The 7/9 Starter System

So, I don't know for sure if this has been discussed before, but one of the things I have been tinkering with is the idea of doing stage striking with either 7, or 9 stages.

I feel one of the problems with the current rule-set is that, among the 5 usually legal stages (The neutral 4 + either PS1 or Lylat), there isn't enough actual strategy involved in the striking. The majority of matches I see usually result in going to Smashville.

My goal is to promote more strategy within the initial stage selection. I feel like a lot of characters get pigeonholed into being taken to a stage that they come into a disadvantage on, or otherwise they just end up at SV. I want to see more strategy to it, by increasing the influence of counter-pick elements, making striking more strategic.

In this line of thought, I determined that the easiest way to do this would be to add more stages to strike from. Having seven stages gives you three strikes, nine gives you four. The additional amount of strikes helps characters who have difficult with the current stage set by providing alternatives.

Obviously, the flaw in this is that certainly some characters, particularly Meta-Knight, will take advantage of this, since MK arguably breaks the counter-pick system. (This is a discussion for another time and thread.) However, I'm interested in experimenting in my area to see how this would work, and if the benefits create a more diverse, strategic aspect of gameplay, or if people continue to go to Smashville anyway.

One further thing to note, is that I will be posting a more progressive stage list that I am also experimenting with, and would be happy to see opinions and input on. My region (Nova Scotia) is rather accepting of such things, so I feel it's a good testing ground.

So without further adieu, here is my current iteration of the stage list:
(Stages with a 7 by them are in that category for the 7 starter rule-set, likewise for the 9. I will also include our typical 5-starter ruleset.)

Starter

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Lylat Cruise

Halberd (7, 9)
Frigate Orpheon (7, 9)

Pokemon Stadium 1 (9)
Castle Siege (9)


Counter

Delfino Plaza
Pirate Ship
Norfair
Pokemon Stadium 2
Port Town Aero Dive
Distant Planet
Pictochat
Jungle Japes
Rainbow Cruise
Green Greens
Brinstar
Luigi's Mansion (This one I'm a little iffy on)

Reasonings for Individual Stages (Starters Only at this time):

Halberd

This stage often seems condemned to being a counter-pick because of how dominant Snake can be on it, due to its low ceilings. However, when you consider that the intention of this list is to promote more strategy, introducing stages with minor counter-pick elements is not an issue.

Let us consider the hazards and nuances of Halberd.

The first primary hazard of the stage is that the bottom drops out whenever the platform takes off. However, because the stage has ample warning before takeoffs, for any player who is paying attention, this should not be an issue. The only other thing that might causes problems would be getting stuck in a changrab or spike just before the platform leaves. In which case, either the opponent died as well, or he had VERY good timing. An element of strategy that occurs infrequently, and should not be considered an issue.

The second issue is what I shall refer to as "FD Lip Syndrome". This is an instance where the edges of a stage do not possess curvature like Smashville or Battlefield's, and as such, actually require a little bit of THINKING to deal with. We have had no problems adapting to awkward ledges in the past, this is no different.

Third and finally, the Cannon, Claw, and Laser.

The Cannon is easily avoided. it takes a long time to get there, and it's trajectory is clear and obvious. If you ever get hit by it, one of two things happened:

A) Your opponent outplayed you, by throwing, hitting, or otherwise forcing you into the hazard.
B) You weren't paying attention.

Neither of these components rely on luck, and as such, are not a reason to ban the stage.

The Claw is slightly different, but very much the same. It gives you ample warning by beginning to flail around. At this point, the counterpick element arrives. You can either play offensively, and try to pressure your opponent into a situation where the claw will hit them, or you can play defensively, and avoid getting hit yourself. Both players have this option, and while the claw's selection is random, as far as I know, it does not favor one player over the other. On top of this, it is relatively to shield on reaction, IF you aren't being pressured by your opponent. (either on or off stage)

The Laser is much of the same story as the Cannon. You can easily see it coming, and if it happens to target you, you can EVEN influence where you want it to shoot. Yet another element that can be used offensively or defensively. In addition, the argument of being hit or thrown into it also goes both ways. If you DO happen to end up in it, you should know how to SDI out of it. Ignorance is not a reason to ban a stage. This is probably the most dangerous of the hazards, but it is infrequent, and possess options available to both players.

It seems pretty clear to me, that in this 7/9 starter system, Halberd clearly belongs as a viable option.

Frigate Orpheon

This stage is one that gets an unusually bad rap, considering how neutral it is in the long run.

First issue: FD Lip Syndrome. Won't explain it again.

The second, and largest issue is the lack of a recoverable platform on the right side of the first transition. This is an interesting element of strategy that is what I feel makes this stage shine as a starter with definitive counter-pick elements.

This type of mechanic is one we have tradtionally dealt with in the past, in this case, from melee. Mute City was a legal counterpick, and it had an edge that displayed the same characteristics. The obvious solution, is to play on the left side of the stage if you wish to avoid the hazard, on the right if you try to use it.

Characters with tether recoveries, like Ivy and ZSS, can strike the stage. This is the whole point of having more strikes. Because they do, they can strike it and still be able to defend themselves from other counterpicks.

