Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Thinkaman]

Sakurai lumps custom moves and equipment under the same bucket, so you can't deduce custom moves are unbalanced from that statement. Either way it's not like he's a good judge of 1v1 balance, what with the only stage being Final Destination. In practice custom specials aren't broken.

Keep in mind that For Glory is simply a "quickmatch" mode. If it was just named that, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Often times "balance" is mistranslated in statements like this. Sakurai routinely talks about the "balance" of the overall gameplay experience, reaching far beyond the character balance that everyone here is singularly obsessed with.

Custom moves being disallowed in quick match is imo a bad call, but understandable since it is an unfair, unbalanced experience for newer players who may not have some of the custom moves and simply want to play a quick, fair game.

A tournament or games with friends are completely different. Sakurai accordingly said, "please use custom moves with friends" immediately after the previous much-quoted statement.

 

[Doval]

Keep in mind that For Glory is simply a "quickmatch" mode. If it was just named that, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Often times "balance" is mistranslated in statements like this. Sakurai routinely talks about the "balance" of the overall gameplay experience, reaching far beyond the character balance that everyone here is singularly obsessed with.

Custom moves being disallowed in quick match is imo a bad call, but understandable since it is an unfair, unbalanced experience for newer players who may not have some of the custom moves and simply want to play a quick, fair game.

A tournament or games with friends are completely different. Sakurai accordingly said, "please use custom moves with friends" immediately after the previous much-quoted statement.

Agreed. I think I recall reading an interview where he explained he wanted people to be able to use the same strategies against the same characters when playing anonymous people. That's a reasonable explanation even if they're not broken.

 

[atom8bit]

After getting this "pulse", what ruleset are you planning to run? I'm curious about how the discussion in this thread are influencing rulesets.

3 stock, 6 minutes matches. We will try for 1 vs. 1 matches but may do four players if time constraints demand it.
Custom moves allowed, however, no custom equipment.
No items in any matches.
The following stages are allowed: Final Destination, All Omega Form stages, Battlefield, Tomodachi Life, Yoshi, and Lumiose City.

Final Round (shh) will be a four player free-for-all by request - that doesn't come from this thread, it comes from a rep.

 

[chipndip]

Sakurai lumps custom moves and equipment under the same bucket, so you can't deduce custom moves are unbalanced from that statement. Either way it's not like he's a good judge of 1v1 balance, what with the only stage being Final Destination. In practice custom specials aren't broken.

You say this about FD, but adding platforms only makes Shiek, the one winning the most tournaments, even more powerful. She gets more pressure by lingering under foes under platforms (which is already insanely high), her floppy fish move is even harder to punish, and her move set contains no moves that are truly hindered by platforms, save a dive kick literally no one uses. I can't say how many times I'll go in a match and have people literally camp under a platform when I'm using Yoshi, and how much that DOESN'T happen when I'm using Pit. The point of FD is that it doesn't add crap that skews the match-up. No Shy Guys slowing my moves down. No Arena Ferox ceiling platforms denying KOs. No platforms getting in the way of diving/bombing/lobbing moves. Just a clean, simple, neutral, flat stage. Still, this is about custom moves, not stage selection.

A tournament or games with friends are completely different. Sakurai accordingly said, "please use custom moves with friends" immediately after the previous much-quoted statement.

Please use custom moves with friends would most likely imply "Please use custom moves outside of a competitive match-making setting". The point of the statement is that you can clearly change the rules with friends. It's like arguing for items in tourney play due to that line, which is CLEARLY not gonna happen.

 

[Doval]

You say this about FD, but adding platforms only makes Shiek, the one winning the most tournaments, even more powerful. She gets more pressure by lingering under foes under platforms (which is already insanely high), her floppy fish move is even harder to punish, and her move set contains no moves that are truly hindered by platforms, save a dive kick literally no one uses. I can't say how many times I'll go in a match and have people literally camp under a platform when I'm using Yoshi, and how much that DOESN'T happen when I'm using Pit. The point of FD is that it doesn't add crap that skews the match-up. No Shy Guys slowing my moves down. No Arena Ferox ceiling platforms denying KOs. No platforms getting in the way of diving/bombing/lobbing moves. Just a clean, simple, neutral, flat stage. Still, this is about custom moves, not stage selection.

There's characters that benefit from the opponent not having platforms. No stage is neutral, which is why having only one stage available is wrong competitively regardless of the stage in question.

 

[Piford]

You say this about FD, but adding platforms only makes Shiek, the one winning the most tournaments, even more powerful. She gets more pressure by lingering under foes under platforms (which is already insanely high), her floppy fish move is even harder to punish, and her move set contains no moves that are truly hindered by platforms, save a dive kick literally no one uses. I can't say how many times I'll go in a match and have people literally camp under a platform when I'm using Yoshi, and how much that DOESN'T happen when I'm using Pit. The point of FD is that it doesn't add crap that skews the match-up. No Shy Guys slowing my moves down. No Arena Ferox ceiling platforms denying KOs. No platforms getting in the way of diving/bombing/lobbing moves. Just a clean, simple, neutral, flat stage. Still, this is about custom moves, not stage selection.

Final Destination is far from a neutral stage. I think Little Mac is a great example as he excels on FD, but kinda fails on most other stages. Final destination really hurts a lot of fighters, specifically ones who don't have projectiles. Platforms really do add to competitive play a lot. Plus less stages makes the game less balanced. If you only playing on final destination, you don't really know how to play Smash Bros, you just know how to play final destination. The game is called a platform fighter for a reason. Also sheik's needles are better on FD because she can't spam them if people can just hop on platforms.

