stingers
Smash Obsessed
What purpose does the current stage selection system serve? Namely, the divide between "Neutrals" and "Counterpicks". We just decided to choose 5 or so stages and put them on a list of stages that can be played on game 1, but then open up a plethora of other stages that can be played for the rest of the set. What's the reason for this? I don't know if you've noticed, but the majority of brawl sets are decided after the first game. The first match is by far the most important, due to how powerful counterpicks are in this game. Just think about how rare comebacks on game 3 are in Brawl.
The current system we use is simply carried over from Melee. But in Melee, the counterpick system wasn't much of a problem, because of Universal techs (everyone could waveland on platforms, for instance), and the rush down style mostly favored in Melee leads to less focus on specific stage attributes then in Brawl (if you notice, characters less focused on rush down in melee such as Peach and Jiggs tend to perform stronger on their counterpicks, like Mute City (though now banned by the MBR) and Brinstar).
But in Brawl, it's different. Counterpicks are insanely powerful, to the point where you have very little hope after losing the all important game 1. Of course, this leads to characters that have advantages on the 5 ARBITRARY stages selected to be "Neutrals" (Those being Final, Smashville, Battlefield, Yoshis Island, and Lylat) having a large advantage in tournament play (see: Diddy Kong, Falco, Ice Climbers). Now, you can be **** sure you won't see any Diddy, Falco, or IC mains supporting a revamp of the counterpick system, simply because it's heavily in their favor at the moment. But why should we cater to those characters? Sure they're popular, though only because they do well, which of course is because they're aided by the rules we use.
I think we should try to move on to a fairer system, which is actually already being started by MLG, though not to the degree I'm thinking. I think we should remove the distinction between neutrals and counterpicks completely. I do not think any more changes are necessary beyond that. Regional stage lists should remain the same, stage striking should stay as is, you should only have 1 ban per set and Dave's Stupid Rule should still be enforced. But why continue to limit the stage selection in game 1? There's literally no difference between games 1 and 2 other then that the loser gets to pick the stage in game 2 instead of it being a mutual agreement through striking. So why discriminate? I'll end the topic with that. Why discriminate?
The current system we use is simply carried over from Melee. But in Melee, the counterpick system wasn't much of a problem, because of Universal techs (everyone could waveland on platforms, for instance), and the rush down style mostly favored in Melee leads to less focus on specific stage attributes then in Brawl (if you notice, characters less focused on rush down in melee such as Peach and Jiggs tend to perform stronger on their counterpicks, like Mute City (though now banned by the MBR) and Brinstar).
But in Brawl, it's different. Counterpicks are insanely powerful, to the point where you have very little hope after losing the all important game 1. Of course, this leads to characters that have advantages on the 5 ARBITRARY stages selected to be "Neutrals" (Those being Final, Smashville, Battlefield, Yoshis Island, and Lylat) having a large advantage in tournament play (see: Diddy Kong, Falco, Ice Climbers). Now, you can be **** sure you won't see any Diddy, Falco, or IC mains supporting a revamp of the counterpick system, simply because it's heavily in their favor at the moment. But why should we cater to those characters? Sure they're popular, though only because they do well, which of course is because they're aided by the rules we use.
I think we should try to move on to a fairer system, which is actually already being started by MLG, though not to the degree I'm thinking. I think we should remove the distinction between neutrals and counterpicks completely. I do not think any more changes are necessary beyond that. Regional stage lists should remain the same, stage striking should stay as is, you should only have 1 ban per set and Dave's Stupid Rule should still be enforced. But why continue to limit the stage selection in game 1? There's literally no difference between games 1 and 2 other then that the loser gets to pick the stage in game 2 instead of it being a mutual agreement through striking. So why discriminate? I'll end the topic with that. Why discriminate?