Then comes the flip. This one is really a no-brainer. The stage sets off a loud siren, and gives you a few seconds warning to deal with the flip. If you jump towards the center of the stage, you will never die to this. Much like the halberd hazards, you can play either offensively or defensively, to take advantage of the transitions.

The second transition of the stage is incredibly neutral. No flaws whatsoever in the general structure, and the pop-in platforms are much like the platform on Yoshi's Island. You can't always count on it, but it will occasionally save you. In addition, fighting on the platform is yet another offense/defense option. Not a reason to ban it.

This considered, I don't really understand why Frigate has the reputation it does, and it should be accepted in both the 7 and 9 starter sets.

Pokemon Stadium 1

Let us examine its hazards.

First: FD Lip Syndrome.

Each of the transitions will be examined in detail.

In its initial form, it is no doubt neutral. If required, I will elaborate, by I shouldn't have to.

Fire Stage provides issues.
The right side of this transition is not really an issue, but the left tree can and WILL be used to stall under. While this is more or less unavoidable, the transition is short.

Water is an easy stage to deal with, the only hazard is the windmill.
For a player who understands the mechanics, maneuvering through it is not an issue. Holding down on the control stick while jumping allows you to pass right through it. However, when hit into it, you can only tech. This is yet another offense/defense option, and is not game-breaking.

Ground is another problem case.
The ridge on the left side WILL be abused, and the rift in the center provides options for wall infinite's and and tilt locks. Other than that, the only minor issue is the right edge that cannot be rolled across, catching characters on it. This is a nuance that players should be aware of, and it does not provide advantages to one player over the other.

Grass has no issues with it whatsoever.

Three of Five of Stadium's incarnations are neutral, and weighing in the fact that the majority of the time, the stage is in its neutral state, it should be a starter. However, because of the potential abuse of two of the transitions, it should be included in the 9-set, but not 7. There are few feasible alternatives to it considering the remainder of the stage list.

Castle Siege

Castle Siege is another one that gets a bad rap.

First transition has no problems except for FD lip syndrome.

Second Transition has two nuances: The walk-offs, and the statues.

However, the walk-offs are largely avoidable due to the myriad of platforms on the transition. Either stay off the ground, or strike the stage against Dedede or Falco.

The Statues are another Offense/Defense issue. One on hand, they provide interference for projectiles, but they also stall hitboxes for laggy attacks, much like the pillars on Luigi's mansion. That means they're also available to refresh moves.

The Third transition has only one real issue: FD Lip syndrome. In this case, it is combined with tilting, making it slightly more difficult to deal with, by still largely a non-issue.

Probably the biggest problem lies in the in-between transition. This provides three issues.

First, the time spent in this transition is dependent on how quickly the Wii loads the next transition. A minor issue, but present nonetheless.

Second, the stage has been known to occasionally leave a player behind, causing them to fall underneath the stage. (As shown at :47 of THIS video.) It saved me, and killed my friend. Granted, he wasn't paying attention, but this can potentially influence the match.

Third, there is a walk-off present that results in a boundary change. A well-timed grab can result in an easy stock for one player. However, this is again an Offense/Defense change, ban it against Falco or Dedede.

Because of it's small, but present issues, Castle Siege should be in the 9-set, but not 7.

I think this is where I'll finish for tonight, I look forward to input and comments. Enjoy! (Hopefully it wasn't TOO long, no TL;DR for you.)

Nice post Raziek but I have a quick question for you. The post is based on the idea of using a large starting list to create a more balanced initial stage and you choose to use 7 stages for your example. Why not continue the thought and stage strike from the entire list of legal stages? I personally feel that striking from the entire (legal) stage list will result in the most balanced possible stage for the beginning round and I hold this belief for several reasons.

1. There is no universally accepted equal playing field in brawl. All stages will bias one character in one way or another and no matter how small the advantage is, it is still an advantage making a neutral stage nonexistent. Striking from the entire list will remedy this problem by finding the stage which gives the *median of bias*.

2. The stage which is selected will often not be the most "neutral" (as seen by the common perspective) stage instead it will reward characters who play well on many types of terrains. Game and Watch is a very dynamic character who can play on many stages well however does very poorly on Final Destination and other "neutral" stages. By using the entire list we may see that game and watch does well on 75%** of the stages and it is in my opinion that because Game and Watch does well on many stages he should be given an advantage on the first stage. Ice Climbers fall on the other side of the spectrum and may only do well on 25%** of stages and as a result are being artificially buffed by being given a biased starter list and it is in my opinion that they should be placed at a disadvantage for their lack of adaptability to multiple terrain.

3. Our perception of what is "Neutral" is very narrow. We often view stage with dynamic features such as pictochat, jungle japes, and rainbow cruise to be less "neutral" due to them giving more advantage to some characters over others than we normally like. Sadly we often ignore when they do not give significant advantage to either party. I have preformed stage striking using the full list in friendlies before and ended up having matches on pictochat. brinstar, jungles japes, and many other less "neutral" stages despite them often giving single characters major advantages in some situations.

*by median of stage bias I mean that if every stage were to be given a number from 1-10 indicating how severely it gives a character an advantage over another character than the stage resulting from the striking would be in the dead center assuming both parties strike to their own best interest.

