 

[Gonzaloren]

why are walkoff stages forbbiden

 

[ATH_]

why are walkoff stages forbbiden

Walkoff camping allowing quick kills. Link being a huge problem with it due to his grab range, projectile spam, and jab-infinite.

 

[Ulevo]

why are walkoff stages forbbiden

I feel I should reply to this because I often see a lot of antiquated arguments that, while legitimate for their time, were not the central point as to why walk offs are steered away from.

A while ago stages with walk offs were banned because certain characters, such as Fox, could use these stages for guaranteed stocks by using walk off infinites on certain characters. This included things like Fox's Shine in Melee, as well as Dedede's Chain Grab in Brawl. I've seen some people suggest that, since we no longer have this problem, walk off stages should be considered.

The problem with this is that while those issues were a problem, they weren't the central problem. The main issue with walk off stages is that it removes the emphasis of fighting your opponent, and instead encourages players to blast zone camp. There could be arguments made as to whether or not this strategy is "too good" or not, but it really isn't the point. Fighting games are about experience and skill, and are meant to display who can best outplay their opponent with the tools their character provides. Blast zone camping inherently detracts from this purpose, and thus its an undesirable quality. It's for the same reason that stalling is banned, even though it might not always be the optimal strategy.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I feel I should reply to this because I often see a lot of antiquated arguments that, while legitimate for their time, were not the central point as to why walk offs are steered away from.

A while ago stages with walk offs were banned because certain characters, such as Fox, could use these stages for guaranteed stocks by using walk off infinites on certain characters. This included things like Fox's Shine in Melee, as well as Dedede's Chain Grab in Brawl. I've seen some people suggest that, since we no longer have this problem, walk off stages should be considered.

The problem with this is that while those issues were a problem, they weren't the central problem. The main issue with walk off stages is that it removes the emphasis of fighting your opponent, and instead encourages players to blast zone camp. There could be arguments made as to whether or not this strategy is "too good" or not, but it really isn't the point. Fighting games are about experience and skill, and are meant to display who can best outplay their opponent with the tools their character provides. Blast zone camping inherently detracts from this purpose, and thus its an undesirable quality. It's for the same reason that stalling is banned, even though it might not always be the optimal strategy.

My only concern with this argument is that I'm not sure anyone's actually demonstrated that walkoff camping is as powerful as feared. I'm open to the possibility, but has ever been used to win a match? (Or preferably several.)

 

[Ulevo]

My only concern with this argument is that I'm not sure anyone's actually demonstrated that walkoff camping is as powerful as feared. I'm open to the possibility, but has ever been used to win a match? (Or preferably several.)

Did you actually read the post?

 

[Octagon]

Walkoff camping allowing quick kills. Link being a huge problem with it due to his grab range, projectile spam, and jab-infinite.

That's all my friends do when we play 8 player on Bridge of Eldin! They use Link and Mario cause of the grabs

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Did you actually read the post?

Yes, and forgive me if I misinterpreted it. But if walkoffs are banned because they reduce the necessary skill to win, surely it behooves us to ensure that they're actually a viable way to win in the first place?

Also in my defense I'm juggling like three different discussions so again, apologies if I'm off base.

EDIT: Also, what about doubles? I've heard next to nothing about walkoffs viability or lack thereof in that context.

 

[Ulevo]

Yes, and forgive me if I misinterpreted it. But if walkoffs are banned because they reduce the necessary skill to win, surely it behooves us to ensure that they're actually a viable way to win in the first place?

Also in my defense I'm juggling like three different discussions so again, apologies if I'm off base.

EDIT: Also, what about doubles? I've heard next to nothing about walkoffs viability or lack thereof in that context.

You misinterpreted my point. I'm not saying that blast zone camping is 'too good', or that it takes skill 'away' per say. I'm suggesting that it centralizes the game around blast zone camping, not traditional 1v1 fighting, which is what is desirable in a competitive fighting game. The game stops being about who made the best plays and more about who managed to land the first crucial grabs twice, and I don't think that should be a fighters primary focus.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

You misinterpreted my point. I'm not saying that blast zone camping is 'too good', or that it takes skill 'away' per say. I'm suggesting that it centralizes the game around blast zone camping, not traditional 1v1 fighting, which is what is desirable in a competitive fighting game. The game stops being about who made the best plays and more about who managed to land the first crucial grabs twice, and I don't think that should be a fighters primary focus.

