Removing Distinction Between CP and Starter Stages

Nefarious B · Jun 12, 2010

So this was brought up by Gheb in the MLG Discussion forum, I feel it's a good idea that deserves more discussion:

Gheb_01 said:
I think the best solution is to simply remove the distinction between "starter" stages and "CP" stages. Since stage striking already serves as a compromise solution to find the fairest stage in any given match-up (and since starter stages are often used to counterpick) you might as well strike the first stage out of the whole stage list.

The way things work right now if you had 11 legal stages for your tourney, we would have a certain number of starter stages, let's say 5, and 6 others for CP. The players would each strike two of the 5, leaving 1 left to start on. They would CP games 2 and 3.

In the proposed new system, the first match would involve each player striking 5 stages from the list, with 1 left to play on. The players would then CP games 2 and 3.

The word fair is thrown around a lot with respect to stages and how characters interact with them. The idea of a fair stage is absurd; each stage merely benefits different characters, and this certainly applies to both the stages deemed counter picks and the ones deemed starters by our current rule sets.

The merit of this change, I feel, is that it removes the notion of any "fairness" associated with stages. By allowing all stages in the striking process, you will by definition come out with the most even or "fair" stage possible for that matchup out of the stage list, because it is the middle ground in between what both players want. The goal of a well made stage list should be to avoid giving any characters arbitrary advantages, but by limiting the first game to so called "neutrals", we are also limiting character inherent strengths that make them more flexible stagewise

Through this system we would remove the current striking/CP system that allows these notions of "fairness" associated with certain stages to arbitrarily buff certain characters, and instead allow the characters through striking to decide what is in fact the most even stage.

Thoughts?

Col. Stauffenberg · Jun 12, 2010

Why is the idea of a fair stage absurd?
We have stages banned for being UNfair, after all.

That aside, Meta Knight says hi.

Flayl · Jun 12, 2010

Nefarious B said:
Through this system we would remove the current striking/CP system that allows these notions of "fairness" associated with certain stages to arbitrarily buff certain characters, and instead allow the characters through striking to decide what is in fact the most even stage.

This is making a really bad assumption that the entire pool of stages has an "average" playing field that makes the matchup fair. The truth is counterpick maps don't balance each other out. As a quick and simple example, there are far more stages that favor air control over ground control.

The pool of 5 maps most commonly used in starters is actually balanced and as a plus it doesn't have stages with hazards.

The only thing you're doing by removing the distinction is screwing some characters over by polarizing their matchups more than is necessary.

Tesh · Jun 12, 2010

If all the stages on the list are reasonable, then striking from the entire list seems like it would be okay.

The way I see it, a 3 game set is supposed to consist of 1 match to your advantage, 1 match to your opponent's advantage and a match in a neutral setting.

It seems like if you have 15 stages and each player gets to pick 7 stages they wouldn't like to play, that makes for the most fair starting match. No stage is universally neutral in all matchups. I like this idea, its much closer to a truly "fair" first round.

As for metaknight, if he is "too good" on 12/15 stages against your character, thats not really a problem with the stages.

The same applies for a character thats only good on 3/15 stages. If a character is severely limited on most stages, that isn't a problem with the stage. If characters like Diddy and ICs have their best stage as FD and SV, those aren't really neutrals for those matchups. It shouldn't matter if these stages allow them to compete. If a "starter" stage turns a bad matchup into an even matchup, it also isn't fair.

If Ganondorf can go 50:50 with olimar on a certain stage, that isn't neutral, as it obviously buffs Ganondorf far more than Olimar.

Flayl said:
This is making a really bad assumption that the entire pool of stages has an "average" playing field that makes the matchup even. The truth is counterpick maps don't balance each other out. As a quick and simple example, there are far more stages that favor air control over ground control.

The pool of 5 maps most commonly used in neutrals is actually balanced and as a plus it doesn't have stages with hazards.

The only thing you're doing by removing the distinction is screwing some characters over by polarizing their matchups more than is necessary.

If most of the stages favor good air control rather than ground control, doesn't that mean characters with air control are better? Why should that be altered to make ground controlling characters more manageable on the first round. If a character is limited in most situations, why should you step in and remove those limitations?

And if a stage on the list can't be truly fair in any matchup, maybe it shouldn't be on the list at all.

san. · Jun 12, 2010

Flayl said:
The only thing you're doing by removing the distinction is screwing some characters over by polarizing their matchups more than is necessary.