**the numbers are being pulled out of thin air just roll with the idea of the statement not the mathematical accuracy

Edit: Why do you not consider pictochat/pokemon stadium 2 for the starter list but you consider castle siege/ halberd?

Edit2: AA is going to make a great post in this thread I just know it.

sunshade said:

Nice post Raziek but I have a quick question for you. The post is based on the idea of using a large starting list to create a more balanced initial stage and you choose to use 7 stages for your example. Why not continue the thought and stage strike from the entire list of legal stages? I personally feel that striking from the entire (legal) stage list will result in the most balanced possible stage for the beginning round and I hold this belief for several reasons.

1. There is no universally accepted equal playing field in brawl. All stages will bias one character in one way or another and no matter how small the advantage is, it is still an advantage making a neutral stage nonexistent. Striking from the entire list will remedy this problem by finding the stage which gives the *median of bias*.

2. The stage which is selected will often not be the most "neutral" (as seen by the common perspective) stage instead it will reward characters who play well on many types of terrains. Game and Watch is a very dynamic character who can play on many stages well however does very poorly on Final Destination and other "neutral" stages. By using the entire list we may see that game and watch does well on 75%** of the stages and it is in my opinion that because Game and Watch does well on many stages he should be given an advantage on the first stage. Ice Climbers fall on the other side of the spectrum and may only do well on 25%** of stages and as a result are being artificially buffed by being given a biased starter list and it is in my opinion that they should be placed at a disadvantage for their lack of adaptability to multiple terrain.

3. Our perception of what is "Neutral" is very narrow. We often view stage with dynamic features such as pictochat, jungle japes, and rainbow cruise to be less "neutral" due to them giving more advantage to some characters over others than we normally like. Sadly we often ignore when they do not give significant advantage to either party. I have preformed stage striking using the full list in friendlies before and ended up having matches on pictochat. brinstar, jungles japes, and many other less "neutral" stages despite them often giving single characters major advantages in some situations.

*by median of stage bias I mean that if every stage were to be given a number from 1-10 indicating how severely it gives a character an advantage over another character than the stage resulting from the striking would be in the dead center assuming both parties strike to their own best interest.

**the numbers are being pulled out of thin air just roll with the idea of the statement not the mathematical accuracy

Edit: Why do you not consider pictochat/pokemon stadium 2 for the starter list but you consider castle siege/ halberd?

Edit2: AA is going to make a great post in this thread I just know it.

Click to expand...

The issue I have with using the entire list, is that there are quite often more Counter-pick stages than neutrals, which would skew things. In addition, using ALL the stages makes the process quite cumbersome and unwieldy. Striking from the whole list would take a long time.

I agree in principle with your first point, but I do not feel it would necessarily result in what you define as your "median of bias". As I already mentioned, I considered your second point as well. Having the entire stage list would mean that Meta-Knight has even more of an advantage, since he now has ALL the crazy counter-picks at his disposal.

The point of using the stages I did for the 7-set, was to add some variety (Orpheon and Halberd), without heavily favoring those who do well on plain stages vs. those who do well on counter-picks.

To your third point, that can largely be attributed to a result of personal preference. People don't always strike in their best interest. In my case, I HATE playing on neutral stages. My stage ban is FD. Doesn't mean I'm bad at them, but I prefer the extra layer of strategy. I'm notorious for taking people to Norfair. Even though it isn't Marth's best stage, I'm very comfortable on it, and use it to my advantage.

As for Pictochat and Stadium 2.....

Stadium 2 is completely out of the question based on how many disruptive, flawed transitions the stage has. To be honest, I'm not even sure about it being CP.

Between the air phase, ice phase, Treadmill phase, and ground phase, the stage just becomes far too intrusive on game-play to consider over the others.

Pictochat is an interesting case.

I agree that in essence, it is a relatively fair stage, but the hazards are intrusive to the point where I feel it creates a problem. Especially because, unlike Halberd, there is little to no warning as to when they arrive. Obviously you can't stay in the lower left section's safety zone forever, and more often than not, a hazard or stage feature will spawn on top of you, which can easily be fatal in the case of the Piranha plants, Mine Cart, Rockets, Side Spikes, Ground Spikes.... pretty much any of the damaging hazards, or even the safe ones, like the jungle gym. They're just too intrusive to be considered a candidate as a neutral, but I do feel they deserve counter-pick.

Every tourney I've been to has done 7. Midwest ftw.

This is a good idea because it gives you and your opponent a wider choice.

The only problem that I really forsee with that most of the time, the first stage is still gonna be one of the original 5, because theres a very good chance that one player or the other will strike the stages that are less fair.

Also, more choice will most likely give a greater advantage to the stronger character.
Example: character A has their best matchup against character B on SV BF and YI because they are the most neutral. With a 5 starter system, character A can guarantee that the match will be one of those stages, but with 7 or 9 character B can remove all the stages that allow character A to hope for a fair matchup.

In some cases it may work in reverse with the addition of non-standard starters, which I am sure is the reason for suggesting this, but the stronger character should theoretically have a better chance of getting a stage favorable to him with more choice.

However, at the worst case, this just results in going to Smashville anyway. Say character A was to ban Halberd, Frigate, and and Lylat, because he felt that gave his opponent the most chance. Character B can ban FD, BF, and YI, and take the game to SV.