I'm not sure you can separate them like that though. If it's not "too good" then how can it be centralizing? That's the point I'm stuck on.

If you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment, consider if there was some universal option available to all characters that made it trivial to deal with anyone camping a walkoff. Would it still be centralizing and thus make all walkoffs ban-worthy?

 

[Octagon]

You misinterpreted my point. I'm not saying that blast zone camping is 'too good', or that it takes skill 'away' per say. I'm suggesting that it centralizes the game around blast zone camping, not traditional 1v1 fighting, which is what is desirable in a competitive fighting game. The game stops being about who made the best plays and more about who managed to land the first crucial grabs twice, and I don't think that should be a fighters primary focus.

That IS what makes Smash unique from other fighting games, its not a contest of who gets rid of the opponents hp bar first, its about getting the opponent off the stage

 

[Luigi player]

I disagree with the notion that the starter stages should at best be "neutral" for all characters.
Some stages are more janky and interfere with the player versus player competitiveness we want to have and make it more to a player vs player vs stage thing.

Starterstages could & should also be called neutrals (because they are not too interfering with the player vs player setting). And counterpick stages are counterpicks, because they have janky or weird attributes to them that we just leave in, because they aren't too bad for all matchups (so you can just ban the ones you don't like (for your character)), and to please the part of the community who wants more stages allowed, and to add a little more variety.

Stages like Lylat, where you randomly get off the floor for a second, or get "randomly" destroyed from the stage, because it's really difficult to aim at the ledge while recovering, are not neutral enough to be picked (imo). Sure they could be added to starters since in 99.3 % of times you won't play on the stage (and the one time both might like it), but it basically makes it being a starter useless and just a nuisance to strike, since you might get a disadvantage if you have to strike it and your opponent wants to use it for whatever reason (to CP you or he doesn't care / know about the stage, or he wants to take the randomness as another luck factor to be able to beat a better opponent). You shouldn't think like "players always make perfect joices so both almost always don't want to pick it anyway". That is really limiting for players who don't want it, because you often don't know what your opponent might want to pick and then be forced to "waste" a strike on it. The stage sadly is a little too different (with the difficult ledges), but this time also annoying / stupid, because of the random drop offs (without them I still would be against that as a starter, but could live with it more easily).

A stage like Town and City is pretty much in the middle ground. It's decent enough to kinda fit into the neutrals with FD, BF and SV, but it has it's own problems. Platforms randomly catching you while you're offstage to take you on a ride to death, or bring you back into an attack that suddenly hits you, because the platform pushes you somewhere, out of nowhere... that's is just a little problematic, even if it doesn't happen often.

And we probably all know that weird stuff can happen at Delfino or Halberd, which most players do not want. And I am not even of the opinion that a stage prefers one character so much that it should be banned. It's just that on such stages there can randomly happen janky stuff, like dying early off the top blastzone of Delfino while the stage is transforming, getting hit by the arm of Halberd, getting stuck below Halberds ship, falling to your death, because you drop off somehow randomly, etc.

While it's true that you could study some of this and try to avoid it, having to think about so many stage "hazards" while trying to fight against an opponent can just be interfering with the fact that you just want to play against your opponent.


Then again, I'm also of the opinion that Smashville is the most neutral stage if you take matchups into account.
And also I'm not against these stages as counterpicks, since stage variety does help the game to keep it more fresh and interesting, and because the first stage will be "neutral", so the better played would have the advantage anyway.


You should probably not take this too seriously, I'm just stating my opinion. I'd be okay with starting on Town and City against opponents who don't like FD(/Omega) or Smashville as starters (I wouldn't want Lylat or BF though). [ for the example of having 5 starter stages ; I'd be against having more though (even though like I said before, most people would still go to the neutral stages, but not everyone, and that janky / random stuff would be too much for me, since I like to focus on the player vs player competition) ]

Edit: also back to the striking: I do agree that in the end the starter stage will probably be the one that is the most neutral from the starters for the matchup (and sometimes the one that a player just likes playing on) *cough*Smashville*cough* , but the starterstage roster should still be a player vs player neutral, imo, so that in the end you will play on such a good competitive stage who will still be "matchupneutral".