 

[chipndip]

There's characters that benefit from the opponent not having platforms. No stage is neutral, which is why having only one stage available is wrong competitively regardless of the stage in question.

That's just improper framing and misusing the definition of neutral. I can't possibly favor someone if I'm not doing anything to help them. By lacking anything but the basic essentials to making a stage, the stage offers no help to any character, and approaching the match-up is based entirely on the kit of your character. Adding constructs and, apparently, flying targets with masks is adding to the match-up in favor of one char or another. THAT would be "not neutral". There's a difference between "neutral match-up" and "neutral stage". The point of fighting games is to have a "neutral stage", not necessarily a "neutral match-up". Sure, it shouldn't be lop-sided or that's bad balancing, but still.

 

[chipndip]

Final Destination is far from a neutral stage. I think Little Mac is a great example as he excels on FD, but kinda fails on most other stages. Final destination really hurts a lot of fighters, specifically ones who don't have projectiles. Platforms really do add to competitive play a lot. Plus less stages makes the game less balanced. If you only playing on final destination, you don't really know how to play Smash Bros, you just know how to play final destination. The game is called a platform fighter for a reason. Also sheik's needles are better on FD because she can't spam them if people can just hop on platforms.

Because you're adding more platforms which exploit his weakness more than they otherwise would. In short, you're helping his opponent by giving his opponent more platforms to camp on. Hence why FD is the only stage you play on in FG mode. Remember that this game was developed with Namco, the guys behind Tekken. You can't just say "Sakurai doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to competitive play/balance, so that's why they had FD only for FG". This time he had help from guys that have been in competitive fighting games for a long time.

Lastly, you can always hop over the needles. The needles are just an annoyance. Her speed and ability to consistently pressure with amazingly fast attacks from almost anywhere is the real issue. That and her fish flop move is surprisingly effective, and only gets better when you ADD PLATFORMS.

 

[Piford]

Because you're adding more platforms which exploit his weakness more than they otherwise would. In short, you're helping his opponent by giving his opponent more platforms to camp on. Hence why FD is the only stage you play on in FG mode. Remember that this game was developed with Namco, the guys behind Tekken. You can't just say "Sakurai doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to competitive play/balance, so that's why they had FD only for FG". This time he had help from guys that have been in competitive fighting games for a long time.

Lastly, you can always hop over the needles. The needles are just an annoyance. Her speed and ability to consistently pressure with amazingly fast attacks from almost anywhere is the real issue. That and her fish flop move is surprisingly effective, and only gets better when you ADD PLATFORMS.

I think Sakurai actually does know what he's doing when it comes to competitive balance, which is why he gave us so many legal stages in the Wii U version. I don't think you understand though, if any character gets an advantage or disadvantage by a platform, then other characters have to get a disadvantage or advantage to compensate since it all comparative. So what if sheik is better on Battlefield than Final Destination? That means you should counterpick to FD when player her. You know what other character is better on Battlefield than Final Destination, Luigi. By forcing Luigi onto FD, your making an already awful character worse, and giving his opponent an advantage. You know what other characters are hurt by going to FD? Shulk, Jigglypuff, Ike, Marth, Lucina, Diddy Kong, Mario, Palutena, and a lot more. You know what character absolutely loves to be on FD? Rosalina and Luma. And Rosalina and Luma are definitely performing better at tournaments overall from what I've seen. Platforms help balance the game, and more stages help balance the game. When some stages give advantages to some characters, other gives advantages to others. By having multiple legal it helps balance those advantages out. It seems more like your butthurt about loosing to sheik on Battlefield than actually understand how balance works. Sorry about that but we need more legal stages.

 

[chipndip]

I think Sakurai actually does know what he's doing when it comes to competitive balance, which is why he gave us so many legal stages in the Wii U version. I don't think you understand though, if any character gets an advantage or disadvantage by a platform, then other characters have to get a disadvantage or advantage to compensate since it all comparative. So what if sheik is better on Battlefield than Final Destination? That means you should counterpick to FD when player her. You know what other character is better on Battlefield than Final Destination, Luigi. By forcing Luigi onto FD, your making an already awful character worse, and giving his opponent an advantage. You know what other characters are hurt by going to FD? Shulk, Jigglypuff, Ike, Marth, Lucina, Diddy Kong, Mario, Palutena, and a lot more. You know what character absolutely loves to be on FD? Rosalina and Luma. And Rosalina and Luma are definitely performing better at tournaments overall from what I've seen. Platforms help balance the game, and more stages help balance the game. When some stages give advantages to some characters, other gives advantages to others. By having multiple legal it helps balance those advantages out. It seems more like your butthurt about loosing to sheik on Battlefield than actually understand how balance works. Sorry about that but we need more legal stages.

You're not making a character worse by moving him to a place where he gets no help in his match-up. You're simply leaving him to his bad devices. Adding to the stage is what makes it not neutral, not a lack of something. This is basic comprehension of a definition, and regardless of how much you quote a bad character needing help from the stage, you aren't gonna get anywhere because that point is exactly what I'm making: Using stage select to add to an empty palette to help a character's match-up is what would be considered "not neutral", and an empty stage with only the bare necessities would be "neutral". Not because one character or another does better on one type of stage or another, but because, through simple logic, I'm not helping you if I choose not to put x in z. I'm just not doing anything. If I DO put x in z, all of a sudden I'm not a neutral party anymore. I'm doing something by adding something to the equation.

Although you do raise a point about tourney performance, some of those characters are blatantly bad to begin with, and I for one wouldn't ever put stock on someone like Palutena beating a legitimately good Shiek, hence why I dropped her as a competitive tertiary pick and just roll with Yoshi and Pit now. And don't get me wrong: I'm relatively new to these boards, and I don't want to straight Verlisify this place out of nowhere. I think it's just a combination of things put together that rub me the wrong way at the moment, especially the specific 3DS stages chosen for competitive play until the Wii U version comes out. They all have major flaws somewhere, maybe except for the Animal Crossing one. I mean, I guess for the sake of smoothing out bad match-ups and adding variety to characters seen, rather than a 3rd Strike or MvC2 situation, different stages are important, but I still stick with what I said about FD being a neutral stage. I mean, I can't just debunk the dictionary...

Side note: I was saying this stuff before I found out Shiek got better on Battlefield. Please try to NOT assume why I hold an opinion until I tell you, thank you.

 

[Piford]

You're not making a character worse by moving him to a place where he gets no help in his match-up. You're simply leaving him to his bad devices. Adding to the stage is what makes it not neutral, not a lack of something. This is basic comprehension of a definition, and regardless of how much you quote a bad character needing help from the stage, you aren't gonna get anywhere because that point is exactly what I'm making: Using stage select to add to an empty palette to help a character's match-up is what would be considered "not neutral", and an empty stage with only the bare necessities would be "neutral". Not because one character or another does better on one type of stage or another, but because, through simple logic, I'm not helping you if I choose not to put x in z. I'm just not doing anything. If I DO put x in z, all of a sudden I'm not a neutral party anymore. I'm doing something by adding something to the equation.

Although you do raise a point about tourney performance, some of those characters are blatantly bad to begin with, and I for one wouldn't ever put stock on someone like Palutena beating a legitimately good Shiek, hence why I dropped her as a competitive tertiary pick and just roll with Yoshi and Pit now. And don't get me wrong: I'm relatively new to these boards, and I don't want to straight Verlisify this place out of nowhere. I think it's just a combination of things put together that rub me the wrong way at the moment, especially the specific 3DS stages chosen for competitive play until the Wii U version comes out. They all have major flaws somewhere, maybe except for the Animal Crossing one. I mean, I guess for the sake of smoothing out bad match-ups and adding variety to characters seen, rather than a 3rd Strike or MvC2 situation, different stages are important, but I still stick with what I said about FD being a neutral stage. I mean, I can't just debunk the dictionary...

Side note: I was saying this stuff before I found out Shiek got better on Battlefield. Please try to NOT assume why I hold an opinion until I tell you, thank you.

You need to stop comparing Smash Bros to Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, and Tekken. Stage play a major part in Smash Bros and a good player can utilize both what his character has to offer and the options a stage presents him with. If you think Final Destination is the most neutral stage then which one? The floating one give people to the opportunity to stage spike and throw characters under it (specifically using DK, Kirby, and King DeDeDe). Now walled FDs gives some characters the ability to wall jump and removes options that floating allows. I guess neither are really neutral now and were going to have to ban all stages.

 

[chipndip]

You need to stop comparing Smash Bros to Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, and Tekken. Stage play a major part in Smash Bros and a good player can utilize both what his character has to offer and the options a stage presents him with. If you think Final Destination is the most neutral stage then which one? The floating one give people to the opportunity to stage spike and throw characters under it (specifically using DK, Kirby, and King DeDeDe). Now walled FDs gives some characters the ability to wall jump and removes options that floating allows. I guess neither are really neutral now and were going to have to ban all stages.

Although the ultimatum is overblown, that's probably the best point one's made in this topic up until now that I've seen, and I never thought someone else besides me would notice it (they tend to just rage quit...). I'll be honest and say I don't have a concrete answer for that, since they're both two variations of FD, but if there was one to default to, since it already exists, it'd be the floating one, since that's the default FD.

I'm not even steamed/salty/upset about any of this, mind you. Last time I talked on this here, I just got flamed and ignored. I'm glad it actually went somewhere for once...even if it's a bit of a derail. >_>

 

[Piford]

Although the ultimatum is overblown, that's probably the best point one's made in this topic up until now that I've seen, and I never thought someone else besides me would notice it (they tend to just rage quit...). I'll be honest and say I don't have a concrete answer for that, since they're both two variations of FD, but if there was one to default to, since it already exists, it'd be the floating one, since that's the default FD.

I'm not even steamed/salty/upset about any of this, mind you. Last time I talked on this here, I just got flamed and ignored. I'm glad it actually went somewhere for once...even if it's a bit of a derail. >_>

The reason I brought up the different FDs is to show how stages effect the gameplay no matter what. You defined FD as the only neutral, so it is to you. If I define Battlefield as a neutral stage, I can believe that Final Destination is doing tons to hurt me and is very intrusive by lacking basic elements a stage needs. Its all a matter of perspective. The reason Sheik is so much better on Battlefield isn't so much that the platforms aid her its that they open more options for her, and players capitalize on them. On the contrary, Final Destination opens more options for Samus and thereby does the exact same thing for Samus as Battlefield does for sheik. Also, Final Destination promotes camping and more defensive matches.

 

[xTmT]

I really like the idea of 3 stocks 6-8 mins. I'm not a fan of 2 stocks, it feels like your not playing a full match.

 

[chipndip]

The reason I brought up the different FDs is to show how stages effect the gameplay no matter what. You defined FD as the only neutral, so it is to you. If I define Battlefield as a neutral stage, I can believe that Final Destination is doing tons to hurt me and is very intrusive by lacking basic elements a stage needs. Its all a matter of perspective. The reason Sheik is so much better on Battlefield isn't so much that the platforms aid her its that they open more options for her, and players capitalize on them. On the contrary, Final Destination opens more options for Samus and thereby does the exact same thing for Samus as Battlefield does for sheik. Also, Final Destination promotes camping and more defensive matches.

Ok...here's the thing:

1) Battlefield giving people more options IS helping them. That's how you help people in fighting games outside of boosting stats out-right. Any stage functions by having at least some form of solid ground to spawn on. Extra platforms are additions, not the lack of them being subtractions.

2) Aiding Shiek with platforms =/= not throwing platforms into Samus's initial match-up against x. It's not equivalent.

3) That...can't argue for or against, but the play in this game has been generally offense heavy.

 

[Doval]

Extra platforms are additions, not the lack of them being subtractions.

That's completely subjective. You're arbitrarily picking one stage as the norm.

Characters don't exist in a vacuum and neither do stages. It makes no sense to speak of stages without reference to the characters playing on it and it makes no sense to speak of a character without reference to a stage and an opponent. There's no reason to suggest that FD is neutral because it lacks platforms or that the presence of platforms is somehow a deviation from normal play.

 

[chipndip]

That's completely subjective. You're arbitrarily picking one stage as the norm.

It's not subjective. If you used the Brawl stage builder, what's the one thing that had to be there before you can make a stage? Solid ground you can spawn on. Anything else is fluff. Ladders, water, platforms, hazards, boss enemies, items...all of it is extra to the one mandatory element you must have on any stage to start a match: enough solid ground so 4 players can spawn and fight. FD is literally nothing but that, hence the conclusion.

 

[Piford]

Ok...here's the thing:

1) Battlefield giving people more options IS helping them. That's how you help people in fighting games outside of boosting stats out-right. Any stage functions by having at least some form of solid ground to spawn on. Extra platforms are additions, not the lack of them being subtractions.

2) Aiding Shiek with platforms =/= not throwing platforms into Samus's initial match-up against x. It's not equivalent.

3) That...can't argue for or against, but the play in this game has been generally offense heavy.

I give up. You aren't listening to my arguments and are being subjective instead of factual. It's fine to be subjective as long as you take into account different subjective opinions and not count yours as factual. Final Destination isn't a balanced stage, it removes options from almost every characters, and it creates degenerative gameplay if its the only stage used. Watch some competitive matches from any smash game, and then you can see why variety is good.

 

[chipndip]

I give up. You aren't listening to my arguments and are being subjective instead of factual. It's fine to be subjective as long as you take into account different subjective opinions and not count yours as factual. Final Destination isn't a balanced stage, it removes options from almost every characters, and it creates degenerative gameplay if its the only stage used. Watch some competitive matches from any smash game, and then you can see why variety is good.

I'm not being subjective. Everything I've stated was objectively true, and if I haven't been, please state specifically where:

1) Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial. You can't be neutral by adding a platform because you're putting more into the initial match-up, which may be equal or unequal initially. Even if Battlefield was nothing but 5:5 match-ups across the board, FD would still be the ideal pick for a neutral stage because it doesn't add parts to benefit characters. This isn't subjective.

2) It isn't subjective that in order to have a functional stage, the only true requirement is proper ground for up to four players to stand on at once. Every stage has enough non-fall-through ground to fit up to four players and a few extra items at one time. That's the only real requirement needed for a functional stage in this game. Anything else outside of that is extra. Once again, that isn't an opinion. That's based on observation. Even small stages have at least that much space.

3) I didn't say balanced. I said neutral. You aren't reading what I've typed on that subject before now. Neutral =/= a flood of 5:5 match-ups. Why blame me for not listening for you when you clearly show you aren't listening to me in the slightest? Once again, not subjective.

4) I'm not a noob to Smash. I've seen competitive play before. I came to my conclusion on this after that fact anyway. Besides, you did read what I typed before, did you?

I mean, I guess for the sake of smoothing out bad match-ups and adding variety to characters seen, rather than a 3rd Strike or MvC2 situation, different stages are important, but I still stick with what I said about FD being a neutral stage. I mean, I can't just debunk the dictionary...

So clearly you just aren't reading what I'm typing while blaming me for not reading what you're typing.

 

[Piford]

I'm not being subjective. Everything I've stated was objectively true, and if I haven't been, please state specifically where:

1) Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial. You can't be neutral by adding a platform because you're putting more into the initial match-up, which may be equal or unequal initially. Even if Battlefield was nothing but 5:5 match-ups across the board, FD would still be the ideal pick for a neutral stage because it doesn't add parts to benefit characters. This isn't subjective.

2) It isn't subjective that in order to have a functional stage, the only true requirement is proper ground for up to four players to stand on at once. Every stage has enough non-fall-through ground to fit up to four players and a few extra items at one time. That's the only real requirement needed for a functional stage in this game. Anything else outside of that is extra. Once again, that isn't an opinion. That's based on observation. Even small stages have at least that much space.

3) I didn't say balanced. I said neutral. You aren't reading what I've typed on that subject before now. Neutral =/= a flood of 5:5 match-ups. Why blame me for not listening for you when you clearly show you aren't listening to me in the slightest? Once again, not subjective.

4) I'm not a noob to Smash. I've seen competitive play before. I came to my conclusion on this after that fact anyway. Besides, you did read what I typed before, did you?




So clearly you just aren't reading what I'm typing while blaming me for not reading what you're typing.

Okay I think the issue here is connotation vs denotation. The connotation of neutral is to try to get as close to a 50:50 matchup between characters when we talk about smash. We want players to feel free to use who they want because we shouldn't punish them based off character playstyle preference. Whether the stage be Battlefield or Halberd that gives the 50:50 matchup, thats the stage we want to play. In your denotation of neutral, Final Destination is far from it. Not helping or supporting either side of the conflict. Final destination is definitely helping projectile heavy and/or ground based characters. If you want to say that it doesn't help them since it lacks features, then you can say it definitely hurts any character without a projectile. If I'm Marth and my opponent is Fox, I'm immediately punished due to a lack of platforms since I'm forced to approach while taking tons of laser damage. If you want to say I could just jump over them, then the stage is forcing me into a disadvantageous position, where I will get punished. If you say then that all characters without projectiles are bad, then your saying half the cast was intentionally made to be awful. No game designer, let alone sakurai, would be this ignorant when balancing the game. The game is designed to have platforms, thats why its called a platform fighter. The only reason For Glory uses FD stages is because Sakurai saw Japan's Brawl metagame (FD, BF, and Smashville) and heard things like Fox only No Items Final Destination and assumed the competitive community wanted FD stages. Back to what I tangented from, Final Destination definitely hurts some characters, which by definition means it helps the other ones because everything is relative.

 

[Doval]

Even if Battlefield was nothing but 5:5 match-ups across the board, FD would still be the ideal pick for a neutral stage because it doesn't add parts to benefit characters. This isn't subjective.

Except it is. Neutrality is based on the matchups. If all match-ups were 5:5 in Battlefield it'd be the ultimate neutral stage and there wouldn't even be any need to

It's not subjective. If you used the Brawl stage builder, what's the one thing that had to be there before you can make a stage? Solid ground you can spawn on. Anything else is fluff. Ladders, water, platforms, hazards, boss enemies, items...all of it is extra to the one mandatory element you must have on any stage to start a match: enough solid ground so 4 players can spawn and fight. FD is literally nothing but that, hence the conclusion.

And how much solid ground should there be? A lot, and projectile characters have the edge. A little, and close range fighters have the edge. How about blast zones? Lower Final Destination's ceiling and you nerf light characters and those without vertical KO moves.

There is no stage you can show that will not benefit some character or another and the floor is not any less of a biased feature than anything else a stage might have. The only reason the floor has to be there is because of gravity, but even the distinction between the floor and a series of platforms is subjective. Both keep you from falling.

 

[chipndip]

Okay I think the issue here is connotation vs denotation. The connotation of neutral is to try to get as close to a 50:50 matchup between characters when we talk about smash.

Then don't use the word "neutral", because that's not what neutral is. Balancing a match-up via stage selection =/= a neutral stage selection, because in order to do that, the stage itself can't be neutral, seeing how fighting games in general are never perfectly balanced anyway.

If you want to say that it doesn't help them since it lacks features, then you can say it definitely hurts any character without a projectile.

That's like saying the lack of a knife is hurting me in a match against Mike Tyson. I can't be hurt by the lack of something that doesn't have to be there.

IIf I'm Marth and my opponent is Fox, I'm immediately punished due to a lack of platforms since I'm forced to approach while taking tons of laser damage. If you want to say I could just jump over them, then the stage is forcing me into a disadvantageous position, where I will get punished. If you say then that all characters without projectiles are bad, then your saying half the cast was intentionally made to be awful. No game designer, let alone sakurai, would be this ignorant when balancing the game. The game is designed to have platforms, thats why its called a platform fighter.

1) In actuality, I've seen a ton of debate on what Smash should be called as far as genre goes.

2) Like I said, the lack of a platform when there doesn't need to be one doesn't hurt you. Adding a platform only hurts Fox from the initial match-up of x:y against Marth. I don't know how many times I have to stress that.

3) There's VERY few characters in this game without a single projectile, and even fewer that are legit bad on the roster...so...

The only reason For Glory uses FD stages is because Sakurai saw Japan's Brawl metagame (FD, BF, and Smashville) and heard things like Fox only No Items Final Destination and assumed the competitive community wanted FD stages.

Unless there's some sort of quote for this, I'm going to disregard that. That's WAY too shallow of an excuse. Nintendo itself responded to America's Smash scene during Evo. To say that the only influence for such a big design choice was Japan's Brawl scene? Really? Of all things?

Except it is. Neutrality is based on the matchups. If all match-ups were 5:5 in Battlefield it'd be the ultimate neutral stage and there wouldn't even be any need to

I'm sorry but I'm not even going to respond to this or the rest of this quote unless you properly read what I stated. A balanced match-up =/= a neutral stage.

 

[Piford]

Then don't use the word "neutral", because that's not what neutral is. Balancing a match-up via stage selection =/= a neutral stage selection, because in order to do that, the stage itself can't be neutral, seeing how fighting games in general are never perfectly balanced anyway.


That's like saying the lack of a knife is hurting me in a match against Mike Tyson. I can't be hurt by the lack of something that doesn't have to be there.




1) In actuality, I've seen a ton of debate on what Smash should be called as far as genre goes.

2) Like I said, the lack of a platform when there doesn't need to be one doesn't hurt you. Adding a platform only hurts Fox from the initial match-up of x:y against Marth. I don't know how many times I have to stress that.

3) There's VERY few characters in this game without a single projectile, and even fewer that are legit bad on the roster...so...




Unless there's some sort of quote for this, I'm going to disregard that. That's WAY too shallow of an excuse. Nintendo itself responded to America's Smash scene during Evo. To say that the only influence for such a big design choice was Japan's Brawl scene? Really? Of all things?




I'm sorry but I'm not even going to respond to this or the rest of this quote unless you properly read what I stated. A balanced match-up =/= a neutral stage.

Okay first things first, if the stage doesn't lend an advantage to either fighter than its neutral, because its not effecting the fight in any way. Next the lack of something can definitely hurt. For example, if a fight between a person with arms and a person lacking arms (sorry for the morbid example), the lack of arms is definitely hurting that persons chances. For a more relevant example maybe, If i was to play you, except I decided you cannot use your special moves, is the lack of special moves going to hurt your performance against me?

 

[chipndip]

Okay first things first, if the stage doesn't lend an advantage to either fighter than its neutral, because its not effecting the fight in any way. Next the lack of something can definitely hurt. For example, if a fight between a person with arms and a person lacking arms (sorry for the morbid example), the lack of arms is definitely hurting that persons chances. For a more relevant example maybe, If i was to play you, except I decided you cannot use your special moves, is the lack of special moves going to hurt your performance against me?

1) Yes, if a stage doesn't lend an advantage to effect the fight, it is neutral. That said, if there's such thing as an added platform, hazard, construct, or so on, it isn't neutral. Just because the match-up isn't 5:5, doesn't mean the stage they're fighting on isn't neutral. You said yourself that Luigi needed the stage to help him stay viable in the meta.

2) Yes, lacking arms definitely hurts your chances, but if you get in a fight without arms, then that's just your bad match-up against someone with arms. Me giving you a spiked vest to wear to balance this out, in case you get punched in the chest, would be altering the neutral, yet horribly imbalanced, match-up. It'd be more balanced, but it's not neutral.

Now if someone removed your arms right before your match started, rather than you just not having them by the time you scheduled it, then that's different, and will hopefully be explained in the next bullet.

3) Yes, removing my special moves hurts me, but then again, a normal character always has special moves. That's like asking if it'd hurt player 4 if he didn't have solid ground to spawn over when the match starts, so he just plummets to the blast zone when the countdown starts, but I went over that already too.

 

[Piford]

1) Yes, if a stage doesn't lend an advantage to effect the fight, it is neutral. That said, if there's such thing as an added platform, hazard, construct, or so on, it isn't neutral. Just because the match-up isn't 5:5, doesn't mean the stage they're fighting on isn't neutral. You said yourself that Luigi needed the stage to help him stay viable in the meta.

2) Yes, lacking arms definitely hurts your chances, but if you get in a fight without arms, then that's just your bad match-up against someone with arms. Me giving you a spiked vest to wear to balance this out, in case you get punched in the chest, would be altering the neutral, yet horribly imbalanced, match-up. It'd be more balanced, but it's not neutral.

Now if someone removed your arms right before your match started, rather than you just not having them by the time you scheduled it, then that's different, and will hopefully be explained in the next bullet.

3) Yes, removing my special moves hurts me, but then again, a normal character always has special moves. That's like asking if it'd hurt player 4 if he didn't have solid ground to spawn over when the match starts, so he just plummets to the blast zone when the countdown starts, but I went over that already too.

It feels like your just arguing to change the phrase from neutral to balanced.

 

[chipndip]

It feels like your just arguing to change the phrase from neutral to balanced.

My point is that I dislike when Smash players say "There's no neutral stage" or things of that ilk. FD always has been since it was made. If we're gonna have stage select counter-picks for the sake of giving weaker chars a chance, I could live with that so long as there aren't some blatantly dumb stage choices...like Ferox. But FD should be recognized as the neutral stage of the franchise.

 

[Piford]

My point is that I dislike when Smash players say "There's no neutral stage" or things of that ilk. FD always has been since it was made. If we're gonna have stage select counter-picks for the sake of giving weaker chars a chance, I could live with that so long as there aren't some blatantly dumb stage choices...like Ferox. But FD should be recognized as the neutral stage of the franchise.

Okay you are being subjective. In your world, Final Destination being a neutral stage is an absolute and you are basing everything off that. The majority of the smash community disagrees with that. If Luigi is a bad character on Final Destination alone, you consider him a bad character. If he's amazing on the other stages on the list, I would say he's a great character. Also Ferox is great with some minor problems, but thats for the stage analysis and discussion thread. FD will never be recognized as the neutral stage of the franchise (especially when its not even in one of its games) because the smash community knows that no absolutes. Everything is relative and based on opinions. When we make our rules, we base it off of not having any one stage be an absolute neutral stage, we take into account every aspect of every stage.

 

[chipndip]

Okay you are being subjective. In your world, Final Destination being a neutral stage is an absolute and you are basing everything off that. The majority of the smash community disagrees with that. If Luigi is a bad character on Final Destination alone, you consider him a bad character. If he's amazing on the other stages on the list, I would say he's a great character. Also Ferox is great with some minor problems, but thats for the stage analysis and discussion thread. FD will never be recognized as the neutral stage of the franchise (especially when its not even in one of its games) because the smash community knows that no absolutes. Everything is relative and based on opinions. When we make our rules, we base it off of not having any one stage be an absolute neutral stage, we take into account every aspect of every stage.

Just because a majority disagrees doesn't mean it isn't right. History's proven that many times over. Luigi's not just bad on FD alone, he's just in generally bad, hence the need of platforms to even make him somewhat kinda-sorta-worthwhile. Also, Ferox is horrible seeing how its constructs denies KOs due to them acting like ceilings.

Even if I'm in the minority, maybe one day more people will see it the way I do, or more people that do already realize what I do will speak up. Maybe Sakurai might be interviewed on the matter and his answer will reinforce my point. Just because I'm in the minority doesn't mean I'm objectively wrong.

 

[Piford]

Just because a majority disagrees doesn't mean it isn't right. History's proven that many times over. Luigi's not just bad on FD alone, he's just in generally bad, hence the need of platforms to even make him somewhat kinda-sorta-worthwhile. Also, Ferox is horrible seeing how its constructs denies KOs due to them acting like ceilings.

Even if I'm in the minority, maybe one day more people will see it the way I do, or more people that do already realize what I do will speak up. Maybe Sakurai might be interviewed on the matter and his answer will reinforce my point. Just because I'm in the minority doesn't mean I'm objectively wrong.

I didn't say your objectively wrong, I said everything e do is based on how everything is subjective. Your wrong to treat your opinion as an objective fact. Also I use Luigi as an example; I wasn't actually taking into account characters balance. And someone like Little Mac needs the lack of platforms to make him somewhat kinda-sorta-worthwhile. Do you not see how this is a potato potahto situation? If you still want us to stop calling a stage that creates a 50:50 neutral, well thats not going to happen. Different words mean different things in different contexts. That's how language works. What should we also change the word camping? The definition is "the activity spending a vacation living in a camp, tent, or camper." Characters clearly don't do that in Smash Bros, so what are we gonna call it smurglefern because its exclusive to the context of smash bros. Well characters that share special moves aren't special any more, so we better make a new word for them, how about beop. No that would be ridiculous. Any word you assign to anything is going to have multiple meaning. So we are going to keep calling Battlefield a neutral stage if it brings a 50:50 matchup for the two characters. What ever word you want to use is going to have the same problem as neutral, in that all words have different connotations. If you don't understand by now I'm done because this has been extremely off topic.

 

[Doval]

1) Yes, if a stage doesn't lend an advantage to effect the fight, it is neutral. That said, if there's such thing as an added platform, hazard, construct, or so on, it isn't neutral. Just because the match-up isn't 5:5, doesn't mean the stage they're fighting on isn't neutral. You said yourself that Luigi needed the stage to help him stay viable in the meta.

2) Yes, lacking arms definitely hurts your chances, but if you get in a fight without arms, then that's just your bad match-up against someone with arms. Me giving you a spiked vest to wear to balance this out, in case you get punched in the chest, would be altering the neutral, yet horribly imbalanced, match-up. It'd be more balanced, but it's not neutral.

Now if someone removed your arms right before your match started, rather than you just not having them by the time you scheduled it, then that's different, and will hopefully be explained in the next bullet.

3) Yes, removing my special moves hurts me, but then again, a normal character always has special moves. That's like asking if it'd hurt player 4 if he didn't have solid ground to spawn over when the match starts, so he just plummets to the blast zone when the countdown starts, but I went over that already too.

Not having arms isn't a problem in a world where noone has arms and having a spiked vest isn't an advantage in a tournament where wearing them is mandatory. That's why the entire idea that you can analyze Luigi's performance in a vacuum is meaningless. To figure out if Luigi is a good character, you have to compare him to every other, and to do that you have to drag stages into the discussion because you can't fight in a void. FD has no special status in this context, and I already demonstrated how even a "featureless" stage like FD does have features that improve or hinder characters - platform width, blast zone size, and the shape of the stage's underside.

Your distinction between what's neutral and what's not is subjective. According to you, FD is neutral because it has simple geometry, and you explictly acknowledge you don't care about the matchups. You rely on everyone accepting that only features other than the ground contribute to characters, when there's no objective reason to think that. At this point you're arguing over semantics.

In competitive play the only truth is in winning and losing. The matchups are everything. Anything else is subjective. You're free to think that FD is neutral, but many matchups aren't 5:5 there, so by your definitions it's not balanced, and that's all that matters.

Let's be real - the actual reason FD is the way it is is becaure that's what was needed for the Master Hand fight. Putting platforms would make him easier to hit and raises questions of how he should interact with them, and making the stage narrow would give you nowhere to run for some of his attacks. There's no point in seeking any deeper meaning to the stage's design. Smash 64 didn't even have FD as a VS stage.

 

[ChampKing]

I didn't say your objectively wrong, I said everything e do is based on how everything is subjective. Your wrong to treat your opinion as an objective fact. Also I use Luigi as an example; I wasn't actually taking into account characters balance. And someone like Little Mac needs the lack of platforms to make him somewhat kinda-sorta-worthwhile. Do you not see how this is a potato potahto situation? If you still want us to stop calling a stage that creates a 50:50 neutral, well thats not going to happen. Different words mean different things in different contexts. That's how language works. What should we also change the word camping? The definition is "the activity spending a vacation living in a camp, tent, or camper." Characters clearly don't do that in Smash Bros, so what are we gonna call it smurglefern because its exclusive to the context of smash bros. Well characters that share special moves aren't special any more, so we better make a new word for them, how about beop. No that would be ridiculous. Any word you assign to anything is going to have multiple meaning. So we are going to keep calling Battlefield a neutral stage if it brings a 50:50 matchup for the two characters. What ever word you want to use is going to have the same problem as neutral, in that all words have different connotations. If you don't understand by now I'm done because this has been extremely off topic.

Incorrect. Mac doesn't need a lack of platforms at all. Sick of that stupid piece of ignorance. Being on a platform is still a worse neutral position than being on the ground and BF is no more neutral than FD.

 

[Thinkaman]

Is FD neutral, and BF is biased for adding platforms?

Is BF neutral, and FD is biased for removing platforms?

Frame of reference isn't absolute. There are no objective truths in most aspects of stage legality.

 

[popsofctown]

Is FD neutral, and BF is biased for adding platforms?

Is BF neutral, and FD is biased for removing platforms?

Frame of reference isn't absolute. There are no objective truths in most aspects of stage legality.

Whichever form has a more balanced cast is the more neutral stage. In Brawl the answer would be FD because MK prefers not to go there. In Brawl with Meta Knight missing, the answer is Battlefield because Ice Climbers, Olimar, Snake, Diddy, and Falco prefer FD.

In Smash 4 it's unknown cause there's no tier list.

 

[chipndip]

I didn't say your objectively wrong, I said everything e do is based on how everything is subjective. Your wrong to treat your opinion as an objective fact...and snip...

There's a difference between gamer lingo and just using a word incorrectly. When I hear "Smash doesn't have a neutral stage", that's different from "Oh, he's camping" or "That guy just got gimped". It's not being used as a term for a specific maneuver or case. It's being used as the term "neutral" would always be used...but incorrectly. If the word is being used for the stage with the most 50:50 match-ups, then it should be changed to a different word, because thinking objectively, it really doesn't add up at all.

Also, my opinion isn't objective fact. I'm just basing my subjective opinion on objective fact. You DID raise a good point before which I agreed with, but I'm not one to just go with the flow just because it said so.

 

[chipndip]

Is FD neutral, and BF is biased for adding platforms?

Is BF neutral, and FD is biased for removing platforms?

Frame of reference isn't absolute. There are no objective truths in most aspects of stage legality.

Then obviously you didn't read what I typed up until now + the obvious "hint hint" left by FG mode just flew over people's heads while they were legalizing Ferox and that Reset Bomb Forest. >_>

 

[Thinkaman]

Whichever form has a more balanced cast is the more neutral stage.

This concept is correct in and of itself.

Then you ask people which stage has that "most balanced cast", and the yelling starts.

The fact that stage legality is always ultimately subjective, no matter how formal and consistent you can get your criteria to be, is inescapable.

I don't say this to imply that the process is futile, just that anyone pretending their preference is actually some Objective Truth passed down on stone tablets is pretentious and silly. I don't think that attitude necessarily describes anyone here, but we're slowly drifting in that direction as people bunker down on their opinions.

 

[Conda]

Is there a regulation yet actually in place at tournaments regarding Miis and their size limitations? Miis have been used at tournaments but I'm not sure if the players had to stick with a certain height and weight.

I know there's been talk about it, but is it an actual rule so far?

 

[BestTeaMaker]

So I've been reading the argument on the For Glory mode as a basis of competitive play. Here are just some thoughts I've had on it based on the tourneys I've been running for the 3DS version since it was released. This might seem a bit ranty to some and off topic to others, but I feel this is something that needs to be addressed when making a ruleset for Smash 4.

---

For Glory is not a competitive mode.

To understand this, you have to understand how Sakurai made this game. He has been emphasizing that you should be able to play this game anyways you want. This is why there are a plethora of modes to choose from, from Special Orders to Smash Run, from Event Battle to For Glory. But from its inception, Super Smash Bros. has always been designed as a party game, a game you play with friends.

So what if you can't play with friends? That is why "With Anyone" exists. It allows you to play quick and dirty games with a random opponent online. For Glory mode was made for those who just want to get in a quick competitive-esque battle. It only has one stage to save time on playing a game. You stick with the same opponent until one of you quits so that you don't have to wait for another person to fight. Hell, even the opponent you're facing may as well be randomized. There are no online leaderboards supported by the game.

And now we come to this question: how should competitive Smash Bros. be played then?

The answer is: the community itself will decide. We need to build up rules ourselves for what constitutes a competitive format.

You want an example why this is true? The most popular competitive game genre: MOBAs.

Defense of the Ancients started out as a FAN MOD of Warcraft III. Through many iterations of the game and many different changes to the mechanics, a game was born out of another game. And now, this single mod has become the most popular game today, with so many different organizations and games to play. And notice that all of the games that have sprouted out of that, Dota 2, League of Legends, Smite, Strife, Awesomnauts, Heroes of the Storm, Heroes of Newearth...They all stem from a mod in which the community built for itself.

So what does this mean for Smash Bros.?

We have never built the tournament scene around a mode in the game. What we have done is borrow the rules the game has and adapt them to our own idea of what makes the game competitive. We decided stocks was a fair numerical way to determine the win/loss ratio. We determined certain stages as legal to enhance competitive gameplay without inhibiting it. It is something that we as a community should decide.

So, don't build tournaments around For Glory mode. If at some point we decide that 2 stocks, 5 minutes, FD only is the tournament standard, then it is only because after years and years of understanding the meta, we feel that this is the best way to play.

 

[Thinkaman]

For Glory is not a competitive mode.

For Glory and For Fun are just fancy names for "Quickmatch."

It's not ranked.

It's not serious.

It's just a way to play a simple game of smash with a stranger ASAP.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

For Glory and For Fun are just fancy names for "Quickmatch."

It's not ranked.

It's not serious.

It's just a way to play a simple game of smash with a stranger ASAP.

For Glory is at least "competitive flavor" in the same way "chocolate flavor" is sort of like actual chocolate but isn't nearly as good. But yes.