One of the flaws IS that it can still end up on the same stage, but on the flip side, because the characters who prefers to go to neutrals has to use his strikes on the less-neutrals, the other characters gets more control on WHICH neutral it is.

I like this...

just so you know, I read the whole thing, despite my short response.

Well, I had hoped to get a little more feedback on it, but I guess the stage forum is much less frequented than tactical, so it can't really be helped. At least the feedback so far is positive.

i'd like to see how it went, but i'm still concerned that noobs will be noobs about it and force longer delays between matches. time constraints are usually my only concern.

Yeah I like the idea of having more starters. like Malcolm my biggest concern is time. At this point though we could always keep 3 -5 random neutrals and use 7-9 for people who actually stage strike.

This sounds like a good idea. I especially love your inclusion of Frigate, which I've grown to love and think it would be a fine neutral

frigate orpheon may cause more suicide moves but i dont know if its a bad thing. curbe ddd, and possibly ics or donkey kong when the stage flips. dk could cargo and bring them on the right side of the stage and if timed right the opponent probably wouldnt be able to escape., almost the same w/ics except with cg and they could hav nana and the opponent dying if the time everything right. and yoshi has a strange side b thing on frigate orpheon which might affect some match outcomes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swdyXcqy_6M

Legit starter list is legit.

And I like the idea of including P. Stadium 1, though a thing I noticed about the stage itself is that while each of the individual terrain changes may or may not give unequal benefit to certain characters, I'm pretty confident that there is no single character that can draw an overpowering advantage from every transformation. This might be why the AiB ladder allows it as a neutral, but IMHO, P. Stadium 1 should go in the 7 list.

And yes, the Stage discussion is very much less active when compared to the Tactical Discussion.

Will write more later.

PS1 should be in the 7 set.

I mean, where I am we use it in a 5 set regularly. >_> I also find Delfino to be more neutral then Frigate. To me, the lack of a grabable ledge screws over too many characters too strongly to be neutral. Yes, they can strike it, but no character should be forced to strike a certain "neutral" no matter what the MU because the stage will screw them over.

Delfino on the other hand, is in the same boat as Castle Siege. Temporary walk-offs and temporary (low) walls instead of temporary walk-offs and people being left behind by the stage if they were recovering from the "floor" as the stage changes.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Delfino. I'll say something quasi-intelligent later.

Still, like the weirdos asking for masses of obscure, 3rd party characters in the hypothetical Smash. bros. 4, we ought not to get ahead of ourselves, and keep it smaller and simpler, so if we try putting Delfino in, something else may have to come out, and of course, there's the debate on PictoChat as a starter, which really brings us to, "Out of the less extreme counterpick stages, which can we try to make into generally accepted neutrals?". Still, I do believe that the generally accepted starter stage list is unsatisfactory.

One thing I would like to add to address people's points about the right edge of Stage 1 Frigate: Not only is it only there part of the time, but the tether characters mostly have solutions to it anyway.

Ivysaur has the option of switching Pokemon until the stage changes.
Olimar gets gimped anyway.
ZSS actually doesn't have a ton of trouble to begin with, between her extremely good double jump, and her down-B flipjump.

Not to mention, all of these characters can easily stay to the left side of the stage during the transition.

On Delfino as well: I felt that abundance of water sections, walk-offs, temporary walls, and sudden boundary changes made it less neutral than the other options. While it is still relatively neutral, especially in its standard format, I felt like it didn't quite make the cut.

I'm planning on holding some small tournaments to experiment and gather data, so we'll see what happens.

Edit: A further addendum, what is it exactly, that makes that stage lacking a ledge on one side any worse than FD having no platforms at all, or Smashville's floating platforms? It's just another stage mechanic to adapt to.

My opinion is that I do not see it being all that useful to implement more stages for starters. Many players will be quick to strike the stages that seem counterpick-ish to there character. For example, a snake on Halberd agaisnt a Kirby is not very good for Kirby. So, kirby might appt to strike Halberd right away. IN most cases the CP/starter stages get striked first and people settle upon one of the neutrals in the end. Of them, Smashville is pretty much the most universal stage picked after striking. Heck, some people even just random the stage selction bypassing striking. So, while certainly there is no harm in it, it seems reduntant to try most often.

Raziek said:

Edit: A further addendum, what is it exactly, that makes that stage lacking a ledge on one side any worse than FD having no platforms at all, or Smashville's floating platforms? It's just another stage mechanic to adapt to.

Click to expand...

A stage with no ledge can greatly hassle a few characters. Ivysaur, Olimar, and ZSS all rely upon tether recoveries. Having no ledge basically condemns them to having a slightly worse recovery than before enabling other characters that are have no problems not having ledges to be at a greater advantage over them. This is qualfies the stage to be more of a CP than a neutral.

The definition of a CP stage is when a stage gives direct advantages or disadvantages to certain characters which can directly affect the match itself. This is a reason why frigate is often viewed as a CP because tether recoveries are at the disadvantage.

Xeylode said:

The definition of a CP stage is when a stage gives direct advantages or disadvantages to certain characters which can directly affect the match itself. This is a reason why frigate is often viewed as a CP because tether recoveries are at the disadvantage.