 

[Ulevo]

I'm not sure you can separate them like that though. If it's not "too good" then how can it be centralizing? That's the point I'm stuck on.

If you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment, consider if there was some universal option available to all characters that made it trivial to deal with anyone camping a walkoff. Would it still be centralizing and thus make all walkoffs ban-worthy?

A mechanic or strategy doesn't need to be broken to be considered centralizing. A pertinent example I can give is Sheik in Melee. As a character, she acted as a gate keeper for many other mid and low tier characters in the roster. Sheik herself was not 'too good' in the overall picture of Melee's tier list, but she acted as the focal point that determined whether or not a character could succeed in tournaments for a large portion of the cast. There were also many high tier characters in Brawl that did this, like Falco, Dedede and Ice Climbers. They invalidated a lot of characters to a large extreme, but they weren't considered the best. Meta Knight was. Ironically, even though Meta Knight was the best character, Meta Knight didn't centralize the metagame so much as he excelled for not having any bad match ups and always having the most options. I'd actually wager you could make several arguments over how Meta Knight was not the most detrimental element in Brawl, character wise, but that's another topic for another thread.

That IS what makes Smash unique from other fighting games, its not a contest of who gets rid of the opponents hp bar first, its about getting the opponent off the stage

You're right, but I'm talking about the means in which the players try to reach the objective, not the objective itself. Whether or not you choose to fight at the blast zone with camping tactics or in the neutral area of the stage the way competitive Smash is usually played, you're ultimately going in to a blast zone. It's how the game is played to that end that matters, and that's what I am arguing here.

 

[Overswarm]

why are walkoff stages forbbiden

This shouldn't require a video, but it might given some of the responses I've seen here!

Walkoffs are banned primarily due to a concept called overcentralization and something called "variance" -- removing variance is essentially the entire point of a tournament. It's why we don't have items too. Random, or seemingly random, outcomes result in highly varied results. This is called "variance".

By themselves walk-offs aren't that bad. They are a high-risk, high-reward opportunity. If you get the grab, you get an early kill. If you get grabbed, you die early.

The issue is they are part of a game with percentages and stocks. If you are up a stock, chances are you're at a pretty high % against an even opponent. If you're at a high % and your opponent is at a low %, there's a chance that you could die but virtually no chance they could... unless you camp a walkoff! This means an optimal strategy is for the person who is a stock up is to camp walk-offs and hope for a low % gimp. This leads to overcentralization around that strategy.

So what ends up happening in practice is the game becomes overcentralized around walk-offs and results are fairly randomized. If you are in the lead or at a high %, your new goal is to camp the walk-off. Players take turns doing this with stocks disappearing quickly after 50/50 interactions.

Some people might bring up things like "you can be chaingrabbed off the side" or things like that, but that isn't why stages are banned. Specific techniques don't ban stages, at least not by good TOs. Stages are banned when they promote overcentralization or variance; this is connected to specific characters and techniques, but not limited.

 

[Asdioh]

OS I've missed you! Please remain in this forum a bit longer so you can bring sense to some arguments.

Just to be clear, are you favoring the full stagelist striking method over the starter/counterpick method?

luigi player I don't fully agree with your post. The truly "janky" stages are in the Banned section of our stagelists. And starters really aren't "neutral." I'd argue that Wuhu Island is less polarizing than Final Destination.

 

[Overswarm]

OS I've missed you! Please remain in this forum a bit longer so you can bring sense to some arguments.

Just to be clear, are you favoring the full stagelist striking method over the starter/counterpick method?

luigi player I don't fully agree with your post. The truly "janky" stages are in the Banned section of our stagelists. And starters really aren't "neutral." I'd argue that Wuhu Island is less polarizing than Final Destination.

Full stagelist striking method and starter/counterpick method are the same thing, just with different lists.

If you have 10 stages and they are all perfectly valid stages, but 7 of them are the same kind of stage, your "full stagelist striking" results in that stage 100% of the time even if both players don't want it. Because of this, you'd trim your 10 stage list down to something more manageable.

The important part is ending on a stage that everyone is okay with as close to 100% of the time as possible.