Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The death spike (the one that will send you off to the side in a OHKO) on the first third is easy to deal with. DI down and tech.

 

[Linkshot]

Or just avoid it altogether, BPC

Also yeah, MK has a lot of dumb **** there. Instant-cancelled Shuttle Loop for navigation sometimes, uThrow gimmick, amazing spacing tricks, Tornado, jab at chokepoint...it's brutal, but then again it's MK, so it's expected.

 

[ADHD]

meteor spike mostly.

This stage would also be in a incredibly good MK stage vs basically anyone.

One character is never enough to ban a stage!

 

[Raziek]

So I did some thinking about it last night, and I concede, that I cannot defeat the logic behind not banning a stage because of one character.

So, I decided to take a closer look at Onett, its role in the CP system, and its qualities. Does it bring anything worth adding to outweigh all the problems that come with it?

Let's look at Onett's features.

I did up a quick diagram to deal with what I want to look at specifically.

First, the side areas. Both of these spots provide a permanent wall, a walk-off in the other direction, and an extremely difficult to approach camping position. The cars disrupt these campers SLIGHTLY, but they're easy enough to spot-dodge to avoid the shield-stun. While I haven't seen it dominate a match, these are a problem, since they cause degenerative gameplay in every aspect. Like fin camping, without the ledge invincibility.

Next, the cars. While they give you plenty of warning and time to avoid it, holding your opponent into them without getting hit yourself, is quite possible from my experience. That said, even if you choose to take the hit and hold your opponent into it, the outcome is not usually negative for you, unless you're an extremely light character. However, this just compounds the advantage for heavies who can wall-lock, like DK or Dedede. The main claim to fame for them is that they disrupt chaingrabs, but I've yet to see them have enough disruption to eliminate any significant part of that problem.

Speaking of that, we have another two permanent walls that become the entirely focus of gameplay in the center. If one character can lock you on them, that becomes the dominant strategy instantly. The walls are permanent, and approaching a character in the middle who has a lead is also extremely difficult. Not much more I have to say here.

The lighter rectangle surrounding that is a lesser problem, but one that persists nonetheless. Due to the nature of the houses, with correct DI, it is very possible to get a "Shadow Moses Lite" effect, severely weakening characters without strong vertical kill moves. As you've seen in my video, it is entirely possible for characters like Dedede to reach 200%, despite the stage's reasonable blast zones.

With all these problems in mind, I thought to myself, "Ok, what does it bring to the table that is POSITIVE?" Well, if neither character has a CG or wall-lock, it becomes a very aerial based stage that takes the fighting above the cars. Beyond that, it has very few unique or beneficial features of merit, and controlling the ground portion is almost always the dominant strategy.

While all these things individually may not be enough to ban the stage, if you consider the stage the sum of its parts, I think it has too many problems with it to outweigh the very scarce amount of benefit that it brings.

 

[UberMario]

It is not the chain grabs themselves UM, it is that the chain grabs move the opponent across the stage into a death.

Exactly (though you can ko with a chaingrab throw), that's one of the main reasons stage walkoffs get such a bad rep in Brawl.

 

[T-block]

This post is also gonna be mostly theorycraft. Take from it what you will.

First, the side areas. Both of these spots provide a permanent wall, a walk-off in the other direction, and an extremely difficult to approach camping position. The cars disrupt these campers SLIGHTLY, but they're easy enough to spot-dodge to avoid the shield-stun. While I haven't seen it dominate a match, these are a problem, since they cause degenerative gameplay in every aspect. Like fin camping, without the ledge invincibility.

The cars do prevent this, but not because we're hoping they force the camper out of their spot alone. They instead offer a means for the other player to approach. Every 12-13 seconds, you know they're going to spot dodge/shield/jump, and that is extremely helpful in breaking in despite the strong positioning.

Next, the cars. While they give you plenty of warning and time to avoid it, holding your opponent into them without getting hit yourself, is quite possible from my experience. That said, even if you choose to take the hit and hold your opponent into it, the outcome is not usually negative for you, unless you're an extremely light character. However, this just compounds the advantage for heavies who can wall-lock, like DK or Dedede. The main claim to fame for them is that they disrupt chaingrabs, but I've yet to see them have enough disruption to eliminate any significant part of that problem.

The idea is that you only get locked for a few iterations before the cars break it by timing the risky approaches. Yes, 10 seconds of Dedede chain grabbing you followed by a forced car hit is ridiculous damage, but why did you let yourself be grabbed right after a car passed? You should have waited until the next one was about to come.

Speaking of that, we have another two permanent walls that become the entirely focus of gameplay in the center. If one character can lock you on them, that becomes the dominant strategy instantly. The walls are permanent, and approaching a character in the middle who has a lead is also extremely difficult. Not much more I have to say here.

Dedede and DK are really the only threats. I'd be happy if my opponent were playing like he's obsessed with landing a wall-lock - it probably means he's being predictable and exploitable. For GW, Marth, ROB, I would definitely say it's reasonable to expect a player to avoid getting d-tilted against a wall for the whole match

The lighter rectangle surrounding that is a lesser problem, but one that persists nonetheless. Due to the nature of the houses, with correct DI, it is very possible to get a "Shadow Moses Lite" effect, severely weakening characters without strong vertical kill moves. As you've seen in my video, it is entirely possible for characters like Dedede to reach 200%, despite the stage's reasonable blast zones.

The effect is there, but it's not broken on Onett, and I'd probably be more inclined to label it as a CP quality. Also, Onett's ceiling is actually significantly higher than most legal stages in the game.

With all these problems in mind, I thought to myself, "Ok, what does it bring to the table that is POSITIVE?" Well, if neither character has a CG or wall-lock, it becomes a very aerial based stage that takes the fighting above the cars. Beyond that, it has very few unique or beneficial features of merit, and controlling the ground portion is almost always the dominant strategy.

It's also a good balance stage to include for characters with weak recoveries.

 

[ADHD]

I see metaknight for once being mediocre onett as well.

 

[Linkshot]

That's true. Onett feels more ground-based than FD at times.

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

characters with either good ground game or good air spped get an advantage on onett

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Spear Pillar as a counterpick in doubles. Go.

 

[DMG]

Onett a bad MK stage? I should make a video explaining why you are wrong.

Tornado. What do you notice about the layout? Lots of short length terrain spots, in various heights. Meaning if you are on a platform somewhere or a house, and he sweeps by, you have to jump or fall off the platform to pursue him. Which means characters fast on the ground that normally punish tornado by running cannot do so, and that characters fast in the air have to watch out for landing on other terrain first that would slow them down. Which means the move is now a lot harder to punish than normally. Which is never a good thing.

 

[Hot_ArmS]

^ listen to this man

 

[Linkshot]

BPC

Doubles should never have a different stage set than Singles, simply because doubles can eventually boil down to singles.

 

[Raziek]

Spear Pillar as a counterpick in doubles. Go.

What Linkshot said, basically. If it comes down to 1v1, circle stalling once again becomes a problem. Not to mention it still has Cave of Life issues.

 

[DMG]

And, you know, "HEY LETS PLAY UPSIDE DOWN!"

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What Linkshot said, basically. If it comes down to 1v1, circle stalling once again becomes a problem. Not to mention it still has Cave of Life issues.

If it comes down to 1v1 last stock each, and if the faster player has the lead... Seems like a fair number of ifs. The cave of life problem is still there, I guess...

And, you know, "HEY LETS PLAY UPSIDE DOWN!"

If I can get used to that, so can (insert pro player here). It's not even that the stage changes... In fact, only the perspective changes. Same with the flip. It's hardly a hazard once you learn how to deal with it (in fact, unlike almost any other hazard in the game, it literally is not a hazard once you learn how to deal with it).

 

[PK-ow!]

Alright sports fans, here's the Onett video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCwPC2s78Cc

Dedede is just too strong on it.

Okay, very very interesting.

But not conclusive for me at all.


The first thing to say, is that it still seemed like a matter of outplaying Billy. Adding on to that, it doesn't look like it's easy or trivial to do what Billy was doing. He's still playing Dedede. Others said this.
Waddle Dees were the biggest threat regarding that lower area, it seemed to me.


The one thing that makes me unwilling to trust just this vid, though... is how Marth did not manipulate the Drug Store platforms. Clearly they got in the way of aerial pressure onto Dedede, a mainstay of the Marth-D3 matchup. By standing on them, he could make the platforms drop, and then use the wider open space there. All they gave Marth was Dolphin Slash landings... which was being overused, come on.

I could poke, also, at how Marth got impatient with guarding that same ground area against Dedede... giving it up really quickly when he whiffed those obvious UAirs... but I don't need to.

Whether it is or is not advantageous to Marth in the end... isn't as important to me as how Raz (you?) didn't try it - the transformed Onett. So I don't know if it was hopeless or too difficult.


*~*~*~
I have issues with Spear Pillar rotating 180, because the camera is terribly set up. It puts the characters far away from the focus of the camera... and obscures important stuff with the status display.
But yeah, it's not a hazard and I'd really love to see spatial abilities be rewarded.

I don't see circling being defeated, though. Death Beams and stage destruction are too slow or too little to stop it.


*~*~*~

My mind has been expanded to a world of possibilities. A Mario World of possibilities that includes Yoshi's Island (M).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I still don't see what is bannable about YI(M).

Regarding spear pillar in doubles: It's at least worth some testing, right? You can't use the obviously broken tactic, and caves of life are hardly conclusively broken in teams as well.

 

[DMG]

Almost every stage that is banned in Singles will be banned in doubles because 1 v 1 can occur.

See Hanenbow, Pillar, any other feasible stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm just not convinced that this will happen consistently enough (faster char gets a serious advantage, 1v1, etc.), but w/e. The only stages that really get put into consideration for that are Hanenbow and Spear Pillar... Nobody likes the former, and the latter... meh, it has other issues I guess.

Also, the perfect argument against this whole "FD is perfectly flat with no distractions and therefore perfectly neutral" claim. Anyone wanna hear?

 

[Linkshot]

"PERSONALLY, I PREFER THE GROUND"

Pretty much that. There's nowhere to run, no way to use your adaptation skills...it's extremely biased towards players that don't want to see a stage as a third party.

 

[DMG]

Which many people don't for Game 1. Otherwise you would see RC, Brinstar, Norfair, Japes, Mansion, Green Greens, Frigate, etc on starter lists.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When you claim that FD is "perfectly neutral" ground, you assume that brawl is intended to be played, neutrally, on a perfectly flat stage with no platforms. If FD was the "default" stage, this would be a fair assumption. Instead, what we have is exactly one stage with these qualities. Every other stage has something that gets in the way. It is an assumption that is beyond ridiculous to claim that FD is the "perfectly neutral" way to play Brawl when there is exactly one stage that provides these conditions and no further evidence to back that up. The more fair assumption is, in fact, that FD is a completely non-neutral stage, as it has a very basic quality that no other stage in the game shares (only one, perfectly flat, uninterrupted base platform. There is no other stage in the game that shares this quality).

Then of course there are all the other arguments like "character variability should matter" and "randomness is a part of the game", etc. that you can all just look at, laugh at, ignore, and continue playing Super Smash Scrubs Baww where you ban anything you just don't like. Why does this feel like the MK ban debate all over again?

There was more to this like 10 minutes ago but I lost my train of thought somewhere and had to rethink it.

 

[ADHD]

When you claim that FD is "perfectly neutral" ground, you assume that brawl is intended to be played, neutrally, on a perfectly flat stage with no platforms. If FD was the "default" stage, this would be a fair assumption. Instead, what we have is exactly one stage with these qualities. Every other stage has something that gets in the way. It is an assumption that is beyond ridiculous to claim that FD is the "perfectly neutral" way to play Brawl when there is exactly one stage that provides these conditions and no further evidence to back that up. The more fair assumption is, in fact, that FD is a completely non-neutral stage, as it has a very basic quality that no other stage in the game shares (only one, perfectly flat, uninterrupted base platform. There is no other stage in the game that shares this quality).

Why does it matter what it's phrased as? FD along with battlefield are the only non-interactive stages in the game. lol, like wtf, nobody even called it perfectly neutral recently, you're just day dreaming.

Then of course there are all the other arguments like "character variability should matter" and "randomness is a part of the game", etc. that you can all just look at, laugh at, ignore, and continue playing Super Smash Scrubs Baww where you ban anything you just don't like. Why does this feel like the MK ban debate all over again?

Not that this matters, but wouldn't we be more on the scrub side if we practically played like scrubs?

 

[DMG]

Perfectly Neutral, not THE perfect neutral. The perfect Neutral would be a stage that is FD-like in nature (No shenanigens, it can have stationary platforms there's nothing wrong with that) that also has the best possible obtainable balance for the broader spectrum of matchups. That stage doesn't exist obv.

Stages like FD and BF are the pinnacle of no nonsense stages. Battlefield is neutral. Why? Because it doesn't do anything, not because the platforms add nothing to gameplay or don't change some matchups. FD is neutral. Why? Not because the flat playing field favors "no one" and is void of any matchup skewing, but because that flat playing field doesn't do anything.

That's how I think stages should be done: Stages that do nothing should be the ones people start on. Let them figure out the risk of not picking a ground character, let matchups play out with nothing but player vs player if possible. Should that be done for the entire set? No. For Game 1 yes I think you should put in the extra effort to have it occur on a "nothingness" stage. Past that point, go right on ahead into the CP realm.

 

[ADHD]

I agree. Non-interactive stages allow the most adaption to the player's frequent decisions (what competitive gaming is about). We are a competitive community, so we should strive to act as one. I don't visibly see any justice in preserving our competitive name-sake if we see it otherwise, and we should merely phrase ourselves as party gamers.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Perfectly Neutral, not THE perfect neutral. The perfect Neutral would be a stage that is FD-like in nature (No shenanigens, it can have stationary platforms there's nothing wrong with that) that also has the best possible obtainable balance for the broader spectrum of matchups. That stage doesn't exist obv.

Stages like FD and BF are the pinnacle of no nonsense stages. Battlefield is neutral. Why? Because it doesn't do anything, not because the platforms add nothing to gameplay or don't change some matchups. FD is neutral. Why? Not because the flat playing field favors "no one" and is void of any matchup skewing, but because that flat playing field doesn't do anything.

So you are assuming this. Did you even read what I said? This is a ridiculous assumption to make in smash. Beyond ridiculous! You are saying that this tiny subset of non-moving stages is the one true way to play the game. Or at least, the most balanced way. I could do the exact same thing with Mario Bros, and my statement would be just as valid (barring appeal to authority and appeal to tradition). If there was a built-in button for "default stage" that sent you to FD, yes I could understand this. But there isn't. There's nothing of the sort.

That's how I think stages should be done: Stages that do nothing should be the ones people start on. Let them figure out the risk of not picking a ground character, let matchups play out with nothing but player vs player if possible. Should that be done for the entire set? No. For Game 1 yes I think you should put in the extra effort to have it occur on a "nothingness" stage. Past that point, go right on ahead into the CP realm.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

This statement is purely opinion and completely pointless. It has no basing within the game itself. And why have that only for game one? If that's the most fair way to play, why not just play FD/BF all 3 games? Why should the other parts of the match be "unfair"? And if this isn't the most fair way to play, what should game 1 be about? Isn't it about providing a fair and even playing field for the matchup?

Why does it matter what it's phrased as? FD along with battlefield are the only non-interactive stages in the game. lol, like wtf, nobody even called it perfectly neutral recently, you're just day dreaming.

You're calling it the perfect neutral. Or rather, it and its kin. You're saying "non-interactive is the neutral way to play smash". You are constantly saying this. This is the assumption you are making, and the one I am challenging.

Not that this matters, but wouldn't we be more on the scrub side if we practically played like scrubs?

Which player here is the scrub:
Player 1 does not ban anything that hasn't been shown to be completely degenerate. He plays the game the way the developers intended (not what the developer says, but what the developer offers in-game; that is to say, no items, stock mode and not time, but not banning much) with as few changes as possible.
Player 2 bans everything he doesn't like. Any stage that moves, any character that is random, and MK and Snake because they are too good. He also randomly happens to play far, far better under his rules than player 1.

Define "played like scrubs"? You can hardly call Sirlin's principles scrubby simply because the "scrub" (or, more accurately, "noob") crowd in this game tends to follow them closer than the pro crowd.

I agree. Non-interactive stages allow the most adaption to the player's frequent decisions (what competitive gaming is about). We are a competitive community, so we should strive to act as one. I don't visibly see any justice in preserving our competitive name-sake if we see it otherwise, and we should merely phrase ourselves as party gamers.

ASORIGH#OH$*()H#%(BH#$G(H#G

I agree. Non-interactive stages allow the most adaption to the player's frequent decisions (what competitive gaming is about). We are a competitive community, so we should strive to act as one. I don't visibly see any justice in preserving our competitive name-sake if we see it otherwise, and we should merely phrase ourselves as party gamers.

I WANTED TO CUT OUT A PIECE OF THIS TO PUT A MAGNIFYING GLASS ON HOW STUPENDOUSLY STUPID IT ALL WAS AND I COULDN'T! EVERY PART OF IT IS STUPENDOUSLY STUPID!!!!

*sigh* I'll do it bit by bit.

I agree. Non-interactive stages allow the most adaption to the player's frequent decisions

Disagree. When my opponent starts zoning me with an fair and that lava spout is coming from behind, what happens when he baits into my grab range? When my opponent is sharking me below on halberd, how do I react to it, and how do I punish his upB or tornado?
Even in the situations where the stage movements lowers your options to adapt, it offers a critical trade-off: it gives you more (different) situations to adapt to. And again, being forced to adapt to the stage is, quite apparently, a critical element in brawl.

(what competitive gaming is about)

Since when is competitive gaming purely about 1v1? You're in fact talking out of your *** on this one. And smash as a game is never meant to be 1v1, unless... well, you pick FD or BF or Temple or another one of the non-moving, non-random stages.

We are a competitive community, so we should strive to act as one. I don't visibly see any justice in preserving our competitive name-sake if we see it otherwise, and we should merely phrase ourselves as party gamers.

And here you're acting as if smash is completely non-competitive on active stages.

Buddy, GTFO. You're not doing the intelligence of the community justice.
You know how other communities laugh at us, right? It stopped being "ha ha smash can't be a competitive game" a while back. AFAIK, now they laugh at us because "ha ha those smashers are such scrubs and ban 2/3rds of their game". If you have to try that hard to shoehorn the game into a stereotype, then it is not a good competitive game. However, what you seem to be missing is the simple fact that we don't. Would this stagelist still be competitive, and still true to the game in and of itself:

Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Battlefield, Smashville, Final Destination, Lylat Cruise, Pokémon Stadium 1, Halberd, Castle Siege, Pokémon Stadium 2, Frigate Orpheon, Delfino Plaza, Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes, Yoshi's Island (Melee), Pirate Ship, Pictochat, Norfair, Green Greens, Port Town Aero Dive, Onett, Distant Planet, Rumble Falls (all starters)

Answer: Probably. We don't know, let's not ban 2/3rds of it before we do know.

Would this stagelist be both competitive and true to the game:

Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Battlefield, Smashville, Final Destination (FD is the only starter)

Answer: no. It bans literally about half the game.

Would the stagelist above that stays true to smash itself with ISP rules be competitive? Answer: Probably!

You've closed your mind on competition into that which you are good at, and that which your character is good at. Nothing else is competitive to you, regardless of what evidence is prevented, and regardless of how it is shown that your method guts the game.

 

[Jack Kieser]

DMG, I honestly think you have it ENTIRELY backwards (and we all know that ADHD is always full of ****).

You say that stages that do nothing are inherently neutral, but that's sincerely NOT the case. On game one, we have decided that we want to play a game where it comes down ONLY to player v player / character v character. Ignoring the inherent problems with non-perfect balance and a CP system that REWARDS A LOSS, why do we think, first of all, that what we've decided is even the BEST way? It's obviously not the INTUITIVE way.