Can you or someone else who agrees with this statement explain what's wrong with "polarizing" certain character's matchups? I view that statement as helping a certain few characters, yet I cannot find a very good reason for such an action. There should be no reason why solid, versatile characters should get punished. Limited characters that perform well mostly on CPs are harshly punished, while limited characters that perform well mostly on neutrals are greatly aided.

If a character can only perform well on a limited number of stages, that is a flaw of the character, in which case the player would try to settle for as best a stage as possible with his limited character.
There are already quite a few characters in this game who do well on a majority of the stages.

Even on CPs, each stage has qualities that give advantages/disadvantages to certain characters, making them no different than the supposed neutrals themselves.
There already exists a handful of characters where some of these neutrals are their best and/or worst stages. Ultimately, it is evident that there exists little difference between neutrals and CPs other than what the rule-set the community has traditionally been accustomed to for separating these two groups.

It is hard for me to comprehend this 'balance' the stages make when I cannot see the difference between the two sets of stages' functions.

Jack Kieser · Jun 12, 2010

It's hard for me to consider the current neutrals to be truly "neutral" when FD greatly aids anyone with a chain grab / Diddy. Take a D3 to FD round one and see what happens. That's not neutral; it's obviously in the favor of chain grabbers, Falco's lasers, and Diddy's bananas.

.AC. · Jun 12, 2010

i think its a good idea.

ぱみゅ · Jun 12, 2010

So, no more "Neutral" stage since there are no neutrals, and just make a list of "legal stages" and strike all of them but one, which will be played on....
Interesting.

Could be explored, given the complaints about Lylat, Pokemon Stadium, and other "Neutrals".
But tournaments where lists are of 25 selectable stages could make long tournaments even longer...

Ussi · Jun 12, 2010

Stage striking from that many isn't hard until the last few stages where it would take the same amount of time before as well. If you are thinking between 5+ stages then um... learn your stages better

Shaya · Jun 12, 2010

We call them starter stages now for a reason.

They're meant to be stages that would not detract too far from "standard play"; and after striking a list of them the resulting stage should (hopefully) be the fairest standard stage that could occur between them in the match up.

So it isn't like okay let's have Big Blue as a starter because against a lot of characters it would be fair when the opponent is ICs, but "well these stages don't entirely negate 'standard play' but give different characters different advantages that should hopefully result in the fairest starter possible".

Striking from every stage in the list has been brought up in the past. The main opponent is really just time and effort (1) and/or competitive smash distinctively having it's own notions of "what do" when we have many stages to pick from in the first place. Competitively talking, "we" (i.e. oldskool BBR) made competitive smash on the idea of "standards" (that denote similar things to 'other fighters') + smash unique (which we denote as either fair for a starter or counter pick or otherwise banned).

~ Gheb ~ · Jun 12, 2010

Shaya said:
They're meant to be stages that would not detract too far from "standard play";

A stage that detracts too far from "standard play" (whatever this is supposed to mean) should not be legal to begin with.
How far is "too" far? Is PS1 too far? Is Halberd? If so, why are they allowed in competitive Brawl? If not, why can't the first match of a set be played on that stage WHEN BOTH PLAYERS COME TO THE CONCLUSION - VIA STAGE STRIKING - THAT IT'S THE MOST BALANCED STAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR MATCH-UP?

I think the merits of "my" system is obvious - it removes a completely useless restriction and takes each individual match-up into account.

and after striking a list of them the resulting stage should (hopefully) be the fairest standard stage that could occur between them in the match up.

Define "standard stage".
Who's to say that the fairest stage in a match-up is on a so-called "starter" stage? Why does it have to be these exact stages that the BBR imposes?

So it isn't like okay let's have Big Blue as a starter because against a lot of characters it would be fair when the opponent is ICs, but "well these stages don't entirely negate 'standard play' but give different characters different advantages that should hopefully result in the fairest starter possible".

Obviously Big Blue is an amazing example when it comes to competitive Brawl! Way to dodge the point, Shaya. We're talking about finding a starter stage within the stage list that the TO decided to use for his tournament. A TO that allows Big Blue is obviously incompetent and should not be taken into consideration for such discussion.

The main opponent is really just time and effort (1)

Considering that most stage rule sets have about 11 stages allowed I don't see how it takes much time. And what effort is there in striking a stage?
It doesn't take much time for the process of striking a stage to become standardized. After a match-up has been played some time with that system the first stage for the set becomes kind of standard and striking will be very brief.

and/or competitive smash distinctively having it's own notions of "what do" when we have many stages to pick from in the first place.