Click to expand...

So then, why is FD considered by most to be neutral, when it clearly skews the match in favor of any character with a projectile? I could easily argue that FD is a counter-pick against Marth, because I have no cover or platforms to use in evading projectiles.

In reality it's a two way street, but people seem to refuse to consider the fact that stages long perceived as "Neutral" are not necessarily as much as they once thought. Even Smashville provides advantages to characters who can heavily utilize the moving platform, or glide under the stage. (case in point: MK and scrooging.)

If you can provide a compelling counter-argument to my FD point, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but so far I've yet to see much.

Raziek said:

So then, why is FD considered by most to be neutral, when it clearly skews the match in favor of any character with a projectile? I could easily argue that FD is a counter-pick against Marth, because I have no cover or platforms to use in evading projectiles.

In reality it's a two way street, but people seem to refuse to consider the fact that stages long perceived as "Neutral" are not necessarily as much as they once thought. Even Smashville provides advantages to characters who can heavily utilize the moving platform, or glide under the stage. (case in point: MK and scrooging.)

If you can provide a compelling counter-argument to my FD point, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but so far I've yet to see much.

Click to expand...

A projectile is a tool used by a character in match-ups. It's a natural tool they will have on any stage. So even if you had a platform, the projectile would still be a problem on any stage. The projectile is not normally stage dependent upon the outcome of a match-up. The projectile will affect the match-up typically no matter the stage. So, stages really have minor effects on usage of projectiles. But, still, stages can affect projectile usage and this is why people have argued FD is a counterpickable stage.

However, when you compare projectile usage on SV and BF they are rather similar to FD. Even if you are on a platform with no projectile, without the ability to do anything to the person with the projectile from the platform, it doesn't really matter if a platform is there or not. Can you tell me standing on SV's platform all the time as Marth will make avoiding Falco's lasers any easier? No, not really. So while platforms add an element of heights and various vantage points to alter the usage of projectiles, in the end, it won't alter the usage of projectiles greatly.

Besides, in high level skill projectiles are not everything. Characters like MK and Marth are incredibly good even without projectiles. They have other aspects about them that can overcome the lack of a projectile. Also, Brawl has a built in system that can make projectiles useless anyway and it is universal. Powershielding. Many a high skilled player can PS many a projectile make them fairly useless and projectiles become more of a distraction than anything. DDD has a projectile yes, but it's a rather poor one.

In summary, projectiles are incredibly match-up depend to begin with and stages only affect the usage of them in match-ups slightly.

In the case of Frigate Orpheon, a few characters are directly put at a disadvantage because they lost a part of there gameplay. Other stages with walls such as Shadow Moses really put many characters at disadvantages and prop up others greatly making it such that it could be 100-0 match-up simply because of the stage. DDD on any CG able character on Shadow Moses would allow incredible ease to which they could one grab = one kill with hardly any skill required. ICs have a one grab = one kill, but strategies have formed to avoid getting grabbed around the ICs and even if they do get grabbed, it takes large amounts of skill to make that one grab count.

While Frigate took away a small aspect of a few characters, it didnt' completely ruin them. Thus, making it a CP.

FD is one of the few stages that has the least advantages and disadvantages over many match-ups. And that is where the striking system comes into play for starter stages. Players strike stages that would be negative to there character to give the least disadvantage for there character the first match. That marth player would more than likely strike FD to begin with and go for BF or SV.

Imo. Switch ps1 for frigate o. and I like this idea. 7 starter list... frigate is a cp... it has huge disadvantages for alotta characters [its also a really good mk cp stage vs a good amount of char's].

Xeylode said:

Load of stuff

In summary, projectiles are incredibly match-up depend to begin with and stages only affect the usage of them in match-ups slightly.

While Frigate took away a small aspect of a few characters, it didnt' completely ruin them. Thus, making it a CP.

FD is one of the few stages that has the least advantages and disadvantages over many match-ups. And that is where the striking system comes into play for starter stages. Players strike stages that would be negative to there character to give the least disadvantage for there character the first match. That marth player would more than likely strike FD to begin with and go for BF or SV.

Click to expand...

I chose projectiles as a simple example, I wasn't exactly looking for a load of stuff I already know. The point is, ledge game too plays a part in every match-up, and like you yourself said, "While Frigate took away a small aspect of a few characters, it didnt' completely ruin them." I could just as easily say the same thing for any character without a projectile who has to play on FD! Yes, I understand projectiles are in every match-up. So are recoveries.

Just because the aspect of play affected is more unorthodox doesn't mean that it's any more unbalancing. We both understand that these stages play different roles, and that ALL characters have some means to adapt.

With Pokemon Stadium 1, I could easily argue that the stage transitions are disruptive enough to most characters spacing (never mind that two of them facilitate planking), that it creates disruptions in game-play that are far worse than an easily dealt with, predictable, edgeless platform?

On your last paragraph, I agree completely. But why is it any different for someone like ZSS to strike Orpheon, because it plays against her character, than it is for Marth to strike FD, because it plays against his? The whole point of stage striking is exactly as you said, eliminating your character's weaknesses. Sometimes weaknesses are the standard stages, not counter-picks.

