Dave's Stupid Rule -Current MBR Discussion

[-ACE-]

Wasting a ban on YS would open up other "free" win stages like FD.

How is that a free win unless you suck on that stage?

Another example could be pikachu vs falcon. Falcon strikes down to FD because he is ignorant to the chaingrab or thinks pikachu won't get any grabs, and its his favorite falcon stage. In theory this sounds good but when the match is played he finds that is his worst stage.

How is that not Falcon's fault? shouldn't he be penalized for not knowing that?

The difference between P2 picking game 2 and P1 picking game 3 is that P1 already has a win when he is picking his stage, and P2 doesn't.

True, but P2 most likely lost the first match because he's not as good on that stage as his opponent. Why didn't he strike that stage?

The point of DSR, from my experience, is that you must win on two different stages. When you win one game, no matter the method of selection, the stage is unavailable for you to select because you've already proven you are better on that stage than your opponent.

But you haven't proven that you're better, you've only proven that it is possible that you can win.

Whats the point of having sets where you only have to prove you're better on one stage, and then CP back to reiterate that you're better on that stage?

No two matches are the same. Cactuar once ***** Darkrain on DL64. Do you think that would happen every time? Come on.

You could lose 100% on every stage but FD (where you win 100%), trick your opponent into striking to FD, and then simply show you can win on FD twice vs the same person. In fact, I would argue that the winner of game 1 should always take them back to the same stage as game 1 because they know they can already win there.

Maybe that person should work on their FD game?

 

[KAOSTAR]

Last stage won on is perfect for Bo3. You have to win on two stages, you get a completely scratch out a stage with your ban and you come to a consensus with striking.

They should just ban going to a CPable stage more than once even if you lose. That keep the emphasis on neutrals.

neutrals shouldnt be banned for the set.

You could end up being left with two neutrals to choose from and 1 if DSR is completely eliminates stages from a set.

2/3 diff stages is good enough if two of them are neutrals.

I pretty much agree with ACE. I was just too lazy to split up Sveets post

 

[tdk_Samurai]

my thoughts in bold

How is that a free win unless you suck on that stage?

I think hes refering to the u throw chain grab which can be pretty ****ty for falco, but falco can laser camp, and think there are better examples of what he said though.

How is that not Falcon's fault? shouldn't he be penalized for not knowing that?

Losing that first game is a punishment. Do you feel a player should be double punished for not knowing about a chain grab?


True, but P2 most likely lost the first match because he's not as good on that stage as his opponent. Why didn't he strike that stage?

Kinda goes back to what aob said. Maybe someone is rediculously good on a certain stage, not their character, them. And should you get punished twice for not knowing this person is secretly **** on some level.
Like people would definitely want to take samus to a not so big level like maybe...Yoshi's. And a certain samus I know has told me that yoshi's is his specialty. So if he were to go into a set with someone who was like samus is good on big stages so hopefully I can get him on yoshi's in the stage strike. The samus would undoubtedly whip up on him, cause hes goes nuts on the story. Then game 3 if there is one, the loser has the choice to ban yoshi's or dreamland. Hes kinda ****ed.


But you haven't proven that you're better, you've only proven that it is possible that you can win.

But does winning on the same stage twice prove your better? Or that you can always win on that stage?


Maybe that person should work on their FD game?

From the example Sveet gave, I think the main person needs to work on their non FD game, and that they got pretty lucky that the stage strike went to FD in the first place. That **** prolly won't happen to often. Like they need to go practice in their room or something.

@Pakman claiming that the person who wins the first match becomes at a disadvatage due to having less counterpicks to choose from - if you or anyone trully believe in this, you should try this strategy in a tourney and forfiet every match, ban the stage strike that it came down to, then ban a stage of your choice. I don't really think it would help you out. I'm not trying to sound condesending in this point btw.

 

[tdk_Samurai]

me in bold, sorry for double post

They should just ban going to a CPable stage more than once even if you lose. That keep the emphasis on neutrals.

As in if a fox takes your puff to pokestadium, even though you lost on pokestadium, you can't take that fox to brinstar?

neutrals shouldnt be banned for the set.

It doesn't sound like you have had to fight pika vs shiek on FD, pika vs marth on ys, most things vs jiggs on dl64, or capin vs most things on FoD. And I know, noone cares about low tiers in decision making, but there are many chars who don't like shiek on fd or marth on ys

 

[-ACE-]

First of all, that was a grammatical catastrophe. Second of all, you really didn't address any of my points. Why wouldn't you strike a stage where that chaingrab would destroy your game? YES I THINK A PLAYER SHOULD BE DOUBLE PUNISHED FOR NOT KNOWING ABOUT A CHAINGRAB. Good God, that is so basic. This "secretly **** on a certain stage" stuff is BS. There are no secrets if you understand smash, and the character matchup you are facing. Winning on the same stage twice DOES prove something, since no two matches are the same regardless of any matchup, and especially since the other player was allowed to strike the 2 stages he felt were most detrimental to his chance of victory. Your last response makes little sense to me, as the opponent was able to strike 2 stages. If he still sucks on his 3rd worst stage out of what is left by the new MBR stage list, he needs to practice more, period.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The point of playing multiple games in a set is that mistakes in a single game can be learned from and don't effect the set beyond the scope of the game in question. DSR protects the players from unfair situations arising from individual stages and advantages/disadvantages inherent in every stage.

Yes if you lose game 1 on their best stage, you will be fighting an uphill battle. Should it be so uphill that you potentially have to play on their best stage twice and MUST win on their best stage at least once in order to win the set? I don't think so.


edit-

Winning on the same stage twice DOES prove something, since no two matches are the same regardless of any matchup

No matches are exactly the same, true, but many of them follow the same patterns. For an easy identification, watch almost any game on corneria.

All winning on the same stage twice proves to me is that you can beat them on that stage

Also btw, players playing exceptionally well on certain stages is a reality even if it doesn't make sense to you logically.

 

[KAOSTAR]

First of all. Everyone stop with this bolded bull ****. It makes it more difficult to quote. When you are lazy it make more work on the next guy.

hey should just ban going to a CPable stage more than once even if you lose. That keep the emphasis on neutrals.

As in if a fox takes your puff to pokestadium, even though you lost on pokestadium, you can't take that fox to brinstar?

neutrals shouldnt be banned for the set.

It doesn't sound like you have had to fight pika vs shiek on FD, pika vs marth on ys, most things vs jiggs on dl64, or capin vs most things on FoD. And I know, noone cares about low tiers in decision making, but there are many chars who don't like shiek on fd or marth on ys

This only applies to Bo5 because in Bo3 you cant go to a stage again and must win on 2 diff stages, as long as DSR=last stage won on.

In Bo5 I mean you shouldnt be able to pick Brinstar-lose and pick it again. Even though you lost, I just think the other player shouldnt have to go to brinstar again. I mean 1 player cant pick the same stage Cp stage twice regardless of outcome.

Neutrals should be played on most of the time. Non neutrals should be more like tie breakers for players of equal skill. They go even head up, so now try to exploit a fault or weakness with an out of the ordinary stage.

Pikachu isnt going to finals where he has Bo5 anyway. But its not in issue during the tourney becaue you can stage strike FD AND BAN it. If you play pikachu, you know you dont want to go to FD vs shiek. But falcon Prob doesnt want to go there against you.

Dont waste your stage strikes and bans. And low tiers are full of disadvantages-Thats why they are low tier. You cannot complain about how bad a low tier matchup is on a particular stage. The rest arent so hot either. Get better at matchups and comfortable with more stages.

Edit:neutrals shouldnt be banned from a set because of winning on them if DSR isnt last stage won on

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

KAOSTAR you are really getting off topic. Introducing new rules and stuff makes it really hard to even discuss the topic with you because half the stuff you say revolves around the other stuff you made up.

btw, neutrals were never claimed to be neutral. In fact the name has been dropped and is now called "Starter Strike Stage List". FD is definitely pika's worst stage vs sheik, even if you include CP stages.

 

[tdk_Samurai]

First of all, that was a grammatical catastrophe. Second of all, you really didn't address any of my points. Why wouldn't you strike a stage where that chaingrab would destroy your game? YES I THINK A PLAYER SHOULD BE DOUBLE PUNISHED FOR NOT KNOWING ABOUT A CHAINGRAB. Good God, that is so basic. This "secretly **** on a certain stage" stuff is BS. There are no secrets if you understand smash, and the character matchup you are facing. Winning on the same stage twice DOES prove something, since no two matches are the same regardless of any matchup, and especially since the other player was allowed to strike the 2 stages he felt were most detrimental to his chance of victory. Your last response makes little sense to me, as the opponent was able to strike 2 stages. If he still sucks on his 3rd worst stage out of what is left by the new MBR stage list, he needs to practice more, period.

Well, I'm sorry for the gramatical catastrofy.

Do you really think that there is noone out there who is rediculously better on some random nuetral that isn't nescesarely the best for their character? I mean there is understanding smash, there is understanding matchups, but can you understand someone's play style who you have never played before?

And yes, a player was able to strike 2 stages he FELT were worse for him, but sometimes people are wrong. And people must learn from their mistakes, but do you really feel someone should be eliminated for striking a wrong stage? I feel someone should be eliminated if they are completely out played. But if you think someone should lose on an out of game decision or something, you are entitled to your opinion.

And I think you are misunderstanding sveets example. What he is saying that if you are a one trick pony( win all fd games) and you get people to not strike fd, (which unless there is a shiek or falco, that is a descent chance) then you could make it past several rounds. Even though you can't play on other stages for some reason, idk, your bad with platforms. And platforms is somewhat basic, imho you should be punished for not knowing how to deal with platforms.

And its not so much that the loser sucks so much on his third less desireable stage, its that he wasn't aware you could tech chase that good with roy or that even though your cap'n, you don't know how to use those platforms to recover as well as most descent cap'n players do.
You seem to believe that the person who is pretty good on all stages needs to work on their fd game to beat this person in particular, and that the person only good on FD is fine doing his or her thing.
I believe that if you are only good on one stage, you need to practice in your room or something.

 

[Deleted member]

Kevin, Arc, I'll ask that you merge this with the MBR thread and unlock it. It's just easier with one thread.

 

[KAOSTAR]

KAOSTAR you are really getting off topic. Introducing new rules and stuff makes it really hard to even discuss the topic with you because half the stuff you say revolves around the other stuff you made up.

btw, neutrals were never claimed to be neutral. In fact the name has been dropped and is now called "Starter Strike Stage List". FD is definitely pika's worst stage vs sheik, even if you include CP stages.

Lol, my bad. I dont think I even know what the topic is anymore

 

[-ACE-]

And I think you are misunderstanding sveets example. What he is saying that if you are a one trick pony( win all fd games) and you get people to not strike fd, (which unless there is a shiek or falco, that is a descent chance) then you could make it past several rounds. Even though you can't play on other stages for some reason, idk, your bad with platforms. And platforms is somewhat basic, imho you should be punished for not knowing how to deal with platforms.

A person who only wins fd games wouldn't do well (consistently) at all. Sure he could surprise a few people in the beginning, but his reputation as a one trick pony would probably spread like wildfire lol (hell, I've whispered a tip in someone's ear before, just before the 5th match of a doubles winner's finals set that most likely determined the outcome of the set). The chances of him consistently doing well in tournament are slim, and that would be his fault for not learning how to work well with platforms (and other stages in general). Also, how to you get your opponents to always not strike fd?

I completely understand the opposition to my argument, and I think both sides have a good case. I just think it boils down to a difference in opinion/preference. We just have this debate to see what most people believe is more fair.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Question, who here knows that stages to strike against Lucky?

 

[JPOBS]

First of all, that was a grammatical catastrophe. Second of all, you really didn't address any of my points. Why wouldn't you strike a stage where that chaingrab would destroy your game? YES I THINK A PLAYER SHOULD BE DOUBLE PUNISHED FOR NOT KNOWING ABOUT A CHAINGRAB. Good God, that is so basic. This "secretly **** on a certain stage" stuff is BS. There are no secrets if you understand smash, and the character matchup you are facing. Winning on the same stage twice DOES prove something, since no two matches are the same regardless of any matchup, and especially since the other player was allowed to strike the 2 stages he felt were most detrimental to his chance of victory. Your last response makes little sense to me, as the opponent was able to strike 2 stages. If he still sucks on his 3rd worst stage out of what is left by the new MBR stage list, he needs to practice more, period.

character matchups doesnt always correlate with stage preference tho

if you play agaisnt zhu, and you are a fox, what would tell you to ban Battlefield in the matchup of fox vs falco? you would NEVER ban BF vs a normal falco.

but the fact that its zhu, you're probably better off banning battlefield.

i cant believe you are trying to argue against players having stage preferences than are comletely independent of charater matchups :/

like honestly, you could know this game inside and out from a matchup standpoint, but that means almost nothing in this case.

 

[-ACE-]

Yeah but if someone is THAT ****, likel Zhu, he's going to acquire a reputation for that in no time. It doesn't really matter though, because there are plenty of people that can beat him on battlefield.

like honestly, you could know this game inside and out from a matchup standpoint, but that means almost nothing in this case.

False. I'm willing to bet that Linguini would have no problem beating Zhu on battlefield because HE KNOWS THAT MATCHUP IN AND OUT. He destroys Falcos because he practiced and worked at that matchup more than any other Ganon. He would also do so without doing anything that any other good ganon hasn't seen or done; he just does it better and at the right time (any Ganon with enough practice can reach his level). See what I'm getting at?

It's almost like you're saying "I haven't practiced enough on that stage, we should play another one... yes I know I already got to strike 2 but that doesn't matter" lol

 

[JPOBS]

i had a decently long post written up tofurther this discussion, but i erased cuz i realized that its pointless. We're just reiterating points which have already been brought up, explored, and concluded in the MBR thread.

i'll just say we should agree to disagree.

 

[-ACE-]

If you say so...

I'm just trying to point out why exactly DSR isn't nearly as good with stage striking.

 

[JPOBS]

i know, i've heard and understand the arguements from you and scar in that thread.
i dont think theres anything more convincing i could add at this point that would change anything.

 

[ArcNatural]

Kevin, Arc, I'll ask that you merge this with the MBR thread and unlock it. It's just easier with one thread.

All set, I kinda liked keeping them separate though. Good discussion so far!

 

[KAOSTAR]

I dont really understand what ppl have against Stage striking and DSR.

I think it really doesnt matter for anything except best of 5s. You have to win 2 games Bo3 and they should be on 2 diff stages. Either two neutrals or 1 counter pick and 1 neutral.

There is a small enough stage list to where you should be ready to play on any stage cp or not. And if there is 1 you are against you can always ban it. If its a neutral strike it. Also one of the cp is stadium which was a neutral for years so almost everyone is comfortable there.

 

[Scar]

kaostar the point is that it should rarely happen this way anyways

most of the time CP stages will be either not on the neutral list or a part of what the other player banned via stage striking

DSR disallows something that prob won't happen much but isn't a very big deal anyways, i just don't like that it's NOT ALLOWED period. especially in Bo5s.

 

[KAOSTAR]

It is a rare occasion.

But technically with the gentleman's clause it is still allowed.

I just think the alternate stages should be more like a tie breaker between two evenish opponents and you should not be able to take the set with 2/3 wins on the same alternate stage.

I guess we just agree to disagree

alternate=non neutral stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the two players struck down to a stage its even. The winner should be able to go back there. I like scars original thing about last stage picked and won on being the norm.

I think that a player should only be able to pick a particular alternate stage Once despite the outcome.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This will probably be my last post in this thread, unless the topic seriously picks up. Basically everything has already been said by the MBR before the topic went public.

someone PLEASE tell me why you guys decided that the winner of round 1 should NOT be able to repick that NEUTRAL stage that was decided on by BOTH players as the most fair stage for the first round to be played on should a set go to r3???

it makes no sense to apply DSR there and i heard that the MBR decided that this rule should be tournament standard

so if anyone has a good argument for why this should be then i'd love to hear it

1. "Neutral" isn't true. Every stage gives an advantage or another.
2. Both players strike to the stage. They don't sit down debating with each other on which stage is the fairest, they just remove stages they think give the most advantages to their opponent. In Marth vs Falco, the most fair stage is probably BF, but is probably the 2nd stage struck by Marth because FoD YS and FD are better stages for him. (obviously this is my opinion and debatable, but you get what i mean...)
3. Why should the stage someone already won on be allowed to be picked by them again in order to decide the set? I think this is a better question to ask.

otherwise i argue that the winner should 100% absolutely be allowed to repick the stage that was picked by striking for a multitude of reasons, primarily because DSR is only a rule because it stops people from repicking a stage that was unfair or biased towards the winner because they got lucky in the random

it made sense when we used random, now it doesn't

I was going to be a jerk and dissect this paragraph in a humorous way but i'm restraining myself.

Breaking this apart you only say 3 things:
DSR stops people from repicking a stage that was unfair or biased towards the winner because they got lucky in the random.
We don't use random anymore (we strike).
Therefore DSR shouldn't be used.

I don't believe the original purpose of DSR was to counter the imbalance from the random stage. I was always under the impression DSR was intended to prevent people from CPing to the same stage in order to obtain multiple wins from the same stage imbalance.

Not to mention the logic of R->D, ~R therefore ~D is invalid. (R: using random stage for first game, D: using DSR for the set)

also doing that basically gives players 2 bans out of the 5 stages deemed most fair for competitive unbiased play then ALLOWS the winner to pick one of the 2 stages that WAS banned by the loser but DISALLOWS the winner to pick a stage that the loser deemed less unfair for the matchup in question

meanwhile since you have to ban CP stages against certain characters (brinstar or cruise vs jiggs or fox) the winner can pick EITHER of the 2 neutrals you banned but NOT the stage you said you were ok going to

For one, the winner gets to pick from more than just the 2 stages that were struck by the loser.

Second, they are strikes not bans. You ban stages you absolutely don't want to play on. Strikes are simply there for preference on the first game.

Third, as -ACE- puts it

It's almost like you're saying "I haven't practiced enough on that stage, we should play another one... yes I know I already got to strike 2 but that doesn't matter" lol

except you're saying "I haven't practiced enough on those other stages, lets just go to this one again".





edit-

I see what you're saying about Bo5's though. I mean, we are down to 9 total stages, with the two player's bans thats only 7 stages. In a Bo5 thats not very many to choose from. I think thats a different subject to discuss; more of an exception to the rule instead of the rule itself.

everything i have been posting about has been in relation to Bo3 sets.

 

[-ACE-]

except you're saying "I haven't practiced enough on those other stages, lets just go to this one again".

I'm fully aware that this is the common argument against what I just said. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold much water with stage striking. In other words, the winner may have only won on 1 stage in a Bo3, but he obviously is good on various stages otherwise he won't get very far in a tournament. And if you bring up how stages effect specific matchups, I say that the 2 worst stages for that matchup should have been struck (which sort of goes back to what I said, if you still can't win after you elminate 2 stages, it's definitely your fault).

 

[SuperRad]

I don't think there's been a compelling argument yet to remove DSR. I don't like to keep rules around just because they are already in place, but DSR promotes what I would consider a positive attribute [stage variety] while not hindering the 'dynamics of the set'. The person who loses the first game might get an 'advantage' in effectively getting 'two bans' if/when the set goes to Game 3, but in actuality they are in a hole because they have to win two in a row.

It seems to me that removing DSR would put way too much emphasis on stage striking. While at the highest level of play every small mistake can cost you the set, mistakes outside of the gameplay shouldn't put you at a 'disproportionate'* disadvantage.

*Admittedly, it's hard to gauge how much one should be punished for a mistake. It's nearly impossible to quantify that kind of thing.

[Also, I think that DSR needs to stay on if stage striking is done before character selection.]

 

[KAOSTAR]

I think that you should stage strike according to the characters you select.

Its a smoother process as well and both players make a more informed decision.

Character select>then to the random stage select>hit start

otherwise I agree

 

[unknown522]

stage stiking is really stupid. I would say otherwise, if I didn't go a whole tourney playing the same stage game 1 every set. No matter who selects first, I will always end up getting battlefield game 1. I think we got FoD once because I got tired of the same scenario happening every time. I'd might as well say "ok, let's just skip this and go to battlefield". Also because of stage-striking, I think that DSR should be taken off. There are too few stages on for DSR to matter now, and it sucks to have to pick a stage you hate, rather than pick a stage that you don't mind too much (battlefield or FoD for myself I guess).

 

[-ACE-]

stage Stiking Is Really Stupid. I Would Say Otherwise, If I Didn't Go A Whole Tourney Playing The Same Stage Game 1 Every Set. No Matter Who Selects First, I Will Always End Up Getting Battlefield Game 1. I Think We Got Fod Once Because I Got Tired Of The Same Scenario Happening Every Time. I'd Might As Well Say "ok, Let's Just Skip This And Go To Battlefield". Also Because Of Stage-striking, I Think That Dsr Should Be Taken Off. There Are Too Few Stages On For Dsr To Matter Now, And It Sucks To Have To Pick A Stage You Hate, Rather Than Pick A Stage That You Don't Mind Too Much (battlefield Or Fod For Myself I Guess).

Well put.

 

[KAOSTAR]

stage stiking is really stupid. I would say otherwise, if I didn't go a whole tourney playing the same stage game 1 every set. No matter who selects first, I will always end up getting battlefield game 1. I think we got FoD once because I got tired of the same scenario happening every time. I'd might as well say "ok, let's just skip this and go to battlefield". Also because of stage-striking, I think that DSR should be taken off. There are too few stages on for DSR to matter now, and it sucks to have to pick a stage you hate, rather than pick a stage that you don't mind too much (battlefield or FoD for myself I guess).

how did you end up on battlefield each time.

I would never get that. Its my first strike-also who is your main

 

[Vulcan55]

stage stiking is really stupid. I would say otherwise, if I didn't go a whole tourney playing the same stage game 1 every set. No matter who selects first, I will always end up getting battlefield game 1. I think we got FoD once because I got tired of the same scenario happening every time. I'd might as well say "ok, let's just skip this and go to battlefield". Also because of stage-striking, I think that DSR should be taken off. There are too few stages on for DSR to matter now, and it sucks to have to pick a stage you hate, rather than pick a stage that you don't mind too much (battlefield or FoD for myself I guess).

This.
I never liked stage striking.
You either play against a character where you want a big stage, or one you want a small stage, so either way, they strike the opposites, and you end up playing on BF since it's usually the most medium stage.

 

[SuperRad]

stage stiking is really stupid. I would say otherwise, if I didn't go a whole tourney playing the same stage game 1 every set. No matter who selects first, I will always end up getting battlefield game 1. I think we got FoD once because I got tired of the same scenario happening every time. I'd might as well say "ok, let's just skip this and go to battlefield".

This really depends on what characters are matched up, I think. Also, since I play sheik, a lot of space animals strike battlefield. I'd usually strike it against marth. Last tournament, I played on Yoshi's first 3 times, dreamland twice and battlefield once, if I'm remembering correctly.

Also, I don't really understand what the problem is. If Battlefield is the "most neutral" stage for that match up, then there it should be played first. I understand wanting variety, but in a tournament setting we shouldn't sacrifice fairness strictly for variety. (Also, you seem to not 'mind [Battlefield] too much', so I'm not sure why it even matters if you play it every set.)

Also because of stage-striking, I think that DSR should be taken off. There are too few stages on for DSR to matter now, and it sucks to have to pick a stage you hate, rather than pick a stage that you don't mind too much (battlefield or FoD for myself I guess).

This makes no sense to me.
Under the Pound 4 rules (for singles) there are 9 legal stages. You make it sound like if you win game 1 and lose game 2, you are forced to pick a stage you hate. That sounds like a personal problem, as at that point you can pick one of 7 stages (the stage from game 1 is banned and your opponent bans one).

 

[gnosis]

Stage striking doesn't pick the most neutral stage, it picks the 'middle' stage. In a lot of matchups this means one player eliminates the two stages closest to neutral, the other eliminates the two most unbalanced stages, and you're left with a stage which isn't the most fair but not as bad as it could be.

It's an interesting way of doing things, but it definitely doesn't insure that the first fight is on the most balanced stage, and a lot of times guarantees that the first fight -won't- be on the fairest stage.

 

[pockyD]

what's the issue? it's not a perfectly neutral stage choice but it's WORLDS better than hitting a giant random button and not knowing whether you'll be playing on dreamland or yoshi's story

if you're against stage striking, i can buy that... if you propose a system that's better, since using "random" is CLEARLY not it

otherwise you just come across as being whiny and hating change

 

[SuperRad]

@gnosis:

Stage striking isn't perfect, but the "middle" stage is effectively the most 'neutral' for those two players. There isn't a better system I've encountered to pick the stage for the first game.

(For the record, about half your post makes no sense to me at all)

 

[S l o X]

not even in smash scene yet but random is definitely the more neutral way imo. its not always 50/50 but better than ss imo

 

[SuperRad]

not even in smash scene yet but random is definitely the more neutral way imo. its not always 50/50 but better than ss imo

Nice support, especially since your opinion is apparently not based on experience from within the community.

 

[gnosis]

My post wasn't meant to be anti-SS at all, I was just explaining how it doesn't pick the fairest stage, since a lot of people seemed to be talking as if it did. I agree that it's much better than random, and while not perfect, I can't think of a better alternative.

I like SS :D

edit: To try and make my point clearer, here's a completely hypothetical example:

Stage 1 is neutral.
Stage 2 is slight advantage for P1
Stage 3 is advantage for P1
Stage 4 and 5 are huge advantage for P1.

P1 strikes stage 1 & 2 every time, P2 strikes stage 4 & 5 every time, so you end up playing on stage 3 every time (in this fake matchup example). Whereas with random you have an equal chance for any stage coming up, SS picks the 'middle' stage, which varies in neutrality depending on the matchup.

 

[pockyD]

not even in smash scene yet but random is definitely the more neutral way imo. its not always 50/50 but better than ss imo

you seem to think "imo" is a convincing argument

 

[KAOSTAR]

SS is the ****. I feel I have some control over the first match.

I know for one thing my two most hated stages vs a certain character or player I dont have to go to.

Also just because a stage is bad/good match for a character doesnt mean that a player will strike it or keep it.

Its completely player dependent

 

[gnosis]

SS is the ****. I feel I have some control over the first match.

I know for one thing my two most hated stages vs a certain character or player I dont have to go to.

Also just because a stage is bad/good match for a character doesnt mean that a player will strike it or keep it.

Its completely player dependent

Very true. I was taking a sorta idealized, theoretical approach in describing SS, but player preference plays a big part in the real world.