That has nothing to do with it. We're not talking about stage legality or the number of stages within a rule set. That should be left to the TO's discretion.

Competitively talking, "we" (i.e. oldskool BBR) made competitive smash on the idea of "standards" (that denote similar things to 'other fighters') + smash unique (which we denote as either fair for a starter or counter pick or otherwise banned).

Cool story, bro.

deepseadiva · Jun 12, 2010

It's weird.

I think in Brawl, there's a certain sweetspot number of starters that are needed to result in "the fairest stage to begin a set on." On one side of that spectrum, we have three starters, say FD, Smashville, and Battlefield. In other words, "Let's have Ice Climbers have their CPs as neutrals."

On the other side of the spectrum, we have the full CP collection as a starter list. In theory, a splendid concept, but when put into practice, I think we miss the goal of having the first stage be the fairest stage for both parties. Some characters, mainly Meta Knight, just have too many playgrounds to ever have that happen. It's like having to strike from a list of Smashville and 10 variations of Rainbow Cruise. At some point it doesn't work, and that point is Brawl.

We get as close to a true neutral is possible on a per-match-up basis with around nine starters. I've yet to think of a single match-up that is affected either way from a nine stage starter list. With three, it's just innumerable how many characters start the set on a CP. With five, there are several. Nine I think hits it perfectly. While having say 15, throws us back into favoring characters. Which is ultimately the avoided concept.

ぱみゅ · Jun 12, 2010

You're basically stating that it's a good idea, but Metaknight and groundbreaking friends ruins it.

Even in "neutral" stages most characters has some kind of advantage. That's why people haven't stated a solid standard, ever.
He's basically just proposing to increase the amount of strikeable stages (imo, they'll most likely end up in a "standard" stage anyways). And I see nothing different from the current system on it.

Nefarious B · Jun 12, 2010

MenoUnderwater said:
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the full CP collection as a starter list. In theory, a splendid concept, but when put into practice, I think we miss the goal of having the first stage be the fairest stage for both parties. Some characters, mainly Meta Knight, just have too many playgrounds to ever have that happen. It's like having to strike from a list of Smashville and 10 variations of Rainbow Cruise. At some point it doesn't work, and that point is Brawl.

The thing is, the result is never fair. It's an impossibility, because any set of starter stages will favor some characters over others. What we can make fair is the process, and we can do this by creating a list of stages we consider tourney viable, and then allowing the players to decide what stage they play on from those viable stages. Anything less than this is placing bias into the metagame which will heavily alter it from how it should actually be.

We get as close to a true neutral is possible on a per-match-up basis with around nine starters. I've yet to think of a single match-up that is affected either way from a nine stage starter list. With three, it's just innumerable how many characters start the set on a CP. With five, there are several. Nine I think hits it perfectly. While having say 15, throws us back into favoring characters. Which is ultimately the avoided concept.

It doesn't avoid the concept. The goal is to avoid helping one side or the other at all. It is not to even the matchup out, which is where some people seem to be confused. If the players go through the the full stagelist strike and a character like MK comes out with a small advantage (let's say Lylat against a Diddy or something, because that's actually a pretty likely scenario), doesn't that point to the superiority of a character due to its flexibility? The supposedly neutral first match should not be infringing upon that characters flexibility and thus nerfing it. If the stage is legal at the tourney, the TO is saying it is a legit stage, and if it's a legit stage it should considered in striking for the neutral match as well.

TLDR

Gheb_01 said:
Who's to say that the fairest stage in a match-up is on a so-called "starter" stage? Why does it have to be these exact stages that the BBR imposes?

Ussi · Jun 12, 2010

With 15 stages (Going by MLG stages), you get.. 7 strikes, against MK strike:

RC, Brinstar, Norfair, Delfino, Frigate, and 2 stages dependent on your character.

This doesn't help MK out at all unless your character just sucks against MK

Flayl · Jun 12, 2010

Jack Kieser said:
It's hard for me to consider the current neutrals to be truly "neutral" when FD greatly aids anyone with a chain grab / Diddy. Take a D3 to FD round one and see what happens. That's not neutral; it's obviously in the favor of chain grabbers, Falco's lasers, and Diddy's bananas.

You and san both missed the point. The pool of starters is supposed to balance itself out via striking. You're never going to go against D3 on FD in the first match. You can however, with 11+ stages legal, get taken by MK/G&W/whatever to stages worse than smashville/yoshi's island.

If you guys want to play a game like that go ahead in your own region, just don't expect many of us to agree or like a game like that.

Tesh · Jun 12, 2010

If your character can't handle MK/GW on more than 50% of the stages, that's probably because your character loses the matchup. If you restrict the first game to the 5 stages Metaknight doesn't destroy a certain character, you are buffing that character by eliminating its weaknesses.

If your best stage is one without a solid main platform and no hazards, that doesn't make it neutral.

Kitamerby · Jun 12, 2010

Honestly, I still think 9 starters is the best possible solution, or at least 7...

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Jack Kieser said:
It's hard for me to consider the current neutrals to be truly "neutral" when FD greatly aids anyone with a chain grab / Diddy. Take a D3 to FD round one and see what happens. That's not neutral; it's obviously in the favor of chain grabbers, Falco's lasers, and Diddy's bananas.

I don't think you should go there. Just because a character excells on a stage compared to another one doesn't mean that the stage shouldn't be considered a neutral. I main a character who is crippled by characters who can GR him on FD however, that doesn't make me feel as though FD should be removed. If we use your logic then we should get rid of BF because Marth MK and snake out perform the majority of the cast on that stage same with smashville. So but your logic of d3 CG and diddy fails because of this.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

Actually, I'm not really seeing how you can consider a stage that definitely affects certain character matchups neutral, besides saying "well it is because my region says so." Jack's logic debates whether a stage is neutral, not unbannable, so your example of Battlefield isn't very relevant, either. Also, going with FD/Battlefield/Smashville and having a small part of the cast outperform the majority... you really call this "neutral"?

fkacyan · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
Actually, I'm not really seeing how you can consider a stage that definitely affects certain character matchups neutral, besides saying "well it is because my region says so." Jack's logic debates whether a stage is neutral, not unbannable, so your example of Battlefield isn't very relevant, either. Also, going with FD/Battlefield/Smashville and having a small part of the cast outperform the majority... you really call this "neutral"?

Due to the intrinsic properties of the game, a true neutral is impossible, and I know you know this. Smash neutral is more like "This affects the fewest matchups in the least dramatic ways as compared to other stages."

MidnightAsaph · Jun 12, 2010

I didn't think this through, cause I like to just throw out ideas, but what if two players simply selected stages from the list they wouldn't mind playing on, and they came to a conclusion on which they would use. The only glaring problem is if they don't agree, but I wonder if that's absolutely possible.

I say this mostly because the starter stage they select would, well, be to their liking. That is, if they agree to a stage. But I wonder if two characters can be so completely different that no one stage could appease them both, which is really the root of the problem here, is it not? If such a MU exists, where no one stage could appease the MU, then there can't really be a completely fair starting stage, can there?

Just throwing half baked ideas out there.

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
Actually, I'm not really seeing how you can consider a stage that definitely affects certain character matchups neutral, besides saying "well it is because my region says so." Jack's logic debates whether a stage is neutral, not unbannable, so your example of Battlefield isn't very relevant, either. Also, going with FD/Battlefield/Smashville and having a small part of the cast outperform the majority... you really call this "neutral"?

That's not true at all because BF does affect MU's and the way the characters play on those stages. The only time two characters won't be at a disadvantage on a stage if you're playing a ditto. A lot of characters have stages in which their excel at and stages that they struggle on. Saying that a stage shouldn't be a starter because 6 or 7 characters out perform the rest of the cast on those stages in silly. Especially if we consider the difference traits of each character.

It is impossible to have a stage that won't put a character at a disadvantage. Even if the MU is even or close to even a character one character will out perform better than another character. Perfect example of this is Marth vs 98% of the cast will out perform them on any neutral. Should we start considering those neutrals CP's just because Marth out perfoms those characters? Or should we look at gannon see which characters out performs him on certian neutrals and consider those CP's ?

I understand what you're getting however as long as each character is different one character will out perform another character on a certain stage. If you don't want to call it a neutral and call it a starter then go right ahead. However, that isn't entirely true the stage in them selves don't put a character at a disadvantage. It's the character that another character is up against that put's them at a disadvantage. However, if we look at CPs you'll see stages that will put a character at a disadvantage no matter what the MU is.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

If one character will consistently out-perform other characters on some stages and it's the other way around on other stages, that's an argument for more starters, not fewer. When you've got stages that are universally good for characters among the top tiers against the lower tiers, the correct answer is to try to normalize that difference by adding some that aren't so great, not to cut down the number of stages until you've only got the stages that benefit the top tiers.

For this reason we look for stages that together constitute a viable "starter stage" list, rather than attempting to find a small selection that can be defined as "neutral", especially since, as Thiocyanide mentioned, a true "neutral" really doesn't exist.

etecoon · Jun 12, 2010

I agree that all stages affect matchups, in my view a "neutral" is just a stage that has minimal gimmicks, no walls/stage interference/excessive transformations and such

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
If one character will consistently out-perform other characters on some stages and it's the other way around on other stages, that's an argument for more starters, not fewer. When you've got stages that are universally good for characters among the top tiers against the lower tiers, the correct answer is to try to normalize that difference by adding some that aren't so great, not to cut down the number of stages until you've only got the stages that benefit the top tiers.

For this reason we look for stages that together constitute a viable "starter stage" list, rather than attempting to find a small selection that can be defined as "neutral", especially since, as Thiocyanide mentioned, a true "neutral" really doesn't exist.

I think I said a true neutral doesn't exist. I also said that the only way a character won't be at a disadvantage because of a stage is in a ditto. But anyways adding more stages does not improve lower tier characters chances of doing better. I also don't see why the stage list should cater to bad characters. You knew your character was bad and you knew the MU's to try to balance out the game be increase the amount of neutrals is quite simply silly. Also the majority of stages that are good for top tiers are good for low tier its just the simple fact that a top tier character is better than a low tier character. A perfect example would be let's say Marth and Sheik both characters are good on BF however, Marth is better. Now we increase the neutrals because sheik is a bad character and it's unfair to her being a bad character so we have to give her a shot. We increase the neutrals yet we still can't find a stage to where sheik can out perform Marth. Why because sheik is a bad character and Marth is a good one. You can't make rules to cater to low tiers because their bad characters it's up to the players to overcome their characters limitations and be able to win.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

Why the **** did you decide to compare Marth with Sheik? She is as good on just about every stage as Marth is. You gave a terribad example.

A better example would be the fact that Ice Climbers really enjoys stages like Smashville, Final Destination, and Battlefield. Other characters like it there too, but other than maybe Snake you're not gonna see anything getting more benefits than the ICs. So here we have ICs getting a huge boost off of game 1 starting on one of their three favorite stages, and possibly similar effects for others. Would you say that this is because Ice Climbers is just that great of a character, or is it because they happen to be good on the only three stages that are possible for the first round against them?

Nefarious B · Jun 12, 2010

Almost legendary you've completely missed the boat on this argument. Like, your points aren't arguing at all against what is proposed in the OP, because you don't understand the thought behind it. So read it again. Now let me respond to this:

AlMoStLeGeNdArY said:
I think I said a true neutral doesn't exist. I also said that the only way a character won't be at a disadvantage because of a stage is in a ditto.

Very true.

But anyways adding more stages does not improve lower tier characters chances of doing better. I also don't see why the stage list should cater to bad characters. You knew your character was bad and you knew the MU's to try to balance out the game be increase the amount of neutrals is quite simply silly.

I specifically stated, multiple times, that the goal of the first match should be to buff neither character. This new system does this far better than the current one.

Also the majority of stages that are good for top tiers are good for low tier its just the simple fact that a top tier character is better than a low tier character. A perfect example would be let's say Marth and Sheik both characters are good on BF however, Marth is better. Now we increase the neutrals because sheik is a bad character and it's unfair to her being a bad character so we have to give her a shot. We increase the neutrals yet we still can't find a stage to where sheik can out perform Marth. Why because sheik is a bad character and Marth is a good one. You can't make rules to cater to low tiers because their bad characters it's up to the players to overcome their characters limitations and be able to win.

Once again entirely missed the point of this argument. It is not catering to any characters, which is THE POINT. When a TO decides on the list of stages to be allowed at the tourney, he is saying those are the stages he considers playable.

Now we get to striking. We have to assume that players will do what they feel is best for them and strike the stage they feel is worst, then second worst and so on. So out of the stages that the TO has deemed playable, under the proposed system the players will strike until they arrive at the midway stage. What this is in reality is the two players both agreeing that this is the stage that they are most even on out of all the playable stages.

Essentially, instead of a TO or the BBR deciding what constitutes a starter stage, we allow the players to decide. You can think of it like in economics, the relationship between buyers and sellers. Of course buyers would like everything for free, and sellers would love to gauge the buyers. You find equilibrium when the two sides meet in the middle, finding the middle price that the sellers and buyers are both willing to take.

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
Why the **** did you decide to compare Marth with Sheik? She is as good on just about every stage as Marth is. You gave a terribad example.

A better example would be the fact that Ice Climbers really enjoys stages like Smashville, Final Destination, and Battlefield. Other characters like it there too, but other than maybe Snake you're not gonna see anything getting more benefits than the ICs. So here we have ICs getting a huge boost off of game 1 starting on one of their three favorite stages, and possibly similar effects for others. Would you say that this is because Ice Climbers is just that great of a character, or is it because they happen to be good on the only three stages that are possible for the first round against them?

Sheik is good on a lot of stages but the stages she's good on Marth is better do you not agree? You're saying because the IC's are good on neutrals we should expand the neutrals to make it harder for them ? I'm having trouble following your logic. I picked those characters because you play both of them and you have knowledge on both off them and how good they are on each stage. Just a question does IC get a huge boost on game one by being on BF against MK wario snake marth or is it just against bad characterS? Same can be said with SV. However, if you want to increase the list of starters because Diddy IC and Falco do really well on FD. I can not agree with that notion at all especially when the other options bring in stages that make match ups totally lopsided. So what I want to know from you is.

IF increasing the starter stages because IC's diddy and Falco do better on it then the majority of cast?

Why should we cater to low tier mains?

Also outside of IC's diddy and falco which other characters like FD BF and SV?

My point is that all off these characters like these stages some excel on these stages more than others however that doesn't mean we should begin to expand starters because of this.

Also would like to point out the amount of Diddys Falcos or IC's in a given tourney wont be more than 5 and that's all characters combined. So to expand the stage list because of this is really silly.

@nef B I was responding to things that ankoku was saying and not the original post. However, if you're pruposing an 11 stage starer list what stages would be involved and why? Also can you tell me how a five stage starter list of Final D YI Sv BF and ps1 or lylat boost a characters potential.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

You're looking at it the wrong way. You think that in adding more stages, we'd be catering to other characters in the cast. However, in effectively limiting the possibilities, you're actually catering to a small part of the cast. When one option benefits the majority and the other benefits the minority, you don't call the one benefiting the majority "catering to X characters." We'd want to have more than just three starters because we want to avoid basically having the stage list determine which characters are the best ones.

I don't care how much better you think Marth is on some stages than Sheik, it's no greater an advantage than Marth has simply due to the character matchup. There is no stage that Sheik can counterpick that would hurt Marth without hurting her performance as well, because their stage-based advantages and disadvantages are very similar. Using Marth and Sheik as examples for stages is as ineffective as you can get besides attempting to prove that certain matchups won't be affected by stages at all.

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
You're looking at it the wrong way. You think that in adding more stages, we'd be catering to other characters in the cast. However, in effectively limiting the possibilities, you're actually catering to a small part of the cast. When one option benefits the majority and the other benefits the minority, you don't call the one benefiting the majority "catering to X characters." We'd want to have more than just three starters because we want to avoid basically having the stage list determine which characters are the best ones.

I don't care how much better you think Marth is on some stages than Sheik, it's no greater an advantage than Marth has simply due to the character matchup. There is no stage that Sheik can counterpick that would hurt Marth without hurting her performance as well, because their stage-based advantages and disadvantages are very similar. Using Marth and Sheik as examples for stages is as ineffective as you can get besides attempting to prove that certain matchups won't be affected by stages at all.

I'm just saying that some characters perform better on other stages than another character. Expanding a stage list because one character doesn't do as well on a stage as another character is simply silly. I understand that sheik is good on a lot of the stages however, she isn't marth. If anything should be expanded is the stages that can be CP'd. However, that varies by region. You still haven't answered my question. Just give me some characters who perform poorly on FD, BF, or SV. The problem I have with what you guys are saying is that it's not the fact that some characters perform better than others on those stages.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

We're not expanding the stage list because one character doesn't do as well as another, we'd expand it because a few characters do better on them than the rest. I don't even know what you mean by your last sentence.

~ Gheb ~ · Jun 12, 2010

We're not expanding the stage list at all.

Zankoku · Jun 12, 2010

Blah. Starter list. Irregardless, having more than three would likely be better.

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Ankoku said:
We're not expanding the stage list because one character doesn't do as well as another, we'd expand it because a few characters do better on them than the rest. I don't even know what you mean by your last sentence.

Falco does better on Final D than wario but when compared to IC he wouldn't want to go there. So why should the stage list be expanded? I don't understand as Wario main I like auto strike final D unless it's against a character that can't GR me. I don't see what's so hard with striking FD because you know your bout to play a Tlink or ROB or that it isn't a very good stage for your character. It makes no sense to increase the stage list because Final D BF and SV is good for certain characters. Characters are better than other characters. You don't want those stages to be bad for you pick a better character. If not over come your characters limitations increasing the starter stage list is just unjustifiable.

Silver Swordsman · Jun 12, 2010

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, you're missing the point.

If you have a starter list of only Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville, you're giving Diddy and IC players a free counterpick. If they strike Battlefield, you get to choose between Final Destination and Smashville... the two best stages for these characters. The first game should not be played on what either character would choose as their counterpick. The first game should be as neutral as possible, not favoring either character over the other. This doesn't mean that it should necessarily make the match-up even, it shouldn't hinder the natural advantage that one character might have over the other. A system with only three starters will not work well if characters like Diddy or ICs are involved.

You keep saying we shouldn't be catering to low tier characters, but you don't seem to understand the current system is already catering to some of the top tier characters already. Those characters aren't flexible with many stages, and shouldn't be given a free handicap for it. Characters like Wario and Snake are good on a variety of stages, they should be able to take advantage of that. Adding stages to the starter list lowers the chance that we start off a set on a stage that gives one character advantages that they wouldn't normally have.

If Player A and Player B are even on Player A's counterpick, and Player B has a heavy advantage on their counterpick, shouldn't the initial round be a moderate advantage in Player B's favor and not even? That's the Wario vs. Ice Climber match-up in a nutshell.

demonictoonlink · Jun 12, 2010

Aaannndddd....Tink becomes unviable.

AlMoStLeGeNdArY · Jun 12, 2010

Silver Swordsman said:
AlMoStLeGeNdArY, you're missing the point.

If you have a starter list of only Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville, you're giving Diddy and IC players a free counterpick. If they strike Battlefield, you get to choose between Final Destination and Smashville... the two best stages for these characters. The first game should not be played on what either character would choose as their counterpick. The first game should be as neutral as possible, not favoring either character over the other. This doesn't mean that it should necessarily make the match-up even, it shouldn't hinder the natural advantage that one character might have over the other. A system with only three starters will not work well if characters like Diddy or ICs are involved.

You keep saying we shouldn't be catering to low tier characters, but you don't seem to understand the current system is already catering to some of the top tier characters already. Those characters aren't flexible with many stages, and shouldn't be given a free handicap for it. Characters like Wario and Snake are good on a variety of stages, they should be able to take advantage of that. Adding stages to the starter list lowers the chance that we start off a set on a stage that gives one character advantages that they wouldn't normally have.

If Player A and Player B are even on Player A's counterpick, and Player B has a heavy advantage on their counterpick, shouldn't the initial round be a moderate advantage in Player B's favor and not even? That's the Wario vs. Ice Climber match-up in a nutshell.

Against what characters? IC on BF isn't a CP against snake wario marth Zelda metaknight diddy kong ROB wolf peach Lucario pit g@w ZSS ness ike yoshi or any other character that performs well on BF. A CP would be DK on Japes or D3 on halberd or MK or Delfino. Those are CP's being able to perform better than a character on another stage than someone doesn't instantly make it a CP.

Ussi · Jun 12, 2010

demonictoonlink said:
Aaannndddd....Tink becomes unviable.

How so? Tink bad on 8+ stages?

ぱみゅ · Jun 12, 2010

As I've said before, I see no real difference between this idea and the current system but increasing the amount of selectable stages. Both would most likely end up in one of the current starter or starter/CP that doesn't affect the MU at all.

Removing Distinction Between CP and Starter Stages

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

1/Sympathy = Divide By Zero

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

❤ ~

Smash Legend

「chase you」

Life is just a party

Bodybuilding Magical Girl

❤ ~

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Life is just a party

Never Knows Best

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

❤ ~

Information

Network

　　「chase you」　