Stage Design Discussion Thread

[Cubelarooso]

It came up in the ruleset thread, and it's a very important topic that needs to be addressed:

What should Project M stages be?​

Let's start with the broad perspective, to try to pin down the community's overall philosophy behind stage design. Some questions to consider:

• What (if any) is the point of having multiple stages?
• How many stages should there be?
• What is necessary for a stage?
• What makes for a good stage?
• What ruins a stage?
• What kind of stage do you want?

For more things to consider, we might also replace the word "stage" in any of these with "legal stage" or "starter." Starters themselves are a great place to start, so further ask yourself:

• What is the purpose of a starter?
• How should starters relate to one another?

And of course, the real significance to each of the above is:

Why?​

If we can come to any sort of consensus for our collective goals - or at least some archetypical opposing positions - then I'll summarize the main points here and we can move on to the specifics of how they might be achieved.


To get the ball rolling:
I think the difference in starters' sizes should be almost negligible, and the main distinction between them should be how their platform layout affects the flow of movement. Just normalizing PS2 to fall more in line with Battlefield and Smashville would solve half the issues we currently encounter in trying to choose starters.
Nearly every matchup will just strike any extremes anyway, so why not have only mid-size starters that anyone might find comfortable? They could then become a consistent benchmark upon which to balance characters and other stages.

 

[Rhubarbo]

Asymmetric stages are worth considering, but I don't know in what capacity (e.g. blast zones, platforms, and so on).

 

[Narpas_sword]

Making Ps2 'normalized' like battlefield = Norfair with still platforms.

Freeze the Norfair platforms and it becomes 5th starter, easy.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Sorry, noticed a typo in the OP. Changed it to say "Battlefield and Smashville" rather than "Battlefield and Battlefield." These stages are pretty much uncontested, so why can't all starters be like them?
A character that wants a huge stage isn't going to get one first match unless they account for over half of the list, so having any huge starters at all seems unnecessary. Couldn't any matchup that strikes to Dreamland be just as fair on a stage that's less polarizing for other matchups? Is there any matchup BF and SV both undeniably skew?

I personally think Norfair's dimensions still fall outside the degree of standardization I'd prefer. I'm talking ±5 for ceiling/side distance, ±10 for stage width. Just enough that it's a noticeable - but not dominating - factor.
I don't think size (especially blastzone distance) contributes enough strategic depth to justify how much it can wreck characters. A much more diverse cast would be possible if they need be balanced on only one class of stages rather than nine. It would then open up stages to be more meaningfully different.
Whenever stage discussion comes up there's always arguing over big and small stages, when it would be a lot easier and no less varied (probably more) to have none and none.

But that all comes back the question of why (or if) we should have multiple stages in the first place. I like a variety of stages because of the effect they can have on gameplay, where players can't always rely on the same exact tactics everywhere, with new ones opening up and old ones becoming less useful. I dislike the effect they can have on the outcome based simply on how a character's strengths are favored without the player even trying.



I'm a big fan of asymmetry in stages, and one should remember that over half of Melee's stages are asymmetric to some degree, as are the one's in Umbreon's current list. Spawning position isn't much of an issue considering how little influence it has on a four-stock match, and we can always rule that loser gets to choose for later matches. It should be minimized in starters, though, if only to keep them simple.

 

[robosteven]

I'd love to see a single-platform stage like Yoshi's Island except without having slopes or being terrible

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I will edit/post tomorrow with more thoughts as it is late, but here is a couple of things.

I think changing stages that are already extremely popular is mostly a bad idea. So changing the physical length of PS2 is a bad idea. I would say making Norfair changes like a BF/SV length, a ceiling of 190 (SV has 195, BF has 200...), and its current horizontal bz's would be a great start. I would say limit the height the platforms can reach would also help it feel more medium. Still have movement, just not vertically. Maybe alternating between synchronized side to side and in/out would add flavor, but be unique from SV/BF. The platforms should for sure move.

Skyworld could get a slight ceiling raise, something so people don't complain about the platforms, and something so people can shut up about circle camping. I swear, you can circle camp/top platform camp on Battlefield and Dreamland too, but because Skyworld is on the fringe anyways, they cite it as a reason.

I think GHZ and FoD should be differentiated more. Since FoD is too familiar from melee and Norfair could be made a medium starter, I think GHZ should change. Maybe give GHZ a lower ceiling (185-190) and make horizontal bz's slightly further, it would feel unique from FoD.

