Possible Rulesets for Smash 4

[Raijinken]

As long as the chaingrabs aren't infinite, they're not gamebreaking, and such stages could be considered favorable counterpicks for some characters.

 

[Sparklepower]

As long as the chaingrabs aren't infinite, they're not gamebreaking, and such stages could be considered favorable counterpicks for some characters.

This isn't true at all, there are extremely few infinite chain grabs in Melee and it still poses a huge problem, thus their banning. (Assuming you're talking about walk-offs, it's not exactly clarified anywhere in your post).

 

[Raijinken]

This isn't true at all, there are extremely few infinite chain grabs in Melee and it still poses a huge problem, thus their banning. (Assuming you're talking about walk-offs, it's not exactly clarified anywhere in your post).

I was talking about walkoffs. But I also prefer liberal stagelists, so unless it becomes apparent that a grab is a stock no matter the skill of the grabbed player, I see no reason to ban the stages.

Plus, I'm more in favor of banning the move than the stage. Or situationally banning the stage when the chaining character is present.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Do you have any idea how far off the screen the blast zones would have to be for some throws? And as I stated before, the event of having zero chain-grabs is going to be unlikely. They usually aren't intentional.

It's not just throws either, it's the very fact that there isn't an area of no-stage that can keep you from being combo'd directly off the screen. It's like playing melee if every single character could WoP their opponents off the screen Jigglypuff-style.

Bowser's BThrow had a hard time with that in the Smash 3DS demo, being unable to KO by walk-off camping at 60%. And that was a kill move at higher percents.

The blast zones on Coliseum in the Wii U demo were far enough off-screen that two characters could be standing at a neutral footsies sort of position entirely off-screen.

 

[<π]

Why is camping bad? In most fighting games camping is a prefectly fine option. That a lot of characters win strategy. (hold a lead, force an approach) Personally I think our 8 minute time limit is the culprit. It can make the game frustrating to watch and boring since the camping doesn't become a real threat (just like how there is little threat when you are bouncing around in Hyrule's cave of life) It isn't engaging until there is 1 minute left.

I think by lowering the match time you would get to those levels of urgency much faster. And that higher levle of tenssion would make it at worst more barable, at best exciting!

camping is a perfectly viable option and are some people play style and fantasy. You don't need to strike it from the game for the sake if it.

that said edge aren't some free kill zone. it is just as risky to be at the edge waiting as it is to be going towards it. I don't think many players are going to camp there and wait for someone to run into them at high levels of play because its just too risky of a way to try and net your kills.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Why is camping bad? In most fighting games camping is a prefectly fine option. That a lot of characters win strategy. (hold a lead, force an approach) Personally I think our 8 minute time limit is the culprit. It can make the game frustrating to watch and boring since the camping doesn't become a real threat (just like how there is little threat when you are bouncing around in Hyrule's cave of life) It isn't engaging until there is 1 minute left.

I think by lowering the match time you would get to those levels of urgency much faster. And that higher levle of tenssion would make it at worst more barable, at best exciting!

camping is a perfectly viable option and are some people play style and fantasy. You don't need to strike it from the game for the sake if it.

that said edge aren't some free kill zone. it is just as risky to be at the edge waiting as it is to be going towards it. I don't think many players are going to camp there and wait for someone to run into them at high levels of play because its just too risky of a way to try and net your kills.

The thing, simply holding a percent lead and camping near a walkoff actually won more often than it failed, and it's not terribly fun to watch a foe get grabbed and thrown over the blast line at 20% for 2 successive stocks. It also makes unnecessarily hard for a player to make a comeback. The thing is that if you camp at the right spot, a grab from you = a KO on the foe, but a grab from the foe doesn't necessarily = a KO on you if your percent is low enough and the foe can't chain-grab you.

But by moving the blast lines farther out on walk-off stages, you can make camping for a grab an ineffective tactic because in order to get that guaranteed KO off a grab, you have to be off-screen and taking constant off-screen damage.

So overall: I agree with walk-off bans in previous Smash games. I do not necessarily agree with them in Smash 4. We will have to wait until the game comes out and pass judgement then. Also, from the perspective of both a spectator and a player I prefer more liberal stage lists, as well as stages with more going on in terms of hazards and movement.

 

[Sparklepower]

Bowser's BThrow had a hard time with that in the Smash 3DS demo, being unable to KO by walk-off camping at 60%. And that was a kill move at higher percents.

The blast zones on Coliseum in the Wii U demo were far enough off-screen that two characters could be standing at a neutral footsies sort of position entirely off-screen.

Any links to demonstrate? If that's true (although I'm not the most familiar with bowser's new moveset) that's quite a distance and I feel that would cause problems the other way around (having unusually large parts of the stage where the players don't know what the hell is going on).

I was talking about walkoffs. But I also prefer liberal stagelists, so unless it becomes apparent that a grab is a stock no matter the skill of the grabbed player, I see no reason to ban the stages.

Plus, I'm more in favor of banning the move than the stage. Or situationally banning the stage when the chaining character is present.

As I've stated in my earlier posts, walk-offs are banned for more then just grabs and throws. I don't think stagelists should be liberal because I view the legitimacy in a competitive match as far more important than stage variety, as do most of the people behind the creation of standard tournament rules. If you would like to host your own tournament with a huge stagelists that vary based on the matchups you can do that as well as anything else you would like, but it isn't going to become part of any standard tournament ruleset. The consensus has been against walk-offs for a long time now.

Why is camping bad? In most fighting games camping is a prefectly fine option. That a lot of characters win strategy. (hold a lead, force an approach) Personally I think our 8 minute time limit is the culprit. It can make the game frustrating to watch and boring since the camping doesn't become a real threat (just like how there is little threat when you are bouncing around in Hyrule's cave of life) It isn't engaging until there is 1 minute left.

I think by lowering the match time you would get to those levels of urgency much faster. And that higher levle of tenssion would make it at worst more barable, at best exciting!

camping is a perfectly viable option and are some people play style and fantasy. You don't need to strike it from the game for the sake if it.

that said edge aren't some free kill zone. it is just as risky to be at the edge waiting as it is to be going towards it. I don't think many players are going to camp there and wait for someone to run into them at high levels of play because its just too risky of a way to try and net your kills.

1. Camping in itself isn't bad, it's part of any game, but the extensive camping that walk-offs encourage is too over-the-top for a competitive match.
2. No matter how low you set the time limit, there will be no consequence to camping if you have a stock lead.

Competitive matches shouldn't consist of two people playing mind games in a corner and constant dying at less than 10%.

 

[S. Knight]

That video sums up all of my thoughts regarding competitive Pokemon, though ISP could also definitely apply.

Me too! The difference between 1600 ACRE and 1900 ACRE is winning just a few more matches consistantly. I win almost every match but in any given match I can be 3-0'd by some medicore player. It's how you match up with the most players that should matter in Smash AND Pokemon

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Like we saw Bowser getting KOs with that back throw on Battlefield in the grand finals, but earlier we saw him fishing for KOs with it near the edge on Gerudo Valley and having no luck at all. I can't say for certain about the percents because 3DS footage, but he'd gotten several hits off and was trying to get kills with that back throw and he just wasn't having any luck with it. Serious case of knockback growth on that throw, I'd say.

I'll try looking through the footage to see if I can find that moment on Gerudo Valley, and I think at one point in that match between Fox and Zelda (the one featuring Fox being KO'd from 32% by Farore's Wind) we saw Fox and Zelda both hanging out off the left edge for a moment.

Off-topic: Smash 4 shields are really not very durable. A single hammer hit takes out half a shield!

Competitive matches shouldn't consist of two people playing mind games in a corner and constant dying at less than 10%.

That's really not that dissimilar to touch-of-death combos in other fighting games, except it doesn't look as cool and doesn't have any requirements other than "land a grab", as opposed to having to have enough Super Meter/whatever else to pull it off.

 

[Raijinken]

2. No matter how low you set the time limit, there will be no consequence to camping if you have a stock lead.

The very reason I've always hated having time as an option to begin with. It is impossible to win by stalling if there is no time limit.

Also, on the Stage subject, I would suggest reading this as a well-thought argument (I am biased on this) explaining the legitimacy of certain hazards and terrain structures.

That said, if my tournaments are the only ones that ever have liberal stagelists, and they still don't have issues with degenerate play, then I will gladly count myself happily isolated. Of course, if issues arise in the new game, I'd be more than happy to adjust the rules, once the cause of the issue is determined with certainty to be the walkoffs.

 

[Sparklepower]

I'll try looking through the footage to see if I can find that moment on Gerudo Valley, and I think at one point in that match between Fox and Zelda (the one featuring Fox being KO'd from 32% by Farore's Wind) we saw Fox and Zelda both hanging out off the left edge for a moment.

Let me know when you find it. I hope that the blast zones from the edge of the screen aren't anywhere near as far as battlefield's blast zones from the stage.

Off-topic: Smash 4 shields are really not very durable. A single hammer hit takes out half a shield!

I'm actually a bit happy about this... shields feel a bit too powerful in other versions of the game for me.

That's really not that dissimilar to touch-of-death combos in other fighting games, except it doesn't look as cool and doesn't have any requirements other than "land a grab", as opposed to having to have enough Super Meter/whatever else to pull it off.

I would say that's more comparable to zero-to-death combos, which require good DI reads and a lot of technical precision. It's also important to remember that there's a lot that makes smash unique from other fighters.

The very reason I've always hated having time as an option to begin with. It is impossible to win by stalling if there is no time limit.

This might be something I'm not in disagreement with (at least for melee). All the matches I've seen where the time ran out have been from at least one player going for the timeout to get a victory. These matches probably wouldn't take this time without the timeout being there.

Also, on the Stage subject, I would suggest reading this as a well-thought argument (I am biased on this) explaining the legitimacy of certain hazards and terrain structures.

I could talk all day on this post, but that would be inappropriate because that's it's own thread. All I'll say is a disagree with a lot of the points it makes. Perhaps, I'll go post a response there.

That said, if my tournaments are the only ones that ever have liberal stagelists, and they still don't have issues with degenerate play, then I will gladly count myself happily isolated. Of course, if issues arise in the new game, I'd be more than happy to adjust the rules, once the cause of the issue is determined with certainty to be the walkoffs.

The thing is that this is pretty much what has happened over the past 15 years of the metagame evolving and the rulesets being debated. Large tournament rulesets aren't typically set by fringe opinion (if that were the case, wobbling would be out the window). They're set by TO's who give heavy thought to what they're banning. Getting rid of stages with walk-offs have been standard for quite some time now because of that.

Edit: Made a lot of mistakes with the quote boxes, sorry about the mess I made.

 

[Sparklepower]

Ahh, editing issues, sorry for double post

 

[StarLight42]

I know the game isn't out yet and things could be changed, but I wanted to start thinking about possible rulesets for SSB4 (both versions). Just gonna throw whatever out. Feel free to contribute.

So lets start off

• 3 Stock
• 5 - 6 mins
• Best out of 3
• No items

Stages

• Battlefield
• Town And City
• Inevitable PKMN Stadium
• Final Destination
• Prism Tower
• Pilot Wings (you'll be fine)

Or alternatively

• No items
• 1 stock
• 1 min
• Wii Fit Trainer Only
• Final Destination

Wii Fit Trainer is not even high on SSB4's demo tier list. I'm not saying that posisition couldn't change drastically. However, we can't judge any character top tier until we get the game. So yeah, Wii Fit Trainer only isn't official.

For now, it's Bowser only or nothin'.

 

[<π]

I guarantee you I will never get out camped by some one standing by an edge waiting for me to approach... ever, I play characters with great projectile/poke games, it just isn't going to happen, and it doesn't make sense that people would play into that willingly.

And if you choose to play characters that can't? well... that's your choice going into a match on that stage. Or maybe thats a stage you should have used your ban on.

I think you guys don't understand just how risky standing by a blast zone is. Just like normally in smash you want to stay on the inside of the stage you get many many more options than your opponent and can force his hand so to speak (he can't move backward anymore) With limited options and no where to go he isn't going to kill yo unless you jump in and let him shield grab you...

 

[Sparklepower]

I guarantee you I will never get out camped by some one standing by an edge waiting for me to approach... ever, I play characters with great projectile/poke games, it just isn't going to happen, and it doesn't make sense that people would play into that willingly.

And if you choose to play characters that can't? well... that's your choice going into a match on that stage. Or maybe thats a stage you should have used your ban on.

I think you guys don't understand just how risky standing by a blast zone is. Just like normally in smash you want to stay on the inside of the stage you get many many more options than your opponent and can force his hand so to speak (he can't move backward anymore) With limited options and no where to go he isn't going to kill yo unless you jump in and let him shield grab you...

Don't have to stand by the blast zone to waveshine, chain grab (which doesn't have to be infinite), or combo people straight into it.
As I've said, walk-offs are not any kind of singular problem, they bring a lot of problems. They're far too abuse-able and become an intrusive mechanic to the entire match. Stages simply shouldn't interfere in a fair, competitive match on that magnitude.

 

[Raijinken]

I see them as little different from a strong combo into a semispike (such as Sheik's) followed by an edgehog, except they rely on techchasing to ensure the kill in many situations.

 

[<π]

Don't have to stand by the blast zone to waveshine, chain grab (which doesn't have to be infinite), or combo people straight into it.
.

I don't think they ever should have been banned in melee... I made a post about this somewhere. I think my stage thread. but Fox can only wave shine combo like 13 or 14 characters.

But I digress... there is already a character that can chain grab ANYONE into death whenever they get a grab.... why is it suddenly a problem when one or two characters get to do it in these super small character dependent situations?

"Man... I'm a Wolf main and D3 can chain grab me off of the walk off... hmm... I could use one of my stage bans on this stage. I could camp the platform so if I don get grabbed it isn't a stock, I can space and zone so that I don't get grabbed as frequently. Hmm... those don't sound favorable... I could use a character that doesn't get chain grabbed to death, I know this is a bad match up and tried to cover my bases with... Oh wait... why work I can just ban the stage from competitive play! Why even have to think about it!"

This kind of logic is what leads to EVERYTHING being banned. That's why melee's stage list is where it is now, and that's why brawl feel apart. Instead of using this wealth of options people opt for the easy way out.

Don't think about how to overcome it, assume it can't be overcome. #banned

As I've said, walk-offs are not any kind of singular problem, they bring a lot of problems.

Like what? What are the problems?

[qupte] They're far too abuse-able and become an intrusive mechanic to the entire match.[/quote]
Even if this is true... why is it a bad thing?

Stages simply shouldn't interfere in a fair, competitive match on that magnitude

Even if this is true how, is a walk-off interfering with anything and what magnitude of interference is okay?

 

[Sparklepower]

I see them as little different from a strong combo into a semispike (such as Sheik's) followed by an edgehog, except they rely on techchasing to ensure the kill in many situations.

The main differences are:
1. Availability
2. Difficulty
3. Risk

Anything could combo out to the blast zone, not just specific moves like spikes and semispikes. With walk-offs, every move is a kill move. Thus using a walk-off for a kill is far more available than a normal combo into death.

This strongly decreases the difficulty of setting up a combo into death. Setting up Ken Combos can be really difficult, and it's very limited to what percentages and situations it will work at because of differences between character attributes like weight and fall speed. Can you shine or up throw into an aerial with Falco? Congratulations, with the right positioning you can combo into death.

Finally, the risk. If I want to off-stage edgeguard in any form, I'm taking a huge risk because making a mistake can cause me to fall to my death. There's little risk to comboing, chain grabbing, or waveshining into a blast zone because if you mess up it doesn't mean death.

This is why walk-offs are extremely intrusive, they become the primary focus of the match and take away all the depth of off-stage play for cheap bubble-blast KOs.

 

[Sparklepower]

I don't think they ever should have been banned in melee... I made a post about this somewhere. I think my stage thread. but Fox can only wave shine combo like 13 or 14 characters.

That's half the roster...

But I digress... there is already a character that can chain grab ANYONE into death whenever they get a grab.... why is it suddenly a problem when one or two characters get to do it in these super small character dependent situations?

"Man... I'm a Wolf main and D3 can chain grab me off of the walk off... hmm... I could use one of my stage bans on this stage. I could camp the platform so if I don get grabbed it isn't a stock, I can space and zone so that I don't get grabbed as frequently. Hmm... those don't sound favorable... I could use a character that doesn't get chain grabbed to death, I know this is a bad match up and tried to cover my bases with... Oh wait... why work I can just ban the stage from competitive play! Why even have to think about it!"

This kind of logic is what leads to EVERYTHING being banned. That's why melee's stage list is where it is now, and that's why brawl feel apart. Instead of using this wealth of options people opt for the easy way out.

Don't think about how to overcome it, assume it can't be overcome. #banned

Again, you make the assumption that this is a singular problem, when it has multiple issues. Issues that aren't at all matchup specific and can't be solved just by banning it when it isn't in your favor. I've mentioned a lot of them in my previous posts.

You are also extremely undermining the thought that went into banning walk-offs. This was not some fringe group who protested tournaments and demanded no walk-offs, it's a group of TO's managing a large tournament giving a lot of thought to the situation and discussing it on multiple platforms. Are you seriously claiming that walk-offs were banned with little thought when a large amount of the competitive community reached a consensus on it after a long time of it being legal, and then stayed in consensus up until now?


The part you edited in:

Even if this is true... why is it a bad thing?

Because tourneys are competitive settings where people are playing with money on the line, and players shouldn't be able to lose because of an opponent abusing a stage mechanic.

Even if this is true how, is a walk-off interfering with anything and what magnitude of interference is okay?

That's a very subjective question that's impossible to answer definitively because of differing opinions and the inability to quantify that magnitude of interference, but most have the consensus that walk-offs are over the threshold for banning, and that's why they're banned. It's just the same as how most laws are made, a consensus of subjective opinions.

 

[<π]

The main differences are:
1. Availability
2. Difficulty
3. Risk

Most walk off stages shown so far have VERY wide blast zones as pictured here:

to the point where you can fit 3 or 4 FDs in there. If you are zoning correctly and playing for control of the power position, the center, you do not have simple combos into the blast zone frequently available unless you take the risk to set it up. It is more difficult to get low percent accidental gimps from the lower risk more favorable position in the center of the stage than it is on traditional stages.

Going to the edge of the stage is a risk because it make it easier for you to be KOed by your opponent.

Anything could combo out to the blast zone, not just specific moves like spikes and semispikes. With walk-offs, every move is a kill move. Thus using a walk-off for a kill is far more available than a normal combo into death.

This just isn't true. Everyone is complaining about marth's fair so lets use it and its horizontal knock back as an example of a move that will not kill even at the very tip of the walk off.
In fact since the player in question is sitting at the edge playing the campy waiting game then only moves that hit the opponent BACKWARDS (behind the camper) will be effective kill moves because anything else will hit them away from the blast zone. In fact for Mr. Camp a bar those rare hit backward moves a move like Marths fair become the best KO move since it hits the straight up.
I can think of a small handful of moves that hit backwards in the series. peaches Dsmash, Samus' as well in melee, sheik's bair in brawl... Most of those are very high risk on whiff and punishable on shield

This strongly decreases the difficulty of setting up a combo into death. Setting up Ken Combos can be really difficult, and it's very limited to what percentages and situations it will work at because of differences between character attributes like weight and fall speed. Can you shine or up throw into an aerial with Falco? Congratulations, with the right positioning you can combo into death.

That's the thing though... the right positioning. Am I willing to give that to falco? Am I going to let him trick me into it? Is he going to force me there? These are all examples of out playing. why is it bad? This is also a counter point for availability.