Look at the stage list again, and this time do it WITHOUT the bias from 7 years of Melee and 2 years of Gimped-Brawl. FD and BF are the ONLY 2 STAGES out of a list of 41 that don't have DIRECT interference (they still have INDIRECT interference, of course, in the form of the lip and platforms, respectively). WHY on Earth would we think that the game is built, mechanically, to reward players OR characters that don't like interaction.

If we weren't so biased in our thinking, we'd REALIZE that we have it backwards. Our choices of "neutral" stages arbitrarily and unfairly reward characters that NEED static stages to operate properly. I'd LOVE to see Diddy set up banana tricks on a non-static stage. I'd LOVE to see Snake make bomb frame-traps when the stage parts are moving. I'd LOVE to see the IC's keep up chain grabs with cars or lava on their ***.

We ALSO arbitrarily and unfairly reward PLAYERS that need static stages to operate properly. We're crafting our player base to not be able to deal with obstacles, even the most basic of obstacles! Platforms, balloons, lava that takes OVER 5 SECONDS to reach you... Our top player base is being bred NOT to be able to deal with these things. I may get my *** kicked by M2K, but I guarantee you, it won't be because of lava or cars, but that's because I practice the stages. Why are we telling our players that stage knowledge ISN'T a crucial part of the game? Because every time we put fort this (never proven) philosophy of "Well, non-interactive stages are the most fair", we're not only carving out a CRUCIAL part of the game, we're forcefully changing the metagame to suit OUR OWN needs, instead of adapting to what the metagame DEMANDS of us.

If we can't deal with stage hazards, that doesn't make the stages bad. It makes us bad players.

 

[DMG]

A stage list with other choices would arbitrarily favor the characters who do well on those stages. No matter what we shape the stage list to be, it is shaped that way because "We thought it was best to do so in this Manner." It isn't one side is subjective and the other is not. I hate how people try to word it to make it seem like 9 starter stage list with RC, Brinstar, or even more modest choices are the "right" direction to go because having ol FD is too "arbitrary".

I just want Game 1 to be on a stage like FD or BF. Why? Because our CP system is so earth shatteringly broken, with MK having many "playground" stages that Game 1 a lot of times is do or die. When a Game is THAT important, yes I think the sacrifice of Delfino or Frigate or Halberd or CS or whatever is worth it. The advantage of having the 3rd game CP is so significant in Brawl that I would rather Game 1 be as close to Player vs Player as possible, so that when M2K plays ADHD on BF and wins, ADHD can shake his hand and say "OK M2K, let's get this over with. Let me beat you on Smashville/Pictochat and you can take me to Norfair/Brinstar/RC and get this over with". That's a tougher, closer set than "LOL Game 1 Delfino/RC/Brinstar/stages we have added". Whether this is because Brawl is a crappy game, or that the CP stages we allow are too wild, or character imbalance is so strong that it doesn't really matter what stages you allow, whatever the case is currently it's not a pretty picture and I think the least we can do is try to salvage Game 1.

The only real feasible change I could see is it being bumped up to 9 starter list. Past that frankly you go into clear CP land and you just start relabeling clear CP stages into starters just because. Past the usual

FD BF SV PS1/YI Lylat, you get into CS Halberd and Delfino with Delfino being the most questionable obviously. Past that point, you start getting into stages like Frigate, Distant Planet, etc clear CP stages, with anything past that being the absurd really.

 

[Jack Kieser]

DMG... that's why you DON'T SHAPE THE STAGE LIST. Did it ever occur to you that we don't NEED the counterpick system? Why do we have it? What's the point of making match 1 super important, and giving the LOSER and advantage match 2, and breaking the first match by giving an advantage to 4 or 5 characters?

One side is VERY subjective, and the other is dictated by the game itself, so it's inherently not subjective. Seriously. Is it so hard to ban only the broken stages and play every match random? Hell, give each player 2 bans per set, and its still less arbitrary that way.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A stage list with other choices would arbitrarily favor the characters who do well on those stages. No matter what we shape the stage list to be, it is shaped that way because "We thought it was best to do so in this Manner." It isn't one side is subjective and the other is not. I hate how people try to word it to make it seem like 9 starter stage list with RC, Brinstar, or even more modest choices are the "right" direction to go because having ol FD is too "arbitrary".

And when the starter list contains every (non-obviously-broken) stage? How is that not fair? You go to the most fair stage for the matchup.

I just want Game 1 to be on a stage like FD or BF. Why? Because our CP system is so earth shatteringly broken, with MK having many "playground" stages that Game 1 a lot of times is do or die. When a Game is THAT important, yes I think the sacrifice of Delfino or Frigate or Halberd or CS or whatever is worth it.

So MK breaks the system. Gotcha. Now why make the system overall less fair because one character (arguably) breaks the system? Keep in mind that the only major tournaments that have ever run this ruleset were not overrun by MKs.

The advantage of having the 3rd game CP is so significant in Brawl that I would rather Game 1 be as close to Player vs Player as possible, so that when M2K plays ADHD on BF and wins, ADHD can shake his hand and say "OK M2K, let's get this over with. Let me beat you on Smashville/Pictochat and you can take me to Norfair/Brinstar/RC and get this over with". That's a tougher, closer set than "LOL Game 1 Delfino/RC/Brinstar/stages we have added". Whether this is because Brawl is a crappy game, or that the CP stages we allow are too wild, or character imbalance is so strong that it doesn't really matter what stages you allow, whatever the case is currently it's not a pretty picture and I think the least we can do is try to salvage Game 1.

Did I ever say I wanted game one to be played on RC or Brinstar? Or even Delfino? At least, vs. MK? No.

The only real feasible change I could see is it being bumped up to 9 starter list. Past that frankly you go into clear CP land and you just start relabeling clear CP stages into starters just because. Past the usual FD BF SV PS1/YI Lylat, you get into CS Halberd and Delfino with Delfino being the most questionable obviously. Past that point, you start getting into stages like Frigate, Distant Planet, etc clear CP stages, with anything past that being the absurd really.

Frigate is a really good starter, actually. You should check out raziek's thread.

But why are these stages CPs? Why isn't FD a CP when it's so ridiculously polarizing? Why isn't SV a CP as FD 2.0? This is part of the logic we're questioning. You're backing up your point by... well, referring to the point itself. Circular logic. "We can't add CP stages to the starter list". "What's a CP stage?" "Stages that aren't on the starter list." "Okay, I add Delfino to the starter list, it's a starter." "We can't add CP stages to the starter lsit". Lovely.

And again, with the 15-stage starter list, where are you starting against MK? Norfair? Brinstar? RC? He has so many **** stages, you can't help but start on one of his be-what's that you say? You start somewhere around Lylat Cruise or HALBERD?!? ZOMG THAT IS A POTENT COUNTERPICK FOR MK! Never mind that FD is as potent for ICs as Brinstar is for MK.

EDIT:@Jack: I hope you realize that starting with every legal stage on random is a really bad idea exactly due to such polarizing stages. If you start on FD against the ICs, or on RC against MK, how is that fair?

 

[DMG]

So... have every stage legal besides obvious banned ones, and every game random? You DO know how badly that favors MK right? There's no point of playing Diddy/Falco/flat characters with that, while at the same time no one is gonna want to pick Peach/Lucario/whoever because the good stages they get happen to be much better for MK. Wario on RC? Nope, there's MK. ROB on Frigate? Nope, there's MK.

That turns the game into picking the least risk character of getting screwed by the stage selection, for the entire set. There is no real "Hey Imma go Snake so I can try for a 50:50 game 1 and get a close set", it turns into "Well boy I don't think I can risk playing Snake if I can get stages like RC, Brinstar, and Norfair, etc."

That idea would actually seem alright, with MK gone. With him in the system, breaking the current CP setup, I see him doing the same with this one. I'd expect it actually to be worse because the trade off of "Play Flat stage character, hope to win Game 1" is replaced by "Spin the Wheel of Fate, hope it favors you" with MK getting house odds and you get worse.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, I consider "random" the most fair thing in the universe because the PRNG doesn't care who is playing or what characters they select; you get what you get, regardless of outside interference. I consider that fair. But that's neither here nor there. You guys want me to fix this stage problem right now? Because I can. And it will surprise you at how easy and simple it is.

So, we have the stage striking procedure, right? In theory, players strike their worst stages first, and gradually work towards a stage that is most fair for both players. So...

