Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
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:
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/
Last edited by a moderator: