Official Stage Legality Discussion: Philosophical

[fkacyan]

After spending enough time in this thread, I now know how to respond to this.

No it should not. No characters should be rewarded for anything. Rewarding characters for stage versatility is like rewarding characters for weight - it doesn't accurately represent how much they actually win. One character will win a certain amount versus another character. That is how much they should win because that is how much they do win. No more, no less.

Just for the record, this is not ADHD's philosophy. It's one of the driving philosophies behind the new stagelist and ruleset.

 

[AMKalmar]

I still disagree with it.

 

[Raziek]

Is there any particular reason we shouldn't have to "waste strikes" on such stages? If they are extremely powerful stages for one side in a particular matchup, isn't it unfair to that side to remove them from striking under and originalist mindset? You don't end up with a broken result when they're struck, but you do end up with the power of characters on these stages not being completely removed from the game (thus we avoid changing the game more than we have to).

I'm mostly just seeing how well thought out and self-consistent you guys are with this position.

I'll offer my take on it, I guess. The reason I believe stages like 75m and Hanenbow should be excluded from stage striking is because they are stages that we have deemed unfit for competitive play. As such, they will almost certainly never be picked in a set, but if they remain in striking, SOMEONE has to strike them. In the case of certain characters like Dedede, this creates a preposterous polarization, because he possess the main tactics that cause a lot of stages like Shadow Moses or Eldin to be banned.

Yes, it goes against the idea of rewarding versatility, but if we've already deemed them unfit for competitive play, it comes down to giving the character who can best abuse them about 10 extra strikes. As such, full-list striking should only be done with the stages that are actually legal.

Further reinforcing this concept is Luxor's wonderful stagelist ground-air continuum. With just the legal stages, a full-list strike will usually result in Lylat or BF, or at least something close to the center, depending on the match-up.

TL;DR Adding the banned stages disrupts a balance that has already been pretty much achieved for the full-list concept, and since we've already deemed them unfit for competitive play, why should they be added?

 

[vVv Rapture]

I agree with Raziek. Striking the stages that should clearly be banned anyways is completely unnecessary. Banning them beforehand saves time since no one has to go about striking them and it just makes it more streamlined.

As he said, those stages will be struck out anyways, so it's not like banning them creates a different result. All it does is unnecessarily clog the stage list with stages already unfit for competitive play.

There's nothing wrong with adding stages that in some ways can promote competitive play and see how they do (so, probably in an experimental sense), but it'd be a complete waste of time to do it with stages like 75m that clearly display their lack of competitive value without a need to make it an experiment to show why.

 

[AMKalmar]

Banning them beforehand saves time since no one has to go about striking them and it just makes it more streamlined.

Thus, we have a starter list. Just saying.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

After spending enough time in this thread, I now know how to respond to this.

No it should not. No characters should be rewarded for anything. Rewarding characters for stage versatility is like rewarding characters for weight - it doesn't accurately represent how much they actually win. One character will win a certain amount versus another character. That is how much they should win because that is how much they do win. No more, no less.

Oh right. Except, get this: we don't reward them for versatility by opening up the stagelist. I mean, we don't reward snake for being heavy. His reward is "living to 180% with good DI against most characters this side of DDD". We don't reward Pikachu for having a good recovery; his reward is that if he plays smart, he's virtually ungimpable. If we were to reward them for that, it would be **** like making opponents of characters with good kill moves start with a 50% handicap, or making the opponents of characters who have good damage wracking skills kill themselves once they hit a certain %.

Their reward is native to the game-they do obscenely well on certain stages. Removing stages because of this fact (beyond those that are completely game-breaking like Temple or Eldin, obviously) is like making Snake kill himself if he gets hit above 130%, or making Metaknight kill himself if the opponent jumps after him offstage.

Thus, we have a starter list. Just saying.

...which benefits certain characters over others. Remember, we ban only the stages that completely **** over gameplay. Does RC do that? No? Throw it on the starter list. Does Onett do that? No? Throw it on the starter list. Why not, they're valid stages.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Are they truly "unfit" though? A lot of stages are only banned in some regions, and your reasoning seems tailored around assuming stages like Norfair that aren't "that bad" are included regardless.

Furthermore, many of the banned stages are only unfit in a limited number of match-ups. Bridge of Eldin is actually a wonderful example. So in a match-up like King Dedede versus Snake, Bridge of Eldin is not really okay. However, what about a match-up like Mr. Game & Watch versus Peach? I don't see anything wrong with the stage at all in that match-up. Maybe if we struck in that match-up, we might even play on it! Even crazy stages like Shadow Moses Island are fine in a pretty large number of match-ups (Ike vs Zelda & Sheik is probably pretty fine on Shadow Moses Island). I don't think it's fair to say we've deemed them "unfit for competitive play". We've deemed them broken in some non-trivial number of match-ups, and as an artifact of our current counterpick system, stages like that must be banned. Under a system in which stage striking is the only method of determining stages, such stages do not actually break the system.

Even a stage as far out as 75m probably has a limited number of match-ups that work out on it. A stage like that also rewards stage knowledge on the players a lot. As G&W, I would probably just about never strike 75m (maybe against a known very good Wario). Is G&W very close to the best on 75m? Maybe, maybe not. I just have confidence I'm going to do better than just about anyone else on the stage as a player. If they aren't willing to strike 75m, I have no problem with us actually playing there, and I'm fully ready to accept the outcome either way (if I lose on 75m to some ridiculous tactic, I'm not going to complain because it was my conscious choice to create the situation).

vVv Rapture is definitely missing the point here on how stages like Temple (which are probably broken in every non-ditto match-up) actually do change things. Raziek maybe sees it but doesn't like the outcome. The thing is, if a stage gets struck 100% of the time, that's because it's a very powerful stage for one side of a match-up. Thus, in a particular match-up, they'll always be struck, but they do change the outcome because one side is using a strike on them and the other is not. Remember stage striking is more or less a game of tug of rope. In any match-up played at its most perfect level (where both players have perfect knowledge of which stages are good for them), the stages are along a continuum from "best for Mickey" to "best for Donald". Each side will strike from the other's best until you end on the median. Adding stages to the far extremes (such as a few stages on which Donald beats Mickey 100-0) have a real effect since they "pull" the final result toward one side or another.

Raziek's presumption here seems to be that removing extreme stages produces more fair median outcomes. I'm not sure it's obvious. Thio is right about there being more to stages than an air-ground continuum, as important as that is. It also gets to the heart of how you define a "fair" stage for a match-up. I mean, we all agree (I hope) that Final Destination is all around a fair stage in the sense that it is not gamebreaking in any match-up. I also hope we agree in a large number of match-ups, it's very intuitive not fair in the sense that it gives large advantages to one character compared to the vast majority of stages. Of course, we can see that character quality on any stage is relative to the other stages that exist. If Final Destination and Bridge of Eldin were the only two other stages, Smashville would be an aerial paradise. As the game stands, Smashville is a great grounded stage. Which kinds of outcomes are we seeking here? If we're pure originalists, I'd think we should value all stages, even the really bad ones. Of course, if we have another approach, we may have different opinions.

 

[AMKalmar]

In response to BPC,

My comment to vVv Rapture was just pointing out that the starter list saves even more time and is even more streamlined than striking from the legal stage list.

Yes, the starter list does benefit some characters over others. But striking from the full stage list rewards certain characters in the same way the striking from a starter list rewards certain characters. I'm not arguing that we should strike from a starter list, from the entire list, or from the list of legal stages. All of these have the same problem: the resulting starter in the set will not accurately represent the matchup.

Striking from the full legal stage list may or may not produce better results* than striking from the current starter list**, it is still flawed and will end up giving rewards to certain characters.

* by better results, I mean a starter for which the MU ratio is closer to the true MU ratio between two characters.
** with enough data, it may be possible to create a starter list that produces better results.

Again, the median stage does not accurately represent the matchup between two characters.

Mickey Mouse vs Donald Duck:
Let's say there are 21 stages total to choose from.

Mickey wins vs Donald:
65% of the time on 6 stages,
60% of the time on 6 stages,
55% of the time on 1 stage,
50% of the time on 2 stages,
and 45% of the time on 6 stages.

Using stages that would be realistically be counter-picked in a set, the matchup ratio is 55% (~56% if you include all) in Mickey's favour. Therefore, the set should start on a stage that achieves this same ratio - the stage where Mickey wins 55% of the time. However, if you choose the starter by striking from the entire stage list, you will end up with a stage on which Mickey will win 60% of the time. This does not accurately represent the matchup between these two characters.

Basically:
Mean = (65 + 45) / 2 = 55% Accurate representation of the matchup, the set should start here.
Median = 60% Inaccurate representation of the matchup, the set should not start here.

Mickey wins 56% (statistically it would show up as 55% since the CPs are played most frequently) of the time versus Donald. Why should we reward him an extra 4% (5% in reality) win rate on the first game in the set?

Edit: I guess I'm saying that stage striking in general is flawed, and will produce undesirable results.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, but you are claiming that the average is the correct way to determine the matchup game one. Why? If a character is better on more stages, why should game one not reflect that? If the matchup is 90-10 on 4 out of 10 stages and 40-60 on the other 6 of them, the average is clearly not 40-60... but the character with the 10 and the 60 respectively has more stages that he is good on. Again, it seems to make sense that with counterpicking, we "reward" characters who are extremely good on certain stages, and with striking, we "reward" characters who are good on a lot of stages. (Take "reward" with a grain of salt; again, it's rewarding in a similar sense to how Snake's weight rewards him in-game)

 

[Luxor]

Please avoid saying "your logic is bad." We obviously both think the other's logic is wrong. If we didn't we wouldn't be arguing.

The problem is you haven't had logic. You've essentially only said "I'm right, you're wrong." (Phrased much more politely, of course.)

I'm on the fence about the CP point because if we want to accurately represent the MU between two characters in Brawl, all stages should be considered.

Me, BPC, and others have only been saying this for forever. Are you agreeing with us or something?

I was thinking about how to accurately represent the MU between two characters in Tournament Brawl - a completely different game. However, there are some stages that just wouldn't be played in certain MUs. Regardless, this should have little effect on actual statistical wins.

Ever heard the saying, "A threat is greater than its execution?" Let's say JJ is legal. That's Falco's best stage, hands-down. But Falco will never, ever, ever, ever get to play there do to the opponents stage ban. If the tourney rules allow two bans, as more and more do nowadays, Falco doesn't even get to go to FD. Falco's stages here: do they matter? Of course they do! But not because they get played on, because they exist. Let's imagine Diddy vs. MK. Because of the way the matchup will occur, there will probably never be a game on Halberd. Does the matchup on such a legal stage suddenly cease to matter? No. MK is better there naturally, without any buffs or nerfs. MK has that advantage built into his character, and ignoring that advantage is straight-up nerfing him arbitrarily. Arbitrary = bad in most stage discussions, because arbitrary = subjective =/= factual.
That reminds me of another point: Stage matchups aren't just character based, which is all your "mean" idea takes into account. Players themselves know or favor stages better or worse based on experience. In a 5-starter list, G1 Diddy vs. MK will typically happen on BF. But what if MK has been practicing up on his Smashville shenanigans? The typical continuum is FD SV BF YI Lylat, but for this particular player matchup it is FD BF SV YI Lylat, and Game 1 should happen on SV and does with stage striking. Taking the "mean" is not only extremely impractical (as I said before) but also straight-up incorrect in cases such as this. It takes away all the player's free choice, Which is a terrible thing. I'm pro-stage-choice.

The reason I do not understand your point of view on selecting the starter is this: even if all stages were played equally, the average or mean win/loss ratio is still not necessarily the same on the median stage (as seen in the Mickey/Donald example, it becomes ~56%). I don't see why you would use the median stage (or any stage) as the starter if it does not represent the statistical average.

Please try to understand what I'm saying here.
What we're trying to do, both of us, is find a measure of central tendency among stage matchup ratios. We both want a stage that is "fair" for the matchup, and we know that occurs centrally. The issue is whether to use the median or mean to gauge where the center is. This is what your logic in this quote was.
1. The average is the correct measure of central tendency.
2. The median =/= the average.
3. The median is an incorrect measure of central tendency.

But by definition, "mean" and "average" mean exactly the same thing. Substitute "mean" for "average" and we can reduce your argument to statement 1.
1. The mean is the correct measure of central tendency.

or, rephrased,

1. My idea is the right way to go. I'm right.

And yes, that is bad logic, because it's no logic at all. ADHD often has more logic in his posts.

Going back to the Mickey vs Donald example:
Lets assume all stages are played equally. Of all the matches between Mickey and Donald, Mickey wins 56% of the time. Mickey is better on more stages, but this does not change the fact that Mickey wins 56% of the time. A player doesn't win every match he has advantage on. On average, Mickey wins 56% of the time versus Donald. He just does. That is how much he wins, that is how much he should win. I can't understand why the number of stages he has advantage on should be made to increase how often he wins.

Just making a statement to sum it up: On average, Mickey wins on more stages. This doesn't mean Mickey never loses on those stages, and this doesn't change how often Mickey wins.

On average, Mickey wins 56% of the time versus Donald. He just does. That is how much he wins, that is how much he should win.

Yes, he wins an average of 56%. You can do the basic math fine.
Logic in this post:
1. He wins a mean of 56%.
2. 56% is what he wins and what he should win.
3. He should win the mean number of times.
roughly equivalent to
3. The mean is the correct measure of central tendency.
or, rephrased... you know.

Give us a real ARGUMENT! You keep replying with logicless posts and examples. You haven't come up with a single PHILOSOPHICAL reason to do what you're doing. Because in the end median vs. mean is simply a mathematical debate, irrelevant, an opinion more or less. Whereas we have supplied several nonmathematic reasons why median > mean.
Did you read my caps rant? I'm still waiting to hear WHY. Give me solid theorycraft.

If aerial characters (And this is limited to two, MAYBE three characters at best when it comes to true aerial versatility) are so dominant on their strong counterpicks, I don't see how this is any less degenerate than characters capable of circle camping (Fox, Falco, and Rob to a much lesser extent) on stages like Hanenbow and Temple.

Not having the data is no excuse not to do it. That just means that we go and get the data.

I'm all for getting the data. I've actually been wondering lately how to set up a project that would collect win% data for certain characters on their neutrals compared to borderline "autowin" CPs. It would be great to see how much Japes helps Falco and whether RC/Brinstar are just too good for MK; we could quantify banworthy overcentralization. If you ever want to go get the data, I'm all in to help. Seriously.

After spending enough time in this thread, I now know how to respond to this.

No it should not. No characters should be rewarded for anything. Rewarding characters for stage versatility is like rewarding characters for weight - it doesn't accurately represent how much they actually win. One character will win a certain amount versus another character. That is how much they should win because that is how much they do win. No more, no less.

To which I respond

Oh right. Except, get this: we don't reward them for versatility by opening up the stagelist. I mean, we don't reward snake for being heavy. His reward is "living to 180% with good DI against most characters this side of DDD". We don't reward Pikachu for having a good recovery; his reward is that if he plays smart, he's virtually ungimpable. If we were to reward them for that, it would be **** like making opponents of characters with good kill moves start with a 50% handicap, or making the opponents of characters who have good damage wracking skills kill themselves once they hit a certain %.

Their reward is native to the game-they do obscenely well on certain stages. Removing stages because of this fact (beyond those that are completely game-breaking like Temple or Eldin, obviously) is like making Snake kill himself if he gets hit above 130%, or making Metaknight kill himself if the opponent jumps after him offstage.


...which benefits certain characters over others.

We start on the median by default. Being better on a numerically greater number and variety of stages is simply a strength hard-coded in the character. Using the "mean" erases these internal, natural strengths and weaknesses, artificially and unfairly nerfing versatile characters and buffing rigid characters unable to adapt to change.

Yes, the starter list does benefit some characters over others. But striking from the full stage list rewards certain characters in the same way the striking from a starter list rewards certain characters. I'm not arguing that we should strike from a starter list, from the entire list, or from the list of legal stages. All of these have the same problem: the resulting starter in the set will not accurately represent the matchup.

Yes, full list striking or larger stagelists DO reward more versatile characters.
That's a good thing!
They are simply that much better than other characters for being more viable on more stages.

Striking from the full legal stage list may or may not produce better results* than striking from the current starter list**, it is still flawed and will end up giving rewards to certain characters.

* by better results, I mean a starter for which the MU ratio is closer to the true MU ratio between two characters.

Striking from the current starter list is still flawed and will end up giving rewards to certain characters.
Taking the "mean" stage is still flawed and will end up giving rewards to certain characters.
Making assertions without any backup goes both ways, boy.

** with enough data, it may be possible to create a starter list that produces better results.

AHA! YOUR ACTUAL GOAL! THE ELUSIVE GOAL YOUR WEIRD "MEAN" IDEA WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE!
You want the game rebalanced. This *essentially* comes down to a conflict of opinion between originalists and constructivists. But who are we, mere players, to alter the game Sakurai himself hath created?
Anyway, I'm actually cool with constructivism, but if rebalancing the game is your goal, this "mean" idea is a mediocre way of doing it. See the places in another post and this where I said stuff about "39 x 19 matchups" and "player stage matchups." Just selectively and carefully shrink/expand the stage strike lists if you want balance. Or play BBrawl.

Again, the median stage does not accurately represent the matchup between two characters.

Wynaut?
Wobbuffet!

Mickey wins 56% (statistically it would show up as 55% since the CPs are played most frequently) of the time versus Donald. Why should we reward him an extra 4% (5% in reality) win rate on the first game in the set?

Edit: I guess I'm saying that stage striking in general is flawed, and will produce undesirable results.

You should stop nerfing Mickey and come up with actual reasons why we should nerf him. The burden of proof rests with you, you know.

epic epic wall of win

 

[AMKalmar]

That is going to take a large amount of time for me to respond to fully. But just from a quick skim through:

ADHD often has more logic in his posts.

Please do not insult. ;-;

 

[Raziek]

stuff

Ok. I know you don't actually advocate this procedure, and that this is a logical test. Very well, I will take you up on your challenge.

I will preface my argument by first outlining my stance when it comes to originalist vs. constructivist. I am an originalist, but not to the point of extremity. I believe we should remove as little as possible, while still retaining a competitive, and ideally, BALANCED game. (This is why I advocate banning MK, rather than banning a bunch of stages and using a whole ton of ridiculous rules)

On to each part of your argument. Firstly, I would consider a stage unfit for competitive play if it yields extremely inconsistent results, or if a certain tactic is too powerful on it, to the point of, "Do this, or lose." On that note, stages like Eldin, which are "Cg, Runaway, or lose" or Shadow Moses's "CG or lose" are not fit for competitive play. Stages like WarioWare are disqualified for being inherently random.

However, I see your issue with them being reasonable for certain matchups. This then becomes an issue of "How strong is too strong?" If you were going to disqualify stages for certain matchups only, that gets into a whole world of subjectivity related problems. So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they become absurdly powerful counterpick options instead.

What this is essentially does is reward character who can abuse these tactics with a boatload of extra strikes. A Dedede main might actually not want to take you to Eldin, but if the threat is there, you're forced to waste an unreasonable amount of strikes on the possibility that someone has a pocket Dedede or MK. This is essentially handing a small subset of characters a large number of free strikes.

Because these stages are considered unfit for competitive play, it is neither desired, nor likely for them to ever be used. In essence, they add very little to the CP system. For certain matchups, yes, they provide a reasonable amount of swing towards one more versatile character, but the overall amount of problems adding them causes far outweighs the benefits of allowing them.

Furthermore, even if you WERE to allow them, this also comes with an extreme amount of practical issues beyond the theory.

First, it becomes incredibly time consuming, especially if you allow them for Games 2 and 3.

Second, if you DO allow them for games 2 and 3 (since forbidding them for only PART of the set is logically inconsistent), then we face an extreme balance shift where characters like Dedede and MK actually CANNOT lose on their counterpicks, within reasonable human skill. This extreme shift in balance is a clear violation of MY ideals.

As you have mentioned, if we were pure originalists, we would value ALL the stages. However, it's nearly impossible to be considered a pure originalist in this case, in addition to the fact that it is a bad idea.

Adding these stages provides almost no competitive benefit whatsoever, yet brings along a whole slew of problems that completely outweigh any small benefit they could have provided.

 

[Luxor]

Raziek, I think you're what I would call a pragmatist.

 

[Raziek]

Raziek, I think you're what I would call a pragmatist.

This is an accurate statement.

Just because something is logically sound in theory, doesn't make it a good idea in practice. xD

See: Communism.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't even know what Pragmatism is. I do agree with Raziek's post though.

 

[Luxor]

prag·ma·tist   [prag-muh-tist] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who is oriented toward the success or failure of a particular line of action, thought, etc.; a practical person.
2.
an advocate or adherent of philosophical pragmatism.

Since true originalists don't ban 75m or limit planking, I think the term "pragmatist" describes most of the Brawl community better than "originalist."

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Pragmatism is a philosophical position (general philosophy, not just competitive gaming) that advocates doing what is practical as opposed to what is idealistic or kind or any other mental consideration. It's considered an especially American worldview, for any interested in that sort of thing.

The procedure I outlined for striking in every game would mean you are guaranteed to know which characters are used before you strike. You don't have to strike Eldin unless they actually picked DDD, in which case you know for sure you have to strike Eldin (unless you are using Pikachu or someone who doesn't fear DDD there, which they too will know before you strike!). I actually think about it and am not convinced it's a bad idea, in a legitimate sense. I am not convinced it's good and do know it's not necessary, but I'm legitimately really curious what the final results would be and somewhat bothered that it's really not obvious. Some funny things "balance out" in theory; for instance, DDD doesn't *really* benefit. His strength on certain walled stages is pretty well negated by his weakness on loop stages (he's one of the worst loop runners in the cast).

Also, Shadow Moses Island is a stage I suspect you don't really understand. There aren't that many wall abuses in this game. Seriously, it's a small number that are practical; King Dedede and Diddy Kong are the only two really notable offenders (DK gets an honorable mention, but the breakability of SMI's walls hurts his gimmicks). It has the additional extreme effect of being extremely horrible for characters who are bad at killing upward (Sonic, Meta Knight, yes I just said Meta Knight, maybe a few others). Overall the character who benefits the most from it being legal is probably Pikachu who isn't abusive there so much as nearly perfectly tailored to the stage's geography and not cgable by DDD. The fact that someone like you on the "liberal" side of the spectrum doesn't know this stuff kinda bugs me itself; I don't think our overall community is very well educated at all on the balance implications of the banned stages.

 

[Raziek]

Pragmatism is a philosophical position (general philosophy, not just competitive gaming) that advocates doing what is practical as opposed to what is idealistic or kind or any other mental consideration. It's considered an especially American worldview, for any interested in that sort of thing.

The procedure I outlined for striking in every game would mean you are guaranteed to know which characters are used before you strike. You don't have to strike Eldin unless they actually picked DDD, in which case you know for sure you have to strike Eldin (unless you are using Pikachu or someone who doesn't fear DDD there, which they too will know before you strike!). I actually think about it and am not convinced it's a bad idea, in a legitimate sense. I am not convinced it's good and do know it's not necessary, but I'm legitimately really curious what the final results would be and somewhat bothered that it's really not obvious. Some funny things "balance out" in theory; for instance, DDD doesn't *really* benefit. His strength on certain walled stages is pretty well negated by his weakness on loop stages (he's one of the worst loop runners in the cast).

Also, Shadow Moses Island is a stage I suspect you don't really understand. There aren't that many wall abuses in this game. Seriously, it's a small number that are practical; King Dedede and Diddy Kong are the only two really notable offenders (DK gets an honorable mention, but the breakability of SMI's walls hurts his gimmicks). It has the additional extreme effect of being extremely horrible for characters who are bad at killing upward (Sonic, Meta Knight, yes I just said Meta Knight, maybe a few others). Overall the character who benefits the most from it being legal is probably Pikachu who isn't abusive there so much as nearly perfectly tailored to the stage's geography and not cgable by DDD. The fact that someone like you on the "liberal" side of the spectrum doesn't know this stuff kinda bugs me itself; I don't think our overall community is very well educated at all on the balance implications of the banned stages.

I didn't say that I didn't know it, but I did overlook the fact that you pick your characters before the stage. This still ends up many of the problems I outlined above. A huge number of stages are just so disliked that it becomes a matter of "Should I strike it, or make my opponent do it."

This still draws the balance of the game into question, AND, with all these stages legal, a good portion of the game centers on which characters CAN circle camp or abuse walls. We've already agreed that tactics like that are not competitive, so why would we even bother with these stages?

In addition, you still completely ignored all of my other points, focusing on one brief offhanded comment about Shadow Moses. I'd sooner see you actually address those points before you give a response like you did. The vibe I got from your post was "You failed the test.", even though you addressed almost nothing of what I brought up.

When most of these stages are detrimental to the competitive aspect of the game, and have far more disadvantages than benefits, why would we bother at all? You can't honestly mean to implicate that Mario Bros. is a stage worth adding simply because it forces one person to strike it. Someone HAS to, or you end up playing on a stage that does not provide accurate results or is extremely unfair to one party.

All these stages do is unnaturally skew match-ups towards characters who have tactics that we decide are anti-competitive. Versatility is to be rewarded, yes, but not if the stage has no business in a competitive environment deigned to measure the comparative skill level of two players.

I am not satisfied with your response, AA. I expect better from you, especially since you glazed over 90% of my post.

 

[fkacyan]

Yes, but you are claiming that the average is the correct way to determine the matchup game one. Why? If a character is better on more stages, why should game one not reflect that?

Because a tournament is a test of player skill, not of character value.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because a tournament is a test of player skill, not of character value.

So let's ban every character except for ones that are on the line with a certain other character. AKA everyone except that character. And while we're at it, let's remove "no-skill" stages like final destination and battlefield where you need absolutely no stage knowledge. Yeah, now it's really player skill.

Look, if I pick a worse character than my opponent, I chose to lose that advantage (and honestly? It's a part of player skill to play the best character the game has to offer in each situation; in a game without metaknight it's my task to know how to play both my character and the characters who counterpick my character's counterpicks. In the game with metaknight, it's my task to be able to **** as metaknight.). There's nothing stopping me from picking the better character.

"It's not a test of character value" is a terrible argument that could apply to anything from banning stages to banning metaknight to making it so that you only are allowed to use 2 jumps to banning any character that isn't Ganon to banning moves that aren't warlock punch. It's also famously scrubby logic (one of the first things that comes to mind when someone asks you to give examples for it).

Also, you have to sorely misquote me in your sig. I don't even have to misquote you; that is obscenely scrubby logic.

 

[ADHD]

So let's ban every character except for ones that are on the line with a certain other character. AKA everyone except that character. And while we're at it, let's remove "no-skill" stages like final destination and battlefield where you need absolutely no stage knowledge. Yeah, now it's really player skill.

A hell lot better than green greens -_-

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Most of your post was talking about the cp system. The system outlined is not a counterpick system. It is a system of stage selection in which the concept of counterpicking stages is so muted as to not really be significant as stage striking covers the whole set (character switching is allowed, but it invokes a new stage striking procedure to prevent people from switching characters to exploit stages). This is why I didn't address the majority of it; the majority is assuming the existence of a system that I was assuming did not exist. I'm sorry; I suppose I should have pointed out the issue there more directly.

You raise a new point in your latest post about stages being disliked. To me, that seems like a major deviation from an originalist philosophy. The constructionists ban stages because they dislike them. If a stage like Shadow Moses Island is in the mix, I see two possible outcomes. Either the match-up is one in which it is a significant advantage for one side, and in that case it will be struck by the other side (if a player can't play out currently banned stages from the winning side, this is a major weakness that I feel should rightfully cripple him). If it is a match-up in which the stage is mostly fair, why does anyone have to strike it? Maybe it's a stage that should actually be used. Isn't their personal preference clouding their judgment on the true game in this case?

I disagree with your use of some wordings in your posts. No stages "unnaturally" do anything other than perhaps custom stages. The stages are in the game. Therefore, they are natural components of Brawl. If we decide to "defy nature" to make something better, that makes sense. However, to deny that nature is nature seems bizarre to me. At best, this is saying that mosquitos unnaturally spread malaria in tropical regions. Yeah, no one likes malaria, but this process is incredibly natural.

The use of the term "competitive" also bothers me. I'll reference a definition of "compete" here, the root word for competitive:

to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize,

To me, exploiting broken stages seems perfectly competitive. Indeed, every player should be trying with any rule set to find broken tactics and exploit them mercilessly. To do anything less is the truly anti-competitive thing.

Skill is another fuzzy term. Here's another dictionary definition:

the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well:

The only meaningful way to interpret "playing Brawl well" is to win your games. Therefore, skill is your inherent ability to make yourself win. If you fail to strike a stage like Temple from the losing side, you are showing a lack of skill and losing in just as legitimate of a fashion as being outplayed on Battlefield. I see Temple in no way taking away from skill in a procedure as I earlier outlined (though it's obviously a problem in a counterpicking system).

You raise the point of two extreme outlier stages in this game: WarioWare and Mario Bros. I would first point out these are the only two stages that are particularly unpredictable; every other stage that is banned is perhaps very exploitable but is not inconsistent in any meaningful way. I can think of tons of shenanigans on Skyworld, but nothing is going to randomly make me lose. A loss on Skyworld happens either because the other guy had a better character for the stage (my fault for not striking it then!) or because the other guy is better than me either in general play or in ability to take advantage of Skyworld (both highly legitimate ways to lose). Anyway, as per the two stages in question, first Mario Bros. This crazy stage is in fact so crazy that I don't think anyone actually knows the long term implications of it. I like to make jokes that it's the most fair stage in the game because anyone can win at any time, but really, I don't know. There are only two real random factors on it. The first one is the spawn pattern of the monsters at the top, which is observable easily and can be reacted to. The other is the fireballs, which spawn in set locations even if at seemingly random times (I know of no study of this!). The gameplay is crazy because of the power of the hazards, but it's entirely possible that players could control this. If some player investigated Mario Bros. deeply, grew comfortable playing on it, and began refusing to strike it in tournaments, is it that unreasonable that he would be rewarded? WarioWare is more directly random, but it is still far from completely degenerate. The stage is tiny, and the games are playable. It introduces a probably unacceptable random element, but it's not like the game becomes a true 50/50. In many match-ups, I suspect the geography is more significant than the randomness and the stage gets struck that way. In other match-ups, it becomes a game of chicken to strike this one stage, and in that case it's kinda a battle of wills which is maybe overall not that bad if nothing else.

I'd really like to stress that Mario Bros. and WarioWare are the only two stages that have potentially serious issues with unpredictable results. Other banned stages are just straightforward broken in some match-ups (Temple) or maybe not deserving of a ban at all under even normal rules (take your pick).

As per characters who benefit, I'm questioning how far this really goes. Walls and walk-offs are the most exaggerated boogeymen of smash. This game has 666 match-ups. I question whether any particular wall of walk-off configuration on any stage even breaks 100 match-ups. The abuses are fairly small in number and contained well within specific characters. The main two benefactors, King Dedede and Diddy Kong, are arguably pretty fair ones here. King Dedede has a growing consensus of "he's not that great" maybe being able to push stage selection like this is an important thing to keep him competitive. Diddy Kong is hurt by a lot of the other stages, and being able to rely on the opponent striking walls and walk-offs seems like a very fair balance (he'll be striking all the heavy aerial stages in the meantime). I'd really stress that most characters see different benefits different ways. It's mostly a different set of characters that like Eldin versus Flat Zone 2 versus Shadow Moses Island.

Loops are pretty limited. In terms of real "hard run-away" stages, you have Temple and Spear Pillar as nearly pure grounded loops and Hanenbow as a nearly pure aerial loop. New Pork City is a hybrid loop between aerial and grounded, and Summit is a loop with unusual physics. There are some arguments that 75m, Rumble Falls, and Big Blue are runnable, but there are going to be a pretty large number of match-ups in which neither side can run them. Mario Bros. is maybe workable as a loop, but that stage is too crazy for us to really judge accurately. Sure this sucks for Ganon and Bowser, but I'm not sure the majority of the cast is really too bothered by the striking implications of these guys.

Then you have a stage like Skyworld that is just banned now for being a really, really powerful counterpick. In a system without counterpicking, how do you justify banning that one?

I'll cut ahead to a few of my fuzzy predictions of what the actual balance implications would be...

-Meta Knight stays the best but probably doesn't get better. His aptitude at running loops mostly just saves him from how bad he is on a lot of other banned stages, making it a wash for him.
-Snake and Falco fall but remain good. They maybe drop from top to high.
-Diddy Kong maybe falls a little but not much. King Dedede remains nearly in-place.
-G&W, Pikachu, and Wario all rise a lot. They are the three most likely major benefactors.
-Ice Climbers end up a lot worse but still overall competitive. They maybe go as low as mid tier.
-Most other decent to good characters (Marth, Pit, R.O.B.) don't really move much. I admit that I can't predict Olimar in particular.
-Jigglypuff moves up a lot among low tiers but remains low tier.
-Ganon somehow gets a lot worse, much to the amusement of everyone. Bowser kinda goes down along with him but maybe not quite as bad.

If you have different conclusions, feel free to let me know. I don't want to turn this into too much of a derail, but without using logic that ultimately leads to constructionism, I'm finding it hard to stay away from this business.

 

[Raziek]

That is one BEHEMOTH of a post, I'm going to tackle it later.

 

[fkacyan]

So let's ban every character except for ones that are on the line with a certain other character. AKA everyone except that character. And while we're at it, let's remove "no-skill" stages like final destination and battlefield where you need absolutely no stage knowledge. Yeah, now it's really player skill.

Look, if I pick a worse character than my opponent, I chose to lose that advantage (and honestly? It's a part of player skill to play the best character the game has to offer in each situation; in a game without metaknight it's my task to know how to play both my character and the characters who counterpick my character's counterpicks. In the game with metaknight, it's my task to be able to **** as metaknight.). There's nothing stopping me from picking the better character.

"It's not a test of character value" is a terrible argument that could apply to anything from banning stages to banning metaknight to making it so that you only are allowed to use 2 jumps to banning any character that isn't Ganon to banning moves that aren't warlock punch. It's also famously scrubby logic (one of the first things that comes to mind when someone asks you to give examples for it).

Also, you have to sorely misquote me in your sig. I don't even have to misquote you; that is obscenely scrubby logic.

How is it scrubby logic? I don't think you know what 'scrub' means.

Scrub logic would be "That is cheap/unbeatable so I don't use it." That has nothing to do with my point.

I'm not saying character value does not matter, I'm saying that the point of a tourney is not to test for it. Optimally in a balanced fighting game every matchup is 50:50, you know.

Also, my sig is a direct quote; I just don't use quote boxes because they're ugly and take up space.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How is it scrubby logic? I don't think you know what 'scrub' means.

Funny, I just finished a post about this.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10961145&postcount=29

Specifically:

Bull****. Of course you are! It's completely in your control to ban a stage you don't like, it's completely in your control to counterpick a stage you do like. Stage elements are either almost completely or in limited manner within your control. Stages are a part of brawl; if you're not abusing them, you're not playing to win. You are putting an element into the game that hinders your chances of wining. Where have we heard this one before...
In fact, this is the case with almost any rule that is not game-internal. LGLs? Yep, you're lowering your chances of winning. Banning temple hyrule? Yep, you're lowering your chances of winning. Choosing PTAD and counting on your opponent running into cars? You are abusing an element in the game that increases your chances of winning; if you feel this raises your chances of winning to the highest point, then it is anti-competitive to not do so. Choosing MK and stalling the clock by jumping around a lot, a totally viable strategy that any character can do? You are abusing an element in the game that increases your chances of winning; if you feel this raises your chances of winning to the highest point, then it is anti-competitive to not do so.
Making a rule to force someone to go with the anti-competitive option is generally considered both anticompetitive (duh!) and scrubby. So yeah. We done here?

Scrub logic would be "That is cheap/unbeatable so I don't use it." That has nothing to do with my point.

A scrub is merely someone who does not play to win. You're using a very small subset of the scrub credo (albeit one of the most famous ones).

I'm not saying character value does not matter, I'm saying that the point of a tourney is not to test for it. Optimally in a balanced fighting game every matchup is 50:50, you know.

Really? So the whole concept of character counterpicking (which adds an important amount of depth) goes out the window? Let me fix that for you: Optimally in a balanced fighting game no matchup is worse than 65-35, and each character has a more or less even matchup spread.

