Ban brinstar and rainbow cruise

[Bones0]

Ripple, several people (myself included) have explained the negative impact stages like Brinstar and RC have on competitive play. You keep yelling at everyone to justify ourselves, but we already have and we are waiting for you to tell us how we are wrong about the stages being stupid.

I really don't understand how anyone can analyze counterpicks and go "Yep, that seems fair that each person gets to pick the most radically in-their-favor-stalling/gimmicky stage possible" because then sets are just being determined by the first game where both players choose the most neutral stage possible (through striking).

@stingers

Not sure about how old-school they are, but virtually all of the talented and well-known smashers that have posted have been quite clear in their desire for a more balanced stage list without gimmicky counterpicks (Hax, Armada, Hungrybox, and Zhu).

 

[-ACE-]

I don't really care what happens personally. like I said I'm just trying to promote healthy debate. If people are getting heated over such a meaningless argument its not my fault lol.

But to continue pissing people off unintentionally...

Stingers, was melee MEANT to be played with items, 5 stocks, on green greens HYRULE? I mean, that IS old school... Lol don't hate me.

 

[Mike G]

+1 in agreement with Hax and Armada


This coming from and old school Peach player(even tho I sux now )

 

[stingers]

@stingers

Not sure about how old-school they are, but virtually all of the talented and well-known smashers that have posted have been quite clear in their desire for a more balanced stage list without gimmicky counterpicks (Hax, Armada, Hungrybox, and Zhu).

i mean yeah they're all pretty new...compared to like who I was thinking of (mlg era since its when I was getting into it...and everyone before that lol).

just like I never noticed anyone complaining about stages or anything until after brawl. and then melee started using striking instead of random...

but that's not important to this lol.

ace, I think melee was meant to be played however you want it. all I'm saying is that, when players were given 100% to choose from, they removed 75% and stopped. then when new school players were given 100% (really 25%) to choose from, they removed even more...if you see what i'm saying

 

[Winnar]

Hey here's a thought.

All the top players (and afaik everyone who is in the mbr that has posted in here) have converged on one point: Counterpicking is a dumb system.

I'll probably be giving Euro stage rules a shot at my next tournament. I doubt more than two people will even notice/care.

 

[-ACE-]

Lol whatever mike g you ****.

Yeah stingers I see what you mean.

 

[_lemons]

i think there is a difference in logic here...the OLD players started with everything legal. that's how the game was meant to be played. but you couldn't have literally everything legal if you want a competition, so they just decided that there would be a benchmark to decide if a stage was anti-competitive or not, and that benchmark was randomness. if a stage had any random factors, it should be banned. later on this would include counterpicks that were TOO strong (such as yoshis island for fox, waveshining certain characters off the sides).

most new players are so accustomed to what the old school players brought it down to though that their version of melee never included everything legal from the start, it STARTED as a version with few stages legal...so they decided to take their benchmark a step further and say that anything that isn't absolutely static is anti competitive...i guess.

I've just noticed that most players supporting a conservative stagelist/ruleset are generally newer players so I'm trying to rationalize why. i'm hardly OLD school but I've been around for...a decent amount of time and I think that all this banning **** is stupid...so if anyone else has any ideas on the matter i'd love to hear them

I disagree. I don't think there is any way this game is "meant to be played". I think for a tournament, the stagelist should be conservative because it tests player vs player more so (in my opinion) than hard CPs. I understand it takes out an element of CP knowledge or what have you, and that's probably a fair argument, but it's not one I care about at all really.

All in all I think the community is evolving. The old school "founders" or whatever you want to call them had to mold this crazy game into a fair, competitive, tournament-viable game. I think what's going on now is just further molding, I guess.

 

[stingers]

meh, when I say meant to be played, I mean in their point of view. the game came with all stages on and all items on, and they turned it into MLG era melee. and now we have pound 4 era melee...and soon we're gonna have europe era melee. can't wait 3 years from now till we have japanese melee

 

[_lemons]

meh, when I say meant to be played, I mean in their point of view. the game came with all stages on and all items on, and they turned it into MLG era melee. and now we have pound 4 era melee...and soon we're gonna have europe era melee. can't wait 3 years from now till we have japanese melee

Me either!!!

 

[Masmasher@]

so fox only, no items on final destination is what this game might turn into?

 

[stingers]

so fox only, no items on final destination is what this game might turn into?

it'll more likely be puff only on dreamland but sure

 

[Pi]

i like how the focus is centered entirely around stage cp's
while we ignore the other cp aspect we have available that negates most of the arguments in this thread.

if it's your choice to main one character, then accept the fact that he's going to have bad stages.

welcome to melee, it's not like street fighter.

this community is so ****ing lazy

 

[_lemons]

I don't think you should have to learn extra characters to deal with wonky stages.

 

[Hax]

i didn't give my explanation in the OP because i figured we would all be in unanimous agreement; i guess i was wrong. i'm going to have trouble explaining this because i don't even know where to begin for either of these stages.

brinstar:
*there comes a point where the only safe ground on this stage is literally its top platform. this gives a ridiculous advantage to characters with extreme air mobility such as peach and jiggs, as they are still granted plenty of room to move around/mindgame the opponent while other characters struggle just to stay on the top platform.
*the lava makes it so that players can watch as opposing foxes, falcos and falcons take 50-60% from a stage hazard only to be hit back in for even more damage. while this can happen at any time, it becomes even more of a problem when the main stage is covered in lava and a simple throw off of one of the platforms can send an opponent into the lava for massive damage. combine this with jigglypuff's rest (which is also cancelled by the lava once jigglypuff falls into it) and it becomes blatantly obvious that this stage is not suitable for competitive play
*the janky shape of the floor interrupts techs and dashes. once a few of the bacteria things are broken, the parts of the stage on either side of them become walls. this makes it so that characters' techs/dashes can be stopped, interrupting combos/approaches that would otherwise work
*the stage breaking in 2 makes it nearly an autoloss for ice climbers. nana's AI constantly forces her to fall into the lava once the stage is broken apart. see mango vs chu dat game 3

rainbow cruise:
*the stage shape in general encourages excessive evasion of the opponent. peepee vs m2k game 5 was an exhibition of PP running away and lasering while waiting for M2K to slip up so that he could begin a combo
*the entire stage, especially some parts, favors fox/falco's lasers while offering no protection against them. this relates to the same problem brinstar possesses; it forces someone to approach the opponent or suffer massive damage. instead of simply the losing player being forced to approach (which goes for every stage except this and brinstar), the player going against fox/falco is forced to approach regardless if they are losing or not.

good?

 

[stingers]

counterpicks are counterpicks for a reason. they are supposed to offer an advantage to those picking them. you seem like you are complaining because some characters do better on them then others. could we not ban FD for the same reason? how about dream land? where do you draw the line?

 

[AXE 09]

THANK YOU so much for making this thread, Hax.

I don't understand why these 2 stages are legal in tournament play. Players need to be fighting each other, not the stage. All stage hazards should be reduced to a minimum. In my eyes, both lava and a moving stage are too significant.

 

[Pi]

I don't think you should have to learn extra characters to deal with wonky stages.

You don't 'have' to, as I stated, just accept the fact that your character is going to be weak on certain stages in certain matchups.

You know whats a legit reason to ban a stage? When half or more of the cast get destroyed on it, by one character. IE Fox on walled stages, jiggs on mute city/whatever that stage w/ a cloud way out in the boondocks is.

You can only force someone to play a character on a neutral, a random neutral at that.

In case we've all forgotten how things work

Loser picks stage, winner picks character, loser picks character.

See how that's balanced?

 

[Masmasher@]

i mean arent there sporst and competition when people play in adverse conditons though?

 

[Winnar]

I still don't see what the problem is. Hax, Armada, Mike G, Axe, Zhu, and most importantly World Renowned Mississippi Smashers Winnar and TheJesus are in unanimous agreement for getting rid of the goofy counterpick stages.

aka

IT'S DONE

---

but seriously, there's nothing to discuss. You either want the system to change or you don't. Seven pages of arguments hasn't changed anyone's mind either way, seven more won't either. Why are we not just taking a vote on this?

 

[Masmasher@]

^cause thats appeal to authority fallacy

 

[Winnar]

but seriously, there's nothing to discuss. You either want the system to change or you don't. Seven pages of arguments hasn't changed anyone's mind either way, seven more won't either. Why are we not just taking a vote on this?

^^^

Also I don't see how that's a bad thing in this situation. Every one of them is in complete (and enthusiastic, for the most part) agreement with the original sentiment. It's not like I'm saying "Oh well I think Armada is the better player so I will favor his argument." I'm saying that our best and brightest players are all in agreement on a single point. That in and of itself should hold some significant weight for changing the system.

 

[Masmasher@]

i guess in life those in power can manipulate the scales of justice to fit their image and benifits.
its a little extreme but its essentially the same thing.
the fact that youve been playing this game for 10 years now with these stages intact and players learning to deal with it doesnt hold any weight? i find that startling.
this is a slippery slope. banning items was legitimate but not this. this is like... the stage is hard so lets ban it
in competitive racing games some stages favor cars with better handling and some favor more top end speed. do they ban to fit the majority...no

 

[Hax]

Winnar, we would definitely lose the poll. that's why i made this thread; to convince the majority that these 2 stages need to be banned.

stingers, i draw the line when players begin to fight the stage just as much as they're fighting the opponent; as Axe said.

to refute some counter-arguments i've been hearing:

"That's not how the game was meant to be played. If your character is bad on a stage, that is your character's flaw."

nobody is disagreeing that Fox is by far the best character in the game if all 29 stages are legal. indeed the other 25 characters are flawed in the sense that they cannot compete with a circle camping Fox on Hyrule; so should the people who play them just "man up" and get better at the matchup?

just as lines had to be drawn for Hyrule and many other stages, lines must be drawn for Brinstar and RC. for the sake of competitive gameplay, these stages must be removed otherwise unskilled players who do not deserve to make it as far as they do will continue to win. removing these 2 stages will make Melee as skillbased as it can be.

"In sports, players have to deal with poor conditions"

these "poor conditions" are completely out of their control; if the NFL could ban rain i'm sure they would. luckily in Melee we are able to eliminate these conditions (which, by the way, you've admitted are poor)

 

[Masmasher@]

what are you striving for
also define "skill" in melee without a confimation bias

 

[Dark Hart]

Neutrals
FD
FoD
DreamLand
Battfield
Yoshi's

Counterpicks
PS
Japes
Cruise (which is legit as ****, it's just a bunch of small stages put together...)

 

[Winnar]

i guess in life those in power can manipulate the scales of justice to fit their image and benifits.
its a little extreme but its essentially the same thing.
the fact that youve been playing this game for 10 years now with these stages intact and players learning to deal with it doesnt hold any weight? i find that startling.
this is a slippery slope. banning items was legitimate but not this. this is like... the stage is hard so lets ban it
in competitive racing games some stages favor cars with better handling and some favor more top end speed. do they ban to fit the majority...no

Getting a little melodramatic, aren't we?

Reality check: Stop treating a melee stage legality discussion like a battle over personal freedoms. It's goofy.

Winnar, we would definitely lose the poll. that's why i made this thread; to convince the majority that these 2 stages need to be banned.

I guess Why not just get the MBR to vote on it, and then explain the logic after it passes? That's the whole point of the MBR, to expedite this process.

Anyway, as a TO I'll be trying this setup. If people don't like it then I'll just switch back to the normal US stage system.

 

[Deleted member]

Just use the European stage list like Armada said.

 

[Bones0]

what are you striving for
also define "skill" in melee without a confimation bias

In this situation, I would say you could define skill by the player who wins the first game. Pretty much everyone seems fine with the way the first stage is chosen (strike until there's one stage; whether you are striking from 19 stages or 7). To best display skill, we should choose a ruleset where the winner of game 1 has an almost equal chance of winning game 2. Obviously if we had 3 stages that were 100% fair for all matchups, there would be no debate. People would play those three stages and whoever wins 2 out of 3 advances. The problem we are having comes to the second stage. Allowing the loser of game 1 to choose a highly advantageous stage where the favor is tipped greatly is anti-competition. It is the ultimate form of catering to the lesser-skilled. The only reason this system has stayed in place so long is Melee is such an amazing game that the skill gap is huge which means most players win 2-0 against their seeded opponents even with having to play on a janky stage. That, and the fact that if someone does get gayed on a counterpick, it doesn't matter cause they just counterpick them to a different unfair stage that gives them a stupid advantage.

So yeah, hate to sound like a broken record, but it's stupid to have one fair stage that accurately depicts the skill level of each player, and then have two stages which are ridiculously biased towards one of the players based on their character choice.

 

[The Star King]

but seriously, there's nothing to discuss. You either want the system to change or you don't. Seven pages of arguments hasn't changed anyone's mind either way, seven more won't either. Why are we not just taking a vote on this?

So you want to NOT discuss this intelligently, and instead do a mindless poll without people stating the reasons for their vote, because you look down on the people of this community as stubborn people whose minds can't be changed? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Lovage]

Lol who is ripple



And yeah in 100% agreement with hax + armada

 

[pockyD]

this is all so ****ing stupid

why aren't we playing battlefield only

every other stage sucks

 

[t3h Icy]

I'm just a n00b but I like this idea:

Starter:
Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield
Final Destination
Dreamland
Yoshi's Story
Pokemon Stadium

Counterpicks:
(None)

Stage Striking: 12221

That order allows the first player to ultimately pick the stage, but they have one less strike. They also strike first, which allows the second player to strike other stages, so if there's an overlap in a stage both players want striked, the first player may strike it and then the second player can strike others.

I haven't tested this, but I see it working. Also I hate when the stage gets directly involved with the match, and thus hate Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar. If this idea doesn't fly, I'm definitely for the seven stage striking style (adding Kongo Jungle).

I also like the European style.

 

[Palpi]

There is a difference between, using the stage to your advantage, and the stage helping you win.

I have always had a conservative view on the stage list. I agree with hax. Brinstar is far too dangerous, I am sure any match that Darc played on it cause show you this.

Rainbow cruise completely invalidates some characters trying to play catch up.

 

[Masmasher@]

Getting a little melodramatic, aren't we?

Reality check: Stop treating a melee stage legality discussion like a battle over personal freedoms. It's goofy.

dont condescend my post if you cant attack every point.
if anything your arguing personal freedoms because you are allowing a decision from a another player based on impluse to change the layout of a game thats been played for a decade. im not saying hax doesnt have weight to his argement but if its not broken (fighting game humor) then dont try to fix it. otherwise this game will degrade into
"fox only, no items, final destination" can you not see the slope?

In this situation, I would say you could define skill by the player who wins the first game. Pretty much everyone seems fine with the way the first stage is chosen (strike until there's one stage; whether you are striking from 19 stages or 7). To best display skill, we should choose a ruleset where the winner of game 1 has an almost equal chance of winning game 2. Obviously if we had 3 stages that were 100% fair for all matchups, there would be no debate. People would play those three stages and whoever wins 2 out of 3 advances. The problem we are having comes to the second stage. Allowing the loser of game 1 to choose a highly advantageous stage where the favor is tipped greatly is anti-competition. It is the ultimate form of catering to the lesser-skilled. The only reason this system has stayed in place so long is Melee is such an amazing game that the skill gap is huge which means most players win 2-0 against their seeded opponents even with having to play on a janky stage. That, and the fact that if someone does get gayed on a counterpick, it doesn't matter cause they just counterpick them to a different unfair stage that gives them a stupid advantage.