Finally, the risk. If I want to off-stage edgeguard in any form, I'm taking a huge risk because making a mistake can cause me to fall to my death. There's little risk to comboing, chain grabbing, or waveshining into a blast zone because if you mess up it doesn't mean death.

I... don't agree with that. there isn't much risk in edge gaurding. YOU have the power position and your opponent has (well... not MK) much more limited options. You, by position alone have FULL influence over over what options they can and can't make.
On walk offs you lose that control and power...
Even if what you said was true and there was so huge risk because you didn't know your own or you opponents limitations (lets say the game JUST came out) why is this a bad thing? Why is removing THAT one risk worthy of removing a stage when it opens up so many more avenues and possibilities?

This is why walk-offs are extremely intrusive, they become the primary focus of the match and take away all the depth of off-stage play for cheap bubble-blast KOs.

I'd argue that at the cost of off stage depth they add new type of depth, and that more depth as a whole is the goal.

 

[Raijinken]

Either way, judging by the majority of stages we've seen, we may have to accept some types of hazards or walkoffs in some cases, or else we're going to turn into Street Fighter where there is only one flat standard stage reskinned for some different settings.

 

[<π]

You are also extremely undermining the thought that went into banning walk-offs. This was not some fringe group who protested tournaments and demanded no walk-offs, it's a group of TO's managing a large tournament giving a lot of thought to the situation and discussing it on multiple platforms. Are you seriously claiming that walk-offs were banned with little thought when a large amount of the competitive community reached a consensus on it after a long time of it being legal, and then stayed in consensus up until now?

You are in Orlando?.. Next time you go to a melee tournament ask one of the old guys there "Why were walk offs banned in the 2005-6 MLG ruleset." and see what they say.

I started my smash career in winterpark FL 9 years ago, (Thats where all the orlando smash scene was when I played) That's where I learned fox (and nothing else) was the reason for walk offs being banned. It wasn't some group of TO getting together on twitter or Facebook or the Smash Backroom (those weren't things yet). It was the community being uncomfortable with fox (who was already considered the best character in the game) getting even easier kills. That was literally it.

 

[pants name guy]

@Zipzo okay, but why is that a problem?

No platforms eliminate a huge part of platform shenanigans, but FD, the only stage in the game without plats is legal. Being unique isn't a strong enough reason to get rid of a stage to me. (but I'm sure you read my thread on stage lists so you know that)

No edge game can make stages with walk offs give some characters a chance in the meta which other wise wouldn't have it (like Lil' mac and link) and help make characters that would have been dominate otherwise weaker pick over all (like Mk for example wouldn't have his amazing off stage/gimping/recovery/planking game on a walk off)

Just from what I saw at the SDCC tournament on Gerudo Valley, walk-offs promote heavy near-edge camping and create really stupid match scenarios. I'd really hate to see walk-off stages legal. It's just not fun to play or watch.

 

[Raijinken]

Just from what I saw at the SDCC tournament on Gerudo Valley, walk-offs promote heavy near-edge camping and create really stupid match scenarios. I'd really hate to see walk-off stages legal. It's just not fun to play or watch.

A lot of those players were not very good, and many that tried camping got bit for attempting it.

 

[Sparklepower]

Most walk off stages shown so far have VERY wide blast zones as pictured here:

to the point where you can fit 3 or 4 FDs in there. If you are zoning correctly and playing for control of the power position, the center, you do not have simple combos into the blast zone frequently available unless you take the risk to set it up. It is more difficult to get low percent accidental gimps from the lower risk more favorable position in the center of the stage than it is on traditional stages.

I'm not completely familiar with this stage, but if it's as large as you say it is, then now you have to make the choice of staying in the center and waiting until unnecessarily high damages to kill, or combo and pressure them towards the edge. Either way, the walk-off is still going to be an intrusion to this game at some point, which is going to want to be avoided.

I will grant you though, this stage could be a special case and even I'll say it could work given the large properties of the stage that help avoid some of the problems that walk-offs give us. This stage will more than likely be banned, though.

This just isn't true. Everyone is complaining about marth's fair so lets use it and its horizontal knock back as an example of a move that will not kill even at the very tip of the walk off.
In fact since the player in question is sitting at the edge playing the campy waiting game then only moves that hit the opponent BACKWARDS (behind the camper) will be effective kill moves because anything else will hit them away from the blast zone. In fact for Mr. Camp a bar those rare hit backward moves a move like Marths fair become the best KO move since it hits the straight up.
I can think of a small handful of moves that hit backwards in the series. peaches Dsmash, Samus' as well in melee, sheik's bair in brawl... Most of those are very high risk on whiff and punishable on shield.

You seem to be mixing together the situations I've given. The opposing player does not have to be camping to become subject to a combo right off the blast zone. I'm unfamiliar with the changes Marth received in the new game, but in past games his untippered fair has had horizontal knockback and if chased properly it can knock people off the walk-off (Or, you know, we could finish it off with a nair instead).

The thing about your supposed 'solutions' is that your solutions is exactly what we're trying to avoid. We don't want the game to devolve to a grab game by the edge of the screen, we don't want kills to be a simple as any combo or chain grab that can send people off the edge. Devolving the game into these exchanges is the exact problem I'm trying to describe.

That's the thing though... the right positioning. Am I willing to give that to falco? Am I going to let him trick me into it? Is he going to force me there? These are all examples of out playing. why is it bad? This is also a counter point for availability.

A counter point that exists of the same magnitude in normal play in stages without walk-offs. The difference is that normally you have to chase them off stage in an area where you're more limited. There's more availability because any move can knock people off the edge, not as many can get a guaranteed kill off the edge, that requires set ups and spikes.

I... don't agree with that. there isn't much risk in edge gaurding. YOU have the power position and your opponent has (well... not MK) much more limited options. You, by position alone have FULL influence over over what options they can and can't make.
On walk offs you lose that control and power...

What control and power do you lose on a walk-off? If you're doing a combo, a chain grab, a waveshine, you're in total control. With a normal stage, there's a point where you have to give that up because you don't have ground to walk on anymore, that doesn't exist with walk-offs. Yes, when you're edgeguarding, on stage or off stage, you have more options than your opponent. But with walk-offs, your opponent has zero options, they're already off the stage, where they died. If there's ground below you, you have more options than if there isn't ground below you, how is this hard to understand?

Even if what you said was true and there was so huge risk because you didn't know your own or you opponents limitations (lets say the game JUST came out) why is this a bad thing? Why is removing THAT one risk worthy of removing a stage when it opens up so many more avenues and possibilities?


I'd argue that at the cost of off stage depth they add new type of depth, and that more depth as a whole is the goal.

Because it doesn't open up new possiblities and avenues, and it doesn't add more depth. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying Brawl had more depth than melee because the removal of comboing and tech skills made you have to rely on reads more. That's not adding depth, that's taking away depth forcing you to rely more on already existing mechanics. Hell, you don't even get that because knocking people off-stage is just as important in a stage without a walk off, now there just isn't any follow-up required.

Let me lay it out simply:
Normal stage: Knock off stage, edgeguard to keep off of stage.
Walk-off stage: Knock off stage, dead.

Either way, judging by the majority of stages we've seen, we may have to accept some types of hazards or walkoffs in some cases, or else we're going to turn into Street Fighter where there is only one flat standard stage reskinned for some different settings.

That's not true. If I remember right I believe we received word that many popular Melee stages were returning, and all the 64 stages. We're going to have the majority of the stages considered legal in the last three games, as well as some new ones (I reccomend checking out the stage legality speculation thread).

A lot of those players were not very good, and many that tried camping got bit for attempting it.

Either way when players are near the edge, early death is imminent. How could that be seen as a positive thing?

 

[<π]

And that paticular stage (G's Valley) punishes people who try to play that way anwaythrough the stage hazzard which shuts down a whole side. Even if you had some impenetrable defense you couldn't just get a percent lead and just sit there the whole match,

 

[Raijinken]

That's not true. If I remember right I believe we received word that many popular Melee stages were returning, and all the 64 stages. We're going to have the majority of the stages considered legal in the last three games, as well as some new ones (I reccomend checking out the stage legality speculation thread).


Either way when players are near the edge, early death is imminent. How could that be seen as a positive thing?

This is the absolute first I've heard about "many popular Melee" and "all the 64" stages. I've seen Halberd, Jungle Japes, Green Hill Zone, and one could argue that FD and Battlefield are "popular Melee stages". If you've got a reliable source on that, though, I'd be glad to read it, and would look forward to such stages returning.

Players near the edge of a non-walkoff stage risk death by a quick gimp, and this is seen as an exciting and skilled play taking advantage of positioning. I see absolutely no difference, save that one requires horizontal knockback and risk to self, and the other requires either abusing a predictable recovery (Ness, Ike) or a spike/meteor.

 

[Sucumbio]

inb4toilet

ohhhh get@me

(no j/k don't get@me pls)

 

[Sparklepower]

You are in Orlando?.. Next time you go to a melee tournament ask one of the old guys there "Why were walk offs banned in the 2005-6 MLG ruleset." and see what they say.

I started my smash career in winterpark FL 9 years ago, (Thats where all the orlando smash scene was when I played) That's where I learned fox (and nothing else) was the reason for walk offs being banned. It wasn't some group of TO getting together on twitter or Facebook or the Smash Backroom (those weren't things yet). It was the community being uncomfortable with fox (who was already considered the best character in the game) getting even easier kills. That was literally it.

And what do you suppose is the reason it stayed banned? In brawl all there is are the shortly available walk-offs on halberd and castle siege as counterpicks, except now combos are coming back and they have even less reason to be in.

This is the absolute first I've heard about "many popular Melee" and "all the 64" stages. I've seen Halberd, Jungle Japes, Green Hill Zone, and one could argue that FD and Battlefield are "popular Melee stages". If you've got a reliable source on that, though, I'd be glad to read it, and would look forward to such stages returning.

Players near the edge of a non-walkoff stage risk death by a quick gimp, and this is seen as an exciting and skilled play taking advantage of positioning. I see absolutely no difference, save that one requires horizontal knockback and risk to self, and the other requires either abusing a predictable recovery (Ness, Ike) or a spike/meteor.

I'll admit, citation needed because I can't remember the source, but I do remember it being credible from wherever I heard it. I could be completely wrong though.

Either way I'm confident there will be at least as many tournament legal stages as previous entries, probably more.

Also the bolded section is the place where I disagree with you. I don't know many, or even any people who view walk-off play like this, other than the ones I've met in this thread that is. I've already outlined the difference between edge-play on stages with and without walk-offs in an earlier post, and stated why it's different.

 

[Raijinken]

Also the bolded section is the place where I disagree with you. I don't know many, or even any people who view walk-off play like this, other than the ones I've met in this thread that is. I've already outlined the difference between edge-play on stages with and without walk-offs in an earlier post, and stated why it's different.

That's simply my opinion. I dislike both types of play (walkoff camping and edge camping), and thus cannot grasp why one is cheered while the other is banned unconditionally.

Just to verify, because my wording in the past post was kinda odd, it is edgeplay that seems to be considered exciting and skilled, when from at least my perspective, it's just a quick way to take a boring stock. A win is a win, I suppose, but I prefer an entertaining win.

We'll have to see if horizontally-effective chaingrabs are effective in Smash4 to see if that point is still relevant. As for regular combos, I still see a combo into the wall as equivalent to a combo into the side blastline over a cliff.

 

[Sparklepower]

That's simply my opinion. I dislike both types of play (walkoff camping and edge camping), and thus cannot grasp why one is cheered while the other is banned unconditionally.

Just to verify, because my wording in the past post was kinda odd, it is edgeplay that seems to be considered exciting and skilled, when from at least my perspective, it's just a quick way to take a boring stock. A win is a win, I suppose, but I prefer an entertaining win.

We'll have to see if horizontally-effective chaingrabs are effective in Smash4 to see if that point is still relevant. As for regular combos, I still see a combo into the wall as equivalent to a combo into the side blastline over a cliff.

The difference is that falling into edgeplay normally just sets up an edgeguard situation which is very possible to come back from. Sure there's spikes, but the amount of setup that goes into that is so much greater than just knocking people off of a walk-off.

 

[Raijinken]

The difference is that falling into edgeplay normally just sets up an edgeguard situation which is very possible to come back from. Sure there's spikes, but the amount of setup that goes into that is so much greater than just knocking people off of a walk-off.

I will leave that to opinion (and in this case, to observation once the game is released). The amount of setup that goes into a spike typically appears, to me, to be at best equal to and at worst far less than that which goes into a true combo or techchase combo (due to DI and teching options).

 

[<π]

I'm not completely familiar with this stage, but if it's as large as you say it is, then now you have to make the choice of staying in the center and waiting until unnecessarily high damages to kill, or combo and pressure them towards the edge. Either way, the walk-off is still going to be an intrusion to this game at some point, which is going to want to be avoided.

I will grant you though, this stage could be a special case and even I'll say it could work given the large properties of the stage that help avoid some of the problems that walk-offs give us. This stage will more than likely be banned, though.