And finally, if you are going to ensure that characters start on stages that make character viability a non-issue, why isn't game one of each match with ganon starting on Pirate ship or Norfair? They make him semi-viable after all. Why isn't each match with MK starting on Shadow Moses Island or Green Hill Zone? Why isn't each match with Diddy Kong against a worse character going to Rainbow Cruise? Think of the possibilities!

It's a poor concept to balance the game that way. Very poor. The game gives us these options; limiting them is anticompetitive.

Also, my sig is a direct quote; I just don't use quote boxes because they're ugly and take up space.

It's a quote by you. You make it look like it's by me, that I'm that huge of a **** when it's outright not true and a poor translation either way.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I disagree BPC by allowing factors outside of my control to interfere with my match in some way I am not playing to win, I chose to play to win by NOT selecting a stage. This should be common sense.

You aren't because you don't think it's the best way for you to win. I am, because I do. Simple as that. Also, how did you not select a stage?

 

[fkacyan]

Funny, I just finished a post about this.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10961145&postcount=29

Specifically:





A scrub is merely someone who does not play to win. You're using a very small subset of the scrub credo (albeit one of the most famous ones).



Really? So the whole concept of character counterpicking (which adds an important amount of depth) goes out the window? Let me fix that for you: Optimally in a balanced fighting game no matchup is worse than 65-35, and each character has a more or less even matchup spread.

And finally, if you are going to ensure that characters start on stages that make character viability a non-issue, why isn't game one of each match with ganon starting on Pirate ship or Norfair? They make him semi-viable after all. Why isn't each match with MK starting on Shadow Moses Island or Green Hill Zone? Why isn't each match with Diddy Kong against a worse character going to Rainbow Cruise? Think of the possibilities!

It's a poor concept to balance the game that way. Very poor. The game gives us these options; limiting them is anticompetitive.



It's a quote by you. You make it look like it's by me, that I'm that huge of a **** when it's outright not true and a poor translation either way.

I am not saying that you should not pick better characters. I am saying that a tourney is not a test of who picks the better character.

I don't think you understand anything about statistics or about how tourney are related to it.

 

[AMKalmar]

My viewpoint on how a matchup should be determined has changed from my initial viewpoint. Partway through my posts, I was on the fence about whether all stages should be considered towards a matchup ratio. At that point, without realizing, I was arguing for two conflicting viewpoints. This caused unnecessary confusion and caused me to further misunderstand some of the things you were saying. That was my fault completely, sorry about that.

Just to clear this up, when I said "stages that would not be counter-picked should not be taken into consideration," I was referring to stages that neither player would want to counter-pick because there are better choices. I always believed that stages that would be counter-picked, were it not for the opponent banning them, should be taken into consideration. You have now convinced me that all stages should be taken into consideration.

I initially disagreed with the statement "characters should be rewarded for their versatility" because I misunderstood it. Because I think that the median ratio is skewed from the actual matchup ratio, I thought that this statement was saying "we should artificially buff characters that are better on more stages." In reality, the statement means that characters deserve to have their matchup accurately represented (just keep reading).

It is not my intention to rebalance the game. I think that the first game in a set should accurately represent the matchup ratio between two characters. Anything different than this is changing the balance of the game. This is undisputed. What is disputed is the method for determining the actual matchup ratio between two characters. The methods for determining this ratio which have been suggested in this thread so far are: the statistical ratio (my initial viewpoint), the potential ratio (my new viewpoint), and the median ratio (your viewpoint). Here are my current thoughts on each of these methods.


The Statistical Matchup Ratio - My Old, Wrong Viewpoint
This ratio is determined from actual tournament data. This ratio is how often one character actually wins versus another character in tournaments.

This ratio does not accurately represent the matchup ratio because the most weight is put on stages that would be selected due to the current starter list and the second or third best counter-picks for the two characters in question. This makes it so that, in theory, as few as three stages are used to represent the entire matchup between two characters. In a list of twenty-one legal stages, three stages will not likely show the full potential of either character. In order to show the full potential of both characters, all stages should be considered so that strong counter-picks that would normally be banned, and weak counter-picks that would not be selected because there are better choices, can influence the matchup ratio. Doing this will reward characters for being better on more stages.

The Potential Matchup Ratio - My New Viewpoint
This ratio is determined by taking the average of the matchup ratios between two characters on all legal stages. If all legal stages were to be played equal amounts, this is how often one character would actually win versus another character.

This ratio accurately represents one character's potential to win versus another character because equal weight is put on every stage. Not only does this ratio consider how many stages one character has an advantage on, it considers how much of an advantage that character has on each of those stages. Characters that are better on more stages are rewarded, and they are rewarded in proportion to how much better they are on those stages.

The Median Matchup Ratio - Your Viewpoint
This ratio is the matchup ratio between two characters on the median stage. This ratio will show that one character is better than another character on more stages.

This ratio is unrelated to how often two characters would actually win against each other overall because although it considers how many stages one character has advantage on, it does not consider how much of an advantage that character has on those stages. Since it is possible to lose on a stage you have advantage on, we must also consider how often a character wins on a stage they have advantage on, not just how many stages they have advantage on.


Summary
The statistical matchup ratio is not the overall matchup ratio because it places much weight on few stages.
The potential matchup ratio is an accurate representation of the overall matchup ratio because it places equal weight on all stages.
The median matchup ratio is not the overall matchup ratio because it does not consider the weight of any stages towards the ratio, it only considers the amount of stages that one character has advantage on.

The potential matchup ratio is the most accurate representation of how often one character would win versus another character overall, because not only does it consider a character's potential to do better than another character on more stages, it considers the amount of that potential.

One final example that will hopefully carry the point across:
Of 21 stages, X wins 60% of the time on 11 stages versus Y, and wins 30% of the time on the remaining 10 stages. The median stage will result in X winning 60% of the time. X loses harder on 10 stages than he wins on 11 stages, yet the 10 stages he loses on are given no weight at all! To make it fair for both X and Y, the 10 stages where X loses more often should have the same weight as the 11 stages where X wins more often. So, we should use the potential matchup ratio because it places equal weight on every stage, regardless of who has advantage on that stage. In this case, the potential matchup ratio shows that X has the potential to win 45.7% of the time versus Y.

In the case of Mickey versus Donald, the statistical ratio shows that Mickey actually wins 55% of the time, and the potential ratio shows that Mickey would win 56% of the time with all stages considered equally. The 1% increase that the potential ratio gives over the statistical ratio is the fair reward that Mickey deserves for being better on more stages than Donald.

Finally, now that we have determined the correct method that will accurately represent the overall matchup between two characters, we can try to devise a method of selecting a stage that will give a matchup ratio that is as near to this ratio as possible, while still retaining the possibility for players to make choices based on preference.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I am not saying that you should not pick better characters. I am saying that a tourney is not a test of who picks the better character.

I don't think you understand anything about statistics or about how tourney are related to it.

Well of course it isn't. Except for in a poorly balanced game. In a poorly balanced game, if you aren't picking that one guy in SSS tier who is miles above everyone else, you are not playing to win. And of course, should we rebalance the game to ensure that each character is equally good? If we are, I want punch time.

 

[fkacyan]

Well of course it isn't. Except for in a poorly balanced game. In a poorly balanced game, if you aren't picking that one guy in SSS tier who is miles above everyone else, you are not playing to win. And of course, should we rebalance the game to ensure that each character is equally good? If we are, I want punch time.

If there was a way to balance the game so that the only factor what player skill and character knowledge, why wouldn't we?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Good question. Let's start doing that right away.
Step 1: Punch time.

No really, if that's your point of view, why don't you support punch time? Why don't we start including arbitrary buffs to lower tiered characters?
-Punch time
-Suicider always wins
-MK starts with one stock less
-If Jigglypuff hits you with rest, if you didn't die, you must commit suicide immediately
-No reflecting/jumping in the way of PK Thunder

Or did you mean just rules that apply to the whole cast to balance the game? Because there's no way in hell you'll get far with that.

 

[fkacyan]

Good question. Let's start doing that right away.
Step 1: Punch time.

No really, if that's your point of view, why don't you support punch time? Why don't we start including arbitrary buffs to lower tiered characters?
-Punch time
-Suicider always wins
-MK starts with one stock less
-If Jigglypuff hits you with rest, if you didn't die, you must commit suicide immediately
-No reflecting/jumping in the way of PK Thunder

Or did you mean just rules that apply to the whole cast to balance the game? Because there's no way in hell you'll get far with that.

If it was possible to prove that a ton of bizarre rules was able to make player skill the only factor, yes, I would push for it.

That said, I'm sticking to what I know works as a balancer in stages for balancing characters that have a chance at viability.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But why even balance the game for the players? If the game has such ****ty balance, don't play it; play a different game. Go play Brawl- or something. If you're neutering parts of the game for balance, why haven't you banned metaknight yet? There are a ton of matchups where MK can just spam tornado, requiring almost no skill at all. Why not ban DDD? He has a lot of no-skill matchups where he just shieldcamps and chaingrabs and wins that way. Why not ban marth? A poor marth player can destroy a really good luigi or mario.

 

[fkacyan]

But why even balance the game for the players? If the game has such ****ty balance, don't play it; play a different game. Go play Brawl- or something. If you're neutering parts of the game for balance, why haven't you banned metaknight yet? There are a ton of matchups where MK can just spam tornado, requiring almost no skill at all. Why not ban DDD? He has a lot of no-skill matchups where he just shieldcamps and chaingrabs and wins that way. Why not ban marth? A poor marth player can destroy a really good luigi or mario.

You're missing the point entirely and driving into the realm of gross hyperbole.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, then explain it to me. Go ahead. The point is to balance the game; why not balance the game in a way that makes a big difference? DDD can wreck DK regardless of stage. Ganon doesn't stand a chance against MK no matter what stage you play on. Stages are not relevant enough; in fact, even punch time doesn't push ganon into "viable" reaches. But I want to be able to play as ganondorf and still have only player skill matter. I demand a 50-50 matchup, dammit!

...Of course I realize what I'm saying is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as banning stages to ensure character viability, or ensuring that every ganon match happens on Norfair to make him viable. The principle is just outright wrong.

 

[fkacyan]

All right, then explain it to me. Go ahead. The point is to balance the game; why not balance the game in a way that makes a big difference? DDD can wreck DK regardless of stage. Ganon doesn't stand a chance against MK no matter what stage you play on. Stages are not relevant enough; in fact, even punch time doesn't push ganon into "viable" reaches. But I want to be able to play as ganondorf and still have only player skill matter. I demand a 50-50 matchup, dammit!

...Of course I realize what I'm saying is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as banning stages to ensure character viability, or ensuring that every ganon match happens on Norfair to make him viable. The principle is just outright wrong.

Ignoring your ******** hyperbole, if the game was a better game that way, why wouldn't we?

You have an inherently restricted mindset here.

And note that I never said we should ban stages to make characters viable. I said we should use the ability of stagelist control to balance the game. There isn't nearly enough data right now for that to happen, and there won't ever be if people aren't willing to support the though.

Well, people who actually attend and run tourneys, at any rate.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Means tend to be impossible to calculate without extraordinarily accurate data and further are easily skewed by extreme values. For most things, medians really are better than means, and medians being so much more practical in this case is a big point in their favor.

 

[AMKalmar]

I am aware of the large amounts of accurate data required for the potential average to work, but I started the argument and want to finish it. I do not believe that the difference in matchup ratios on different stages is extreme enough to skew the potential average, especially since both characters have counter-picks.

I planned on expressing this after I managed to convince you that the potential average is the most accurate representation of the matchup, but whatever. Obtaining and then applying the potential average would be next to impossible to accomplish. The median on the other hand, is much more practical to apply (although still not an accurate representation of the matchup).

 

[Enzo]

why is rainbow cruise a counterpick, i personally think that it is an obvious nono, and if it were banned it would thoroughly assist the metagame by making MK that much less of a problem, for the most part in a set 2 of 3 set vs MK the character facing MK will almost have to win the first match, probably lose to MK in the 2nd match (either brinstar or RC), and then the other character win on their counterpick.

But if you were to ban RC, this whole mentality would change
the player against MK would no longer feel an ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION to win the first match since they could just ban brinstar on MK counterpick.

No i'm not sayign that this means that MK is no longer da bess but he would still be certainly easier to face off in a tournament scene


just sayin'

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, let's just remove legitimate stages because one character is good on them.

...Wait.

NO.