Should Halberd be legal? Are Delfino’s tiny blast zones a deal breaker? Are Castle Siege’s walk-offs such a bad feature? We’re here to settle this once and for all; and what other way to do it than through the Smashing Debate! As always, we’re joined by other writers or a special guest to chime in on the subject; today, we are joined by One Hit Smash. But, before we get into discussing, a friendly warning and disclaimer:
WARNING
Salt is a scare commodity in many regions of the world, so it is a good idea not to waste it on a community centered around a game designed for entertainment, and a discussion done just for your enjoyment. You have been warned.
DISCLAIMER
The following article does not reflect the opinion of Smashboards as a whole, nor does it reflect decisions or opinions given by the Back Room. The opinions in this article belong uniquely and only to the ones that express them.
Note: For the sake of the article, we will be using the ruleset used in Genesis 3, which consisted of the following stages: Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, Town & City, and Dreamland 64 as starters and Lylat Cruise and Duck Hunt as counterpicks.
The Issue
Now, normally stages are defined by some characteristics and divided into “Starters”, which are available since the first match, and “Counterpicks” or just “Counters” that are available after the first match. What makes a stage legal? There is a series of guidelines that establish what makes a stage legal; and what defines them as starters or counters? Well, starters normally check all items on the list, but counters are exceptions, whether it is by having walk-offs, having tiny or huge blast zones, etc.
Many discuss some specific cases, like Halberd; which has hazards – that are predictable and can be easily avoided. Others argue about Delfino, which has acceptable layouts – but tiny blast zones, and the majority of its variations have walk-offs. And a recent topic of discussion is Umbra Clock Tower, which has a high ceiling and changing layouts, but some argue that its blast zones are too big, or that the variations are not acceptable.
A topic that is not commonly brought to the table is that whether the list should be divided into starters and counters, or if it should be a full stage list. Both sides bring different perspectives. Also, unconventional rulesets like three-versus-three and four-versus-four are currently in a sort of limbo, as there are not universal rulesets on these categories.
The Perspectives
Since this a very open topic, with many variations, there are no defined perspectives – some think that Halberd should be legal but Umbra should not; other think that Umbra should be and Castle Siege too. So, instead, we’re presenting the case for each controversial stage.
Halberd: Low ceiling, but acceptable layout. For many months Halberd was legal, but there were so many arguments against it. “The Cannon and The Claw are hazards”, “It has walk-offs at the beginning of the match”. You could write a book on the complaints about it, but in the end, it was decided that Halberd's layout was acceptable and many think that the reason that made Halberd become legal, although by a small margin, was that its hazards were predictable.
Castle Siege: Three variations: one with two platforms and a ramp, one with four platforms and walk-offs, and one similar to Final Destination but with an inclination. What made most people hate this stage was its second variation, with incredibly small blast zones and walk-offs. It has no hazards but still, the people against it made a pretty good case against it, specially the second variation. There were also complaints about the transitional layout in between the variations, which had flat ground and walkoffs.
Umbra Clock Tower: A discussion fresh out of the oven. It has 7 different layouts, not including the standard one. One of its variation makes walk-offs, other goes under the main platform making good locations for stalling, and another gives characters with "bombing" throws (i.e. Kirby’s Up-Throw, Meta Knight’s Up-Throw, Charizard’s Up-Throw) the opportunity to get some early kills. Many use these arguments against it, making it seem like a lost cause, but pro-UCT players think that all of these characteristics mix up things, or that don’t matter at all.
Our Opinions
Hangman
The idea of a stage being neutral is false in Smash, in one way or another, a stage will favor certain characters. The only game where this isn’t the case is Smash 64 because it only uses Dreamland and even then, the stage favors characters with better recoveries and aerial options. That’s part of the reason why you only see DK used in the highest skill levels in 64; the work to put in on Dreamland far exceeds that for using a better character if you were at Hyrule Castle.
I feel in Smash 4, the stages are biased towards characters with specific movement options and combos, and the counterpicks only shift the dynamics, but never equalize it. Lylat Cruise is my favorite stage for this reason. It’s an awfully-designed stage and even with the patch to assist with not getting caught in its wings, the stage’s design, low platforms, small blast zones, and occasional tilting make for a completely different mindset you need to play with. It favors punishment over the neutral far more than any other stage because it is so dynamic.
Out of all of the things that make Smash 4 quirky or otherwise unappealing like Rage Effect, comparatively fewer movement options, and (sigh) Bayonetta combos, I feel that the stage list we work with is the worst of the bunch and is something that people don’t really think about. No stage ever really impacts a MU equally, they only make things heavier in the favorable side of the MU and in the case of a ditto or a straight 50-50 it comes down to who can control the stage the best.
3v3 has a shot of picking up if its involved at a major, even if it is a side tourney. The stage list for it is simply greater than what we work with in singles and doubles. 4v4 I feel is too chaotic though. While it is fun, it doesn't have a place where glory or money is on the line.
One Hit Smash
I agree with all of the legal stages as of now, however, there are some I’d like to add to the roster. I feel they’re being treated a little unfairly. First off, I’d like it if T&C were to be moved to a counterpick stage due to its ceiling. That’s the reason most players choose that stage anyways. If it’s neutral, a lot of characters, like Mario or Fox, have the upper hand right at the start.
I feel like Omega stages are being treated VERY unfairly. If you’re going to ban any, ban the ones that have true issues, like Pyrosphere. The Omegas with walls bring more gameplay mechanics into the game, like wall jumping. Allowing players to mix up recovery, and attack options, even teching a meteor! Allow the Omegas with walls to be a counterpick, all other aren’t REQUIRED for a competitive play. Walls just add a new aspect.
A stage I would like to see added BACK to the roster would be Halberd. The stage hazards rarely caused an issue, and it’s very easy to escape the cannonball, block the claw and SDI the laser IF you happen to be hit. The actual stage itself was a nice counterpick, with no walk-offs, hardly any issues, and a nice low ceiling.
Finally, UCT. I truly believe this stage shouldn’t be allowed into the mix. It brings walk-offs into play, encourages platform camping, and has platforms that have walls, allowing for higher damage combos to be easy if the opponent can’t tech. The stage showed promise, but it just doesn’t fit for COMPETITIVE play. However, it’s very fun on its own! Same goes for Delfino, and Castle Siege!
Diosdi
I feel that the stage list is one of the most volatile aspects of the community; just look at the beginning of the Wii U competitive stage list. It had Skyloft and Pilotwings in some communities; now they are nowhere to be seen. I think that the current list is good, including Umbra Clock Tower; I think that it should be allowed. It has acceptable layouts that mix up the normal “three platforms” standard and changes the common uses of platforms. In UCT you never know what you are going to get; there are 7 different layouts appearing randomly before repeating, and the fact that some platforms are solid, or that a platform goes under the main stage, are no reason to ban. I mean, come on, Halberd had a laser and we still kept it for a few months – almost half of the competitive scene’s lifespan.
I think that Castle Siege could be accepted sometimes; whether it is a tournament without DLC, or just wanting to expand the current conception of a stage list, it is acceptable. I think it is, in fact, more decent than Halberd.
The cliché-ish thought of a divided stage list is acceptable, and the not-so-cliche-ish though of a unified stage list is too; but out of the both, I think that the first one is the most fitting for Smash 4. The stages are too unbalanced in the sense that there are some stages that should be by any means starters and deserve to be counters. Do you imagine starting a set in Duck Hunt? Me neither. I’m not saying that unifying the list is “unacceptable”, I think it could work, but I also think that a divided list is more fitting for such a diverse list, with stages that have some definitely-not-starter characteristics.
I think that Omegas are actually decent, from a competitive point of view. They do not change anything from FD, besides the form of the main platform, but they bring variety to the list. Wall jumping is an amazing and underused mechanic in competitive play, whether it is for recovery or offensive purposes.
3v3 and 4v4 open up a lot of stage possibilities, paradoxically, from its limitations. Pyrosphere lacks Ridley, and Norfair’s walls of lava are nowhere to be seen, making them totally viable for a competitive fight, and this is just naming a few.
---
So what do you think? Should Halberd be back in the game? Unified or divided stage list? Are 3v3 and 4v4 viable? Let us know!, and be sure to follow both Hangman and One Hit Smash (and subscribe!)
Last edited:
