popsofctown
Smash Champion
After a player wins a game, the loser gets to pick any stage in the stagelist, but the winner gets to "ban" a stage first. The rule seems somewhat strange right from the getgo, as the word "ban" has the connotations of coming from rules or a source of authority, unlike the word "strike". It's been that way for a long time. There are various perceived benefits to allowing the winner to do this, but I find them all flawed.
Possible reasons to support "winner bans":
1. There exists a stage in the ruleset that is so polarizing that no character should be expected to have to play there. But instead of banning the stage entirely, we should reward characters who excel on that stage by letting them use their ban freely while their opponents are forced to ban that stage.
First off, this concept has never been enforced uniformly, if it were, we would increase the number of stage bans by 1 every time a stage was determined unacceptable. Some TOs occasionally increase stage bans by 1 instead of banning a stage, which is prejudicial towards certain characters vs. outright banning the stage.
Secondly, it doesn't seem like a good game experience. The stage in question almost never actually comes into play if it's dramatically polarizing, but the disadvantage it generates does, meaning you lose the stage variety that stage would add, without decreasing the polarization of games 2 and 3 the way you would by removing the stage.. That's like all the bad and none of the good. 2. There exists a few stages in the ruleset that are too polarizing to expect some characters to face other characters there, but different characters abuse different stages so only one needs to be banned for anyone set since no character can abuse both. Example: No character should be expected to have to deal with Flareon on Lava World or have to deal with Leafeon on Shrub Jungle, but banning both stages would reduce stage variety less than allowing players to ban Lava World against Flareon players and Shrub Jungle against Leafeon players.
One issue with this is that it's almost never so cut and dry, stages with such polarizing qualities often have unforeseen dramatic effects on other matchups, and there will be some character somewhere you can abuse both or be abused on both.
An even greater issue is that this kind of logic is totally ignorant of the realities of current counterpicking procedure: players are allowed to play more than one character, and characters are picked AFTER stages. As a Rob main in Brawl with almost no ability to kill off the top, I once counterpicked Halberd game 3. My opponent picked Game and Watch, and voila, I picked Snake, who abuses the low ceiling quite well. Whether or not Snake or Luigi on Halberd is fair is irrelevant, it's obvious that a player who plays two characters can circumvent stage bans by switching characters to get the maximum amount of stage advantage. 3. The loser needs an advantage in the next game, but without a stage ban that advantage is too great.
You can just ban the stages that would create too severe an advantage and get the same effect.
There are negatives to stage banning, otherwise I would be indifferent about seeing them go. They aren't overbearing negatives, which is why the system has hung around a long time, but I do think there's more to gain than to lose.
The first is that stages bans complicate and extend the process of doing a set. The winner has to figure out what stage to ban, which often requires him to look at the character select screen to figure out what that is. Furthermore, the loser's thought process about what stage he would like to pick can't start immediately after losing the game, he must wait for his opponent's ban. It's not uncommon for a loser to intuitively decide the stage he would like to play next, then have the winner ban that stage, and have to start the decision making process over. Delays in a set are ok if they're worthwhile and adding to the game, I don't think the stage ban is worth it. It's also another thing to teach new players.
The second, even greater issue, is that stage bans have wonky effects on player's stage experience. This happened a lot in Brawl. Stages that were very frequently banned would get very rarely played. Then occasionally they would get played because in some matchup theoretically it isn't that polarizing after all, and players had gotten really good at mastering the advantages of the other stages, so the frequently banned stage goes unbanned in a set. Then it generates a huge advantage, both because it was polar to begin with, and because no one knows the flip how to play on that stage because it had been banned so frequently. The stage often gets banned from the stagelist in general due to imbalances in stage experience making it polarizing, in a way that is often unfair to the stage.
It's also a less competitive experience (with the frequently used meaning of the word "competitive" that "the better player wins against the worse player, a greater proportion of the time) because neither player has much experience with the stage. Even the player who knows it a lot better than the other might not know it very well overall. That increases the amount of upsets, just like any game that is less familiar to both players has more upsets. It gives a less competitive feel to the set and sometimes will actually add variance to the result.
In conclusion, I'd like to see stage bans removed. I think the stagelist should develop on what's fair when the loser can pick his stage a la carte. I actually would prefer FLSS with DSR after character picks for every game of the set for reasons I've discussed elsewhere, but starting from the current system and as a modification, I think removing stage bans would be a better procedure for the long term health of the game.