PS2 and Distant Planet are fairly similar. Since everyone loves PS2, leave it the way it is. Raise Distant Planet's ceiling to ~220. Probably bring in the side blastzones so full stage kill percents aren't soo awful and to account for the higher ceiling. Someone suggested putting the leaves in the middle, I would have to try that before I am convinced though. Fix the walls so they aren't janky.

If people are hating on Lylat, at least make YI have no ridges (edges are fine though). Don't let the platform slant so much. Otherwise any change I would suggest would change the stage too much. Even though I hate the long platform, it is central to the stage.

I will post more tommorow on the philosophy of any changes to stages as well as things on the philosophy we should have for stage lists.

 

[ECHOnce]

I will edit/post tomorrow with more thoughts as it is late, but here is a couple of things.

I think changing stages that are already extremely popular is mostly a bad idea. So changing the physical length of PS2 is a bad idea. I would say making Norfair changes like a BF/SV length, a ceiling of 190 (SV has 195, BF has 200...), and its current horizontal bz's would be a great start. I would say limit the height the platforms can reach would also help it feel more medium. Still have movement, just not vertically. Maybe alternating between synchronized side to side and in/out would add flavor, but be unique from SV/BF. The platforms should for sure move.

Skyworld could get a slight ceiling raise, something so people don't complain about the platforms, and something so people can shut up about circle camping. I swear, you can circle camp/top platform camp on Battlefield and Dreamland too, but because Skyworld is on the fringe anyways, they cite it as a reason.

I think GHZ and FoD should be differentiated more. Since FoD is too familiar from melee and Norfair could be made a medium starter, I think GHZ should change. Maybe give GHZ a lower ceiling (185-190) and make horizontal bz's slightly further, it would feel unique from FoD.

PS2 and Distant Planet are fairly similar. Since everyone loves PS2, leave it the way it is. Raise Distant Planet's ceiling to ~220. Probably bring in the side blastzones so full stage kill percents aren't soo awful and to account for the higher ceiling. Someone suggested putting the leaves in the middle, I would have to try that before I am convinced though. Fix the walls so they aren't janky.

If people are hating on Lylat, at least make YI have no ridges (edges are fine though). Don't let the platform slant so much. Otherwise any change I would suggest would change the stage too much. Even though I hate the long platform, it is central to the stage.

I will post more tommorow on the philosophy of any changes to stages as well as things on the philosophy we should have for stage lists.

I'm in agreement with all of these suggestions. Furthering the Skyworld circle-camping point being negligible...you don't have to swear that you can also do it on Battlefield and Dreamland - it has been exploited against slower chars on major tourney streams before, and it will happen again (not to mention Armada Yink examples, among others). Only difference is just that Skyworld's platforms are a bit longer, but honestly...circle-camping is just another stalling tactic that can be done on just about any stage with a high platform. While stage choices should try avoid anything that could lead to exploiting the rules, shouldn't circle-camping be a problem that PM's general ruleset discussion tackle and make into a non-issue (if we can't agree that it isn't already)? I mean...we're not gonna go banning Battlefield or Dreamland because you can circle-camp them. If Skyworld can otherwise be fixed with a ceiling raise and other minor changes, then that should be the end of it.

I haven't participated in stagelist discussion before and am diving in having only read through Umbreon's thread briefly, so pardon this if I'm unknowingly regurgitating old arguments that have been made and debated elsewhere lol.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Hostly, the main thing i dont like about skyworld is that the stage is a little thin. as in, X axis, not Y.
It should extent at least half under each cloud.

 

[Cubelarooso]

If some other stage were just a non-polarized version of PS2, then what purpose would PS2 serve? It wouldn't add any interesting new strategies to the game, it would just be a place to make slow and floaty characters worse.
PS2's popularity is two-fold. It's a mandatory starter because it's basic and simple and its layout is compelling, and because there's this inherited notion that jank can be counteracted with opposing jank; I'd think it'd be more popular in that regard without the jank. Like many other stages, it's a common pick just because it can make winning easier, which is an unsportsmanlike reason to keep a stage; 3.0 Mewtwo was also very popular, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have changed.
PS2 is already different from PS1 anyway, which I assume has been matched to Melee.
What I'm saying here is, stages should be just as subject to change as characters are (much more so, since characters have been continually refined, while stages haven't progressed near as much in the last 4 years). Certain things can sometimes define the image of a stage and can't be changed without eliminating their identity. That can be size, as it is for YS and DL. PS2 does have such an immutable characteristic, but, like BF or SV, that's its platform layout.

The original point isn't specifically PS2, though. The point is stage sizes: What does having extremely different ones contribute to the game, especially on starters?
Different stage widths provide greater room or closer quarters, which certain tactics require. But when they're so character-specific, just how much is worthwhile? Do stages really need to be thinner than the current GHZ or wider than the current Dracula's Castle in order for such such tactics to be executed, especially at the cost of tactics requiring the opposite size (which certain characters might rely on)? Do starters really need to be thinner than FoD or wider than… is there even a slightly-wider than average stage to compare it to… Halberd's first form in order to be a diverse and interesting selection?
Blastzones are way worse. They make a stage superficially seem different, but only because of how it effects whether you win. Players play almost exactly the same, they just won't survive for the same length, dependent on character rather than strategy. It's a travesty of stage variety, and I honestly think it's the one of the most harmful notions left in PM.
What is their purpose? Is there a good one?

Let's try to keep things focused on the general theory, with changes to specific stages serving only as illustration. Anything suggested now might seem totally backwards once we finally settle on a particular ideological landscape.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I totally agree on discussing the theory behind a stage list before actually going into potential stages. I was just rattling off what changes could be made to make them more acceptable. I will reference those changes as I get into the discussion more.

I think we should have more stage size then just 1. However, stage as a whole could be a lot more "normal". For example: if it was decided that an 11 stage list was the best possible number. They had one "super small" in WW; 2 "slightly small" in FoD and GHZ; 5 almost perfectly medium in BF, SV, modified YI, modified Norfair, and Lylat; 2 "slightly large" in FD and Skyworld; and Dreamland or something like that. With 2 bans, you have to play on 1 "polarized" stage as a counterpick. The other counterpick in a Bo5 would have to be on a medium stage and the starter would also be medium. I think that is perfectly acceptable. The stages themselves don't matter in that list as much as the general size of them. Norfair and Lylat would be made slightly shorter to be the same length as SV/BF/YI.

Enough of specifics though, what are the merits of this type of stagelist? First of all, there is a lot more medium stage than large or small. If you try to make it 3 3 3 (s/m/l) or 4 4 4, it gets into a lot more disagreeable stages for that particular size of a list. If people want a 9 stage list, it is typically because of too many disagreeable stages that they feel are unnecessary. Most disagreeable stages are large and small. So if we shot for some variation of 3 4 3, 3 5 3, or 3 6 3, I think we could make a much more agreeable stage list while still allowing some stage variety.

As for the starter list. If you are a proponent of FLSS, a 3 5 3 would be a great way of providing those diverse stages but allowing equal footing for the medium stages if it come down to it. If I were to make a starter list, it would be 1 3 1. Then CP's would probably add 2 2 2 for counterpicks, making it 3 5 3 overall. I generally am opposed to having 5 medium stages for starters, that just seems rediculous, though I would have to see it in practice to see how it works. I would want to see what people on average struck to (specifically any small stages and any large stages). If you consider PS2 large, lots of people strike there, so its worth considering including that on as a large stage. Then having a smalish stage to balance it out.

 

[Leafeon]

I want smashville's platform to not go all the way offstage. The design itself is fine, but the canyon syndrome and walk-off capabilities of the platform at current are what make me ban that stage. It's one thing for fox to hop and laser, it's another for Roy to stare at the platform until it comes back.

 

[JCOnyx]

It's for that reason Leafeon that I don't understand why everyone is treating Smashville as one of the best examples of a starter. The side blastzones can be just as small with the help of the platform as PS2's ceiling can be. Just a small nitpick.

I personally prefer PS2 as a starter not only for it's layout but because of it's lower ceiling. I've come to enjoy the nature of the variable blastzones as well, but I would be interested in experimenting with more standardized ones to see how it would work.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

@ Cubelarooso I assume in your post you meant 3.02 Mewtwo? I forgot to mention it.

Anyways. Speaking of more normal blastzones. Right now at least, I wouldn't like the idea of making all blastzones similar/the same, all stage sizes similar/the same, and only platforms be the unique parts of stages. This may be just me arguing from tradition, but we have always had various ceiling and stage sizes to deal with and most have grown accustomed to it, some even enjoy it. As long as the stage list allows both players to get a similar number of stages that favor them in their counterpicks, I think its a completely valid test of skill. That being said, I wouldn't mind standardizing the blastzones to various heights so that the discussion on this stage having a low or medium ceiling could end forever. There would be a low ceiling of 170, a moderate low ceiling of 185, a medium of 200, a moderately large ceiling of 215, and a large ceiling of 230. That is just simple math, they don't all have to be so evenly spaced out, but just 5 ceiling heights to choose from.

If you want to take that idea further, you can do that for horizontal bz's as well, though I am not as familiar with the numbers. I would also enjoy a standardization of certain stage lengths. If a stage wants to be medium and is going to be changed anyways (like a Lylat, Norfair, or YI even though it already is), they could be made Smashville size to better fit medium stage criteria.

 

[Narpas_sword]

The only stages that should have altered blastzones are PM 'originals'.
Best to keep the melee and brawl stages the same.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

The only stages that should have altered blastzones are PM 'originals'.
Best to keep the melee and brawl stages the same.

What are the PM originals? Is that just training room and draculas? Or is that including WarioWare, Norfair, PS2, and so forth? I agree that melee stages should mostly remain intact. However, I think stages like Norfair that aren't really popular should be able to be changed.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Yea, i tried adding another sentence to explain but gave up because everything i typed felt ambiguous.
I mean the stages they modded.

Stages that are ports from melee, or retain the Brawl layout should keep their blast-zones consistent to their respective game.

Stages that have been Modded by PMDT (DP, Norfair, Dracs, etc ) should be free to change blastzones.

Just keeps things...honest...between games.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

So do you mean absolutely no changes whatsoever or just the general principles of the blastzones. I agree though. Dreamland should not be changed, just make Skyworld more acceptable instead.

 

[Narpas_sword]

i mean, don't change the blast-zones on a stage that otherwise looks and had the exact stage/platform as a stage from Brawl/Melee.

 

[JCOnyx]

But didn't they already raise the ceilings a bit from their counterparts in this current patch? I seem to recall it being in the patch notes.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

But didn't they already raise the ceilings a bit from their counterparts in this current patch? I seem to recall it being in the patch notes.

I believe that was due to a bug, not because they wanted to raise all of the ceilings. That was actually going into 3.02 too.

i mean, don't change the blast-zones on a stage that otherwise looks and had the exact stage/platform as a stage from Brawl/Melee.

That makes sense. I disagree with changing stages that are wildly popular like PS2. I know Cubalarooso wants to (or wants to discuss it), but I think it should be left alone and other fringe stages on competitive stages should be repurposed before changing popular stages.

 

[JCOnyx]

Spoiler: New SSS for 3.6

Alright, these are probably a work in progess, but I'd like to speculate on the stage decisions based on what we can see here. Deflino's Secret is located on page 1 bottom row, so they have to be comfortable enough putting it with the more competitive stages in the game. Since it has replaced Drac's in basically every way, I'm assuming what they have done is finally tone down the blastzones to a tolerable level, but it's still going to be considered a "large" stage based on it's placing on the list.

Speaking of the page one layout, there is only one inconsistency that kinda of irks me. Generally it seems to go small stages on the left and large on the right for the bottom 2 rows, but Lylat which has pretty large blastzones in on the far left leaving me extremely confused. Either it's the 1 stage that doesn't fit this stage size trend, or they've modified it to where it has way smaller blastzones than before. That would actually be really interesting, percent racks up pretty quickly on this stage with the low platforms and would make for quite a deadly stage for certain characters.

Just some quick thoughts, and this seemed liked the best place to put them down.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Speaking of the page one layout, there is only one inconsistency that kinda of irks me. Generally it seems to go small stages on the left and large on the right for the bottom 2 rows, but Lylat which has pretty large blastzones in on the far left leaving me extremely confused. Either it's the 1 stage that doesn't fit this stage size trend, or they've modified it to where it has way smaller blastzones than before. That would actually be really interesting, percent racks up pretty quickly on this stage with the low platforms and would make for quite a deadly stage for certain characters.

Just some quick thoughts, and this seemed liked the best place to put them down.

RE lylat.

If you look at the middle 5 of each row, you have our starter list, with DL64 bumped for the new stage.
Which if our wishes were granted, is a large stage without such giant bz's

Flanking that we have the tiny yS and large DL64, which are on the bottom row, as they were commonly starters.
On the flanks of the middle are 2 couterpicks that just don't get the love they deserve.

Tee thing that irks me most is the 64 stages arent grouped =p

 

[ECHOnce]

That makes sense. I disagree with changing stages that are wildly popular like PS2. I know Cubalarooso wants to (or wants to discuss it), but I think it should be left alone and other fringe stages on competitive stages should be repurposed before changing popular stages.

But what about non-PM originals that weren't wildly popular and received changes? Read - DL. Changelog claims the properties were left the same, but I'm sure we all know by now that the stage body/shape was tweaked with a bit. Not sure about the BZs though.

Anyhow, I'm sort of against changing popular or non-PM original stages too, but if DL was free game then...why not others? On that note, even if PS2 is popular, the only reason why it probably got different BZs from PS1 was to help it stand out a bit more as a seperate stage (not just PS1 without jank transformations), since they were both on the...3.02 legal tourney stagelist iirc. If they hadn't been together and PS1 had always been banned in tourney, then what reason would we have to support PS2 having different barriers from the "Melee original version?" (if our philosophy on stage changes is to 'leave popular stages alone' and/or to 'keep stage properties consistent with the original versions')

On another note...if one of the major arguments for anti-Lylat legality in 3.02 was on the distracting background, do you all think Delphino's Secret might run into the same issue? Because tbh, I never even noticed how bad Lylat was until I read about it on reddit (nor had anyone ever pointed that out to me in tourney friendlies on Lylat), but dear lord that new DS stage texture looks distracting..

 

[Cubelarooso]

They had one "super small" in WW; 2 "slightly small" in FoD and GHZ; 5 almost perfectly medium in BF, SV, modified YI, modified Norfair, and Lylat; 2 "slightly large" in FD and Skyworld; and Dreamland or something like that.

The issue I have with plans like this is that "stage size" isn't a single variable, so one can't group stages into such broad categories as "small/medium/large." Stage width, side blastzones, and top blastzones are all major components, so together that's already nine different sizes that would need to be accounted for, which doesn't leave much room for layout to have an impact.
I'd also point out that this list excludes PS2, which would be a crying shame for such a "wildly popular" stage. Almost as bad as leaving it as-is.

Stages shouldn't be immune to change; nothing else has been (I did mean 3.02 Mewtwo, by the way, thanks. Went ahead and fixed that.). Modifying DL or YI would kinda ruin their identity, but tweaking Battlefield or Smashville for valid reasons shouldn't be out of the question. Battlefield is already different from Brawl despite (the main design) looking the same, and its edges mean it's not exactly Melee. Plus stages aren't entirely consistent across the other Smash games.
The obligatory quote, "Project M hopes to achieve a game similar to Super Smash Bros. Melee in many respects. It does not, however, intend to be a 1:1 Melee clone."
If significant changes are made to an otherwise familiar stage, however, it would be best to give some indication.

I generally am opposed to having 5 medium stages for starters, that just seems rediculous, though I would have to see it in practice to see how it works.

I've never seen any reason for why we should have exceptionally-sized starters, besides not being able to because our stages weren't intended for competition and were designed by a man who thinks that means For Glory. Melee's list is actually a deviant in its laxity, though; the other games' starters (and stages in general) are considerably closer to being standardized (see 64 in particular).
If a matchup strikes to an extreme stage, it's either because both characters like the same kind of size, or one component of its size favors one character and another the other character, and both players just enjoy the layout. Fixing the size wouldn't spoil any of that. Extreme sizes are a problem because they do spoil enjoyment of the layout.
This game has characters - like Bowser & Sonic, Pikachu & Falco, and Fox & Jiggs - that aren't allowed to play on every stage. In a Melee-like list, there'll be one stage they always strike and one they always get struck. That means they lose out on nearly half the experience intended (sometimes more), which is greatly dissatisfying when a stage would otherwise be quite entertaining.
It's a flaw in the game when some characters don't get to explore the full range everyone else is offered. The way I want it is so anyone can feel reasonably comfortable fighting anyone anywhere, and so striking is determined by likes and plans rather than rules. Just like character selection, the less codified "proper" stage selection is, the better.
All of that also applies to "super small/large" counterpicks.

I've been fiddling with some custom normalized stages, and it is amazing. You never feel too cramped or too spaced out, you always feel like you're on equal footing regardless of opponent. You never have to worry about losing just because the game decides you die sooner, you're always sure you're getting the full capacity your character was designed for. It frees up a lot of room to concentrate on the actual layout of the stage, which makes the stages themselves seem way more meaningfully distinct, is incredibly fun because you know you earned every advantage you take and you're always thinking of ways to take more, and every match on any stage you're learning more to turn it further to being in your favor. It is the true definition of variety.
It's the best and needs to happen. If people could see how great it is, it'd open the door for a full-list-of-middling-stages utopia.

 

[Cubelarooso]

One of the most beautiful parts of Smash is that different stages MEAN something. That is, they play differently.

That's why stage sizes should be reigned in: So that we can have stages that actually do play differently.
Blastzone differences hardly change gameplay in any meaningful way. All anyone can do is use the same old strategy, but now it's more or less effective. That is, unless it's a stage that's so absurdly extreme that one can simply deliver the opponent directly to death, or that killing in a certain direction becomes a non-option, which is "variety" that isn't so much interesting and deep as it is broken.
Stage width can be somewhat counteracted with other elements that change overall onstage size, but it still isn't much better than blastzones. It has neat effects on how one camps and zones, but in fairly straightforward, noninteractive ways, and those strategies are some of the most polarizing and least enjoyed. It still has merit, but we don't need it at PS2 or YS degree to reap the benefit, and the greater degrees cost much more than they're worth.

It's not healthy that every stage discussion revolves around size first and foremost. It's not a dynamic attribute; it's pointless and thoughtless and could be easily avoided. We wouldn't have the constant arguments over "balancing" a stagelist if the stages themselves were actually balanced. We could be discussing elements that players can actually use, that actually have to be used. Things that are less clear-cut, with more room for skill, knowledge, and improvement. But why would I ever choose such a stage so long as one that just makes me better for no effort is available?
It's pretty boring and disappointing when one never gets to experience the unique gameplay and utilize the unique options that WW's layout provides, simply because choosing the size puts them at an intractable, incontrovertible disadvantage.

(also the COMBINATION of counterpick attributes is what you're picking from).

If that's true, why have different platform layouts at all? Why not just have eight tri-plat stages of different large/small combinations of stage width/side distance/ceiling height? It's unfair that characters that like long stages with far sides and low ceilings have access to a stage with no platforms, yet not someone who wants short/far/low doesn't.
Sounds really boring, but I don't think that having a mixture of elements that change gameplay and elements that change viability is a well-founded ideal.

Altering the stagelist to even out the viability of those characters is a valid and necessary measure to allow play of those characters.

Having a character dependent on a stage doesn't actually make them better. They'll still have to win at least one match on a stage that's more "neutral," plus they'll have to deal with stages on the opposite end of the spectrum, which will probably destroy them. The characters it really helps are those that can function on any size, so the cast has to be homogenized to keep up with them. It does add undue strength to gimmicky pocket counterpicks, though.
If instead we focused on a narrow band of sizes, we could have a broader band of characters. We'd only have to consider how they fair on one category of stage - which shouldn't be too dependent on matchup - rather than tiptoeing around what might make them broken or unplayable on extreme stages against specific opponents.

 

[nimigoha]

While I actually put a good deal of thought into a 'standardized stagelist' I think that the number of stages you would have to make to cover all the bases would be enormous.

Stage width, walls/no walls, top blast zone, side blast zones, bottom blast zone (only a huge factor on YS and FoD as the extremes, could be normalized across the list), and platform layout.

2 categories: width (large/small), walls (yes/no), top (large/small), side (large/small). Right there is 16 combinations without even addressing platforms. Single, PS2 style, moving/stationary, triplat, none, WW, etc. I suppose you could break this down into 4, with none, 1, 2, and 3. So 64 different stages.

Unimportant sidenote: What would be really crazy cool would be the winner gets to ban 1 attribute. Ban low ceiling or triplat or walls etc, then the counterpicker just plugs in the attributes they want other than the banned attribute and a stage is generated. That's what I'd do if I wanted a standardized stage selection process but this is a modded Wii game we're working with so I can't begin to count the reasons why this isn't remotely feasible for PM.