For example, I could argue that flat stages like FD and SV give heavy advantages to characters like IC's and Diddy (which they DO), and introducing more counter-pick-esque stages into the mix offers characters a means to get on a stage more in their favor, in a neutral-centric meta-game. At the VERY least, they get a higher aspect of control over which of the "neutrals" they go to, if not a CP/Neutral stage. (Which is what I will consider my added-in stages)

I'm intentionally introducing stages with counter-pick elements to attempt to balance the neutral-centric starter list into something that works for a wider range of characters, not just those who excel on neutrals.

Two-way street.

Just because the aspect of play affected is more unorthodox doesn't mean that it's any more unbalancing. We both understand that these stages play different roles, and that ALL characters have some means to adapt.

Click to expand...

Good, we have found common ground

With Pokemon Stadium 1, I could easily argue that the stage transitions are disruptive enough to most characters spacing (never mind that two of them facilitate planking), that it creates disruptions in game-play that are far worse than an easily dealt with, predictable, edgeless platform?

Click to expand...

I focus more on the aspects of players lossing abilities or gaining too much in determining a stage being banned, counterpick or starter. Honestly, I view PS1 as not really giving any character large advantages or taking away there abilities. Thus, I call it a starter. Disruptions in the stage are completely fine with me. If you look at battle taking place on a simple stage like BF, the confrontation is taking place all over in various forms. Repeatable forms, but always changing. The stage transistions on PS1 are simply more varied and I do not see any characters gaining or losing here. Infinites on walls are about the only thing. But, the ability adapt as you said and I have said sort of cancel out the lingering effects.

On your last paragraph, I agree completely. But why is it any different for someone like ZSS to strike Orpheon, because it plays against her character, than it is for Marth to strike FD, because it plays against his? The whole point of stage striking is exactly as you said, eliminating your character's weaknesses. Sometimes weaknesses are the standard stages, not counter-picks.

Click to expand...

Here we are getting away from the orignal piece I was trying to explain to you. I think you might be under the impression (given the nature of the question that started this mess) that the main reason frigate is viewed as being worse than FD is because of haivng a side with no ledge.

I wanted to point out that it was simply a single factor in Frigates CP status.

Frigate's CP status is stemmed from a reasoning that no ledge hurts tethers. The rotation causes disruptions that can lead to auto-kills. The stage rotation is probably the single largest factor in it's CP status. While one can avoid this, situations do not always lead to this. Really, I am just confused about this as you are about it. I feel people can easily conform to the stage's quarks. However, I would call it borderline starter/CP. Just like PS1 for wall infinites.

Having it as a starter isn't bad given the striking system.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot that the single side with no ledge really affects the whole cast. With no ability to safely grab a ledge, it can really tip the favor of the match-up to anyone who is on stage because they get a larger advantage edgeguarding from the stage than the one recovering because they lose options. Still, rather stupid because it takes skill to get into that position. I guess most people want it to be even throughout the stage as a whole.

Which is why I believe that sort of reasoning is flawed. Since ability to adapt to a gradually changing stage is just as important as one that has a consistent imbalance.

And anyone who complains about the rotation is probably not paying enough attention, or is being pressured by their opponent. (Like I mentioned earlier) If you get killed as a result of your opponent pressuring you to a point where the stage flip can gimp you, that's not the stages fault. Your opponent just gimped you.

Also, PS1 isn't just the wall infinites. The large wall on the left side of the ground transition is also silly easy to plank on.

Oh, and I forgot that the single side with no ledge really affects the whole cast. With no ability to safely grab a ledge, it can really tip the favor of the match-up to anyone who is on stage because they get a larger advantage edgeguarding from the stage than the one recovering because they lose options.

Click to expand...

Two things on this:

1) people adapted for Mute City, which was decidedly counter-pick in melee. However, Mute City it was the WHOLE platform, all the time. Not half of it, half of the time. It's just a less extreme version.

2) "Strengthens edgeguard abilty." That's sort of the point. Once again, this system isn't about selecting the stages that are the most neutral. We already have those. Frigate and Halberd are being added to introduce stages that provide counter-pick elements, while STILL MAINTAINING NEUTRALITY. (It might worthwhile for you to re-read this paragraph I posted

For example, I could argue that flat stages like FD and SV give heavy advantages to characters like IC's and Diddy (which they DO), and introducing more counter-pick-esque stages into the mix offers characters a means to get on a stage more in their favor, in a neutral-centric meta-game. At the VERY least, they get a higher aspect of control over which of the "neutrals" they go to, if not a CP/Neutral stage. (Which is what I will consider my added-in stages)

Click to expand...

ps1 should be in the 5 set whats wrong with you? It's way better than lylat as a starter.

Arturito_Burrito said:

ps1 should be in the 5 set whats wrong with you? It's way better than lylat as a starter.

Click to expand...

I'd like you to explain why you think Lylat's tilting is worse than the comparatively absurd number of problems with Pokemon Stadium 1.

The 9 system is a little much however I have always strongly agreed with using 7 stages, the best stages for this are FD, BF, Yoshi's, SV, Lylat, PS1, and Halberd

It seems to me that the central issue for most people is that they feel PS1 is a more neutral stage than Frigate Orpheon. Would more people be willing to give further elaboration on those opinions?

