there's a huge problem with our current ruleset

[Youngling]

Having bans in the early parts of bracket and then switching to bans later is a huge problem. For a character like Marth, not having FD puts you at a HUGE disadvantage. I don't understand the logic of not letting a character have a tool that is absolutely amazing for them until the later part of a tournament. It adds a completely artificial aspect to the meta, and it really hurts newer players.

I'm a fox main, by the way.



also, might as well throw this in. PS is a garbage stage and there is absolutely no reason for it to be legal.

 

[EPsilon933]

I'm entirely against the idea of stage bans. There are 2 characters (yours and your opponent's) and 1 of 6 stages to play on. Why should there be a rule to allow players to disable certain combinations of them like Marth vs Fox on FD? It's a possible scenario. Character balance is much less important than people seem to think it is

25% of Pokemon Stadium is a garbage stage, the rock & fire transformations. If they were their own static stages, they'd be banned. The other 75% is still good, especially when it's normal

 

[SAUS]

That disadvantage is still there when bans are not in effect. Sure, you might get 1 nice match on your favourite stage, but then you have to win another one on not-FD, so it makes pretty much no difference. The point is so that best-of-3 sets are not "I win first match, most likely lose second match on the worst stage for me in the matchup, then most likely win third match on the best stage for me in the matchup". It could make counterpicks too volatile. It would be interesting to try a no-bans tournament, but I don't know how many people would like that. I kind of like that I don't have to play on my worst stage every set.

PS is fine. What do you think is wrong with it?

 

[Youngling]

im not arguing for no bans always or bans always. i just think its really dumb to not have consistency. the point at which a set place takes place in tourney should have no effect on the outcome.


PS would be fine if it weren't for rock and fire. Rock is basically unplayable and it really doesnt show who the better player is a lot of the time while it's up. i think for a stage to be legal, it needs to not be janky 100% of the time.

also certain transformations can very much put one character in favor over another. this wouldnt be a big deal if it werent a complete gamble as to which stage is going to come up next.

 

[SAUS]

im not arguing for no bans always or bans always. i just think its really dumb to not have consistency. the point at which a set place takes place in tourney should have no effect on the outcome.

So it should be either "no bans in best-of-3's" or "bans in best-of-5's"? I can see how that makes sense. I just don't feel that losing 1 stage will change the outcome of a best-of-3 against an opponent compared to a best-of-5 against the same opponent. Sure, you may win one instead of getting 2-0'd, but then you just get 3-1'd. I don't see how it changes the outcome of a set (IE who wins in the end, which is all that matters).

PS would be fine if it weren't for rock and fire. Rock is basically unplayable and it really doesnt show who the better player is a lot of the time while it's up. i think for a stage to be legal, it needs to not be janky 100% of the time.

also certain transformations can very much put one character in favor over another. this wouldnt be a big deal if it werent a complete gamble as to which stage is going to come up next.

Fair enough. I haven't found it to be a problem so far, but there are good reasons for it to not be used as a tournament stage.

 

[birdy21]

I wonder if there will be bans in the best of 11 at MLG ^_^

 

[TobiasXK]

I'm entirely against the idea of stage bans. There are 2 characters (yours and your opponent's) and 1 of 6 stages to play on. Why should there be a rule to allow players to disable certain combinations of them like Marth vs Fox on FD? It's a possible scenario. Character balance is much less important than people seem to think it is.

stage bans aren't meant to adjust for character balance; it's about trying to get accurate set results. ideally, you play longer sets so that you'll have less variance in the outcomes, but due to time constraints and such, it's impractical to just always have long sets. so you're already expecting somewhat fallible outcomes due to the short bo3 set length. and you make matters worse if you allow certain matchup/stage combinations to have 33% sway on the total result if they're hugely imbalanced.

 

[1MachGO]

No bans is unbalanced in 2 out of 3s. This is because losing the first match could cost you the set.

With banning, if you win the first match, you now have the power to prevent playing on your worst stage. However, if you lose the second match, the new winner now holds this power. Whereas with no bans, if you win the first match, you'll now have to play on your worst stage. However, this doesn't really matter because you'll get to use your best stage game 3.

Best of 5's are far better at showing who the better player is, but having bans in 2 out of 3s is the only way to save time and still keep the sets somewhat balanced.