What we could do instead is cut down the attributes. Stage width is small or large. All blast zones are medium, like Battlefield-ish. Walls are something that I don't think hurts any characters in a significant way but are important for others, so all stages have walls.

So you're picking between large and small and then you pick your platform layout, which could also be trimmed. Triplat, PS2, stationary (or not I guess) Smashville, and maybe one more like Warioware. That's only 8 stages. Or add a medium stage and that's 12.

But also make every single stage's platforms the same height because the small single frame nuances in perfect waveland timings is arbitrary and if you're shaking everything up this radically you might as well do it.

And you could even alter the existing stages. I think that Battlefield with walls would be the perfect medium triplat. Fix YS edges and blast zones and you have the small triplat, wall Dreamland and fix blast zones and platform height and obviously get rid of Whispy, and you have the large triplat. Fix WW blast zones and you have the small WW-ledge. Etcetera.

Making a character's kill moves worse is a strange thing to have as an option, when you look at it from a viewpoint that's not 'this is how it's always been'. Most famously in Fox on Dreamland. Maybe the two most common phrases in commentating are 'Oooop, but we're on Dreamland so that isn't going to quite kill yet' or 'And wow, that killed off the top even on Dreamland' or words to that effect.

It would be nice to know that the only thing affecting the kill potential of my upsmash from a certain position on every stage is % and DI. There's enough matchup knowledge to learn in PM as it is, learning percents for every single slightly different blast zone for 41 different characters seems silly.


This is me thinking as crazily as possible.

With 12 stages made up of small/medium/large and SV/PS2/BF/WW platforms, you could get 3 bans for the 12 stages, which could let you eliminate 1 platform layout or just specific combinations that you don't like.

 

[4tlas]

That's why stage sizes should be reigned in: So that we can have stages that actually do play differently.
Blastzone differences hardly change gameplay in any meaningful way. All anyone can do is use the same old strategy, but now it's more or less effective. That is, unless it's a stage that's so absurdly extreme that one can simply deliver the opponent directly to death, or that killing in a certain direction becomes a non-option, which is "variety" that isn't so much interesting and deep as it is broken.
Stage width can be somewhat counteracted with other elements that change overall onstage size, but it still isn't much better than blastzones. It has neat effects on how one camps and zones, but in fairly straightforward, noninteractive ways, and those strategies are some of the most polarizing and least enjoyed. It still has merit, but we don't need it at PS2 or YS degree to reap the benefit, and the greater degrees cost much more than they're worth.

It's not healthy that every stage discussion revolves around size first and foremost. It's not a dynamic attribute; it's pointless and thoughtless and could be easily avoided. We wouldn't have the constant arguments over "balancing" a stagelist if the stages themselves were actually balanced. We could be discussing elements that players can actually use, that actually have to be used. Things that are less clear-cut, with more room for skill, knowledge, and improvement. But why would I ever choose such a stage so long as one that just makes me better for no effort is available?
It's pretty boring and disappointing when one never gets to experience the unique gameplay and utilize the unique options that WW's layout provides, simply because choosing the size puts them at an intractable, incontrovertible disadvantage.



If that's true, why have different platform layouts at all? Why not just have eight tri-plat stages of different large/small combinations of stage width/side distance/ceiling height? It's unfair that characters that like long stages with far sides and low ceilings have access to a stage with no platforms, yet not someone who wants short/far/low doesn't.
Sounds really boring, but I don't think that having a mixture of elements that change gameplay and elements that change viability is a well-founded ideal.



Having a character dependent on a stage doesn't actually make them better. They'll still have to win at least one match on a stage that's more "neutral," plus they'll have to deal with stages on the opposite end of the spectrum, which will probably destroy them. The characters it really helps are those that can function on any size, so the cast has to be homogenized to keep up with them. It does add undue strength to gimmicky pocket counterpicks, though.
If instead we focused on a narrow band of sizes, we could have a broader band of characters. We'd only have to consider how they fair on one category of stage - which shouldn't be too dependent on matchup - rather than tiptoeing around what might make them broken or unplayable on extreme stages against specific opponents.

I was very very confused as to where the previous posts went, when I finally realized that you had quoted me across threads! I appreciate the time and effort you put into these responses, and I agree that this is a better place to discuss stagelist design. I now don't have easy access to everything that has been said so far, so again please correct me if I miss something in your argument. I am pretty sure I disagree with everything you've said, but if I fail to explain why its because I forgot about that part, not because I don't have reasonings. Please remind me to elaborate if I fail to respond to a point.

I do alter my gameplay based on blastzone differences, but you are correct that mostly they just alter the effectiveness of certain playstyles without changing the desire to play with those methods. I know that I personally will try harder to gimp with larger blastzones, I look for vertical kill options when at center stage (and thus horizontal kill options have further to travel), and I try to purposely rack up more damage before launching opponents with bigger blastzones.

As for stage size, the amount of distance (and thus time to travel) between any 2 locations has a great effect on my gameplay. If you are both playing characters that always need to interact at point blank range, then yes the stage size is largely irrelevant so long as you both have enough room to maneuver. However, the number of retreats one can make before being shoved off the end of the stage still differs, and even this changes the dynamics between a stronger pressure character and a defensive reactionary character (or player!). This results in a change in mindset, mindgames, and reads, relative to the distance from the edge of the stage. If either character has options beyond point blank range, then the stage size makes a huge difference in gameplay.

I agree completely that WW has a unique layout that is far more interesting than any other attributes it possesses. And it is unfortunate that characters that want space have no opportunity to use that layout. But as I just mentioned above, I do think those other attributes are important qualities, and we should not homogenize all stages for those qualities, even though that would allow players to use WW's layout without sacrificing other strengths they wanted.

We actually have a small flat stage, a medium flat stage, and a large flat stage. Those are GHZ, FD, and Norfair. One could even argue that Smashville is a medium flat stage, or that Pokemon Stadium 2 is a large flat stage. And they do share some aspects of flat stages. Unless we have infinite stages with every combination of attributes, I don't think we can have a "perfectly" fair stagelist.

I'm not sure I understand your last point about characters that have strong stage preferences. They have to win on a "neutral" stage, but due to the ban system they will get a stage that is shifted from neutral towards their needed attribute. If they can't get their most needed attribute, they can pick a stage that provides them with a different advantage in exchange for some advantage for the opponent. I agree that if we only ever played on one stage, we could balance the character roster around playing on that stage. But isn't it unfortunate that we would have to remove (or effectively remove) stage diversity to do that?



The other thread was about being pragmatic and making a stagelist/ruleset out of what we have. In that thread, I was arguing in favor of a specific system as the best we can do. If we simply want to talk about design, I will probably agree with you on several points. But I am also not the most competitively-minded person, so I can summarize my design philosophy simply: this game is about having a variety of characters, from which you can pick your favorite, fight each other from stages across the Nintendo universe. Variety is the name of the game. Removing that variety for the sake of using this game to determine skill should be a last resort, as then you are no longer testing skill at this game. You are then testing skill at some theoretical subset. And who is to say that subset is what determines skill? And why do I care to play this new game?

 

[nimigoha]

But there still is variety. You can still play on a small stage with WW platforms or a medium stage with PS2 platforms or a large triplat. It's just standardized variety and it's more fair. And of course there's still the character variety.

It's super hypothetical because I doubt that many people would want to throw out the designs of the current beloved stagelist, losing the flavour.

An ASL set would be pretty bomb though. Second page, make ASL reskins for a bunch of standardized layouts. If enough people adopt it, it becomes the new norm.

This is the kind of thing I would do if I had the time or knowledge, but would never even presume to ask a Dev to do because it's such a wild theory.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I think making all blastzones completely identical would be awful. But the fact that blastzones have become the single most important attribute people always look at first when picking and banning stages, to the point where people hardly even think about other stage elements, definitely isn't a good thing either. I say keep some degree of variance, but tone the extremes down until we reach a point where blastzones are not the only thing that matters. But getting rid of all variance is not the solution.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I definitely took it too far.

You have a great point. WW has super cool platforms but they're underdeveloped because people hardly go there because it's such an unforgiving stage.

What we have right now is 'CP for blast zones and to avoid/get chain grabs, I guess you should maybe consider how beneficial the platform layout is as well but the first things are more important'.

I also wish they would pick up the platforms from Lylat and put them on another stage because I think a level (but slightly slanted) triplat is a very unique layout. There's just so much distaste for the difficult ledges and crazy background.