-----------------------------------------------------
First stage stricken || Stage selected for match 1
(Least even) (Most even)

...would generally be the spectrum, right? That ALSO means that we are, effectively, ordering the stages in order of Least even -> Most even. Which means that if the last stage is the most fair, then the second to last stage is the second fair, and the third to last stage is the third fair.

So... eliminate the stage counterpick system ENTIRELY and choose all three (or 5) matches before round 1 using the striking procedure. Simply play the matches in reverse order (the last stage is the first round, the second to last is the second round, etc.).

The only caveat is if players change characters between matches, in which case, re-strike from all non-banned stages (including stages banned by the players for that set). It's not that hard. No starter or CP, just ban ONLY what needs to be banned, and strike from the whole pool. If players don't switch characters (and most don't in our metagame, since our ruleset for the last 2 years has promoted knowing a single character over knowing multiple characters), the tournaments will go faster, guaranteed.

 

[moomoomamoo]

So... eliminate the stage counterpick system ENTIRELY and choose all three (or 5) matches before round 1 using the striking procedure. Simply play the matches in reverse order (the last stage is the first round, the second to last is the second round, etc.).

The only caveat is if players change characters between matches, in which case, re-strike from all non-banned stages...

That's where the problem is in this idea. If it is possible to have to re-strike again we might as well be re-striking after each match.

The idea behind banning stages is that either a select character is too good, the stage isn't designed for competitive play*, or the stage is horrible for too many characters.
*Behind what proper 'competitive play' is, I believe that unless we are all working on the same page of what proper 'competitive play' is we aren't going to be able to come to an easy understanding. We need to list everything and anything that would be improper for a stage to work as a selectable stage. After, we can argue whether or not a stage(s) falls under being acceptable or not.

 

[ADHD]

1) Randomness--and I mean true randomness-tripping randomness--so I don't know why Green Greens is considered acceptable when we ban WarioWare for that same reason.

2) Abnormally terrible blastzones.

3) Walk-offs and walls that are too abusable, such as bridge of Eldin or SM.

4) Unbeatable circle camping!

 

[T-block]

1) The randomness in WarioWare affects the outcome of the match far more than Green Greens does, especially when both players know how to play on Green Greens. I know it's subjective that we place the line before WarioWare and after Green Greens, but that's the way it is =\ Plus, people who play on it often claim they see consistent results.

2) I don't know of any stage that is banned for abnormal blast zones...

 

[ADHD]

1) The randomness in WarioWare affects the outcome of the match far more than Green Greens does, especially when both players know how to play on Green Greens. I know it's subjective that we place the line before WarioWare and after Green Greens, but that's the way it is =\ Plus, people who play on it often claim they see consistent results.

2) I don't know of any stage that is banned for abnormal blast zones...

Well why do we ban mushroomy kingdom, other than the walls? The scrolling is very easy to keep up with.

 

[Jack Kieser]

That's where the problem is in this idea. If it is possible to have to re-strike again we might as well be re-striking after each match.

Oh, that's a terrible argument. If you have to re-strike, you do. If you don't, you've saved time. Just because some people might re-strike, doesn't mean we have to FORCE all people to.

Now, let's get some red/purple names to comment.

 

[Raziek]

Well why do we ban mushroomy kingdom, other than the walls? The scrolling is very easy to keep up with.

You're honestly just trolling at this point. If you're not going to at least try to argue SENSIBLE points, why are you still here?

 

[moomoomamoo]

Oh, that's a terrible argument. If you have to re-strike, you do. If you don't, you've saved time. Just because some people might re-strike, doesn't mean we have to FORCE all people to.

Now, let's get some red/purple names to comment.

I guess I'll have to make myself more clear on the point. The idea that you brought up was of two factors, saving time and an improved idea over the current stage system. My first point was to explain how your system couldn't actually save as much time as it could most likely increase how long it takes to get stages going again (having to strike more than once). For starts the original system only strikes once, and it is only neutral stages, while your system would have to strike more than just neutral stages and possibly multiple times. As for the rest of my argument, I believe you're either understanding of it so I won't bother going into more detail.