Not if I have anything to say about it!

You seem to be mixing together the situations I've given. The opposing player does not have to be camping to become subject to a combo right off the blast zone. I'm unfamiliar with the changes Marth received in the new game, but in past games his untippered fair has had horizontal knockback and if chased properly it can knock people off the walk-off (Or, you know, we could finish it off with a nair instead).

Its the players responsibility to avoid situations where he is going to die! Its just as easy to get comboed in to a spike off stage, or a finisher on stage. Being able to combo someone into a death isn't an issue. Espeacially since in all of these cases the players should be fully aware of the risks of their positioning.

The thing about your supposed 'solutions' is that your solutions is exactly what we're trying to avoid. We don't want the game to devolve to a grab game by the edge of the screen, we don't want kills to be a simple as any combo or chain grab that can send people off the edge. Devolving the game into these exchanges is the exact problem I'm trying to describe.

It won't. Not at high level play. If defensive options were as strong as you are making them out to be people would just stand there on stage and just grab and throw. Its isn't that simple. people can zone bait and punish shields when you are on the edge of a walk off just as much (if not more) than when you are center stage.

A counter point that exists of the same magnitude in normal play in stages without walk-offs. The difference is that normally you have to chase them off stage in an area where you're more limited. There's more availability because any move can knock people off the edge, not as many can get a guaranteed kill off the edge, that requires set ups and spikes.

-If you are ever jumping off stage after your opponent it is because they are more limited than you and you want to capitalize on it. Other wise you are taking a huge risk. (and sometimes thats okay)
-Any move CANNOT knock you off stage. Thats one of the amazing parts of the game you are always making choices. Am I setting up for an edge gaurd or do I want more damage? Do I want them above me or should I go for a tech chase.
Taking away the ledge may remove some the depth associated with recovery and edge gaurding, but it its place you have to worry more about how to keep stage control and positioning for follow ups.
-It still requires set up to get kills on walk offs, just not the same ones.

What control and power do you lose on a walk-off? If you're doing a combo, a chain grab, a waveshine, you're in total control. With a normal stage, there's a point where you have to give that up because you don't have ground to walk on anymore, that doesn't exist with walk-offs. Yes, when you're edgeguarding, on stage or off stage, you have more options than your opponent. But with walk-offs, your opponent has zero options, they're already off the stage, where they died. If there's ground below you, you have more options than if there isn't ground below you, how is this hard to understand?

I don't know..? But again why is that bad? The more options you have the more suspenseful and exciting the match is! thats one of the choices an opponent makes when they take you to this stage. I'm going to give up my edge gaurding advantages to overcome the possibility of getting spiked. Just being able to think that adds more options; more depth to the game.

Because it doesn't open up new possiblities and avenues, and it doesn't add more depth. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying Brawl had more depth than melee because the removal of comboing and tech skills made you have to rely on reads more. That's not adding depth, that's taking away depth forcing you to rely more on already existing mechanics. Hell, you don't even get that because knocking people off-stage is just as important in a stage without a walk off, now there just isn't any follow-up required.

I don't understand how those correlate... But while we are on the subject.

Lets define depth and complexity
Depth = options/choices
Compexity = difficulty

Removing ATs doesn't always mean you are removing depth. Removing L-canceling for example didn't make the game less deep it made the game less complex. You ALWAYS want to L cancel, that's the optimal choice everytime. Now if the made it so when you L canceled you had shorter lag but had to roll or spot dodge if you did. THAT would be added depth because you have a meaningful choice to make.

Removing something like... dash dancing add depth it didn't remove it. Instead of running always being the best option because you can instantly cancel that dash into another dash and cancel a run with a crouch. A walk is a worse version of running. You now have to make choices with trade offs.
Do I want pinpoint accuracy and the ability to choose any action at any time? Or do I want sacrifice my options to move quickly? Thats depth!

Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't terrible. That's the route street fighter went and I love that game! No I'm not trying to say that at all, but smash's appeal has always been its depth within its simplicity. You don't have to do haduken motions and dragon punch motions. You just tilt the stick and push the special button.

Arguing lack of complexity (ATs) equates to lack of depth just isn't true.

Let me lay it out simply:
Normal stage: Knock off stage, edgeguard to keep off of stage.
Walk-off stage: Knock off stage, dead.

I can't argue with this.

48:30

Either way when players are near the edge, early death is imminent. How could that be seen as a positive thing?

Because it adds depth. Being near the edge is a high risk high reward strategy that can only be employed on stages with walk offs.[/quote]

 

[Sparklepower]

Not if I have anything to say about it!

Its the players responsibility to avoid situations where he is going to die! Its just as easy to get comboed in to a spike off stage, or a finisher on stage. Being able to combo someone into a death isn't an issue. Espeacially since in all of these cases the players should be fully aware of the risks of their positioning.

No, it's not. With walk-off's there's a horizontal threshold to overcome, and then the opponent dies. With the off-stage spike, you must overcome that horizontal threshold, and then perform the spike, and having the position to use that spike after reaching that horizontal threshold adds quite a layer of difficulty to that.

It won't. Not at high level play. If defensive options were as strong as you are making them out to be people would just stand there on stage and just grab and throw. Its isn't that simple. people can zone bait and punish shields when you are on the edge of a walk off just as much (if not more) than when you are center stage.

Combos and chain grabs aren't defensive options, don't require camping, and can guide people off the edge. I've said this so many times. This is not a singular problem, it's more than camping throws at the edge (although that's definitely an issue in and of itself).

-If you are ever jumping off stage after your opponent it is because they are more limited than you and you want to capitalize on it. Other wise you are taking a huge risk. (and sometimes thats okay)
-Any move CANNOT knock you off stage. Thats one of the amazing parts of the game you are always making choices. Am I setting up for an edge gaurd or do I want more damage? Do I want them above me or should I go for a tech chase.
Taking away the ledge may remove some the depth associated with recovery and edge gaurding, but it its place you have to worry more about how to keep stage control and positioning for follow ups.
-It still requires set up to get kills on walk offs, just not the same ones.

-If you are jumping after someone who you've combo'd or chain grabbed towards the walk-off, it is because they are more limited than you and you want to capitalize on it. These same things exist, but now there's even less risk because there is ground under you all the way until the horizontal threshold you need to send your opponent over to get a kill.
-Okay, I'll clarify, any move with a horizontal knockback can knock you off stage. This is most of the moves in the game, technicallly all if you include DI, though obviously they won't DI off the blast zone. (this is FAR more moves than moves that can spike).
-Yes, just like Brawl taking away hitstun and l cancelling and thus removing effective combos, it made your rely more on your reads and neutral game for victory. That's not more depth, it's taking away depth making you rely more on what is still left. This is generally considered a bad thing, no? Isn't that why hit stun is back?
-Yes, there are set ups, I never said there weren't. But those set ups consist of the same combos and moves that are used to get your opponent anywhere. Which are more available, as I've said before.