Well, thank you for reading, please have an open discussion with me about what you think.
@SmashCapps , he claims to love this sort of thing
Possible reasons to support "winner bans":
1. There exists a stage in the ruleset that is so polarizing that no character should be expected to have to play there. But instead of banning the stage entirely, we should reward characters who excel on that stage by letting them use their ban freely while their opponents are forced to ban that stage.
First off, this concept has never been enforced uniformly, if it were, we would increase the number of stage bans by 1 every time a stage was determined unacceptable. Some TOs occasionally increase stage bans by 1 instead of banning a stage, which is prejudicial towards certain characters vs. outright banning the stage.
Secondly, it doesn't seem like a good game experience. The stage in question almost never actually comes into play if it's dramatically polarizing, but the disadvantage it generates does, meaning you lose the stage variety that stage would add, without decreasing the polarization of games 2 and 3 the way you would by removing the stage.. That's like all the bad and none of the good. 2. There exists a few stages in the ruleset that are too polarizing to expect some characters to face other characters there, but different characters abuse different stages so only one needs to be banned for anyone set since no character can abuse both. Example: No character should be expected to have to deal with Flareon on Lava World or have to deal with Leafeon on Shrub Jungle, but banning both stages would reduce stage variety less than allowing players to ban Lava World against Flareon players and Shrub Jungle against Leafeon players.
One issue with this is that it's almost never so cut and dry, stages with such polarizing qualities often have unforeseen dramatic effects on other matchups, and there will be some character somewhere you can abuse both or be abused on both.
An even greater issue is that this kind of logic is totally ignorant of the realities of current counterpicking procedure: players are allowed to play more than one character, and characters are picked AFTER stages. As a Rob main in Brawl with almost no ability to kill off the top, I once counterpicked Halberd game 3. My opponent picked Game and Watch, and voila, I picked Snake, who abuses the low ceiling quite well. Whether or not Snake or Luigi on Halberd is fair is irrelevant, it's obvious that a player who plays two characters can circumvent stage bans by switching characters to get the maximum amount of stage advantage. 3. The loser needs an advantage in the next game, but without a stage ban that advantage is too great.
You can just ban the stages that would create too severe an advantage and get the same effect.
There are negatives to stage banning, otherwise I would be indifferent about seeing them go. They aren't overbearing negatives, which is why the system has hung around a long time, but I do think there's more to gain than to lose.
The first is that stages bans complicate and extend the process of doing a set. The winner has to figure out what stage to ban, which often requires him to look at the character select screen to figure out what that is. Furthermore, the loser's thought process about what stage he would like to pick can't start immediately after losing the game, he must wait for his opponent's ban. It's not uncommon for a loser to intuitively decide the stage he would like to play next, then have the winner ban that stage, and have to start the decision making process over. Delays in a set are ok if they're worthwhile and adding to the game, I don't think the stage ban is worth it. It's also another thing to teach new players.
The second, even greater issue, is that stage bans have wonky effects on player's stage experience. This happened a lot in Brawl. Stages that were very frequently banned would get very rarely played. Then occasionally they would get played because in some matchup theoretically it isn't that polarizing after all, and players had gotten really good at mastering the advantages of the other stages, so the frequently banned stage goes unbanned in a set. Then it generates a huge advantage, both because it was polar to begin with, and because no one knows the flip how to play on that stage because it had been banned so frequently. The stage often gets banned from the stagelist in general due to imbalances in stage experience making it polarizing, in a way that is often unfair to the stage.
It's also a less competitive experience (with the frequently used meaning of the word "competitive" that "the better player wins against the worse player, a greater proportion of the time) because neither player has much experience with the stage. Even the player who knows it a lot better than the other might not know it very well overall. That increases the amount of upsets, just like any game that is less familiar to both players has more upsets. It gives a less competitive feel to the set and sometimes will actually add variance to the result.
In conclusion, I'd like to see stage bans removed. I think the stagelist should develop on what's fair when the loser can pick his stage a la carte. I actually would prefer FLSS with DSR after character picks for every game of the set for reasons I've discussed elsewhere, but starting from the current system and as a modification, I think removing stage bans would be a better procedure for the long term health of the game.
Well, thank you for reading, please have an open discussion with me about what you think.
@SmashCapps , he claims to love this sort of thing
Last edited:
