Official Stage Legality Discussion: Philosophical

[sunshade]

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'

This belongs in the stage specific portion of the stage legality discussion threads.

 

[AMKalmar]

There is nothing wrong with that stage, the character is the problem.

 

[fkacyan]

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

...Wait.

NO.

Aside from Fox, what's wrong with Hanenbow?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Aside from Fox, what's wrong with Hanenbow?

It's not the character, it's the tactic-specifically, circle camping which leads to heavy matchup polarization and overcentralization.

Although honestly, the main issue with Hanenbow is our counterpick system.

 

[lilseph]

As far as i know MK is amazing on hanenbow. I know MK is good on almost everything but he is especially good on hanenbow.

 

[Kuraudo]

Hold A at the bottom left. ******** victory lulz?

 

[-LzR-]

Nothing is wrong with Rainbow Cruise. The stage is slow, predictable. And any character can safely move with the stage. Meta Knight just fits for the stage perfectly. Removing the stage because of it would be artificially nerfing Meta Knight and that would mean we re trying to balance MK which means he should be banned. Is Jungle Japes banned because Falco is overpowered there and forces you to go FD against him?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Please take Rainbow Cruise discussion to the other thread. This thread is not for discussing single stages.

 

[Raziek]

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.

Ok, finally taking a shot at this massive post. Since you say this covers the entire set, how is the process done if neither player switches character? Do they play again on the same, stage, have an optional re-strike, or go to the loser's last struck stage?

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:

My main issue is that this deviates from what I consider to be solid competitive play. Stages like Temple or Spear Pillar will never be competitive. Hard circle means the character with more mobility wins as soon as they get the lead. It isn't an adequate measure of skill to hit your opponent once then run away (Not just like, DMG-on-Brinstar running away) for 8 minutes. The person who lands the first hit isn't always the one who wins the match. So those stages are gone. I'm gonna jump ahead and just talk after your other stuff.

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 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.

As I said before, I'm in a gray area between originalist and constructivist. I want to keep as much as possible in the game, but I do NOT intend to make character-specific rules, and I do not advocate stages with degenerate tactics or Preposterously one-sided match-ups, as a result of ONE TACTIC. (This is most specifically meaning Hard circle stages.

So, just to make this easier, I'm just going to run down the stage list and state my opinions on their use in a system as you outlined.

Obviously all the starters and counters in the current BBR 3.1 ruleset, I agree with. Let's run down the banned list.

Mushroomy Kingdom 1/2 - These two aren't as bad as others, but the abundance of walls and walk-offs, and in 2's case, the extreme cave of life effect, leads to what can pretty much only be described as a cluster-**** that is based on whether or not you miss a tech. In addition, you also get into what I consider a degenerate strategy based around wall-locks and low-percent throw kills. I don't think they should be in the list, simply based on how far they stray from "typical" gameplay.

Mario Circuit is fine, since this stage really only has problems in a few match-ups.

Rumble Falls...... I'm undecided. On the one hand, this stage isn't really a hard CP for many characters (Except maybe MK), and doesn't fall prey to any extremely derivative tactics. However, most would argue that this stage becomes a lot less about actually fighting your opponent, and more about trying to deal with the stage while your opponent acts as a stage hazard. I don't like it, but I don't really have much ground to object to it in a system like this.

Eldin can stay, since its degenerate tactics are pretty much character specific. It's not a hard circle, so you can feasibly just strike it against Dedede and Falco (and maybe Sonic) and be alright.

Spear Pillar is gone for being a hard circle, the faster character will almost certainly win.

WarioWare is gone for having results FAR too inconsistent for competitive play. The rewards are completely random, and imbalance the match too much with no particular pattern or reason. Note: WarioWare+ should be a starter, but sadface, we would have to hack. xD

Pork City is a hard circle, and is just SO UNREASONABLY huge that normal gameplay is basically tossed out the window. Also gone.

Summit is a mixed circle, and has the degenerate tactic in the fish. I don't think a hazard like that can reasonably be expected to be avoided, especially with the abundant number of traps many characters have that can cost you a stock with trivial effort or skill. Keep it out.

Skyworld you could keep, although I would argue that it somewhat suffers degenerate tactics/cave-of-life. In a system like this, I would keep it.

75m is a weird circle, but not completely impractical. Honestly, there's nothing really SPECIFICALLY wrong with it, but as a sum of its parts, this stage just isn't one that focuses around "normal" gameplay at all. Call me hypocritical if you want, but I would like to see normal play remain largely a feature. Excluding MULTIPLE aspects of play is a bit too far for me.

Mario Bros has already been discussed. It may be mostly fair to both players, but it departs SO far from regular gameplay that it becomes a different game entirely. It may have the potential to be competitive in and of itself, but not within Brawl as a whole. Drop that one.

Flat Zone 2.... I would argue that this one inteferes too much. The amount of space that the hazards cover on the stage is too much to reasonably be expected to deal with while still maintaining a competitive match. Lion Tamer is just awful, Chef is pretty bad, and the other two are OK, but not great. Also suffer from walk-offs. Drop this one.

Hanenbow is a hard circle, drop it.

Shadow Moses I would keep, since you can strike it against the major offenders. Not much else to say here.

Green Hill I would keep. There's somewhat of a degenerate strategy in the checkpoint, but probably not enough to warrant a ban in this system.

Temple is gone for hard circle.

Onett you could keep, again, just strike against the major offenders.

Corneria can stay under the same principle.

Big Blue is a semi-circle for some characters, and is just an all-around weird stage to play on. I don't think I'd remove it, but I certainly don't like it.

All of this is to be followed by another simple issue I have with it. I don't agree with the balance implications this can have, as it heavily favors a small-subset of characters, based on who is best at abusing tactics that I think are degenerate to competitive gameplay.

I also take a large issue in removing the counter-pick system, because I feel like it offers the game a lot of extra depth. A System like this would see probably 35% of the stages NEVER used, even though they are legal. In effect, this actually creates LESS stage viability, even though you allow a lot more. being able to counter-pick your opponent is a strong aspect of the game that is UNIQUE to Smash Bros, and I think it is something we should keep for the depth.

Now the pragmatist in me steps in and once again points out that this system is also pretty impractical. The stagelist is HUGE, and striking would take a LONG time, especially if you had to re-strike every time someone changed characters.

It's a different theory, and it is based on a solid logical foundation. However, I take issue with using all of the stages for the reasons listed above, and I don't think it is practical to depart SO far from what I consider "competitive gameplay".

I understand that my definition of this is subjective, but I don't think a system like this is practical or efficient as a means of measuring skill. It's different, and not WRONG, but I think it's inferior to what we currently have.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But Raziek, keep this in mind-you're never going to go to a stage like Temple or NPC. Ever. Nobody in their sane minds will let a match happen on that stage, because it's always going to be such a ridiculous matchup. The trick is that the stage forces strikes against characters like Sonic and Fox, the same way that SMI or GHZ forces a strike against DDD. It's not there because you might play on it. It's there to keep the median accurate. And the median in a matchup like Fox-Ganon deserves to be affected by fox's ridiculously polar stages just as much as the median in a matchup like DDD-Ganon is affected by DDD's ridiculously polar stages. Now, if you couldn't strike every stage with a hard circle in the stagelist, then there would be a problem (think 20+ hard circle stages). But you can.

All these radical, polar stages that are absolutely insane will almost never see play. Ever. They aren't removed because of that; their purpose is just to keep the median intact (and to brutally punish players who **** up at striking).

The only stage I'd remove is Warioware, mostly because it's a stage that forces the better player to strike it, as opposed to any particular characters or player preferences-its randomness shifts matches so far towards even chances even with ridiculously unbalanced skill levels. A player who knows his opponent is considerably worse than him has no choice but to strike the stage, regardless of character or preference.

 

[MaskedAvnger]

I should finish reading before I reply to something... you can delete this.

Edited cuz I'm impatient

 

[Raziek]

But Raziek, keep this in mind-you're never going to go to a stage like Temple or NPC. Ever. Nobody in their sane minds will let a match happen on that stage, because it's always going to be such a ridiculous matchup. The trick is that the stage forces strikes against characters like Sonic and Fox, the same way that SMI or GHZ forces a strike against DDD. It's not there because you might play on it. It's there to keep the median accurate. And the median in a matchup like Fox-Ganon deserves to be affected by fox's ridiculously polar stages just as much as the median in a matchup like DDD-Ganon is affected by DDD's ridiculously polar stages. Now, if you couldn't strike every stage with a hard circle in the stagelist, then there would be a problem (think 20+ hard circle stages). But you can.

All these radical, polar stages that are absolutely insane will almost never see play. Ever. They aren't removed because of that; their purpose is just to keep the median intact (and to brutally punish players who **** up at striking).

The only stage I'd remove is Warioware, mostly because it's a stage that forces the better player to strike it, as opposed to any particular characters or player preferences-its randomness shifts matches so far towards even chances even with ridiculously unbalanced skill levels. A player who knows his opponent is considerably worse than him has no choice but to strike the stage, regardless of character or preference.

I disagree on the circle point. The circle can be run in EVERY MATCHUP IN THE GAME, except for the ditto, because one character will always be better at running the loop than another.

That's why I remove all those stages.

And again, I disagree with the balance implications and the practicality of such a concept.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I disagree on the circle point. The circle can be run in EVERY MATCHUP IN THE GAME, except for the ditto, because one character will always be better at running the loop than another.

That's why I remove all those stages.

And again, I disagree with the balance implications and the practicality of such a concept.

Well yes, and the game has, internally, a punishment for being slow. You have to waste strikes on loop stages. Oh well. I see the logic, but I disagree with it. I'll let AA tackle this one better...

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Raziek, I don't think your logic is completely wrong, especially seeing you go stage by stage, but I feel as a pure originalist that the implication of the match being pushed in favor of the characters better at running loops is actually desirable. I think everyone agrees that under a striking system, stages like Temple and NPC would never actually be played, and the question of their inclusion is just about the direction they push striking and not about the actual play on them which simply never happens (except maybe in a ditto with players with very odd preferences).

I also have always felt, for nearly a decade now, that banning stages has always been a "necessary evil". Bans are bad in the abstract, and removing a good chunk of them would be a very desirable outcome. If we could escape that necessary evil, I would be elated. I won't deny the motivation coming from that element.

As per the actual procedure, I outlined it several posts back.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10942650&postcount=58

This has a weak counterpicking effect but should mostly serve as a model for stage striking for the whole set that is fair to both players and allows for free character switching. The only downside is that it is a lengthy procedure, but that is something that I feel should be considered as a problem after a sense for how it works is gained.

 

[fkacyan]

It's not the character, it's the tactic-specifically, circle camping which leads to heavy matchup polarization and overcentralization.

Although honestly, the main issue with Hanenbow is our counterpick system.

Nobody else can really circle camp as effectively. Maybe Falco?

That said, it's no different than the two, maybe three characters that can take advantage of the air games on air-centric stages.

EDIT: The idea is that we're blatantly supporting the idea that "Air = Versatility" when it is completely and utterly wrong, and we're arbitrarily propping up air characters.

 

[Life]

IMO, somebody needs to run a tournament with every stage (sans WarioWare) legal, striking down to three stages and playing on them. On one hand: crappy stages. On the other hand: striking is more strategic. Do you strike a stage that's bad for your character and risk being taken to a degenerate stage, or do you get rid of the degenerate stages for your opponent knowing they'll be striking all the stages you want to go to in the meantime? The concept is intriguing...

 

[Raziek]

Nobody else can really circle camp as effectively. Maybe Falco?

That said, it's no different than the two, maybe three characters that can take advantage of the air games on air-centric stages.

EDIT: The idea is that we're blatantly supporting the idea that "Air = Versatility" when it is completely and utterly wrong, and we're arbitrarily propping up air characters.

There are ground characters who are versatile as well. Snake is a prime example. Air = versatility is a general guideline, but it isn't strictly so.

Also, we're not, because all you really have to do is look at it.

Air character have no difficulty on either air or ground stages.

Ground characters have difficulty on some (or most) air stages.

Removing the ability for Ground characters to ignore their major flaw in Game 1 is the whole purpose of having a more balanced starter selection.

Again, removing an arbitrary buff from ground characters doesn't mean we're arbitrarily buffing air characters, we're simply creating an equal balance of ground and air stages (which is fair), and air characters happen to do better in this system.

Game 1 shouldn't compensate for a massive character flaw by letting them go to one of their top 5 stages.

 

[fkacyan]

There are ground characters who are versatile as well. Snake is a prime example. Air = versatility is a general guideline, but it isn't strictly so.

Also, we're not, because all you really have to do is look at it.

Air character have no difficulty on either air or ground stages.

Ground characters have difficulty on some (or most) air stages.

Removing the ability for Ground characters to ignore their major flaw in Game 1 is the whole purpose of having a more balanced starter selection.

Again, removing an arbitrary buff from ground characters doesn't mean we're arbitrarily buffing air characters, we're simply creating an equal balance of ground and air stages (which is fair), and air characters happen to do better in this system.

Game 1 shouldn't compensate for a massive character flaw by letting them go to one of their top 5 stages.

Because the only types of versatility are air and ground. Riiiight.

This is exactly the misconception I am trying to correct here.

 

[Raziek]

Because the only types of versatility are air and ground. Riiiight.

This is exactly the misconception I am trying to correct here.

What do you define versatility as then? As far as I'm aware, the definition I'm rolling with is "The ability to adapt quickly and easily to a large variety of different situations." This includes characters, tactics AND stages.

Provide your own definition and back it up, or stop talking.

 

[AvaricePanda]

You can't really seperate characters into air/ground and stages into air/ground unless you're strictly thinking of like MK vs. Ice Climbers/Falco.

In that case, what you're saying (Raziek) is kind of true, but there are many characters who benefit from stages because of the layout and not simply from it favoring an air or ground game. For example, G&W does exceptionally well on Norfair, not because it's an "aerial" stage (because IIRC, GW is just decent on RC) but because the stage layout is great for his aerials, recovery, and camping. He also excels on Battlefield, a stage that "ground" characters such as Diddy, Ice Climbers, and Falco excel on, but he excels on it not because it's a "ground" stage but because again, the platform heights make his aerials safer, give him more mix-ups, and in most match-ups just makes him harder to deal with.

Plenty of characters are like this. I wouldn't call Luigi an "air" character but he's great on Brinstar and not at all weak/limited on BF, FD, or SV. Same with Marth; depending on match-ups stages like Brinstar or Lylat are great for him, not because "he has 5 jumps awesome air game he can shark on brinstar" but the layout just helps him (marth vs. diddy as diddy on lylat is just annoying).

Outside the scope of like Diddy, Falco, Ice Climbers, and Olimar for "ground" characters, and MK and Wario for "air" characters, I can't really see any other characters that fit the criteria you seem to be implying. And tbh even with those "groups" they still aren't concrete with, "aerial stage = ground character does bad." Olimar's great on Frigate portion two (which is where the stage is most of the time) and good on the first portion against anyone who can't pressure him off the right side, and he gets mad purples on Delfino. As Diddy, I don't mind CPing a Falco or Snake to Delfino. Just because it's kinda bad for me in one match-up doesn't mean it's a bad stage for me.

 

[Raziek]

Alright, so regardless of whether or not you want to argue a black and white distinction, characters who favor the air TEND to do better on more stages than those who do not, and having a balanced mix of ground and air stages within the starters IS still a fair concept.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I think the distinction's kinda far from being nit-picky tbh, cause now that I think about it:

How many characters favor the air overall (not just in a couple match-ups)? Ones I can think about are MK, Wario, TL maybe, Jigglypuff, Pit (although he more favors the ledge lol). And even these are match-up specific; these characters just do well in and are comfortable in the air.

Other characters (Marth for example) have good aerials and use them in conjunction with their ground game, so I wouldn't actually call them air characters.

Ignoring other concepts with starter stages such as non-intrusiveness for the most player vs. player game possible, why is a balanced mix of ground and air stages within the starters a fair concept when a large majority of the characters are not "air" characters?

 

[Raziek]

I don't know why I have to keep saying it, but it's because having a starter list with 4 grounded stages and one SORT OF not grounded stage (Lylat/PS1) is blatantly favoring ground characters, giving them an unfair advantage for game 1. How is it NOT fair to even it out by adding a few stages that aren't that grounded? It's not like we're throwing in Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise just to even it out, we're adding the extra stages to remove some of the advantage previously granted, and make it a little more even.

Let's take a quick peek at Luxor's stage spectrum just to look at this.

Grounded
Final Destination <-
Smashville <-
Pictochat
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Yoshi's Island <-
Castle Siege <-
Luigi's Mansion
Frigate Orpheon
Pokémon Stadium 1 <-
Pokémon Stadium 2 <-
Lylat Cruise <-
Battlefield <-
Halberd <-
Port Town Aero Dive
Distant Planet
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Pirate Ship

Delfino Plaza
Norfair
Rainbow Cruise
Brinstar
Aerial

Let's quickly grab the starters I usually use, as indicated by the arrows.

If you look at THIS arrangement of stages, we have two HEAVILY grounded stages, two moderately grounded stages, and 5 stages from the middle of the spectrum.

Even this type of system STILL favors grounded characters, but because the aerial characters don't mind grounded stages as much anyway, the balance is closer.

If you assume they strike the outer-most four, matches will usually end up on PS1, PS2, Lylat, or BF, which don't heavily favor either brand of character, which is the way it SHOULD be.

Don't you see the balance flaw in having 3 heavily grounded stages and 2 middle of the road stages?

 

[ADHD]

Everything you are saying cannot be implicated with Metaknight's existence. That was the MAIN concern that the community had when the BBR came up with the 3.0 ruleset.


You should be pushing to get him banned first . . .

 

[AvaricePanda]

But again, if there's only 4-5 characters that may be "aerial", why do we need more aerial stages to balance it out?

Also you're assuming that spectrum is correct (which I disagree with), but I mainly disagree with it in general because IMO you can't only "balance" a stagelist on the basis of whether it's grounded or aerial. Those aren't enough factors. As I've mentioned already, many characters exceed on many stages not simply because they're "ground" or "air" but because of their layouts, and often how well a character does depends on the match-up they're playing. Aside from a few characters, there aren't many that do amazingly on all of one "type" of stage. Even the stereotypical, "these characters are super good on ground stages," characters don't always hold true—Falco is, in my and a lot of people's opinions, much better on BF than he is on SV, meanwhile MK and Wario (but particularly MK) have easier times camping and timing people out on SV.

so again in tl;dr form

1) What characters would you call "air" characters? (asking this as an honest question because I only see maybe 4-6)

2) Why is a starter list heavily favoring ground characters a problem when most characters are ground characters, and the few characters that are "air" characters don't get "hindered" from "ground" stages? (Wario still has his aerial approaching mix-ups on SV, MK can still D-air camp anywhere.)

3) Why are you suggesting it's better the starter list is balanced on a rigid "ground vs air" spectrum when there are very few characters that actually follow this? (ICs and maybe Falco are the only characters I can think of that do worse on all air stages no matter the match-up).

——Plenty of characters are "ground" (or "air") characters that prefer certain stages over others not because of their placement in the ground-air spectrum but just because of the stages and their match-ups on them (for example, Luigi would probably rather CP Brinstar or Smashville, both being on opposite sides of Castle Siege, not for a ground vs. air reason).

 

[Raziek]

Everything you are saying cannot be implicated with Metaknight's existence. That was the MAIN concern that the community had when the BBR came up with the 3.0 ruleset.


You should be pushing to get him banned first . . .

I already AM pushing for it locally, but I am but one man, and as such cannot directly influence the central metagame. I can, however, push for systems that I believe are fair.

But again, if there's only 4-5 characters that may be "aerial", why do we need more aerial stages to balance it out?

Also you're assuming that spectrum is correct (which I disagree with), but I mainly disagree with it in general because IMO you can't only "balance" a stagelist on the basis of whether it's grounded or aerial. Those aren't enough factors. As I've mentioned already, many characters exceed on many stages not simply because they're "ground" or "air" but because of their layouts, and often how well a character does depends on the match-up they're playing. Aside from a few characters, there aren't many that do amazingly on all of one "type" of stage. Even the stereotypical, "these characters are super good on ground stages," characters don't always hold true—Falco is, in my and a lot of people's opinions, much better on BF than he is on SV, meanwhile MK and Wario (but particularly MK) have easier times camping and timing people out on SV.

so again in tl;dr form

1) What characters would you call "air" characters? (asking this as an honest question because I only see maybe 4-6)

I basically consider an aerial character anyone who likes to jump a lot, with some notable exceptions like Falco, since he jumps a lot, but stays very close to the ground the majority of the time. here's my opinion on the roster.

Air - MK, Marth, Wario, Pikachu, GW, Pit, Toon Link, ZSS, Luigi, Wolf, Ness, Lucas, Captain Falcon, Jiggs

Ground - Snake, Diddy, Falco, ICs, Olimar, Peach, Zelda, Link, Ganon

Mixed - Dedede, Lucario, Kirby, ROB, DK, Fox, Sheik, PT, Sonic, Bowser, Ike, Yoshi, Samus

I will follow this list by saying some of these choices are probably dubious and opinion based, but I made most of my claims based around general playstyle to my knowledge. Anyone bolded I feel should FIRMLY be in that category, those who aren't, I either placed in mixed, or went with an educated guess.

Unless you want to throw a ton of the mixeds into one category, I would argue that the cast is by and large pretty balanced in terms of how many characters like to be in the air extensively, and how many like to be on the ground. I also took into consideration how they deal with stage layouts. Peach's jumps are awful, so I put her in grounded because is feel she has difficulty with some stages with platforms higher than a certain amount. (Like Delfino, for example)

I'll elaborate on more characters if you want, but I see the cast as being pretty evenly split, so I think it SHOULD be an equal mix.

2) Why is a starter list heavily favoring ground characters a problem when most characters are ground characters, and the few characters that are "air" characters don't get "hindered" from "ground" stages? (Wario still has his aerial approaching mix-ups on SV, MK can still D-air camp anywhere.)

I addressed this already, but I'll repeat it. Since aerial characters don't really mind either type of stage, the stages added are towards the middle of the spectrum. This means the stages are generally a reasonable mix of ground and air (Like Lylat or PS2), which neither character really prefers. Air characters aren't taking you to Brinstar or anything, I just disagree with your choices against characters like Diddy and Friends basically being forced to strike FD and SV, and usually end up on BF.

You could argue that BF isn't that great for either type, but I'd argue that 9 starters allows for a lot more flexibility on a match-up to match-up basis, rather than it being the current "Strike these two every time" that the old system was based around. For example, Marth might go to SV or YI against ICs in 5 starters, but would sooner see something like PS1 or PS2 in 9. Neither character hates it, but neither character likes it.

MK breaks the whole **** system, but I advocate a ban for him, so I will not address this argument. MK basically ruins everything that I think is fair in this game. Having no bad stages basically gives the system the ****.

3) Why are you suggesting it's better the starter list is balanced on a rigid "ground vs air" spectrum when there are very few characters that actually follow this? (ICs and maybe Falco are the only characters I can think of that do worse on all air stages no matter the match-up).

——Plenty of characters are "ground" (or "air") characters that prefer certain stages over others not because of their placement in the ground-air spectrum but just because of the stages and their match-ups on them (for example, Luigi would probably rather CP Brinstar or Smashville, both being on opposite sides of Castle Siege, not for a ground vs. air reason).

Again, a big part of it is offering flexibility on a match-up to match-up basis, rather than limiting your options to going to SV or BF 90% of the time.

 

[sunshade]

Can someone tell me the purpose of a starter list? I would assume it to be along the lines of

"a list of stages used for striking with the intent that the result be a fair stage to be played on the first and most influential match of the game".

In my opinion the the creation of a starter list is detrimental to the intended result of having one.

If you strike from every legal stage your end result is the stage which places both characters an equal distance from their best stage.

This causes characters who are better than their opponent on a majority of stages (thus a better character) to play on a field of play which properly represents their superiority.

 

[Raziek]

Can someone tell me the purpose of a starter list? I would assume it to be along the lines of

"a list of stages used for striking with the intent that the result be a fair stage to be played on the first and most influential match of the game".

In my opinion the the creation of a starter list is detrimental to the intended result of having one.

If you strike from every legal stage your end result is the stage which places both characters an equal distance from their best stage.

This causes characters who are better than their opponent on a majority of stages (thus a better character) to play on a field of play which properly represents their superiority.

Striking from every legal stage isn't really a bad idea, but it has two large problems with it:

1) MK pretty much breaks the balance completely, since you'd have to fight him on a CP, pretty much guaranteed.

2) I question whether or not it's streamlined enough to be practical in terms of time.

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I feel like Game 1 should probably be played on a stage with minimal interference, but still maintaining balance where possible.

 

[sunshade]

1. Why should we go out of our way to weaken metaknight? If he is the best character in the game let him be the best. I honestly dont see him breaking the game if we did allow full list striking. If you look at most other fighting games out there you will notice that 45% dominance (metaknight's current percentage dominance) is incredibly low.

2. Tell people that the tournament is going to last for 20 minutes longer than usual. Once people get used to it the time spent striking will not be that long. There will be 4-5 stages which players off the back know they want to ban. Then you will have 2-4 stages which are variable based on your opponent or the particular match-up. Then you have 2-3 stages which are all going to be close in advantage and it becomes personal preference.

There is no such thing as interference and brawl is plenty balanced compared to most other fighting games.

 

[ADHD]

1. Why should we go out of our way to weaken metaknight? If he is the best character in the game let him be the best. I honestly dont see him breaking the game if we did allow full list striking. If you look at most other fighting games out there you will notice that 45% dominance (metaknight's current percentage dominance) is incredibly low.

We should just ban him, or not do anything at all. Why should we go out of our way to push new stages when there is a huge, massive character issue in the way?

2. Tell people that the tournament is going to last for 20 minutes longer than usual. Once people get used to it the time spent striking will not be that long. There will be 4-5 stages which players off the back know they want to ban. Then you will have 2-4 stages which are variable based on your opponent or the particular match-up. Then you have 2-3 stages which are all going to be close in advantage and it becomes personal preference.

There is no such thing as interference and brawl is plenty balanced compared to most other fighting games.

Alright, the problem with this is that the striking will take too long, causing players to just start off somewhere like battlefield from the start. At MLG nobody bothered to take the time to strike unless it was something incredibly specific like Ice Climbers and that's with only NINE starters.

 

[sunshade]

We should just ban him, or not do anything at all. Why should we go out of our way to push new stages when there is a huge, massive character issue in the way?

Doing nothing to hinder him would include not dismissing fairer systems because they make him rightfully stronger than he already is.

The is not a huge, massive character issue in the way. We do however have an issue with a big boogy man standing right behind metaknight.

Alright, the problem with this is that the striking will take too long, causing players to just start off somewhere like battlefield from the start. At MLG nobody bothered to take the time to strike unless it was something incredibly specific like Ice Climbers and that's with only NINE starters.

So what?

 

[ADHD]

Doing nothing to hinder him would include not dismissing fairer systems because they make him rightfully stronger than he already is.

The is not a huge, massive character issue in the way. We do however have an issue with a big boogy man standing right behind metaknight.

No, you truly don't understand how strong this character is. He will literally destroy any hope of other characters defeating him, and that IS a problem if you want this game to progress.

Also, fairer systems? Fairer to who? 4-6 characters? You can't prove it's "fairer" without opinions.

So what?

So what's the point?

 

[Orion*]

@sunshade: There's nothing really to react to... either the platforms save you or they don't. You can always aim to fall above where the platform would be, but there's no way to influence whether it actually appears. Also, if randomness that can be reacted to is acceptable, why do you hate Pictochat so much?

you cant "react" to random *** spikes IMMEDIATELY popping up from the ground, get that garbage out now please

like you cant even argue that, i have seen top players who new the stage back when it was legal in nj, and sometimes even now when it Is legal in NY get hit by that ****.

 

[sunshade]

No, you truly don't understand how strong this character is. He will literally destroy any hope of other characters defeating him, and that IS a problem if you want this game to progress.

You are right because metaknight wins more than half of all tournaments and goes 70-30 with every character.

regardless of that if you want him banned suggest it to other top players. If there is a strong enough movement for his banning he will be banned.

Also, fairer systems? Fairer to who? 4-6 characters? You can't prove it's "fairer" without opinions.

"Fairer" and "more advantage giving than the current status quo'' are not the same thing.

If a character A is better on majority of stages than the opposing character B than character A is better than character B. It is more fair because if we choose not to strike from the full stage list we will arbitrarily cause character B to become better than character A.

So what's the point?

Not everyone votes in national elections so whats the point?

Just because some people are lazy does not mean that we should give up on a system.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Why is there PictoChat discussion in this topic? That's something that should be in the other topic.

The point of splitting the topics was to allow more actual discussion and not people being all over the place and talking about things on entirely different levels. The old thread turned into a train wreck where half the posts were talking about how good or bad a particular stage was and the other half were talking about broad concepts about stage legality. I split them to avoid the interference, and this is the thread for the latter. If you have to mention a specific stage or two as a part of a point about stage philosophy, that's fine, but just making a post arguing X stage should have Y legality status is defeating the purpose of this thread completely and has another sticky thread very clearly made for exactly that kind of post. I'm going to start handing out infractions for this from here on out; in my eyes, it's attempting to derail the thread. I really don't like infracting people at all so please guys make sure this is only a threat that I don't have to act on.

 

[Raziek]

The issue lies in one of two things, Sunshade. The pragmatist in me says there are three likely scenarios:

1) We implement these systems, MK gets stronger, but STILL stays around, which is counter-productive to trying to balance the game. Negative outcome.

2) We implement these systems, MK gets stronger, but we FINALLY have the stones to say "Enough." and ban him. Very positive outcome.

3) We don't implement these systems, and MK continues to be a problem anyway. Negative outcome.

I think option 1 is probably the most likely, because only a select few would actually abuse him to the full extent, as it is currently. Hell, I don't think many (if any) MKs ever picked Norfair or Green Greens at MLG.

I don't think it is a good idea to make the problem worse, unless it pushes the breaking point and he gets banned.

I agree with ADHD on the point that I don't think you actually understand how bad MK is in practice. If people played as gay as possible, the problem would be a lot worse. That's the funny thing though, because MK doesn't even HAVE to play gay to dominate all the other characters, most of which are playing as gay as possible.

 

[sunshade]

Raziek, I look at it this way. We either strive to make the game equal or fair there is no middle ground.

If we want to make the game fair then we allow better characters to be better and worse characters to be worse. We only ban that which is truely broken as it is a necessity to prevent the game from dieing.

Our other option is to make it equal in which case we take a scalpel to the game and change anything and everything to make it more balanced. This includeds banning stages not rightfully bannable, altering the system to unfairly buff or nerf characters, and banning tactics such as planking and chain grabs.

Working to make the game fair requires that we only remove something if it is broken. That is an easy to follow and understand standard.

Working to make the game equal (or balanced as you called it) is up to opinion, has in the past and current day had many negative effects, and has no standard to it what so ever.

 

[Raziek]

I'm aware of that Sunshade, and I will once again state that I agree with all of the theory, but practically speaking, if people won't take the step to ban MK, I'd rather not make the problem worse than it already is.

Personally, I host MK-banned tourneys with the BBR 3.1 ruleset. (with some starters switched around)

It's currently seeing much better (subjective) results, and people are on the whole, happier without him. Currently this just applies to my bi-weeklies, but I've been pushing for a long time to ban him for our major ones.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Can someone tell me the purpose of a starter list? I would assume it to be along the lines of

"a list of stages used for striking with the intent that the result be a fair stage to be played on the first and most influential match of the game".

I don't know if I agree or disagree with that, but another purpose of the starter stage that I kinda agree with and I know a lot of people agree with is

"A list of stages used for striking with the intent that the result be a stage which provides the most amount of player vs. player elements possible (thereby reducing most if not all stage semi-random elements and importance) for the first and most influential match of the game."

tl;dr: this belief is that the winner of the first match won a game with the focus on player vs. player skill elements and without stage elements such as stage zoning or avoiding hazards. I guess technically this would mean Yoshi's Island Brawl should probably be replaced with like PS1/Lylat as a starter but that's just me being nit-picky and I honestly don't care.

I don't think either belief is really wrong.

 

[sunshade]

I don't know if I agree or disagree with that, but another purpose of the starter stage that I kinda agree with and I know a lot of people agree with is

"A list of stages used for striking with the intent that the result be a stage which provides the most amount of player vs. player elements possible (thereby reducing most if not all stage semi-random elements and importance) for the first and most influential match of the game."

tl;dr: this belief is that the winner of the first match won a game with the focus on player vs. player skill elements and without stage elements such as stage zoning or avoiding hazards. I guess technically this would mean Yoshi's Island Brawl should probably be replaced with like PS1/Lylat as a starter but that's just me being nit-picky and I honestly don't care.

I don't think either belief is really wrong.

Why is a stage hazard detrimental to player vs. player combat? Stages are nothing but tools for players to use to enhance their chances at victory. The advantage given on final destination is no different than the advantage given by Brinstar.