Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Terotrous]

Suspect != ban.
By your reasoning Jigglypuff's U-Throw => Rest should be banned (it KO's even lower % than One Inch Punch).
When you present this reasoning to Pros in the Competitive Arena it would be seen as a joke. Just a fair warning.

Yeah, but Rest is working how it's supposed to in that case. It's a high risk, high reward move that is very hard to land. With Brawler Piston Punch, this is not the intended function of the move, so the risk / reward is ludicrously skewed.

This is much more akin to something like the Freeze Glitch in Melee, which is banned, in that it gets you a free stock off a grab with no signifcant commitment. If that glitch was tied to a specific move that could be removed, I'm sure they would have gone for that instead.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Right, it's just an incredibly (bizarrely) high base knockback hitbox. It doesn't kill at 999%.

What I was getting at in a very roundabout sort of way is that although I agree the OIP is...powerful, to put it lightly, I don't fully agree with the current hysteria over it. Worthy of a patch? Sure, no arguments there. But calling to ban it when no one (that I know of) raised a fuss over multihit spikes strikes me as odd.

As a disclaimer my internet sucks and I wasn't able to watch the stream yesterday so if there's something else going on then I'm probably unaware of it.

Yeah, but Rest is working how it's supposed to in that case. It's a high risk, high reward move that is very hard to land. With Brawler Piston Punch, this is not the intended function of the move, so the risk / reward is ludicrously skewed.

This is much more akin to something like the Freeze Glitch in Melee, which is banned, in that it gets you a free stock off a grab with no signifcant commitment. If that glitch was tied to a specific move that could be removed, I'm sure they would have gone for that instead.

Freeze Glitch is banned because the Ice Climbers can get a stock lead, trigger it, and walk away for a cuppa and win by timeout. Not because it's a guaranteed kill. AFAIK it also requires a fairly specific set of inputs with strict timing and isn't simply using a single move with certain spacing, making it easier to enforce.

 

[Terotrous]

AFAIK it also requires a fairly specific set of inputs with strict timing and isn't simply using a single move with certain spacing, making it easier to enforce.

Actually it's super simple to do. Just get the partner to grab, then do side B. Boom, frozen.


It is true that the timeout threat makes it slightly worse, but in general if a move isn't functioning how it's supposed to and grants insane advantage for virtually no risk, that usually gets banned.

 

[T0MMY]

I do not think Piston Punch deserves to be banned.

However, I think this is a reasonable, respectable, and non-dangerous (non-slippery-slope) argument to make:

• "Piston Punch is bugged in a significant way; it seems likely that it will be fixed, and so should ban it until it is fixed."

Again, I don't agree. But I think that is the only valid way to phrase an objection to the move.

Actually, that's still a slippery slope, there's middle ground that leads to the same exploit as Roy's Reverse Blazer tech (which is even easier to do and KO's at 0%)
Once again you'd hit a reason wall where you either ban both or neither, but to just pick and choose judiciously is simply a matter of opinion and not reasonable enough for others to follow your lead.

Lol, this is semantic non-sense.
By this logic we don't "ban" stages, we just happen to use a stage-pick procedure that doesn't let you pick some of them.
Smogon doesn't "ban" Pokemon, they just require teams that don't include certain ones. Ect.

Wrong again, although it may seem like such I was careful in choosing exactly what is considered "banned" and not for logical reasons (which you may see as mere "semantics").
There are actual stages that get actual bans, I will ban a Stage at my events because it makes the event run too long to have a bunch of noobs playing on Hyrule Temple (enforceable, identifiable, and warranted). In the case of other stages, yes, you simply Toggle them "Off" and Stage Select: Choose. Those are not bans. Like I said, don't want to get off on a tangent on that, the point still stands.

Yeah, but Rest is working how it's supposed to in that case. It's a high risk, high reward move that is very hard to land. With Brawler Piston Punch, this is not the intended function of the move, so the risk / reward is ludicrously skewed.

Two things wrong with this reasoning:
1) You did not state the difference of "how it's supposed to work" - and that's fine, you can go back and fix but the point still stands that "more reward than the rest of the cast" and "suspect" still does not equate to a ban.
2) At this point you now have to show evidence that it's not supposed to work that way. Are you Sakurai? Are you privy to information the rest of us are not? Are you psychic? Unless you can come up with some kind of proof then none of us can honestly say this is so. When the move gets patched then we'll know it shouldn't be working like that (at least should not AFTER the patch), but at that point arguing about it is pointless because it would be patched.

This is much more akin to something like the Freeze Glitch in Melee, which is banned, in that it gets you a free stock off a grab with no signifcant commitment. If that glitch was tied to a specific move that could be removed, I'm sure they would have gone for that instead.

Sorry, but that is nowhere within a reasonable comparison.
If we follow that logic through then we see that Ice Climber's Grab in general is more akin to the Freeze Glitch than the OIP because it gets you a free stock off a grab with no significant commitment.
And if that's the case you have plenty more slope to slip down (Pikachu, Falco, Dedede, etc.)
This kind of logic is why the rule of thumb is to NOT ban something unless it meets the criteria.

It is true that the timeout threat makes it slightly worse, but in general if a move isn't functioning how it's supposed to and grants insane advantage for virtually no risk, that usually gets banned.

I'm going to have to call you out on where you get this general rule of thumb on bans? No respectable TO goes by this that I know of, and if they do then I will have a word with them (I've talked to TO's across the country in person about rules, so point me their way if this is so!)

 

[Conda]

you simply Toggle them "Off" and Stage Select: Choose. Those are not bans.

Yes, they are.

How else would you ban something? Remove it from the game disc data and re-burn the dvd? By your definition, 'nothing' is banned, just 'turned off'. :/

I'm done with this tangent though, as you don't believe in bans yet do at the same time. That's another way of saying you agree with some bans and disagree with others, yet you're dressing it up as something else. I don't see the point in writing more about it with you, but I'll continue responding to others.

 

[T0MMY]

Yes, they are.

How else would you ban something? Remove it from the game disc data and re-burn the dvd? By your definition, 'nothing' is banned, just 'turned off'. :/

Wrong, by my definition Stages may both be turned "off" as per software, or "banned" as declared by TO.
As an example:
Starters: Battlefield & Final Destination are to be Turned "On"
Counterpicks: All Stages are Turned "Off" and may be use as a counterpick with the exception of those on the Banned List
Banned List: Hyrule Castle, Sector Z

I'm done with this tangent though, as you don't believe in bans yet do at the same time. That's another way of saying you agree with some bans and disagree with others, yet you're dressing it up as something else.

That would be contradictory, and not something I am in the business of, please don't be silly with your accusations.

I don't see the point in writing more about it with you, but I'll continue responding to others.

I accept your surrender of the argument and will allow all arguments to be weighed.

My call: No reason for ban was rightfully presented, so no reasonable TO should use what was posted as grounds to ban Mii Brawler.

I accept the result as a TO and will not be banning Mii Brawler nor the Piston Punch nor the One Inch Punch technique.

 

[Conda]

Wrong, by my definition Stages may both be turned "off" as per software, or "banned" as declared by TO.
As an example:
Starters: Battlefield & Final Destination are to be Turned "On"
Counterpicks: All Stages are Turned "Off" and may be use as a counterpick with the exception of those on the Banned List
Banned List: Hyrule Castle, Sector Z



That would be contradictory, and not something I am in the business of, please don't be silly with your accusations.


I accept your surrender of the argument and will allow all arguments to be weighed.

My call: No reason for ban was rightfully presented, so no reasonable TO should use what was posted as grounds to ban Mii Brawler.

I accept the result as a TO and will not be banning Mii Brawler nor the Piston Punch nor the One Inch Punch technique.

Your stage list example has nothing to do with bans, it has to do with how stage picking has to work with the limitations of the stage selection screen. I'm not sure how this is supposed to relate at all to specific bans, such as items and the like.

Our argument is you don't need to have it as an in-game on-off toggle for it to be an enforceable ban. Items are turned off in-game. This is a ban. But stages cannot be turned off. These are still bans. Just because you cannot toggle off certain custom moves does not mean banning them is any less doable.


The rest of your post is strange and I'm not really gonna respond to it.

 

[T0MMY]

Your stage list example has nothing to do with bans, it has to do with how stage picking has to work with the limitations of the stage selection screen. I'm not sure how this is supposed to relate at all to specific bans, such as items and the like.

Maybe you didn't see the Banned List.
But I think I'll just repeat that Stages are a tangent I don't care to get into.

Our argument is you don't need to have it as an in-game on-off toggle for it to be an enforceable ban. Items are turned off in-game. This is a ban. But stages cannot be turned off. These are still bans. Just because you cannot toggle off certain custom moves does not mean banning them is any less doable.

1. Nobody claimed you need a Toggle for it to be enforceable.
2. Items turned off being a "ban" is a matter of meaning rather than a premise.
   
3. Stages can be turned off (you'll find it in SSB3DS: Smash => Rules => More Rules => Random Stage Switch)
   
4. Items/Stages being turned off in-game does not necessitate the same meaning as a "ban", it is simply just an in-game setting (we don't "ban" Time when we "set" the game to Stock).
5. Once again nobody said such a thing; Toggling on-off being "doable" is beside the point.

You've got two three false premisses, two strawman, and an invalid conclusion.
Please fix.

(And I do not know who you are referring to as "our argument", how many of you are there?)

The rest of your post is strange and I'm not really gonna respond to it.

Win?

 

[Conda]

I've explained why banning a broken custom move that isn't working properly makes sense and is line with how we've banned things in the past. I don't need to say more than that, because it is a super simple argument on my part. From there, we talk about what's going on and if a ban is a logical thing to do. We can discuss banning it or not, which is a great discussion to have. Is it broken, is it not broken, can you play around it, etc etc.

But you are simply discussing the premise of banning. I am not writing something into law, I am opening the floor so we can discuss it. What makes sense to me is soft-banning it until it is fixed - I am a common sense person and this is simply logical. You think there needs to be some hardcore investigation for small bans like this, and that's cool, but you shouldn't turn this into a discussion about banning practices and the like.

We ban things, your premise of "we never ban things" was already wrong. Your revised premise of "we only ban things when the argument makes sense and there is proof etc" brings things back into my ballpark - that my argument makes sense and "considering a soft-ban until the bug is fixed" is in fact arguable and something worth discussing.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

I've explained why banning a broken custom move that isn't working properly makes sense and is line with how we've banned things in the past. I don't need to say more than that, because it is a super simple argument on my part. From there, we talk about what's going on and if a ban is a logical thing to do. We can discuss banning it or not, which is a great discussion to have. Is it broken, is it not broken, can you play around it, etc etc.

But you are simply discussing the premise of banning. I am not writing something into law, I am opening the floor so we can discuss it. What makes sense to me is soft-banning it until it is fixed - I am a common sense person and this is simply logical. You think there needs to be some hardcore investigation for small bans like this, and that's cool, but you shouldn't turn this into a discussion about banning practices and the like.

We ban things, your premise of "we never ban things" was already wrong. Your revised premise of "we only ban things when the argument makes sense and there is proof etc" brings things back into my ballpark - that my argument makes sense and "considering a soft-ban until the bug is fixed" is in fact arguable and something worth discussing.

so on a less argumentative note what customs would be banned?

 

[T0MMY]

I've explained why banning a broken custom move that isn't working properly makes sense and is line with how we've banned things in the past. I don't need to say more than that, because it is a super simple argument on my part.

It may be simple, but it's not necessarily correct.
As much as I want to ban broken things you haven't shown it to be ban-worthy.
Not working properly
In line with how we've banned things in the past
Therefore, ban

Here are the issues you've got to fix before presenting it to be banned:
"Not working properly"
1) This is subject to opinion, and therefore cannot reasonably argue the case.

• Like I've stated before, where is this evidence that it's not working properly? How do we know that this move is not supposed to work this way? We'll know when/if it gets patched, but when that happens arguing this point is moot.​
• The counterpoint you'll find against this is that air-dodging did not function "properly" and changed the game for some characters to incredible degrees, yet today we just refer to this glitch as "wave dashing".​

"In line with how we've banned things in the past"

There is no "we" in reasoning. There is just reasoning that leads us to a valid conclusion.
Fallacy Traditionalis - Just because it was done in the past is not validity (owning African slaves was allowed in the past therefore we should be allowed to have slaves shipped here from Africa).
This is actually not how things have REASONABLY been banned in the past. Mistakes have happened, chain grabs, strategies, advanced techniques, and even entire characters have been banned in the past and subsequently had to be reinstated only after wrongfully taking otherwise legit wins from people who worked this into their game. Wobbling was controversial (and similar to the tech you want to ban) and any tourney that banned it had to reinstate it (after it affected the wins/losses of the players who could have used it).​

Patch that up and you've got a better standing argument.
Seeing as these two premises are false, it does not follow to a true conclusion. This is definitive of an invalid argument and should not be respected by TO's hosting a Competitive Tournament.

But you are simply discussing the premise of banning. I am not writing something into law, I am opening the floor so we can discuss it.

Nobody is saying you are writing something into law, but when you are trying to ban something in a competitive sense you will have to abide by the competitive rules.
So the question comes down to this: Are you discussing this supposed ban in the Competitive Arena or in the Casual Scene?

What makes sense to me is soft-banning it until it is fixed - I am a common sense person and this is simply logical.

You'll have to tell us the logic behind any conclusion whether it's hard or soft ban.

you shouldn't turn this into a discussion about banning practices and the like.

Why not? This is the Competitive Smash Rules Discussion thread.

We ban things, your premise of "we never ban things" was already wrong.

I never had a premise of "we never ban things".
Don't strawman me, bro.

Your revised premise of "we only ban things when the argument makes sense and there is proof etc" brings things back into my ballpark

Again, don't strawman me, bro.

my argument makes sense

No, that's the problem. As pro-ban as I am with broken glitches, your argument does not make sense. I'll argue on your side, but you've got to give me something to work with here, or do you want me to go to the TO's or back room with a mess of an argument and get laughed at? Work with me here.

"considering a soft-ban until the bug is fixed" is in fact arguable and something worth discussing.

Virtually anything could be "arguable" but it doesn't mean it's going to be valid. Right now we're seeing if we can reasonable make an argument for a ban, but so far it's not working.
Again, you'll still need reasons for conclusions.

 

[infomon]

I'm usually the one guilty of this, but I think we're getting way too deep into the mechanics of the argument rather than the arguments themselves.

This move seems uncomfortably powerful, possibly a development oversight. It looks to have a good chance of distrupting the metagame. OK. I don't think anyone's calling "omg ban it now right away", or "see all customs need to be banned". It just seems plausible that it will prove itself ban-worthy; and sure we'll all have different ideas about how much experience with the move it should take to conclude that.

Let's see how it works in the Wii-U version / the upcoming 3DS balance update. After some tournament experience with the WiiU game (especially in regions that are allowing customs for WiiU tourneys), we will be in a much better position to decide if any specific custom might merit a ban.

 

[Judo777]

The data...from what? Only online play leaves data to track. They aren't really going to say "Well, this char does great on Yoshi's Island, so instead of nerfing x, we'll leave that alone". Way too many variables to consider while balancing the roster. Now the changes might translate well to other stages, but I'm putting money on them largely pulling from For Glory play for their balancing changes. They may be good changes, but still. Other fixes may include viral glitches like Yoshi or Zamus's infinite.


Too bad I said I was stating SUBJECTIVE opinions BASED on OBJECTIVE observations. So congratz on dem reading skillz you uzed when ya mocked meh.

No, nothing you stated was an opinion that I quoted. You said the rationale for a stage being bad was that it was not the minimum criteria to create a stage in brawl stage builder. I corrected you because the minimum criteria is 4 platforms which is not an existing default level, and that stage is not competitive in the least.

Then you said for me to tell Sakurai that, which would be dumb because he already knows everything that I stated..... So no I'm not commenting on your opinions. You are entitled to them, but your reasoning on those opinions (primarily the reason involving stage builder) does not make sense, and was initially misguided.

 

[chipndip]

No, nothing you stated was an opinion that I quoted. You said the rationale for a stage being bad was that it was not the minimum criteria to create a stage in brawl stage builder. I corrected you because the minimum criteria is 4 platforms which is not an existing default level, and that stage is not competitive in the least.

Then you said for me to tell Sakurai that, which would be dumb because he already knows everything that I stated..... So no I'm not commenting on your opinions. You are entitled to them, but your reasoning on those opinions (primarily the reason involving stage builder) does not make sense, and was initially misguided.

1) My reasoning on my opinions aren't misguided. The problem is that I'm like one man with a Pepsi shirt at a Coke factory.

That said, I didn't care about what stage is good or bad. I care for having a uniform stage to utilize during competitive play so the stage doesn't play a large role in one's success or failure. A stage where the strengths and weaknesses of characters aren't going to be enhanced or diminished because of random stage features or what-not. Yea, this game isn't like traditional fighters, but at the same time, it doesn't mean this community can't learn from that of other fighting game communities. It's still a fighting game in the long run.

2) As far as that quote goes...I don't think I slept during that time...for about 24 hours + up to that point. So that response was obvious garbage, but the point still stands: You don't need platforms or hazards in a stage, so it's entirely logical to create a type of stage that leaves characters to their strengths and weaknesses in and of themselves without enhancing or diminishing them through the use of the stage selection. The point of FD is to give a stage where there's no distractions or field advantage being given. Sure, characters may do worse on FD, but that's because they're simply worse characters in comparison to other characters. Adding a laser or breaking the stage up into pieces or adding a full on construct doesn't make Luigi better against other characters. It just means he isn't effected as much by the stage's interruption in the match, whether it be adding walls, blocking attacks for you, or dropping you into oblivion, which is uncalled for when it comes to character balance, which is a character vs. character affair, not a char vs. char vs. stage affair. For that concept, a stage that doesn't put its 2 cents on the match is needed. A neutral stage. THAT is the point of FD, and the point of the term.

Hopefully that's a better response than that other one. I should really avoid video games when I pull all-nighters. I'ma just apologize for that upfront.

 

[Conda]

1) My reasoning on my opinions aren't misguided. The problem is that I'm like one man with a Pepsi shirt at a Coke factory.

That said, I didn't care about what stage is good or bad. I care for having a uniform stage to utilize during competitive play so the stage doesn't play a large role in one's success or failure. A stage where the strengths and weaknesses of characters aren't going to be enhanced or diminished because of random stage features or what-not. Yea, this game isn't like traditional fighters, but at the same time, it doesn't mean this community can't learn from that of other fighting game communities. It's still a fighting game in the long run.

2) As far as that quote goes...I don't think I slept during that time...for about 24 hours + up to that point. So that response was obvious garbage, but the point still stands: You don't need platforms or hazards in a stage, so it's entirely logical to create a type of stage that leaves characters to their strengths and weaknesses in and of themselves without enhancing or diminishing them through the use of the stage selection. The point of FD is to give a stage where there's no distractions or field advantage being given. Sure, characters may do worse on FD, but that's because they're simply worse characters in comparison to other characters. Adding a laser or breaking the stage up into pieces or adding a full on construct doesn't make Luigi better against other characters. It just means he isn't effected as much by the stage's interruption in the match, whether it be adding walls, blocking attacks for you, or dropping you into oblivion, which is uncalled for when it comes to character balance, which is a character vs. character affair, not a char vs. char vs. stage affair. For that concept, a stage that doesn't put its 2 cents on the match is needed. A neutral stage. THAT is the point of FD, and the point of the term.

Hopefully that's a better response than that other one. I should really avoid video games when I pull all-nighters. I'ma just apologize for that upfront.

Certain characters, strategies, moves, specials, and match ups are more powerful on FD (and likewise for each other stage individually). FD is not neutral, Smash's natural state stage-wise doesn't exist. It's is not unique in this, many games have similar utilization of stage variety as a crucial part of the competitive metagame. Think about Starcraft, FPS games, Melee, etc.

Smash 4 is not the same as Street Fighter, whose neutral state is without platforms and with walls on both sides. Nor is it the same as LoL where game mechanics are tuned in a way to only work on a specific geographical battlefield. Smash is balanced competitively only when multiple stages are available, and imbalanced with only a flat stage. It'd be the same if Battlefield was the only available stage - Smash would not be balanced, as you lose elements of competitively play that chain together to balance things out.

Removing platform stages from comp play means we are going against the grain of the game's design foundation - that matchups flow differently on different kinds of stages.

Some matchups have different modifiers on certain kinds of stage layouts, and counter picks embrace this to increase the strategy and counter-play available to players in competitive play. This is a good thing, and a very precious and valuable thing that Smash is blessed to have. Without it, we lose the competitive strategic/tactical element of stage choice.

Many others games would die for the ability to have this element, yet their balance depends solely on one stage layout (Dota, LoL, etc). Variety is good though, especially when your game is designed with stage variety in mind. An FD-only meta is one that is not in line with the design of the roster as a whole.


And, of course, none of this implies the game is balanced perfectly or anything. But it is unwise to generally ignore aspects of the game that are in place and designed to balance the overall roster. It's the same reason we don't increase/decrease damage ratios or knockback or gravity, etc. You toss out most of the game's balance brought to us by the designers and developers when you do that, and you're left with much less as a result.

It's like destroying the foundation of a skyscraper just because you don't like how the top looks - everything crumbles down.



Your points and reasoning comes from a good place - learning from other fighters - but stage variety is important in smash and a core part of play. Similar to Starcraft 2, FPSs, and WoW Arena, yet dissimilar to LoL/DOTA2 and Chess. Every game is different and utilizes the concept of stage variety as a game mechanic in different ways. Embracing this and accepting that Smash works differently than some games and similarly to others is a hurdle you're going to have to jump over.


Thank you for the intelligently written post though, but I do respectfully disagree.

I hope to see you around other parts of the forum discussing different subjects though.

 

[chipndip]

Certain characters are more powerful on FD. FD is not neutral, Smash's natural state is with some platforms, the same as Street Fighter's neutral state being without platforms and with walls on both sides. Smash is balanced competitive with counter picks being a thing - without it in Smash's history from melee onward, balance would have been a complete disaster.

Your points are very well thought out and your reasoning comes from a good place - learning from other fighters - but stage variety is important in smash and a core part of play. Similar to Starcraft 2, FPSs, and WoW Arena, yet dissimilar to LoL/DOTA2 and Chess. Every game is different and utilizes the concept of stage variety as a game mechanic in different ways.

Thank you for the intelligently written post though, but I do respectfully disagree based on my own experiences and my level of knowledge of Smash's balance mechanisms within this community, and the knowledge of my peers.
I hope to see you around other parts of the forum discussing different subjects though.

I was initially gonna come on WAY stronger than this, but after reading this post entirely...I dialed back a few notches. With that said:

Balance: a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.

Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc. OR having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.

I understand the issue here. It's much like Pokemon's, where the grass-roots scene was around for a good while before Nintendo started getting on the ball with the competitive aspect of their game. With Pokemon, there's now a HUGE divide between VGC and Smogon rules, Smogon being comparable to SB, and VGC being the actual competitive format for the game. As consequence, many people that claim to be competitive players of the game think random moves are banned from play, like Double Team. It was around that time where I initially came to my conclusion where if a competitive scene is gonna grow, even if the grassroots scene came first, people need to be on the same page. For better or worse, a company's rules and mindset will most likely never bend to that of the community (not including card games), so it's up to the community to steadily merge itself with that of the company. I'm not saying we 100% have to emulate FG rules in tourney play (wouldn't mind that though), but some really smart ideas were implemented in that mode that make matches quick, concise, and satisfying. To boot, they're showing that they're going to continue balancing the game, but how are they gonna do that with info they don't have? They don't take into account stages like Yoshi's Island or Reset Bomb, or how Lil Mac can't do jack on a stage like Brinstar. They also don't incorporate custom moves...or Miis (who already seem to be posing problems, but to be fair, their initial lack of implementation's core reason was due to people possibly making characters out of them, like Goku). Only For Glory tracks stats, so it's easy to tell their intentions behind the game mode. They can see how people do in teams (no friendly fire I believe), FFAs, and 1v1s, but not on stages outside of FD.

The point: FD obviously is as close to a neutral stage as this game gets given its properties and basic understanding of the word and what it means, as well as the overly obvious hint given through its implementation in FG mode + the fact that any stage can be turned into FD rather than Battlefield or any other stage. Smash is NOT balanced competitively with stages in mind, and that's even more apparent now, given how Lil Mac works in a game with more huge gaps than other previous titles (otherwise his ground game would be weaker and his air game stronger). Maybe this community likes to balance the match-ups itself via stage selection, but that makes a match-up balanced, not neutral. A 5:5 match-up is balanced, but not neutral. Giving me a gun to balance my fight against Mike Tyson isn't neutral. Might be balanced, but not neutral. The terms are two totally different things, mean two totally different things, and shouldn't be thrown around like synonyms.

 

[Conda]

Again, you aren't considering the fact that many competitive games are balanced competitively with multiples stages as part of the picture. There is no reason why Smash cannot be one of them, and experience shows us it works much better this way than not.

Also, your concept of 'neutral' simply means 'most simple'. If you think FD is the true neutral stage just due to flatness and basic features, then that's like saying a flat stage is the only one that should be used in Starcraft. But that's not the case, because some games work differently than others and depend on that flux of geography to work in competitive sets. Sets is the key word here. A set with a mix of stages is closer to neutrality than with just one stage, while that would be the opposite case in some other games.

The ability to see how other competitive combative games work - not just SF-esque fighters - is important in realising that having only one stage available is not the norm across the board.

Again, let me emphasize that flatness is not 'neutral'. FD being flat does not make it the basis of which other stages are built up from. FD is a reductive stage, not a foundational one. There is NO foundational stage in Smash. If anything, both BF and FD work together in forming a beautiful pseudo-neutral (which is why everyone would love Alpha versions of stages to be in for glory as well). But in reality, there is no neutral stage. This isn't a Dota-style game, it's a sandbox fighter, and stage variety is a crucial part of what makes the whole engine work in tournament set-oriented play.



As for For Glory fooling some people that FD is 'the' neutral competitive stage:

FD is For Glory's only stage due to providing a focused gameplay option without devs needing to fuss over what other stages should be included. It's the easy way for the developers to make things moderately competitive without potentially including a stage some comp community somewhere despises, thus ruining FG for them. They left all comp communities with the responsibility of specifically going in and creating a legal stage list for tournament play, which is perfectly fine. We're up for it, it's not that hard to do.

 

[chipndip]

Again, you aren't considering the fact that many competitive games are balanced competitively with multiples stages as part of the picture. There is no reason why Smash cannot be one of them, and experience shows us it works much better this way than not.

Also, your concept of 'neutral' simply means 'most simple'. If you think FD is the true neutral stage just due to flatness and basic features, then that's like saying a flat stage is the only one that should be used in Starcraft. But that's not the case, because some games work differently than others and depend on that flux of geography to work in competitive sets.

1) Experience is based on a grass-roots environment. Smogon is much like this (not a FG scene, but still), but the backlash for deviating from a perfectly viable competitive format is starting to catch up with the Pokemon scene as a whole, making a huge divide between player expectations. Also, most fighting games of merit actually don't include stage variables. Especially 2D ones. This one does, but as things stands, it doesn't look like its creators have that intention for this iteration.

2) I...don't have any idea why neutral, in this game, wouldn't be FD. The platforms of BF block bombing/diving/lobbing attacks, so it's against chars with those in their move set. Hazards are obvious, and so are constructs. I don't really know how Star Craft works. Only LoL, but as far as my experience with that game goes, all the lanes mirror themselves going to and from the center of the stage. Lastly, yes, some games depend on geography in competitive play, but in order to do that, the companies behind it truly need to balance the game with that idea in mind. Smash does not look to be one of those cases.

 

[Thinkaman]

2) I...don't have any idea why neutral, in this game, wouldn't be FD. The platforms of BF block bombing/diving/lobbing attacks, so it's against chars with those in their move set. Hazards are obvious, and so are constructs. I don't really know how Star Craft works. Only LoL, but as far as my experience with that game goes, all the lanes mirror themselves going to and from the center of the stage. Lastly, yes, some games depend on geography in competitive play, but in order to do that, the companies behind it truly need to balance the game with that idea in mind. Smash does not look to be one of those cases.

By this logic Howling Abyss is the true neutral LoL map.

 

[Uniit]

Maybe i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure that this isn't the thread to do this.

People arguing that FD is/should/whatever or not be the neutral stage should post on the appropriate thread (Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread).

This said, about broken custom move or what, IMHO we should let it go and see if it effectively problematic. Some compares to the frozen glitch which is hopefully ban, but again it's not the same thing, as it denies your opponent to doing anything. It's more realistic to compare it to the pika/g&w duo.

i'm not sure if this subject is worthy of a new thread, as i think that this thread cover mostly general ruleset.

 

[chipndip]

By this logic Howling Abyss is the true neutral LoL map.

The standard map, like I said, mirrors itself going to and from the center. The ONLY difference is that Baron is at one point and the dragon is at the other.

 

[Thinkaman]

The standard map, like I said, mirrors itself going to and from the center. The ONLY difference is that Baron is at one point and the dragon is at the other.

NORFAIR FOR NEUTRAL 2016.

 

[chipndip]

NORFAIR FOR NEUTRAL 2016.

That's a pretty juvenile response ya got there...

 

[Uniit]

Allow me this off-subject just to say that if you want to compare Summoner's Rift to Smash's stage, you got to now that matchup are different if you go top/bot or mid (now the 3 lane are different with the new SR) because of length between each tower etc... Mid is generaly safer because of this. Even matchup are different if you are blue or purple side, because or the proximity of dragon/baron and blue/red buff...

Now picture the top as battlefield and mid as final destination, and you will see that there is differences.

So, as this is off topic, let get back.

 

[Venks]

Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc. OR having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.

I can literally go to anyone in my Smash group and ask them what a neutral stage is and they will list more stages that Final Destination. You can love the definition of the word 'neutral' all you want, but that won't change how we play Smash.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

2) I...don't have any idea why neutral, in this game, wouldn't be FD. The platforms of BF block bombing/diving/lobbing attacks, so it's against chars with those in their move set. Hazards are obvious, and so are constructs. I don't really know how Star Craft works. Only LoL, but as far as my experience with that game goes, all the lanes mirror themselves going to and from the center of the stage. Lastly, yes, some games depend on geography in competitive play, but in order to do that, the companies behind it truly need to balance the game with that idea in mind. Smash does not look to be one of those cases.

The reason FD isn't neutral is because it disadvantages some characters, just like Battlefield disadvantages some characters. (And the two lists are not the same either.) Rosalina, for instance, is an excellent juggler and is tall enough to barely clip through the Battlefield platforms. She does much better there than on FD (although she's no slouch on FD either, she's just that good). But on Battlefield she can threaten hits on a person standing on the lower platforms while she herself is on the ground. And she's not alone in this, a lot of characters have the necessary range. Shulk can hit the top platform with utilt if you want a particularly silly example.

So yes, the platforms do prevent some attack trajectories from working as they would on FD. But they also provide physical obstacles that characters can use to their advantage to exert large amounts of stage control. FD does not give this opportunity.

To take a different approach. A CQC fighter like Ganondorf does fairly bad on FD against the likes of Samus, Duck Hunt, etc. because there's no real way to escape their projectiles without jumping and no character can stay airborne indefinitely. Battlefield lets him use the platforms to approach from above; it's up to the opponent to figure out what he's doing and counter appropriately. This reduces the projectile camper's options to keep Ganondorf away, but it also increases Ganondorf's options to approach, and forces the camper to adapt, which is a Good Thing(TM).

In a nutshell, claiming FD is the only neutral stage that matters implies that some characters, some playstyles, are inherently better or worse than others through no fault of their design but rather purely because they perform badly or well on one specific stage out of 30-something (3DS) or over 50 (Wii U). And that is not balance.

 

[T0MMY]

I can literally go to anyone in my Smash group and ask them what a neutral stage is and they will list more stages that Final Destination. You can love the definition of the word 'neutral' all you want, but that won't change how we play Smash.

Why is your "Smash group" the authority to you?
Validity, Truth, and Reason should be more of an authority.

 

[SpaceJell0]

I have a question, say there's a tournament that's doing random stage selection from the legal stages chosen, how will the omega stages fit into that rotation? I believe the "Random Stage Select" only randomly selects from either normal stages or omega stages and not both. Should we do a coin toss beforehand to decide either omega or "normal" stages?

 

[Piford]

I have a question, say there's a tournament that's doing random stage selection from the legal stages chosen, how will the omega stages fit into that rotation? I believe the "Random Stage Select" only randomly selects from either normal stages or omega stages and not both. Should we do a coin toss beforehand to decide either omega or "normal" stages?

First, tournaments don't often use random select, as random select can pick a stage that significantly benefits one player more than another. Second, you would use normal stages, as Omega stages are just FD, and you can just have FD be in the random select.

 

[SpaceJell0]

First, tournaments don't often use random select, as random select can pick a stage that significantly benefits one player more than another. Second, you would use normal stages, as Omega stages are just FD, and you can just have FD be in the random select.

We are only doing random select in the interest of time (as I'm organizing a Smash tourney for my school) and thanks for the input, but wouldn't excluding other Omega stages limit the variety due to their different forms?

Btw this is my legal stagelist based on what we know about SmashWiiU so far, we're keeping it conservative due to casuals coming and complaining up a storm because they "lost because of the stage"

-Final Destination and all Omega (Final Destination) forms
-Battlefield
-Smashville
-Town and City
-Lylat Cruise

 

[ParanoidDrone]

We are only doing random select in the interest of time (as I'm organizing a Smash tourney for my school) and thanks for the input, but wouldn't excluding other Omega stages limit the variety due to their different forms?

Btw this is my legal stagelist based on what we know about SmashWiiU so far, we're keeping it conservative due to casuals coming and complaining up a storm because they "lost because of the stage"

-Final Destination and all Omega (Final Destination) forms
-Battlefield
-Smashville
-Town and City
-Lylat Cruise

If you're doing strictly random select, then you either play on nothing but Omegas, or you don't play on them at all. No real middle ground unless you do No Contest when FD is selected and then a random Omega select.

Also the only difference between Omegas is how the under-stage area is shaped. The surface is pure FD no matter which one you're on and IMO it's not enough of a difference to warrant distinguishing between the two for stage selection. If I were in charge of your stage list I'd just forget about Omegas entirely.

 

[Piford]

We are only doing random select in the interest of time (as I'm organizing a Smash tourney for my school) and thanks for the input, but wouldn't excluding other Omega stages limit the variety due to their different forms?

Btw this is my legal stagelist based on what we know about SmashWiiU so far, we're keeping it conservative due to casuals coming and complaining up a storm because they "lost because of the stage"

-Final Destination and all Omega (Final Destination) forms
-Battlefield
-Smashville
-Town and City
-Lylat Cruise

I think if you want to discuss more about the stage list in the Wii U version, you should go to the Stage Analysis and Discussion thread. But I will say that that stage list is way too conservative, and there is no difference between Omega's outside of if they float or have walls.

 

[SpaceJell0]

If you're doing strictly random select, then you either play on nothing but Omegas, or you don't play on them at all. No real middle ground unless you do No Contest when FD is selected and then a random Omega select.

Also the only difference between Omegas is how the under-stage area is shaped. The surface is pure FD no matter which one you're on and IMO it's not enough of a difference to warrant distinguishing between the two for stage selection. If I were in charge of your stage list I'd just forget about Omegas entirely.

I think if you want to discuss more about the stage list in the Wii U version, you should go to the Stage Analysis and Discussion thread. But I will say that that stage list is way too conservative, and there is no difference between Omega's outside of if they float or have walls.

Thanks for your input guys I will go discuss this over in that thread now

 

[chipndip]

I can literally go to anyone in my Smash group and ask them what a neutral stage is and they will list more stages that Final Destination. You can love the definition of the word 'neutral' all you want, but that won't change how we play Smash.

How you play Smash does not tie into how you misinterpret and misuse the English dictionary. If an entire population says "Let's own slaves" or "Polygamy is okie dokie", that doesn't necessarily mean the entire population is a model to go by. Sometimes it takes a minority voice to point out a problem within the majority.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well tonight we have 67 people signed up thus far to try out SSS. I know not everyone will probably check in, but it's still pretty exciting! I hope it goes well in the end!

 

[Crescent_Sun]

How you play Smash does not tie into how you misinterpret and misuse the English dictionary. If an entire population says "Let's own slaves" or "Polygamy is okie dokie", that doesn't necessarily mean the entire population is a model to go by. Sometimes it takes a minority voice to point out a problem within the majority.

Please don't compare polygamy to slavery.

In any case, I see a few TO's saying that they aren't allowing customs because they want to see if they're balanced before allowing them. I'm not sure how much sense this makes, considering that the only way to test their balance is to allow them in a competitive environment. And isolated incidents of brokenness can...well, be isolated through bans. Is the community really against banning things, or do they just prefer blanket bans? It's kind of hard to tell at this point.

 

[Nintendrone]

Please don't compare polygamy to slavery.

In any case, I see a few TO's saying that they aren't allowing customs because they want to see if they're balanced before allowing them. I'm not sure how much sense this makes, considering that the only way to test their balance is to allow them in a competitive environment. And isolated incidents of brokenness can...well, be isolated through bans. Is the community really against banning things, or do they just prefer blanket bans? It's kind of hard to tell at this point.

Really, the community is little more than a massive bandwagon. Blanket bans don't tend to be called for, although they tend to happen in practice. For example, most tournaments will conform to the stagelists of the nationals like APEX/EVO, no matter the reasoning behind stage bans, and then stage liberals have to fight an uphill battle.

As for customs, the community mostly agrees that custom moves add a lot to the game and equipment doesn't so much. The disagreement comes from whether it is worth it, such as the tedious unlocking and potential cheating. It seems to me that 3DS tournaments that disallow them do so out of fear that the entrants lack the moves they want, or that they just wanna imitate For Glory (which tends to also lead to conservative stages and 2 stocks). I'm personally for 3 stocks, a slightly more liberal stagelist, and custom moves allowed.

 

[chipndip]

Please don't compare polygamy to slavery.

In any case, I see a few TO's saying that they aren't allowing customs because they want to see if they're balanced before allowing them. I'm not sure how much sense this makes, considering that the only way to test their balance is to allow them in a competitive environment. And isolated incidents of brokenness can...well, be isolated through bans. Is the community really against banning things, or do they just prefer blanket bans? It's kind of hard to tell at this point.

That wasn't what I was doing, but whatever...

I'd personally prefer to wait and see what the balance patch brings. Then we can truly see what's being watched over in terms of competitive and casual play. If Sakurai truly cares about custom moves in the long run, he'd balance them in these patches. So if he doesn't touch them, we can easily tell their purpose in the game and just move on. Otherwise, we can just go like we've been going.

 

[Nintendrone]

That wasn't what I was doing, but whatever...

I'd personally prefer to wait and see what the balance patch brings. Then we can truly see what's being watched over in terms of competitive and casual play. If Sakurai truly cares about custom moves in the long run, he'd balance them in these patches. So if he doesn't touch them, we can easily tell their purpose in the game and just move on. Otherwise, we can just go like we've been going.

This is honestly a terrible idea. The competitive community has established that it doesn't follow Sakurai's rules. We don't play with 2-min time, items all-medium, all stages on in a free-for-all. We set the rules because we perceive them to foster the greatest test of skill, and the devs gave us so many options because they want us to play the game how we see fit. We have no obligation to hinge on his decisions, so it doesn't matter whether custom moves were "intended" to be balanced; they will be considered for use just the same because they still add to the game in a cool way despite developer intent.

 

[Conda]

This is honestly a terrible idea. The competitive community has established that it doesn't follow Sakurai's rules. We don't play with 2-min time, items all-medium, all stages on in a free-for-all. We set the rules because we perceive them to foster the greatest test of skill, and the devs gave us so many options because they want us to play the game how we see fit. We have no obligation to hinge on his decisions, so it doesn't matter whether custom moves were "intended" to be balanced; they will be considered for use just the same because they still add to the game in a cool way despite developer intent.

I agree. However, if customs are not balance-maintained through the years alongside default specials, then that will be an issue. Not because we listen to sakurai, but because thereIS a designer-granted balance in this iteration of smash, and it will be disrupted if we allow customs that are not balance patched if issues arrive with some of them.

But I assume balance patches will include fixes for some customs if need be and balance tweaks. So its likely not going to be an issue,