So yeah, hate to sound like a broken record, but it's stupid to have one fair stage that accurately depicts the skill level of each player, and then have two stages which are ridiculously biased towards one of the players based on their character choice.

its up to the player to adapt and fight on the counterpick. the match doesnt end at the stage select screen. its been proven many times that the winner of the previous match can win on the counter pick.
your points are compelling though. in a sense i understand only because of matchup knowledge being the backbone, that it would be good to have 3 matches of neutral stages. but at the same time nothing on these stages is truly broken, or overcentralizes. its a determining factor in the the pool or bracket but its a small hurdle. also its still balanced because the other person has their counter pick if they lose. its not like you cant have a secondary also.
it comes down to player skill too. most of these advantages on these stages can only be utlized if the person executes correctly.
relative to in game play you wont always be in a neutral position. it seems nitpicky.
all in all changing the game because you dont like a hinderance or grow tired of it is degrading competition.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Battlefield only.

 

[pockyD]

Battlefield only.

high five

 

[EPsilon933]

What's the point of counter pick stages not legal until game 2?

 

[Palpi]

I get bored with BF only though

I DONT WANT TO GET BATTLEGAYED (ban battlefield)

 

[pockyD]

what's "battlegayed"

Anyway, the main point is that people don't REALLY want it to be strictly fair... they want some magical mix of fair and variety, and yet they seem to have difficulty understanding that there is no such perfect line combining the two and that every person will place that line differently. Any arguments about one way being 'fairer' is really missing the point.

 

[Winnar]

In this situation, I would say you could define skill by the player who wins the first game. Pretty much everyone seems fine with the way the first stage is chosen (strike until there's one stage; whether you are striking from 19 stages or 7). To best display skill, we should choose a ruleset where the winner of game 1 has an almost equal chance of winning game 2. Obviously if we had 3 stages that were 100% fair for all matchups, there would be no debate. People would play those three stages and whoever wins 2 out of 3 advances. The problem we are having comes to the second stage. Allowing the loser of game 1 to choose a highly advantageous stage where the favor is tipped greatly is anti-competition. It is the ultimate form of catering to the lesser-skilled. The only reason this system has stayed in place so long is Melee is such an amazing game that the skill gap is huge which means most players win 2-0 against their seeded opponents even with having to play on a janky stage. That, and the fact that if someone does get gayed on a counterpick, it doesn't matter cause they just counterpick them to a different unfair stage that gives them a stupid advantage.

So yeah, hate to sound like a broken record, but it's stupid to have one fair stage that accurately depicts the skill level of each player, and then have two stages which are ridiculously biased towards one of the players based on their character choice.

Well counterpicking made sense when we were still doing random for game 1.

Right now CP's are just an artifact of an old system. It's not the worst thing, but as has been said several times they're just not necessary anymore.

Also, the stage striking system falls apart if you have more than 9 stages, I think.

Example: There are 11 stages available, 5 are neutral

Player A plays character X
Player B plays character Y

Character X has a disadvantage vs character Y on every stage that isn't neutral

By the end, player A bans 5 counterpick stages and player B bans 5 neutral stages. They play on a counterpick stage and player A is automatically at a disadvantage.

Even if player A prioritizes first banning stages he has the highest disadvantage on he will still end up at a disadvantage every time versus player B.

Also if there are 9 stages, 5 neutrals and it's the same scenario otherwise, then that means that basically player B gets to choose which neutral they feel they have the highest advantage on. With 7 stages it's not too bad.

Of course, this isn't a perfect model. This assumes that every counterpick is bad for only one player, which is a bold claim.

It's just game theory

So you want to NOT discuss this intelligently, and instead do a mindless poll without people stating the reasons for their vote, because you look down on the people of this community as stubborn people whose minds can't be changed? Wow. Just wow.

I try to avoid thinking the worst of people and jumping to drastic conclusions about their personal character before I get to know them. I'd appreciate it if from now on you did the same, thanks.

dont condescend my post if you cant attack every point.
if anything your arguing personal freedoms because you are allowing a decision from a another player based on impluse to change the layout of a game thats been played for a decade. im not saying hax doesnt have weight to his argement but if its not broken (fighting game humor) then dont try to fix it. otherwise this game will degrade into
"fox only, no items, final destination" can you not see the slope?

Yeah I wasn't trying to be condescending. Also, it wasn't that I couldn't attack every point, it's that I didn't want to. I'm content to agree to disagree on this one.

You're begging the question at the end, btw.