Basically it is mostly the tether recovery thing, I mean it is very possible to get around, but while Pokemon Stadium gives only minor advantages to characters, Frigate Orpheon is terrifying to play on for a couple of character, it is definitely counter-pick

Raziek said:

It seems to me that the central issue for most people is that they feel PS1 is a more neutral stage than Frigate Orpheon. Would more people be willing to give further elaboration on those opinions?

Click to expand...

You have to look at it from our perspective: to us, it's obvious. Particularly to those of us in Texas who use it in as a neutral already. We've done our best to explain it, you aren't accepting the answer. What more can we really do?

PS1 does not have real issues outside of the temporary walls were you have to put yourself in that terrible situation in the first place in order to be infinitied. Planking happens on any stage, that isn't a valid reason to keep it from being neutral because it's slightly, temporarily easier on one part of the stage. That is less intruding on the battle then an edgeless side (which affects a lot more characters then the tethers I might add. I don't enjoy being forced to land on stage as Ike. Marth, DK, Bowser, EB boys, and many others don't like it either.), and the flipping which has the potential to OHKO if you get hit by the stage/thrown into the stage just wrong.

There really isn't much more to explain...it just is what it is.

In terms of neutralness:

Smashville > Battlefield > Yoshi Island > PS1 > FD (I don't consider it to be here, should be lower, but most will) > Lylat > Halbred > / Castle Siege > Delfino \> Frigate > PS2> Pictochat

The /\ area marks what I believe to be the grey area. Beyond that, it should never be neutral.

KingJacob said:

The 9 system is a little much however I have always strongly agreed with using 7 stages, the best stages for this are FD, BF, Yoshi's, SV, Lylat, PS1, and Halberd

Click to expand...

This...
7stages.

The whole 7/9 stage is looking fun since it adds more varity in the stage selection. There is also another solution people

Promote the usage and advancement of Stage Builder usage!

Side note: the whole planking on any stage thing I feel can easily be solved by food on low. Seriously, play a few competitive friendlies against people with food on low, you'll notice how little it really affects the flow of the match. However, in the advent of a serious planker, the food recovery ability allows the person on stage to slowly work there way back to an advantage position if the person planking really wants to try to time them out. But, dont' go into that, I just wanted to advertise it is all. Do not discuss planking here. Only stages. lol

Delfino is a better starter than Halberd and Frigate.

Thiocyanide said:

Delfino is a better starter than Halberd and Frigate.

Click to expand...

walkoffs say hello though admittedly frigate's anti-tether **** is equivalent

clowsui said:

walkoffs say hello though admittedly frigate's anti-tether **** is equivalent

Click to expand...

The walkoff segments almost universally contain slopes or drop-offs to prevent that from being an issue, and anyways, the idea behind the stage strike system would never allow a D3 to get this stage first anyways.

I like the stage more than both Frigate and Halberd because this one can't kill you (Halberd has hazards, and yes, this does matter, and Frigate can star KO you if you're hit into the wrong place at the wrong time).

Of course, I don't think a 7-starter system would really change much. In my experience matches always go to the core three first (SV, BF, FD), so if anything I'd opt for changing to a randomized three-starter system. Not that the 5-strike system needs changing, though.

inb4NJistooconservative

Thiocyanide said:

The walkoff segments almost universally contain slopes or drop-offs to prevent that from being an issue, and anyways, the idea behind the stage strike system would never allow a D3 to get this stage first anyways.

I like the stage more than both Frigate and Halberd because this one can't kill you (Halberd has hazards, and yes, this does matter, and Frigate can star KO you if you're hit into the wrong place at the wrong time).

Of course, I don't think a 7-starter system would really change much. In my experience matches always go to the core three first (SV, BF, FD), so if anything I'd opt for changing to a randomized three-starter system. Not that the 5-strike system needs changing, though.

inb4NJistooconservative

Click to expand...

So you have no problems with water on a neutral? Or suddenly changing blast zones? Or transitions with no edges, walk-offs, pillars with water in between them? Delfino is a fine stage, especially in its default state, but its transitions are too crazy to be neutral, IMO.

If Frigate star KO's you, your opponent did it right. It isn't an excuse to ban the stage. And the stage not killing you doesn't really say much. Big Blue technically can't kill you either. (Since the only way to do so would be getting left behind, and the same thing can happen on Delfino.) Just because a stage can't directly kill you, doesn't make it automatically neutral.

Also, just like a D3 will never get Delfino on stage striking (via an offensive strike), ZSS will never play Frigate on a defensive one.

At this point I'm leaning heavily towards 7. Nine was mostly included during initial conceptualization to help see what would work the best. 5 Isn't bad, but has room for improvement.

3 is just silly. Not only does random take all the skill and strategy out of it, it heavily favors characters like IC's and Diddy. 66% chance to get a stage their opponent would have struck? SOUNDS FAIR TO ME.

Raziek said:

So you have no problems with water on a neutral? Or suddenly changing blast zones? Or transitions with no edges, walk-offs, pillars with water in between them? Delfino is a fine stage, especially in its default state, but its transitions are too crazy to be neutral, IMO.