I don't know..? But again why is that bad? The more options you have the more suspenseful and exciting the match is! thats one of the choices an opponent makes when they take you to this stage. I'm going to give up my edge gaurding advantages to overcome the possibility of getting spiked. Just being able to think that adds more options; more depth to the game.

I don't understand what you mean by 'more options.' Do you mean you have more options on a stage with walk-offs than without it? That isn't the case because you're talking away the entire edgeguarding and recovery part of the game. Is it more options because you have more stages? By that logic we should allow all stages. Big blue offers new possibilities, let's legalize it! I mean this look at this! http://www.gfycat.com/NeatLiveDoctorfish

I don't understand how those correlate... But while we are on the subject.

Lets define depth and complexity
Depth = options/choices
Compexity = difficulty

Removing ATs doesn't always mean you are removing depth. Removing L-canceling for example didn't make the game less deep it made the game less complex. You ALWAYS want to L cancel, that's the optimal choice everytime. Now if the made it so when you L canceled you had shorter lag but had to roll or spot dodge if you did. THAT would be added depth because you have a meaningful choice to make.

Removing something like... dash dancing add depth it didn't remove it. Instead of running always being the best option because you can instantly cancel that dash into another dash and cancel a run with a crouch. A walk is a worse version of running. You now have to make choices with trade offs.
Do I want pinpoint accuracy and the ability to choose any action at any time? Or do I want sacrifice my options to move quickly? Thats depth!

Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't terrible. That's the route street fighter went and I love that game! No I'm not trying to say that at all, but smash's appeal has always been its depth within its simplicity. You don't have to do haduken motions and dragon punch motions. You just tilt the stick and push the special button.

Arguing lack of complexity (ATs) equates to lack of depth just isn't true.

Yes, I'm completely familiar with this. I watched that EC episode when it came out.

Allow me to clarify more. In Melee, there was hitstun and there was L-cancelling (if not L-cancelling, the lowered aerial landing lag effect that L-cancelling gave us. Although I recommend you read this post on L-cancelling http://np.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2dl2ud/why_lcancelling_actually_adds_depth_to_the_game/). This allowed for easy aerial to ground transitions and follow ups on moves that allowed for long combos and in-depth punishes. In Brawl, these were removed, and instead we had a read heavy game because you couldn't capitalize on winning neutral game nearly as well, thus had to win neutral game more. Now, it could be easy to say "Well, now I have to read my opponent a lot more, maybe this added depth!" but that's logically fallacious because the taking away of a part of the game (that being the punish and combo game) is still taking away. Sure, now you have to rely on depth previously founded upon for victory, but reliance on less content isn't the same as having more content to work with.

The correlation I'm drawing here is that walk-offs take away a part of the game (the recovery and edgeguarding game) in the same way the taking away of many melee mechanics took away the combo and punish game. If you don't view Brawl like that, that's fine. But my main point is you can't say that taking something away adds depth because it forces reliance on something that already exists.

I can't argue with this.

48:30

That's not off-stage. Should I define off-stage? Is there stage under you? Then you're on-stage. Is there not stage under you? That's off-stage. At no point in that clip did either player not have stage below them to stand on.

Because it adds depth. Being near the edge is a high risk high reward strategy that can only be employed on stages with walk offs.

As I've stated, that's not added depth. It's reliance on already existing options because other options have been taken away, and in this case the reliance on that option has become so great that it's become harmful to the game.

 

[<π]

-Yes, just like Brawl taking away hitstun and l cancelling and thus removing effective combos, it made your rely more on your reads and neutral game for victory. That's not more depth, it's taking away depth making you rely more on what is still left. This is generally considered a bad thing, no? Isn't that why hit stun is back?

I don't know why hit stun is back and I never tried to argue that lack of combos meant more depth. the ability to make a choice, a MEANINGFUL choice with trade offs in any give situation equates to depth. But... now that you mention it...

(I'm going to do a ridiculously watered down version of this)
Melee's combo system (high hit stun)
Step 1: Attack
Step 2: can I follow up? if yes attack again and repeat step one. If no end.

Brawl's "combo" system (low hit stun)
Step 1: Attack
Step 2: Can I follow up? if yes continue to step 2a. If no end
Step 2a: Attack and risk attack getting beat by a special interrupt(step 2b) or getting attack air dodged(step 2c) or bait reaction step 3).
Step2b:Attack successful repeat step 1 if not take damage
Step2c:attack successful repeat step 2, if not take damage
Step 3: Did the opponent double jump?(step 3a) air dodge(step 3b) Aerial(step3c) do nothing(step3d)
etc etc.

So yes... there IS more depth because there are more choices both the attacker and the attackie are making after each successful hit. But some times people don't want THAT MUCH depth in favor of the power fantasy of true comboing people, and THATS OKAY TOO.

Is it more options because you have more stages? By that logic we should allow all stages. Big blue offers new possibilities, let's legalize it! I mean this look at this! http://www.gfycat.com/NeatLiveDoctorfish

talking to the wrong guy I'd LOVE to have big blue legal. Seriously. I'm pro items too.

Allow me to clarify more. In Melee, there was hitstun and there was L-cancelling (if not L-cancelling, the lowered aerial landing lag effect that L-cancelling gave us. Although I recommend you read this post on L-cancelling http://np.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2dl2ud/why_lcancelling_actually_adds_depth_to_the_game/). This allowed for easy aerial to ground transitions and follow ups on moves that allowed for long combos and in-depth punishes. In Brawl, these were removed, and instead we had a read heavy game because you couldn't capitalize on winning neutral game nearly as well, thus had to win neutral game more. Now, it could be easy to say "Well, now I have to read my opponent a lot more, maybe this added depth!" but that's logically fallacious because the taking away of a part of the game (that being the punish and combo game) is still taking away. Sure, now you have to rely on depth previously founded upon for victory, but reliance on less content isn't the same as having more content to work with.

Unfortunately just saying something adds depth doesn't mean it adds depth. Getting a hit and then following up on that hit isn't depth by itself. But thats what your article is saying. Following up while your opponent is in hit stun is always the better option in melee. Just like L canceling is ALWAYS the best option not L canceling is a worse version of L canceling. there is no reason to ever pick that option so... it may as well not be there in depth's eyes.

That's not off-stage. Should I define off-stage? Is there stage under you? Then you're on-stage. Is there not stage under you? That's off-stage. At no point in that clip did either player not have stage below them to stand on.