As for pokemon stadium, the stage is really janky and should be looked at again. Its presence as a legal stage just feels like another lose-lose situation. It both aids and interferes with the natural balance the neutral stages provide... kinda acting like a "back up" to counteract bans since it shares some of the polarized qualities found on FD or Yoshis (such as no top platform or low ceiling). When a floaty inevitably bans Yoshis, Pokemon is always a runner up. However, I feel like if you got down to it, the existence of the stage kind of just harms an already underplayed group of characters (Peach, Jigglypuff, characters with limited mobility, etc.) and really just benefits Fox. Maybe Pikachu, too.

 

[Bones0]

Having bans in the early parts of bracket and then switching to bans later is a huge problem. For a character like Marth, not having FD puts you at a HUGE disadvantage. I don't understand the logic of not letting a character have a tool that is absolutely amazing for them until the later part of a tournament. It adds a completely artificial aspect to the meta, and it really hurts newer players.

I'm a fox main, by the way.



also, might as well throw this in. PS is a garbage stage and there is absolutely no reason for it to be legal.

Having no bans in the early parts of bracket is a huge problem. For a character like Fox, not being able to ban FD puts you at a HUGE disadvantage. I don't understand the logic of letting a character have a tool that is absolutely amazing for them before the later part of a tournament when there are longer sets. It adds a completely artificial aspect to the meta, and it really hurts newer players.

 

[Kadano]

Just use Bones0’s ruleset. Problem solved.

 

[JKJ]

Having bans in Bo3 sets basically creates an artificially shorter set that functions like a Bo5. By eliminating the matches that would take place on both player's best stages, the Bo3 essentially assumes that both players will win on their strongest counterpick, and they only play out the matches on the more even stages.

For instance:

Fox v. Marth
Fox will most likely win on DL64, and Marth will most likely win on FD.

Bo5 (no bans)

Game 1: Strikes to BF. Fox wins.
Game 2: Marth counterpicks FD. Marth wins convincingly.
Game 3: Fox counterpicks DL64. Fox wins convincingly.
Game 4: Marth counterpicks FoD. Marth wins, but it's a close match.
Game 5: Fox counterpicks PS. Fox wins, but it's a close match.

Bo3 (with bans)

Game 1: Strikes to BF. Fox wins.
Game 2: FD is banned, Marth counterpicks FoD. Marth wins, but it's a close match.
Game 3: DL64 is banned, Fox counterpicks PS. Fox wins, but it's a close match.

Do you see how it acts nearly identically to the first set? But instead of two convincing wins on strong counterpicks (which is fine; I'm not against strong counterpicks in a longer set) we instead cut out those matches, assume each player won on their respective best stage, and then basically the two wins negate each other. Only the closer, more balanced matches on more winnable counterpicks are played. The set is shortened but the integrity of the outcome remains relatively intact. Either Fox or Marth could have won on either player's second-best stage, so the first game is not all-powerful in determining the winner of a Bo3 set. Compare to no bans:

Bo3 (no bans)

Game 1: Strikes to BF. Fox wins.
Game 2: Marth counterpicks FD. Marth wins convincingly.
Game 3: Fox counterpicks DL64. Fox wins convincingly.

The set is much less interesting, and the winner is essentially determined after Game 1. I know that for this to be precisely true, we have to assume that the Marth isn't somehow godly on DL64, and likewise the Fox isn't godly on FD, but for a set that must be shortened due to time constraints, Bo3 with bans is the best way to simulate a true Bo5.

 

[TerryJ]

#FreeMuteCity

 

[Jarbinks9/11]

As long as dl exists i am entirely for bans. I ban that stage no matter who i play because it is bs and boring. I have a pocket falcon that i whip out over my doc when floaty mains force me to go there bevause otherwise it would be the most boring thing ever. And also its not like marth needs fd to be viable, it doesnt really benefit him more than any other character, especially if they have chaingrabs of their own. Its not like its a free win over fox either since he can laser and has an equally formidable grab punish on marth that is even more deadly when marth cant try to di onto platforms. Imo the only characters that stagepicks really influence are characters that rely on platforms for mobility like yoshi or ganondorf or characters that have slow verticle mobility that cant manuever around the top platform well like doc and mario