Click to expand...

The water is a good thing for a lot of characters. It saves them from the possibility of being gimped, making it a good part of the stage for certain characters to fight MK. That's only one benefit. Aside from that...

>Castle Siege is on your list.

If Frigate star KO's you, your opponent did it right. It isn't an excuse to ban the stage. And the stage not killing you doesn't really say much. Big Blue technically can't kill you either. (Since the only way to do so would be getting left behind, and the same thing can happen on Delfino.) Just because a stage can't directly kill you, doesn't make it automatically neutral.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that it did, but a stage that can directly kill you makes it a non-neutral.

Also, just like a D3 will never get Delfino on stage striking (via an offensive strike), ZSS will never play Frigate on a defensive one.

Click to expand...

My issue with Frigate isn't with the tether recovery gimp exclusively. A lot of characters get gimped really hard off the right side.

3 is just silly. Not only does random take all the skill and strategy out of it, it heavily favors characters like IC's and Diddy. 66% chance to get a stage their opponent would have struck? SOUNDS FAIR TO ME.

Click to expand...

>implying that there is a neutral stage Diddy and ICs are bad on

Thiocyanide said:

The water is a good thing for a lot of characters. It saves them from the possibility of being gimped, making it a good part of the stage for certain characters to fight MK. That's only one benefit. Aside from that...

>Castle Siege is on your list.

Click to expand...

Castle Siege may be on the list, but I've come to the conclusion the 7 is the way to go, and Castle Siege was not in those 7.

I didn't say that it did, but a stage that can directly kill you makes it a non-neutral.

Click to expand...

I don't exactly see why... Frigate's method of killing you is quite unorthodox, and in all probability unintended by the developers. AFAIK, you have to get hit by the left side of the stage as it flips clockwise, right? Unless your opponent has you trapped on the edge, that's easy to deal with.

My issue with Frigate isn't with the tether recovery gimp exclusively. A lot of characters get gimped really hard off the right side.

Click to expand...

I would agree. Playing in a means that facilitates gimping your opponent, while not getting gimped is how that transition should be played. When both players have the opportunity to take strong advantage of a stage mechanic without too heavily favoring either one, I don't feel that detracts much from the stage.

If you know your opponent plays someone with multiple jumps, you should PROBABLY strike Frigate.

I'm also mildly irked that people seem to like glazing over the fact that Frigate's second transition is EXTREMELY neutral. (Barring, to a point, the pop-in platforms)

>implying that there is a neutral stage Diddy and ICs are bad on

Click to expand...

Not bad, but certainly not as good as FD and SV! There's a reason they are usually stricken by the opponent in every set. Diddy and IC's are abnormally good on the neutrals to begin with, and you still dodged the fact that it removes the skill and strategy involved, which is the whole point of striking to begin with.

Raziek said:

I don't exactly see why... Frigate's method of killing you is quite unorthodox, and in all probability unintended by the developers. AFAIK, you have to get hit by the left side of the stage as it flips clockwise, right? Unless your opponent has you trapped on the edge, that's easy to deal with.

Click to expand...

Or have it flip in such a way that pushes you under itself.

I would agree. Playing in a means that facilitates gimping your opponent, while not getting gimped is how that transition should be played. When both players have the opportunity to take strong advantage of a stage mechanic without too heavily favoring either one, I don't feel that detracts much from the stage.

If you know your opponent plays someone with multiple jumps, you should PROBABLY strike Frigate.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a counterpick to me. It heavily favors characters with maneuverable recoveries, almost all of which have a decent advantage on this stage already.

Not bad, but certainly not as good as FD and SV! There's a reason they are usually stricken by the opponent in every set. Diddy and IC's are abnormally good on the neutrals to begin with, and you still dodged the fact that it removes the skill and strategy involved, which is the whole point of striking to begin with.

Click to expand...

Platforms are only good for the character fighting Diddy or ICs when:

- Diddy and ICs are not camping you with banana zoning / blizzard walling uner a platform, and
- You have % lead.

I'm going to post this (again, though this is a different thread) for good measure:



Diddy places a banana at one red square, moves around in the blue square with a banana in his hands. You are somewhere in the green squares and/or arc. Because of banana zoning, Diddy can shoot peanuts at his leisure and cancel them into a banana combo, and there is essentially nothing you can do about it. Wheras you have safe approach vectors on stages without platforms because they have nothing over their heads to keep them safe.

People need to get over the misconception that FD is actually better than a stage like BF or YI for camping. The only element that is better about FD is the length of the stage; otherwise, platforms enhance a camp and stage control game, because you can pretty much never afford to be above an opponent to the degree a platform forces you to.

Doesn't proving to me that YI can also be used for a Diddy fortress just further re-enforce the fact that these counter-neutrals be added?

As for sliding under the stage, it's the same idea, on the other side. The whole thing be be easily dealt with by jumping towards the center.

This sounds like a counterpick to me. It heavily favors characters with maneuverable recoveries, almost all of which have a decent advantage on this stage already.

Click to expand...

Like I have mentioned before, would it be wrong to replace "maneuverable recoveries" with "projectiles", and the statement still holds true for FD? The double standard seems a little strange to me, is all.

I do appreciate the diagram on YI though. :D