Orbital Gate Assault: Is it that bad?

[warriorman222]

This thread is so outrageous. Why should this stage be legalized? Melee has 6 legal stages. That game has been in the competitive scene for over 10 years and still going strong. This game has around 8 legal stages, and the game isn't even a year old. And Yes, by adding another CP stage, you are forcing someone to play on a stage they might not like. The current EVO ruleset lets the winner ban one stage and lets the loser pick from the remaining stages. I personally, would want to ban OGA or Duck Hunt. I might have to play on one of these maps I don't like because of this stage being legal.

That's the point of coutnerpicking. To pick stages that the other player is bad on/don't like. I don't like fighting Sonic. Should we ban him?

And if my thread is outrageous simply because you don't like it, I don't know what to say other than: Stop being rude and read the poll. This isn't about legalisation: it's about consideration. Now could you give reasoning other than "EVO". EVO had to ban quite a few stages because of copyright. You not liking a stage is not a reason to keep it out. And if you use that reasoning, choices stop being primarily made for competition, but rather personal preference. Sure, this stage may never be legal or even considered, but give a reason other than "I didn't like it and EVO doesn't have it."

 

[MajorMajora]

Wow, you can't ban all stages that are good for your opponent? Gasp, it's almost like counter picks give the opponent an advantage!

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Being sarcastic is not the ideal way to try and get your point across.

Sure, counter picks are good to pick a stage you're good on. What's not so good is having stages that opponents can counterpick to so that they can try and outlame their opponent.

 

[MajorMajora]

Wow, you can't ban all stages that are good for your opponent? Gasp, it's almost like counter picks give the opponent an advantage!

Being sarcastic is not the ideal way to try and get your point across.

Sure, counter picks are good to pick a stage you're good on. What's not so good is having stages that opponents can counterpick to so that they can try and outlame their opponent.

…outlame? the heck does that mean? I suppose your saying that the advantages you acquire by understanding the game should be arbitrarily categorized as BS, but honestly, since it's acquired through player skill, it's not BS. It's skill and being outplayed.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Wow, you can't ban all stages that are good for your opponent? Gasp, it's almost like counter picks give the opponent an advantage!


…outlame? the heck does that mean? I suppose your saying that the advantages you acquire by understanding the game should be arbitrarily categorized as BS, but honestly, since it's acquired through player skill, it's not BS. It's skill and being outplayed.

I and others have already gone through why OGA and other stages are prime picks to try and cheese and lame your opponent out since a lot of the gameplay comes from fighting the stage, and the opponent will hope that you get caught up in the stage. Which is not particularly great for competitive smash.

But hey, that's my opinion and you vehemently disagree, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[MajorMajora]

I and others have already gone through why OGA and other stages are prime picks to try and cheese and lame your opponent out since a lot of the gameplay comes from fighting the stage, and the opponent will hope that you get caught up in the stage. Which is not particularly great for competitive smash.

But hey, that's my opinion and you vehemently disagree, so let's just agree to disagree.

Okay, I won't continue if you don't want to.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Okay, I won't continue if you don't want to.

I just feel it's going nowhere at all, and I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you, which is usually the case whenever two opposing parties can't seem to find any common ground.

 

[MajorMajora]

I just feel it's going nowhere at all, and I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you, which is usually the case whenever two opposing parties can't seem to find any common ground.

Oh, no, I understand. I do understand where you're coming from. I wonder how much being a veteran has an effect on these issues. I've noticed a lot of older players being more likely with liberal viewpoints. I think both sides have some sort of bias when it comes to these issues. Not saying it makes either side more correct, just a pattern I've seen, and of course there're exceptions to this.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

Sure would be nice if the Smash community could discuss things without it dissolving into sarcasm fights. On both sides, of course.

Here's the thing with the stage list: does the game currently support a healthy meta-game with the current number of stages, without the addition of OGA? Would tournament attendance be negatively impacted if this stage was added to the list?

I think these are legitimate questions to ask. I'm all in favor of having a wider selection of stages to pick from, but just because we CAN have more stages doesn't mean we should. One of the problems PM faces is that it added, quite literally, too many viable stages. Stages that are way more tame than OGA and go unused simply because the community wanted to trim down the stage list to something more manageable.

Now it's true that Smash 4 is not PM, nor is it Melee, nor is it even Brawl. And it's likely true that it isn't going to harm the metagame if we were to play on it. But does what this stage bring to table accomplish something that we can't already get from Delphino or Skyloft? Once we have multiple stages that do more or less the same thing in different ways, players start having to waste their stage bans to strike unfavorable stages for reasons that they might traditionally have avoided different stages for.

As for tournament attendance, I don't know how much adding this stage would actually impact it. Certainly not to the point that legalizing 75m would, I'm sure. But take a look at the poll again- as of writing, it's about 71% in favor of keeping this stage banned versus close to 29% of testing it for legalization purpose. Again, the minority only wants to test the stage. There's a very good chance that people that agree to test it may walk away feeling like it should stay banned.

Personally speaking, I agree that the stage at least deserves a chance for more testing. And I have played some matches on the stage to get a feel for it, to confirm what the people who have researched it have said is true. That having been said, I still dislike the stage a lot, and I don't think that what it brings to the table is all that necessary to metagame in its current state.

 

[MajorMajora]

Sure would be nice if the Smash community could discuss things without it dissolving into sarcasm fights. On both sides, of course.

Here's the thing with the stage list: does the game currently support a healthy meta-game with the current number of stages, without the addition of OGA? Would tournament attendance be negatively impacted if this stage was added to the list?

I think these are legitimate questions to ask. I'm all in favor of having a wider selection of stages to pick from, but just because we CAN have more stages doesn't mean we should. One of the problems PM faces is that it added, quite literally, too many viable stages. Stages that are way more tame than OGA and go unused simply because the community wanted to trim down the stage list to something more manageable.

Now it's true that Smash 4 is not PM, nor is it Melee, nor is it even Brawl. And it's likely true that it isn't going to harm the metagame if we were to play on it. But does what this stage bring to table accomplish something that we can't already get from Delphino or Skyloft? Once we have multiple stages that do more or less the same thing in different ways, players start having to waste their stage bans to strike unfavorable stages for reasons that they might traditionally have avoided different stages for.

As for tournament attendance, I don't know how much adding this stage would actually impact it. Certainly not to the point that legalizing 75m would, I'm sure. But take a look at the poll again- as of writing, it's about 71% in favor of keeping this stage banned versus close to 29% of testing it for legalization purpose. Again, the minority only wants to test the stage. There's a very good chance that people that agree to test it may walk away feeling like it should stay banned.

Personally speaking, I agree that the stage at least deserves a chance for more testing. And I have played some matches on the stage to get a feel for it, to confirm what the people who have researched it have said is true. That having been said, I still dislike the stage a lot, and I don't think that what it brings to the table is all that necessary to metagame in its current state.

Interesting. I've always felt that the addition of stages make the game deeper, which in turn makes the game more competitive. I always felt it should be innocent until proven guilty and that more is better. You've been the first I'veseen that gives an interesting reason as to why that would be wrong.

I think, however, it would actually add to the game's viewer base. I sometimes get bored of tourney streams due to how everything goes to smashville. But think of it this way: different stages have different traits, which benefit certain characters. lets say there are 3 types of stages: A, B, and C. Smashville/T&C/Battlefield/F are all type A stages. In stage striking, characters who do well on A stages will have the advantage: all others will have to go to an A stage anyways, and so they go to an A stage that gives them less of an advantage then some others but still favors the other character. This is usually smashville. This, along with a lot of other things, always leads to smashville. This is boring and I always want to watch it on another stage to keep things interesting. If we have an expanded stage list, SS will be less likely to default to Smashville. Will people gentleman to it? of course, but less so, and I think that is a significant improvement from a viewer's point of view.

Of course, there are far more reasonable stages to add to the competitive scene before OGA. Wuhu, Skyloft, PS2, Kongo, etc. I think OGA may have its day someday. It depends on how the player base political sphere shifts. If it shifts towards liberalism, we will see more and more stages. f it leans to conservatism, stages may be banned, or at least the increase in stages will cease.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

Making a game more enjoyable for the tournament player and more enjoyable for viewers is another problem that the community needs to face. Honestly speaking, I don't watch very much Melee these days simply because you see so much of the Fox/Falco/Marth/Sheik match ups, and to a lesser extent Jiggs, Peach, and Falcon. I'm more invested when a player such as Bizarro Flame or aMSa step up to the plate just because their characters aren't well represented, and they bring something new to the table. But that said, I still very much enjoy playing Melee, especially in it's competitive incarnation because the movement is fun and fluid, and attacks feel good when linked together properly.

And yeah, I agree that seeing players strike to Smashville nearly every time is an issue for viewers. But I doubt adding another stage to the mix isn't going to change that. When I play Smash 4 in tournament, I usually ban one of two stages- Battlefield, because most of the Dedede board agrees it restricts Dedede's ability to do Dedede things, or Final Destination, because like heck am I going to deal with projectile-heavy characters on these stages. That's assuming the 3 stage starter is in effect. So I usually end up playing on Smashville to begin with. That's not an issue for me as a player, honestly. If I feel that is the starter that will give me the best shot at winning, then that is the stage I want to play on, regardless of if I'm on stream or not.

As a player, I would prefer if the tournament catered to my needs first. As I said in the paragraph above, my first priority as a player is making sure I have access to most of my character's options in a given match-up. Which means striking stages that limit my options. Perhaps if more tournaments accepted the use of a full list striking system? It certainly sounds interesting to me, and I wouldn't be adverse to banning Smashville in that case if I felt I could influence the chance of playing on Delphino, or Halberd, or Lylat Cruise. But that's sort of a different topic entirely from the one currently at hand, eh?

One last thing I'll address since it sort of came up earlier in the thread: it isn't really fair to compare characters and stages as they are inherently different things. When necessary, we should prioritize character interactions versus stage interactions. You can't simply say "ban Mario" even if the majority of the players agreed he wasn't fun to play against. Only in a case when a specific character is so over-centralizing that it reduces unique character interaction to a harmful degree.

Stage interaction IS an important part of Smash, unlike other fighting games. I'm not saying we should minimize the importance of them, but I do still feel they're a notch below character interactions in importance. Stages should facilitate and, in the case of counter-picks, encourage certain types of character interactions. For example, Halberd's low ceiling gives characters with strong vertical finishers an advantage they might not have on Final Destination. If it goes to the point where players are playing the stage more than they are their opponent, then that stage should probably be banned. Does OGA fall under that criteria? I'm inclined to say yes, but that's why we need to test the stage some more.

I'm glad this thread exists though, because it's important for the players to think about why things are the way they are. One big thing I've come to appreciate in my time as a competitive player is how important stage selection is, and even now I'm learning new things about the stages and the types of interactions that can occur on them. So I think I'm finally going to place my vote in favor of testing the stage, as much as I don't like playing on it.

 

[Gawain]

Melee is competitive. It has 6 stages. It is not competitive because it had 6 stages,

Not to mention, so what if you don't want to fight against it? I don't want to play against yoshi. Tough luck. Learn it, cause it's in the game, and there's no reason to ban it. Sure, we don't have any particular reason to keep, say, mario in the game, but we don't ban him because we don't have a reason. Same should apply to stages.

So, that's why.

How does adding more stages which will just get striked every time create a good thing? You wanna know what adding OGA will do? Itll just be the new Lylat and be a waste of a strike. Instead of seeing OGA you'll Just see Lylat a little more often. Addinh more stages does not make the game better. Keep the focus on character skill. No matter how much you try to argue around it, if a a stage requires you to know and focus on the stage as much as your opponent, it's reducing the impact of chacter skill, even if not much. Not a good excuse to expand the stage list if you ask me.

 

[warriorman222]

How does adding more stages which will just get striked every time create a good thing? You wanna know what adding OGA will do? Itll just be the new Lylat and be a waste of a strike. Instead of seeing OGA you'll Just see Lylat a little more often. Addinh more stages does not make the game better. Keep the focus on character skill. No matter how much you try to argue around it, if a a stage requires you to know and focus on the stage as much as your opponent, it's reducing the impact of chacter skill, even if not much. Not a good excuse to expand the stage list if you ask me.

It doesn't require you to focus the stage as much as your opponent. Maybe take the occasional glance at what's happening, but the platform you're on, or worst case scenario the noise or time is usually enough to let you know.

However, this is something that has been argued on forever, and obviously neither side is going to admit they're wrong. Let's just leave it be. It's obviously going nowhere.

 

[erico9001]

The suggestion that Orbital Gate Assault is a viable stage to play on is so absurd to me that it has forced me to focus my thoughts on the underlying reasons we Smash Bros. players have in our decisions about stages. I have found answers.

Dr. Wily's Castle. It appeared promising as a competitive stage, but the reveal of the Yellow Devil caused many disappointment. Why is this? Why is this stage banned? It can be argued that you can easily avoid what the boss fires at you. It's rather predictable. When he transitions from one stage to the other, you just need to make sure to stay out of the middle. Even if you are stuck in the middle, you only take a few damage percents, so it is not a big deal. The blast that is a result of killing the yellow could be seen as a reward to he dominating player, not a true hazard – and again, it can be avoided. You can play competitive matches on this stage. However, the stage is very disliked. Why? The motivation people have to ban this stage is it's annoying. That is the surface reason, at least. Why is it annoying? The style of competition on Dr. Wily's Castle is not the type of competition people are usually looking for when they get involved with competitive Smash Bros. Why? Most competitive players want the game to be between them and their opposing player as much as possible. If not basic, a stage acts as a third variable that interferes with this engagement, just as a CPU or an item does.

There are some who are okay with this style of competition and consider it their own fault if they are killed by the stage. 'I should have known that was coming.' Or, if an unfortunate thing was truly out of their control: 'Oh well, such things are merely a part of the stage, like where the blast zone is positioned.' All that is cared about is that events ARE predictable. However, these people have always been in the minority.

The people from the latter perspective might be comfortable with Orbital Gate Assault. I have seen many of the arguments I used for Wily's Castle used for OGA in this thread. There are a lot of hazards in the level, but they are set, not random, and can be avoided with skill or understanding. Contrarily, the former group would never be fine with the level. The level is really annoying for many different reasons posted even from page 1 in this thread; it would be striked every time. To the strikers, it would be almost like automatically being down one strike which could have been used for another level.

My position: The amount of players that dislike this stage is overwhelming. In The Ultimate Smash 4 Ruleset Poll, 80.4% - about 4/5 people - voted that this stage should just be banned and does not deserve testing. That is more than Norfair (73.1), Kalos Pokemon Region (74.9), Port Town Aero Drive (71.9), Gamer (73.2), Coliseum (63.1), and all other proposed stages. Meanwhile, only 6.7% of people voted for it to be legal between Starter and Counterpick. There is no reason in making everybody in the tournament automatically waste their strike on this stage to satisfy such a small portion of competitive Smash players. Within the very small chance that two people with this opinion truly end up going up against each other in a competitive environment, if they really want OGA (which is not even guaranteed by them thinking it should be legal), they may use the Gentleman's rule.

 

[MajorMajora]

How does adding more stages which will just get striked every time create a good thing? You wanna know what adding OGA will do? Itll just be the new Lylat and be a waste of a strike. Instead of seeing OGA you'll Just see Lylat a little more often. Addinh more stages does not make the game better. Keep the focus on character skill. No matter how much you try to argue around it, if a a stage requires you to know and focus on the stage as much as your opponent, it's reducing the impact of chacter skill, even if not much. Not a good excuse to expand the stage list if you ask me.

Well, I'm not advocating the addition of just OGA, I'm advocating OGA+other stages being added as eel as FLSS. Which, yes, will significantly decrease the number of times defaulting to smashville occurs, which is good because it makes things more interesting for the viewer.

and @ erico9001 I believed the main reason against yellow devil is that, while predictable, there is a level of randomness to many of his moves that make it impractical to predict. In all honesty, If it was entirely predictable and utilizable, then I say it has the right to be allowed. If it was completely fair, it should be allowed. Your argument boils down to "I don't wanna". Yes, well I don't wanna play against rosalina and Luma since I have to think in a completely new way and focus on things I don't normally have to. And most people don't play her, they are in the minority. That is no reason to ban her, though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The suggestion that Orbital Gate Assault is a viable stage to play on is so absurd to me that it has forced me to focus my thoughts on the underlying reasons we Smash Bros. players have in our decisions about stages. I have found answers.

Dr. Wily's Castle. It appeared promising as a competitive stage, but the reveal of the Yellow Devil caused many disappointment. Why is this? Why is this stage banned? It can be argued that you can easily avoid what the boss fires at you. It's rather predictable. When he transitions from one stage to the other, you just need to make sure to stay out of the middle. Even if you are stuck in the middle, you only take a few damage percents, so it is not a big deal. The blast that is a result of killing the yellow could be seen as a reward to he dominating player, not a true hazard – and again, it can be avoided. You can play competitive matches on this stage. However, the stage is very disliked. Why? The motivation people have to ban this stage is it's annoying. That is the surface reason, at least. Why is it annoying? The style of competition on Dr. Wily's Castle is not the type of competition people are usually looking for when they get involved with competitive Smash Bros. Why? Most competitive players want the game to be between them and their opposing player as much as possible. If not basic, a stage acts as a third variable that interferes with this engagement, just as a CPU or an item does.

There are some who are okay with this style of competition and consider it their own fault if they are killed by the stage. 'I should have known that was coming.' Or, if an unfortunate thing was truly out of their control: 'Oh well, such things are merely a part of the stage, like where the blast zone is positioned.' All that is cared about is that events ARE predictable. However, these people have always been in the minority.

The people from the latter perspective might be comfortable with Orbital Gate Assault. I have seen many of the arguments I used for Wily's Castle used for OGA in this thread. There are a lot of hazards in the level, but they are set, not random, and can be avoided with skill or understanding. Contrarily, the former group would never be fine with the level. The level is really annoying for many different reasons posted even from page 1 in this thread; it would be striked every time. To the strikers, it would be almost like automatically being down one strike which could have been used for another level.

My position: The amount of players that dislike this stage is overwhelming. In The Ultimate Smash 4 Ruleset Poll, 80.4% - about 4/5 people - voted that this stage should just be banned and does not deserve testing. That is more than Norfair (73.1), Kalos Pokemon Region (74.9), Port Town Aero Drive (71.9), Gamer (73.2), Coliseum (63.1), and all other proposed stages. Meanwhile, only 6.7% of people voted for it to be legal between Starter and Counterpick. There is no reason in making everybody in the tournament automatically waste their strike on this stage to satisfy such a small portion of competitive Smash players. Within the very small chance that two people with this opinion truly end up going up against each other in a competitive environment, if they really want OGA (which is not even guaranteed by them thinking it should be legal), they may use the Gentleman's rule.

I think this is a good summary. I am firmly in the latter minority group that's fine with parts of the stage interfering. This is mostly because there are a grand total of 3 completely static stages in the entire series that I can think of: Battlefield, Final Destination, and Temple. Now, Temple is banned for entirely unrelated reasons, but the fact that BF/FD are the only other static stages we have implies to me that it's very much worth the effort to learn how to deal with dynamic stage features. I suppose the time I spent researching all of them gives me a different perspective than most -- I already know on a basic level what nearly every stage hazard in the game will do.

tl;dr You're probably right.

Yes, well I don't wanna play against rosalina and Luma since I have to think in a completely new way and focus on things I don't normally have to. And most people don't play her, they are in the minority. That is no reason to ban her, though.

*waves merrily*
*Sassalina(TM) "mm-hmm" taunt*

 

[RayNoire]

IIRC, the Yellow Devil is completely predictable save for who he targets, which most have already decided isn't a dealbreaker (Halberd).

 

[MajorMajora]

IIRC, the Yellow Devil is completely predictable save for who he targets, which most have already decided isn't a dealbreaker (Halberd).

The main problem is where he lands. You know where he lands, but whether it's the right or left of the stage is impossible to say until the first hotbox is almost unavoidable.

 

[erico9001]

and @ erico9001 I believed the main reason against yellow devil is that, while predictable, there is a level of randomness to many of his moves that make it impractical to predict. In all honesty, If it was entirely predictable and utilizable, then I say it has the right to be allowed. If it was completely fair, it should be allowed. Your argument boils down to "I don't wanna". Yes, well I don't wanna play against rosalina and Luma since I have to think in a completely new way and focus on things I don't normally have to. And most people don't play her, they are in the minority. That is no reason to ban her, though.

Your source for arguing against Yellow Devil is that there are random parts. While I do not think the level is really that random from my own inspection, that you argue against it through randomness supports my statement about this group's reasoning.

For ease, I'm going to refer to the groups as this:
Party 1 = more likely to be okay with various stages
Party 2 = less likely to be okay with various stages

It is true that want underlies party 2's decision, but it is the same for party 1. There can be legitimate reason to want, and the two parties hold different reasons. There are also other things to consider like whether a stage actually functions – *cough, Palutena's Temple*, but that is universal. I'm mostly focusing on the difference between the two parties.

Party 1's focus is they do not want randomness to be a major factor in the battle. Even if something does severely affect battle between two players, if it is predictable, then it is the players' tasks to know it and prevent it. Things which are random and have potential to hurt players, like CPUs, items, and the various things which occur on Flat Zone X, are not appreciated. Randomness is annoying, and not what party 1 looks for in this game. They want the outcome of the game to resemble a random number generator as little as possible, because randomness limits potential and the measuring of skill. Of course, if something random does not actually affect the game much at all (balloons on Smashville), then it does not matter. If randomness is the key factor, then something like a walk-off might not seem so bad.

Party 2's focus is different. While this group probably shares in the opinion about randomness, if something severely affects battle between two players, it does not matter if it is random or not. CPUs and items are random, but they also get in the way of what matters: this is a battle between him and me. The stage is merely a necessary medium through which this battle must take place. It does not matter where the battle is, except each players does aim to acquire the greater advantage through their striking. It usually ends up on Smashville, because it happens to usually not heavily favor one of the players. Smashville has a moving platform, but it does not really change the manner in which Smash Bros. is played. It's the same game. With walk-offs, it's a completely different game (which doesn't really utilize the skills you learn too much). With stages like OGA, now it's somewhat of a memory game. You have to be here at this time, do this at this time, etc. Those sorts of things are distractions from what the player cares about - beating the other human sitting next them (or far away if playing online ). From this perspective, hazards skew the results over who the better player is, like randomness.

I do not believe there is a right side here. They are just different ways to play the game from different opinions on what matters. I am party 2, but I think many people with the same perspective are wrong about what actually is a serious hazard and what is not. For that reason, I actually agree with some of the stages that party 1 people support while I want to ban some stages that party 2 people support. I do see purely transitional stages as a valid compromise between both parties - as they do not really change how the game is played (for party 2) but offer the variety party 1 looks for.

However, when it comes down to practice over which stage list should be used, the situation is that party 2 usually wins. As I said in my previous post, the perspective is held by the majority of people. Party 2 naturally will be more used if it is the majority of people. In addition, the people in party 1 are still fine with playing on the stages which party 2 likes. It would be different if party 1 was absolutely not fine with playing any of the stages party 2 uses, like Battlefield and Smashville, but party 1 actually is fine with all of those stages. They are not random. Therefore, there is much less conflict over stages when a tournament consisting of both party 1 and party 2 people is using a party 2 stage list instead of a party 1 list. This would be the case even if party 1 had the same amount of people as party 2. Of course, if two people really do want to play on a stage, they can. Two people can decide to do whatever they want to pick a stage during most tournaments, so if they are both party 1, they can use a party 1 stage system if they communicate to each other.

 

[MajorMajora]

Your source for arguing against Yellow Devil is that there are random parts. While I do not think the level is really that random from my own inspection, that you argue against it through randomness supports my statement about this group's reasoning.

For ease, I'm going to refer to the groups as this:
Party 1 = more likely to be okay with various stages
Party 2 = less likely to be okay with various stages

It is true that want underlies party 2's decision, but it is the same for party 1. There can be legitimate reason to want, and the two parties hold different reasons. There are also other things to consider like whether a stage actually functions – *cough, Palutena's Temple*, but that is universal. I'm mostly focusing on the difference between the two parties.

Party 1's focus is they do not want randomness to be a major factor in the battle. Even if something does severely affect battle between two players, if it is predictable, then it is the players' tasks to know it and prevent it. Things which are random and have potential to hurt players, like CPUs, items, and the various things which occur on Flat Zone X, are not appreciated. Randomness is annoying, and not what party 1 looks for in this game. They want the outcome of the game to resemble a random number generator as little as possible, because randomness limits potential and the measuring of skill. Of course, if something random does not actually affect the game much at all (balloons on Smashville), then it does not matter. If randomness is the key factor, then something like a walk-off might not seem so bad.

Party 2's focus is different. While this group probably shares in the opinion about randomness, if something severely affects battle between two players, it does not matter if it is random or not. CPUs and items are random, but they also get in the way of what matters: this is a battle between him and me. The stage is merely a necessary medium through which this battle must take place. It does not matter where the battle is, except each players does aim to acquire the greater advantage through their striking. It usually ends up on Smashville, because it happens to usually not heavily favor one of the players. Smashville has a moving platform, but it does not really change the manner in which Smash Bros. is played. It's the same game. With walk-offs, it's a completely different game (which doesn't really utilize the skills you learn too much). With stages like OGA, now it's somewhat of a memory game. You have to be here at this time, do this at this time, etc. Those sorts of things are distractions from what the player cares about - beating the other human sitting next them (or far away if playing online ). From this perspective, hazards skew the results over who the better player is, like randomness.

I do not believe there is a right side here. They are just different ways to play the game from different opinions on what matters. I am party 2, but I think many people with the same perspective are wrong about what actually is a serious hazard and what is not. For that reason, I actually agree with some of the stages that party 1 people support while I want to ban some stages that party 2 people support. I do see purely transitional stages as a valid compromise between both parties - as they do not really change how the game is played (for party 2) but offer the variety party 1 looks for.

However, when it comes down to practice over which stage list should be used, the situation is that party 2 usually wins. As I said in my previous post, the perspective is held by the majority of people. Party 2 naturally will be more used if it is the majority of people. In addition, the people in party 1 are still fine with playing on the stages which party 2 likes. It would be different if party 1 was absolutely not fine with playing any of the stages party 2 uses, like Battlefield and Smashville, but party 1 actually is fine with all of those stages. They are not random. Therefore, there is much less conflict over stages when a tournament consisting of both party 1 and party 2 people is using a party 2 stage list instead of a party 1 list. This would be the case even if party 1 had the same amount of people as party 2. Of course, if two people really do want to play on a stage, they can. Two people can decide to do whatever they want to pick a stage during most tournaments, so if they are both party 1, they can use a party 1 stage system if they communicate to each other.

This was all very well thought out, and I agree with you on many points, but I'd like to argue a counter point or 2.

First of all, I have a problem with the concept of appealing to the majority. I understand that there is a majority and that the majority wins, but I don't see that as a logical reason as to why something shouldn't happen, just why it doesn't.

Second, I do believe that a large portion of the size of the conservative side has more to do with an issue of education and conditioning rather than simple inherent differences like you say they are. Not saying that has nothing to do with it, but it might not have everything to do with it.

Let's start with the conditioning part. Smash as a series, in its competitive form, is a story of removing things to better fit a competitive environment. We limit ourselves to stock with time, remove items, and, of course, create stage lists. People would, naturally, see this as an improvement. And a net improvement was had, no doubt. But people seem to associate anything foreign as undoing that progress, when in reality there was some babies thrown out with the bathwater. I think it's beneficial to try to fish out those babies, but not everyone agrees whether certain stages are babies or if they are bathwater (Aaaaaaand now the analogy has gone to far).

It's also a matter of education. @ ParanoidDrone once said that the people who are in favor of certain stages being legalized are the ones who know the most about them, and the ones against them tend to know the least. No, there are plenty of exceptions (you included), but it's easy to see that the likeliness someone will support certain stages increases with the amount of experience they have with it, which implies its validity is greater than the common consensus.

 

[Staticky]

Melee is competitive. It has 6 stages. It is not competitive because it had 6 stages,

Not to mention, so what if you don't want to fight against it? I don't want to play against yoshi. Tough luck. Learn it, cause it's in the game, and there's no reason to ban it. Sure, we don't have any particular reason to keep, say, mario in the game, but we don't ban him because we don't have a reason. Same should apply to stages.

So, that's why.

"Melee is competitive. It has 6 stages. It is not competitive because it had 6 stages"
I guess you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Don't fix what isn't broken. Melee has lasted so long with so little stages, we haven't been playing this game for even a year yet. Why would anyone push for more stages when we have so many already? We don't need more legal stages to keep this game alive.

"Sure, we don't have any particular reason to keep, say, mario in the game, but we don't ban him because we don't have a reason"
You can't compare characters to stages at all. No one plays as a stage, so no one is punished for a stage being banned. Also, Out of 49 playable characters 0 have been banned. Out of 46 stages about 40 have been banned. This comparison is not fair whatsoever.

The reason I get so frustrated with this thread is because we already have enough controversy over this game with custom moves, 3-stock/2-stock, stage bans etc. Should we really be arguing over a stage with such a minuscule chance of being legal?

 

[MajorMajora]

"Melee is competitive. It has 6 stages. It is not competitive because it had 6 stages"
I guess you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Don't fix what isn't broken. Melee has lasted so long with so little stages, we haven't been playing this game for even a year yet. Why would anyone push for more stages when we have so many already? We don't need more legal stages to keep this game alive.

"Sure, we don't have any particular reason to keep, say, mario in the game, but we don't ban him because we don't have a reason"
You can't compare characters to stages at all. No one plays as a stage, so no one is punished for a stage being banned. Also, Out of 49 playable characters 0 have been banned. Out of 46 stages about 40 have been banned. This comparison is not fair whatsoever.

The reason I get so frustrated with this thread is because we already have enough controversy over this game with custom moves, 3-stock/2-stock, stage bans etc. Should we really be arguing over a stage with such a minuscule chance of being legal?

I don't see any reason to not improve. And it is broken. People constantly complain about all matches being on smashville. I, as a viewer, find it boring enough to sometimes keep me from watching streams. And I adore Smash 4 competitively. Just because something isn't entirely broken doesn't mean parts aren't broken.

Playing as or on characters/stages isn't enough of a difference to dismiss any similarities the 2 have. You practice as a character, you practice on a stage. You are good at the ones you practice with. One being banned directly effects the player who practiced on it. The main difference is that both players have to play on the same stage, but can play as different characters. Because of this, stage striking is a thing, as are bans during the counter-pick process. None of these are justifications for not having a stage available to those who want to learn it because not everyone wants to learn it.

 

[Rikkhan]

@ MajorMajora
I'm sorry if this sound offensive but I'm going to be completely honest, I feel liberals like you want to add new things to the game just because its cool to have new things and maybe things will be more interesting, not because this will improve the competitive scene.
I have seen many other threads about stages and rules and it's always the same group of people defending them, every single of them, this sounds very biased to me its like they want to add stages just for the sake of adding stages and it's hard to take their arguments serious.

I'm not against adding new stages, actually I like to see more variety but OGA it's just absurd...

pd: sorry english is not my native language

 

[MajorMajora]

@ MajorMajora
I'm sorry if this sound offensive but I'm going to be completely honest, I feel liberals like you want to add new things to the game just because its cool to have new things and maybe things will be more interesting not because this will improve the competitive scene.
I have seen many other threads about stages and rules and it's always the same group of people defending them, every single of them, this sounds very biased to me its like they want to add stages just for the sake of adding stages and it's hard to take their arguments serious.

I'm not against adding new stages, actually I like to see more variety but OGA it's just absurd...

I won't lie, there's some truth to what you say. I do want as many stages to be added as possible. My philosophy isn't necessarily on a case by case basis, but an innocent until proven guilty basis. I do believe there is inherent value to adding more stages. I believe adding more stages will increase the depth of the game, and the added variety will increase its appeal as a spectator sport. One of the big criticisms of smash 4 as a spectator sport is that too many matches are on smashville. And from experience, I agree that it gets dull. Adding more stages won't remove this issue, but it will fix it. And if there is one more degree by which a player can express their mastery of the game, that makes it more competitive. I definitely think it makes a lot more sense than not adding stages for the sake of not adding stages )an argument I've actually heard).

And don't worry, I'm not offended. I completely understand how you can,me to that conclusion.

 

[Staticky]

I don't see any reason to not improve. And it is broken. People constantly complain about all matches being on smashville. I, as a viewer, find it boring enough to sometimes keep me from watching streams. And I adore Smash 4 competitively. Just because something isn't entirely broken doesn't mean parts aren't broken.

Playing as or on characters/stages isn't enough of a difference to dismiss any similarities the 2 have. You practice as a character, you practice on a stage. You are good at the ones you practice with. One being banned directly effects the player who practiced on it. The main difference is that both players have to play on the same stage, but can play as different characters. Because of this, stage striking is a thing, as are bans during the counter-pick process. None of these are justifications for not having a stage available to those who want to learn it because not everyone wants to learn it.

I could see why you might not like seeing so many matches being played on smashville. Stages that mix up combat can be good. I don't have a problem with that. The thing is, this game has so little stages that can do this and still be fair. No audience or player wants to see a kill at low percents by a cheesy backthrow on Delfino's walkoffs. It's just cringy and could make a lot of newcomers rethink their decision to play the game competitively. That's a little dramatic but it's not far from the truth. I'd rather watch American Ninja Warrior than Wipeout. It showcases the contestants talent rather than how many times they get a ball thrown in their face in the middle of the course.

Regarding the stage-character comparison, I could understand where you are coming from, but "learning a stage" is extremely easy. I could sit down right now and learn OGA in under 2 hours, while a character can take years to perfect. The reason many of us are against this stage and stages like it aren't because we don't want to learn it, I would be perfectly fine with that. I could use new strategies and tactics on this stage, but "dumb" and "cheap" things will still happen all the time. I could learn Town and City so well, but it won't stop me from getting grabbed on the platform at the wrong time. These kind of stage deaths make players and viewers cringe. They just don't work out for the most part.

 

[MajorMajora]

I could see why you might not like seeing so many matches being played on smashville. Stages that mix up combat can be good. I don't have a problem with that. The thing is, this game has so little stages that can do this and still be fair. No audience or player wants to see a kill at low percents by a cheesy backthrow on Delfino's walkoffs. It's just cringy and could make a lot of newcomers rethink their decision to play the game competitively. That's a little dramatic but it's not far from the truth. I'd rather watch American Ninja Warrior than Wipeout. It showcases the contestants talent rather than how many times they get a ball thrown in their face in the middle of the course.

Regarding the stage-character comparison, I could understand where you are coming from, but "learning a stage" is extremely easy. I could sit down right now and learn OGA in under 2 hours, while a character can take years to perfect. The reason many of us are against this stage and stages like it aren't because we don't want to learn it, I would be perfectly fine with that. I could use new strategies and tactics on this stage, but "dumb" and "cheap" things will still happen all the time. I could learn Town and City so well, but it won't stop me from getting grabbed on the platform at the wrong time. These kind of stage deaths make players and viewers cringe. They just don't work out for the most part.

@ erico9001 I think this is a good example of someone who doesn't fit into your 2 categories.

Let me start with your concern about randomness in a match. OGA is not random. Many stages we advocate are far from random. You express concern over things being 'fair', but when it comes down to it the stage is the same for both players. If a player derives an advantage from a stage, it is because of their own skill.

Another thing you express concern about are kills that are "cheap" and "dumb". You fail to give a good definition for such vague terminology, so I'll just use the examples you give to infer a definition. Let's say the definition is "Kills that occur at a significantly low percent than is normally expected". This occurs on 'regular' stages all the time. Gimps, combos into the blast zone, SD's. It's nothing new, so I don't se show it's ban-worthy.

And about learning characters vs stages: I have to disagree quite a bit. It takes about 2 hours to learn a character as well. To learn the hitboxes, to learn the timings of when moves come out, to learn what moves kill, etc. takes about 2 hours, probably less. Of course, they also take far longer to master, but the same applies to stages. What cool tricks you can do, timings down to the second, places that give you advantages at specific times in the transitions, that takes a lot of practice. I'm sure new things will be discovered over the years, as well. I'd say stages and characters are pretty comparable in this regard.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Another thing you express concern about are kills that are "cheap" and "dumb". You fail to give a good definition for such vague terminology, so I'll just use the examples you give to infer a definition. Let's say the definition is "Kills that occur at a significantly low percent than is normally expected". This occurs on 'regular' stages all the time. Gimps, combos into the blast zone, SD's. It's nothing new, so I don't se show it's ban-worthy.

Case in point:

 

[Rikkhan]

@ MajorMajora
IMO stages are not even close to be the problem of smash 4, the biggest problem is low competitivity (Zero making everyone look like a scrub) and boring matches (campy Rosalina, Olimar, Sonic, etc), basically a falcon main winning evo will become the savior of smash 4 .

 

[Pyr]

@ MajorMajora
IMO stages are not even close to be the problem of smash 4, the biggest problem is low competitivity (Zero making everyone look like a scrub) and boring matches (campy Rosalina, Olimar, Sonic, etc), basically a falcon main winning evo will become the savior of smash 4 .

So all the biggest problems are purely subjective? Not that bad tbh.

@ erico9001

This occurs on 'regular' stages all the time. Gimps, combos into the blast zone, SD's. It's nothing new, so I don't se show it's ban-worthy.

I think the issue that is seen is that those occurrences are completely within player control, while stage-related things aren't always, or are significantly harder to be controlled/polarizing in how they are controlled.

 

[MajorMajora]

So all the biggest problems are purely subjective? Not that bad tbh.



I think the issue that is seen is that those occurrences are completely within player control, while stage-related things aren't always, or are significantly harder to be controlled/polarizing in how they are controlled.

Yeah, the things that a lot of the time they are. Saying they are outside player control indicates randomness, but here we have aa thread on OGA, one of the least random stages in smash 4.

 

[Staticky]

Case in point:

Despite what you may think this supports my claim. Smashville is overall a very balanced stage. Stuff like this would happen all the time if you play on maps such as OGA. It's just not fun to see.

 

[Spark31]

The question is not "Is this stage viable for tournament play" it is "will adding the stage be good for the metagame". Even if the answer to the first question is yes, if the second question is no, then it doesn't matter in the end. However, I feel like this thread is a good experiment and place to start to have discussions about the latter question.

 

[Staticky]

@ erico9001 I think this is a good example of someone who doesn't fit into your 2 categories.

Let me start with your concern about randomness in a match. OGA is not random. Many stages we advocate are far from random. You express concern over things being 'fair', but when it comes down to it the stage is the same for both players. If a player derives an advantage from a stage, it is because of their own skill.

Another thing you express concern about are kills that are "cheap" and "dumb". You fail to give a good definition for such vague terminology, so I'll just use the examples you give to infer a definition. Let's say the definition is "Kills that occur at a significantly low percent than is normally expected". This occurs on 'regular' stages all the time. Gimps, combos into the blast zone, SD's. It's nothing new, so I don't se show it's ban-worthy.

And about learning characters vs stages: I have to disagree quite a bit. It takes about 2 hours to learn a character as well. To learn the hitboxes, to learn the timings of when moves come out, to learn what moves kill, etc. takes about 2 hours, probably less. Of course, they also take far longer to master, but the same applies to stages. What cool tricks you can do, timings down to the second, places that give you advantages at specific times in the transitions, that takes a lot of practice. I'm sure new things will be discovered over the years, as well. I'd say stages and characters are pretty comparable in this regard.

Gimps, combos into the blast zone, and SDs all rely on player failure or success. Coincidental stage interference's don't reflect on the player vs player. And purposeful stage interference's (grabbing someone on town and city platform) are "cheap". Why? Because it is a subtle mistake from your opponent, resulting in a complete stock loss. Stage kills like the Town and City example aren't reflective on the true nature of competitive Smash IMO. Normally, when you make a mistake,(miss a move etc) the other player get's to "punish" you. If that player is skilled, he get a good amount of damage or a kill at high percents. If that player is lucky, he can use your position on the stage to kill you in one grab or throw. Maybe that punished player shouldn't have tried a kill move in that part of the stage. Ok, I have no problem with this, but then how is he supposed to get the kill if the opponent is camping there the whole game? Not only are these stages cheap, but also campy. I would camp OGA until I got past the tunnel if I was playing a character with a bad recover. I wouldn't want to be thrown off the Arwings at mid percents and not be able to recover.

Characters have many combos, approaches, and different techniques to learn. Stages require knowledge of the ledges, transformations, and random tricks to use. Not that there are too many tricks to use in general. With characters, not only do I have to know combos and approaches at different percents, but also be able to execute all of these.

 

[erico9001]

@ erico9001 I think this is a good example of someone who doesn't fit into your 2 categories.

He's pretty concerned about deaths occurring as a result of the stage, or the stage controlling the match. He wants the match to be between the players without the stage being a major variable. As I see it, he is definitely party 2.

This was all very well thought out, and I agree with you on many points, but I'd like to argue a counter point or 2.

First of all, I have a problem with the concept of appealing to the majority. I understand that there is a majority and that the majority wins, but I don't see that as a logical reason as to why something shouldn't happen, just why it doesn't.

Yeah, that's true. In real life, there are a lot of subjects where I think the majority opinion really ought to be the minority. I want it to change some day, because the majority opinion is wrong. When I was a leader of something in the past, I occasionally placed my opinion over popular opinion for the better of the group. It is morally fine to do so; however, the level of conflict needs to be considered. If too contrary, some decisions may cause too much upset for the community. With apprehension of that happening, it is in best interest to do more towards what is popular. In the case of OGA...

It's just that if I introduce it as one at my locals, most of the regulars will just stop coming.

There are plenty of other stages that could be introduced with very little conflict.
-

Second, I do believe that a large portion of the size of the conservative side has more to do with an issue of education and conditioning rather than simple inherent differences like you say they are. Not saying that has nothing to do with it, but it might not have everything to do with it.
(...)
It's also a matter of education. @ ParanoidDrone once said that the people who are in favor of certain stages being legalized are the ones who know the most about them, and the ones against them tend to know the least. No, there are plenty of exceptions (you included), but it's easy to see that the likeliness someone will support certain stages increases with the amount of experience they have with it, which implies its validity is greater than the common consensus.

I see it! a very solid reason for this. If you do not know how a stage like OGA functions, it is completely random to you. There's no prediction of what is going to happen. People in party 1 do not like randomness. Therefore, for a person to even qualify to hold a party 1 position, it is a requirement that they know the stage is not random. A party 1 person must be educated about the stage. A party 2 person does not even need to know if a hazard is random or not for them to dislike it – so there is plainly no reason for them to learn as many of the details. They can know their perspective on legality from merely a few seconds looking at the stage. It is all that is needed.

Let's start with the conditioning part. Smash as a series, in its competitive form, is a story of removing things to better fit a competitive environment. We limit ourselves to stock with time, remove items, and, of course, create stage lists. People would, naturally, see this as an improvement. And a net improvement was had, no doubt. But people seem to associate anything foreign as undoing that progress, when in reality there was some babies thrown out with the bathwater. I think it's beneficial to try to fish out those babies, but not everyone agrees whether certain stages are babies or if they are bathwater (Aaaaaaand now the analogy has gone to far).

Heh, I agree here, but from a party 2 perspective. People are seeing things as 'janky' when they are not, and are somehow missing the 'janky' things that we already have legal! I think we need to both save the drowning babies and toss out some more bathwater at the same time XD. I guess that makes me a liberal party 2 person

 

[MajorMajora]

He's pretty concerned about deaths occurring as a result of the stage, or the stage controlling the match. He wants the match to be between the players without the stage being a major variable. As I see it, he is definitely party 2.
Yeah, that's true. In real life, there are a lot of subjects where I think the majority opinion really ought to be the minority. I want it to change some day, because the majority opinion is wrong. When I was a leader of something in the past, I occasionally placed my opinion over popular opinion for the better of the group. It is morally fine to do so; however, the level of conflict needs to be considered. If too contrary, some decisions may cause too much upset for the community. With apprehension of that happening, it is in best interest to do more towards what is popular. In the case of OGA... There are plenty of other stages that could be introduced with very little conflict.
-
I see it! a very solid reason for this. If you do not know how a stage like OGA functions, it is completely random to you. There's no prediction of what is going to happen. People in party 1 do not like randomness. Therefore, for a person to even qualify to hold a party 1 position, it is a requirement that they know the stage is not random. A party 1 person must be educated about the stage. A party 2 person does not even need to know if a hazard is random or not for them to dislike it – so there is plainly no reason for them to learn as many of the details. They can know their perspective on legality from merely a few seconds looking at the stage. It is all that is needed.
Heh, I agree here, but from a party 2 perspective. People are seeing things as 'janky' when they are not, and are somehow missing the 'janky' things that we already have legal! I think we need to both save the drowning babies and toss out some more bathwater at the same time XD. I guess that makes me a liberal party 2 person

Strange, when I read his posts, he seemed to directly complain more about randomness. Oh, and @ Staticky In these stages those deaths tend to be because of the player vs. player, because one player takes advantage of what the stage provides and runs the opponent into a bad position. If someone does die because of a stage, though, not involving player vs player, I'd lump that into the same category as SD's. You don't ban stages with ledges just because sheik sometimes uses her side B instead of her Up B. I do agree OGA may have some issues with camping, though I'd rather see them in practice before I make judgement.

Anyways, I'm really curious as to what your ideal stage list is, @ erico9001 . You seem to be quite educated in this topic, and I'm curious to hear your point of view (unless that would be getting off topic. I suppose you could always PM me if you'd rather).

 

[RayNoire]

Actually, after testing this stage, it's not that bad. It looks a lot worse than it is because there's a lot of explosions that don't actually have hitboxes.

It's better than Halberd and Castle Siege at least.

 

[clydeaker]

I don't think the hazards are that bad, the transitions are somewhat of an issue though.
I think this could become a decent counter pick in an experimental tournament or a slightly less competitive tournament and because of that I voted yes.

 

[MajorMajora]

Actually, after testing this stage, it's not that bad. It looks a lot worse than it is because there's a lot of explosions that don't actually have hitboxes.

It's better than Halberd and Castle Siege at least.

couldn't quite say that much. I do worry it has some strong camping positions in it, but I do agree it's less random than halberd.

 

[erico9001]

Battlefield, FD, KJ64, Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege, T&C, Smashville, Duck Hunt, Skyloft, and Wuhu Island should all be legal.

There is no reason for counterpicks, from what I have seen. If there is a need, I guess we would go with the usual starters with the rest of these counterpick.

Omegas need to be allowed, somehow. I know many tournaments are working them in already.

Custom stages are an area of interest, but we need to figure out what is going on with non-custom stages before we start trying to work these in. They might not even add much of anything.

BF: Nothing wrong with it. Platforms benefit some more than others. Late kill percents.

FD: Plain stage, nothing wrong with it.

KJ64: I thought cannon stalling was an issue, but I discovered today that it is not. When you look into the good and bad stages for those characters that can cannon stall, striking the level against them will not lead to bad results.

Problem 1 seems way too circumstantial to matter.
1) Your character must have low recovery and you are utilizing it
2) The barrel must be in that exact position
3) It must be facing upside down
4) The camera must be hiding it, else you would know (and if you're recovering low, the camera would normally follow you)
Yeah, if it's really needed, you can just play in fixed camera mode. But... that's not going to ever really be needed .

So, problem 2...

Initially, I thought being out of a stage strike for these character would stink. However, on closer inspection, these 4 characters do not benefit insanely from other specific stages. You don't need to ban Delfino or Halberd, because the characters do not benefit from the low ceilings.

Against Jigglypuff, you'll want to ban KJ64 and Battlefield. All the others are relatively neutral. Source. Despite what you may think about Rest, Jigglypuff actually does not like low ceilings.

Peach you probably want to ban the same stages as Jiggs, and you'll be fine. Source

Villager is a bit different with this. Source. He likes Battlefield/Lylat Cruise a lot. At the start of the thread, there was some people saying KJ64 was actually bad for Villager, but later some saying it's decent for him. Stalling with the cannon was never brought up in the thread, though.

Kirby does not have much information on stages at all. They have a long MU/Stage discussion thread, but in the past, when I went through it all, I only really picked up that Battlefield seems good and T&C might be bad. Then, the only other information is either about 3ds stages or that apparently, Kirby can get some early U-throw kills off KJ64, T&C, and Duck Hunt? I'm not sure if that is something Kirby really looks for or something. Well, I guess you may have wanted to ban KJ64 already to begin with.

Coincidentally, KJ64 + Battlefield seem like the best choices for striking with all 4 characters. Of course, this depends on what character you yourself use. Interestingly, the only character mains that appear to be aware of the cannon stalling are Jigglypuff mains, right now.

The only character of these 4 that banning KJ64 might be a bad idea is Villager. If they do not know about the cannon stalling or consider the stage to be bad for them, striking the stage might be a waste when you could have striked either Battlefield or Lylat instead. If your tournament allows 3 strikes during counterpicking, then it is no decision at all. Otherwise, you might have to either let Villager play on a stage he likes or risk the small chance that he would know about cannon stalling, would actually do it, and would have the circumstances necessary to actually use it.

From what I have found today, my worries over having this stage legal have completely vanished. There is no reason to have this stage banned whatsoever. In practice with the striking system, cannon stalling presents no issue for the players at all.

Note:
I would like to note that a character will simply pass through the cannon if another is already in it. If a character commits too largely to the cannon stalling, the character might not be able to make it back to the stage without using the cannon. In that case, you could kill the person by just going in the cannon yourself.

In theory, it seemed like it would be an issue, but practically it is not an issue at all.

Lylat Cruise: Lylat used to be unfair for some characters thanks to the unforgiving lip, but that has been patched. You can no longer just counterpick it because it hurts the opponent's recovery. Now, this stage is even more balanced.

Castle Siege: Second stage has a walk-off, but opponents are not forced to approach thanks to the statues blocking projectiles and the stage not lasting. It's a neat way to have a walk-off but in a non-problematic way. Overall, it is an interesting stage which, while dynamic, does not offer any serious hazards or consequences in play. Stage does make horizontal kills easier, but they are not nearly as early as vertical kills on Halberd/Delfino

T&C: Generally agreed to be a balanced stage. Ceiling is a bit lower than the rest, but not enough to make it an issue for most people.

Smashville: Great stage for most. It is like a smaller FD with relatively neutral horizontal vs vertical kills. The slowly moving platform offers some small variety and approach options. No huge combos really, except for Sheik.

Duck Hunt: Relatively average kill percents - including horizontal (camera is deceptive). Ducks can block some projectiles occasionally. Duck Hunt Dog will pop up every once in a while, which can throw people off a little. It's not a really significant event, though. The stage has interesting asymmetry.

Skyloft: Stage hazards are way too rare to be an issue. This stage has some very interesting layouts, and is a shame to be banned for almost no reason.

Wuhu Island: Kind of like Delfino Plaza, but without the ridiculously low vertical blast zone. It has a nice variety of different competitive stages that are safely transitioned to.
-----------------
Pokémon Stadium 2: This stage seems worth trying out. It may be annoying, especially on the wind section because of higher jumps and earlier vertical kills (from ground, not even factoring that people are going to probably be high in the air). It may or may not be just for friendlies. I am unsure if the stage is alright for competitive tournaments.

Halberd: Why do people like this stage so much? The vertical kills are ridiculous. Customs Palutena can 0-death you thanks to it. In addition, the level has hazards which can result in lucky true combo kills for your opponent. When hazards are present, the stage controls you and your opponent, a third variable in the match that is supposed to be between you and the opponent.

Delfino Plaza: Like Halberd, the stage has really low vertical blast zones at some parts - during transitions especially.

edit: This is @ MajorMajora

 

[Infinite901]

Pokémon Stadium 2: This stage seems worth trying out. It may be annoying, especially on the wind section because of higher jumps and earlier vertical kills (from ground, not even factoring that people are going to probably be high in the air). It may or may not be just for friendlies. I am unsure if the stage is alright for competitive tournaments.

Funny, most Shulk mains I know really like PS2. Some say the transformations come as naturally as the Arts.

As for OGA, I don't like it... and, well, that's it. As far as I can tell it's not really all that bad for competitive at this point. It seems like the kind of stage that will be later banned, but at this point I don't see why not. I just don't particularly like it.