That's gerudo valley. Even the commentators say "yeah you can stand by the edge but its a trade off" they go on to explain what I've been trying to tell you in that match and then the following one. Thats also the match that someone was point out to you where bowser was back throwing at the egde of the screen and not getting KOs. Go to 48:30 in the video.

As I've stated, that's not added depth. It's reliance on already existing options because other options have been taken away, and in this case the reliance on that option has become so great that it's become harmful to the game.

You'll love this: By this logic Items should be on because taking them away removes options.


Seriously though, out of curiosity, have you played brawl competitively? I know some awesome guys in near you that could teach you all the ins and outs of the game. It is read heavy but there actually are a lot of true combos and stuff they are just way more technical (knowing values, move decay, etc.) and situational (You need to have certain move decays against certain opponents while they are at certain percents)
If you like combos in melee you'd probably like brawl sheik. My buddy started picking her up and I could get you guys connected if you were interested.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

That's gerudo valley. Even the commentators say "yeah you can stand by the edge but its a trade off" they go on to explain what I've been trying to tell you in that match and then the following one. Thats also the match that someone was point out to you where bowser was back throwing at the egde of the screen and not getting KOs. Go to 48:30 in the video..

Not at 48:30. It's actually at 55:30. Dunno how you messed that up, but that's why he was confused. A little before that, you'll also see just how much space there is off-screen before the blast zone on Gerudo Valley.

Edit: 56:43 drags the point home even further. Bowser actually gets the red lightning effect on that back throw while hanging out near the blast line and still no KO. And we see that if spaced properly, Bowser's FSmash causes enough shield-push to be safe on shield. The opponent goes for the shield-grab and does not get it.

Double Edit: Looks like Sheik's dash attack causes just enough shield-stun to be "safe" on shield if you get up really close and personal before you launch it, since she passes right through them. And by safe, I mean she can't get grabbed. But some characters could probably just FTilt or DSmash out of shield and whack her.

Triple Edit: On a completely unrelated note (except for that video), Bowser has passive armour in his idle stance! Either that or has ridiculously high weight and armour on his jab. He just keeps jabbing or rolling right out of Toon Link's grounded Spin Attack. It looks like he actually gets flinched, though, so maybe he's just so heavy that TLink's USpecial doesn't combo. That's a scary thought.

 

[shapular]

Since apparently depth means having more options, and custom specials adds 3 times the options, can we allow custom specials? Please?

What do you guys think we're going to do about all the FDs? If your opponent picks FD, will they be able to take you to any FD they want? Or if there happened to be enough differences between FDs that it affects the matchup significantly, should we have one or more specific FD bans? Like, let's say I ban Reset Bomb Forest and my opponent picks FD. I'm normally okay with FD, except the 3D Land FD just happens to be completely terrible for me. Should I be able to ban 3D Land FD after he counterpicks FD?

If you like combos in melee you'd probably like brawl sheik. My buddy started picking her up and I could get you guys connected if you were interested.

Is your buddy Player-3? I know he plays Sheik and lives close to you.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

Unfortunately just saying something adds depth doesn't mean it adds depth. Getting a hit and then following up on that hit isn't depth by itself. But thats what your article is saying. Following up while your opponent is in hit stun is always the better option in melee. Just like L canceling is ALWAYS the best option not L canceling is a worse version of L canceling. there is no reason to ever pick that option so... it may as well not be there in depth's eyes.

Um, not to really take his side, but the article actually said L-cancelling creates situational awareness--that is, like teching, you need to be aware enough to use it, because timing is everything. I don't truly agree because the timing difference is so obnoxiously minuscule as to feel more like a rounding error, at least between any SHFFL, and still feels like more arbitrary button presses, compared to teching where you're just reacting with one button press.

 

[Raijinken]

Since apparently depth means having more options, and custom specials adds 3 times the options, can we allow custom specials? Please?

What do you guys think we're going to do about all the FDs? If your opponent picks FD, will they be able to take you to any FD they want? Or if there happened to be enough differences between FDs that it affects the matchup significantly, should we have one or more specific FD bans? Like, let's say I ban Reset Bomb Forest and my opponent picks FD. I'm normally okay with FD, except the 3D Land FD just happens to be completely terrible for me. Should I be able to ban 3D Land FD after he counterpicks FD?


Is your buddy Player-3? I know he plays Sheik and lives close to you.

I'm in favor of customizations (and all 36 possible Miis plus height and weight factors) in local tournaments, particularly if they are stated before matches/rounds (since an issue, as many pointed out, is that part of knowing a matchup is knowing the options of the opponent, and this fixes that issue). This would, indeed, create depth, though there is always the valid concern that Smash will turn into some Smogon crap where everyone runs the "best" build and no one cares to experiment on their own. While I expect movesets may be legal, I doubt the stat customizations will be legal, as some we've seen appear to add additional randomness (the one about critical hits was never explained).

For FD, I imagine it will depend on if they are all functionally identical, or if they are actually slightly different flat stages as a result of their sidewalls, under-stage area, or platform length. If they're identical, it would make sense to allow either player to select the version of Final Destination. If they're functional, more liberal rulesets may treat them all as separate stages, or just say that if you ban/strike/whatever the regular form then the FD form goes with it. Conservative rulesets will probably pick a particular FD (most likely either FD itself or Battlefield) and declare it the "standard" version that is played if FD is picked.

 

[kid craft 24/sonic master]

I'm sure if we were to allow walk off stages that we would probably need to implement some sort of off screen stalling rule. like if one player is staying off-screen for a specific period of time (preferably 1 minute) it should be considered an act of stalling similar to what was done with going underneath stages using glides.

While if walk off end up being banned i won't be really upset but i do feel that it will hurt some of the cast and especially hurt Little Mac's potential given that he heavily relies on walk off stages to maximize his great ground game.

As for custom moves i think they should be legal. I doubt the process of changing specials will be too complicated to the point that it becomes something that's seen as a waste of time. Many times people have to apply their own custom controls and these could take some time, then we also have people to take forever doing "hand warmers" so i see the point of "it will take too long to change specials" point one of little merit to banning them. And while some custom specials seem to be very unorthodox, many seem to given characters unique options that can be used in specific matchups that they would otherwise struggle with without using them.

Custom moves also deepen the complexity of how every match could flow. Ditto MUs no longer could always be considered a Ditto as one player could be more comfortable using mario's alternate specials vs someone who prefers mario's standard ones. The positive impact custom moves could have on the metagame imo far outweigh the negatives of their inclusion. If anything removing custom moves from competitive play could lessen the overall depth the game has.