Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread: Round II

[19_]

Also when people say Smashville is the best stage:

Nah thats just dark pits side b being jank

 

[Halifax?]

~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Yikarur]

The Stage is perfectly fine. I tested it a lot. I did several 8 Minute circles to observe the stage and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Cheap Shot]

People are playing on omegas instead of FD for a reason, and the blinding flash is a lot less intruding than a giant monster screaming so hard that the screen shakes.
If you're going to give 3 bans in the CP phase why not let people FLSS instead ? It's like giving 4 bans and doesn't rely on a stupid rule.

People play Omegas instead of FD for a variety of reasons, not just because of the light (it's mostly walls and/or music IMO). Also, the CP phase lets the loser choose from seven stages and the next person, if they were to lose, six to seven potential stage options. I don't really see where you're coming from. Anyway, no matter how deep into a set it gets, the rules will promote more stage diversity, which is sort of the point of FLSS.

 

[smashbro29]

People play Omegas instead of FD for a variety of reasons, not just because of the light (it's mostly walls and/or music IMO). Also, the CP phase lets the loser choose from seven stages and the next person, if they were to lose, six to seven potential stage options. I don't really see where you're coming from. Anyway, no matter how deep into a set it gets, the rules will promote more stage diversity, which is sort of the point of FLSS.

Yeah I'm fine with regular FD, I pick omega stages to hear music/see scenery/have straight walls.

 

[Yikarur]

btw @ the question asked earlier. I'm Co-TO and/or Staff at several german tournaments. I'm in charge of the ruleset as well but we always have fair voting processes to create the stage list. I hope Umbra Clock Tower will be legal because it's the kind of stage I've been wanting all the time.

 

[LanceKing2200]

The reason I asked about TOs vs Players is because I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread who are advocating against 3 starters (FD/BF/SV) for the simple reason of "more stages = better".

I spent a long time yesterday talking to our top players, and did some asking around of our lower to middle level players, and I've come to the realization that 3 starters and X CPs is the best possible stage list, let me explain why:

If you are playing a tournament set (Bo3), and both you and your opponent are playing optimally (You are both aware of the strengths and weaknesses of every character and stage, and make the best choices in every situation) the scenario is just a matter of your skill/reflexes vs your opponent's skill/reflexes. Game 1 should take place on a neutral stage, which gives no significant advantage to either player/character, which is why we have starter stages in the first place. In the following rounds, the loser of the previous round gets the advantage of stage choice (after 1/2 bans) and second character choice, in order to try and pull out a win. If those advantages aren't enough, then they lose 2-0, if they are enough to win, the other player gets a chance at the same advantage. Continue like this until a player wins the set.

This should be the goal of every player, to get to this point where they can optimally choose counterpicks that allow them to swing matches against players of similar or greater skill. The advantage of winning Game 1 is that you get the opportunity to face your opponent at their best (picking a stage and character that counters you), and if you win that, the set is over, you are clearly better. If you lose to those counterpicks, then you yourself get to counter their counter, but you have an additional advantage. The winner of Game 1 gets to play their counterpicks when the set is 1-1, rather than 0-1, which is his reward for winning Game 1. If Game 1 takes place on a "non-neutral" stage, then it throws a wrench into the whole structure. If the results of Game 1 don't go toward the player who proves to be better on a "neutral" stage, then they are going to get counterpicked against in Game 3 when their opponent didn't really earn the right to counterpick in a 1-1, as opposed to 0-1, situation.

Now everyone's definition of "neutral" stage is going to be different. FD, BF, and SV are all clearly even, fair, and different enough that they support varying playstyles. Unfortunately, to get the numbers up to 5 neutrals (because it must be odd) you have to take some liberties. T&C has been a staple, as has DL, but the two of them throw off the balance of neutrals because they are favored by the same characters that prefer BF. This tips the balance in their favor, because they are almost guaranteed to get one of their good stages Game 1. LC is an option, but due to the tilting and edge shenanigans, players don't like it. We sadly don't have access to YIB or "frozen" PS, which would make a perfect 5th neutral, so we have to work with what we have.

The fact of the matter is, there just aren't two more stages after FD/BF/SV that are both "jank free" (using this term very loosely) and conductive to a balanced Game 1 stage strike. This is not to say that other stages shouldn't be legal, quite the opposite in fact. Having a multitude and variety of CP stages is important to allow characters and playstyles to flourish. We should be fighting for every legal CP that we can, including weird ones like Wuhu and Peach's Castle, because they create more variety. The problem with 5 starters or FLSS is that Game 1 should be the most even, skill based competition possible, and subsequent games should be based on counterpicks and knowledge. Regardless of your feelings toward FD/BF/SV as stages, between the 3 of them you get a nice snapshot of the most consistent, even playing field possible.

Also, to nip this argument in the bud, No, top players don't want to "eliminate jank stages that they might not win on" or anything similar. Top players (like all players) are interested in making sure that the ruleset is fair for all, and gives everyone an equal chance to win in a test of skill. If that means they keep winning because they're more skilled, then so be it, but to say that "Top player X doesn't want Y stage legal because they might lose on it!" is a John. If a stage allows a lower skilled player, to beat a much higher skilled one, then it shouldn't be valid. No one should be happy with that outcome. If you honestly believe that more stage variety is necessary because it will allow someone to dethrone Zero (or whoever) then you aren't supporting a fair competition. If I was a top player, I would want to beat Zero on his best day, as fairly as possible, so no one could John for him, and so I could know that I am capable of beating him.

TL;DR: 3 starters offers more variety than 5 starters, because even though there are less choices, each choice being wholly unique means that choices are more meaningful.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

Question for the thread. How many of us are actual TOs that control the stage lists for our regions as opposed to just passionate players who want a certain stage list?

I've had a lot of influence at the very least crafting and standardizing the west side of Michigan's ruleset as a growing TO. Changes between the rulesets I listed below.

Spoiler: West Michigan Differences

• Seven starter stages (Umbra included) with only one counterpick being Duck Hunt right now. 2-3-1 striking.
• Miis are legal, as well as all their special moves. Default weight and height.
• Controllers with turbo functionality is banned.

Spoiler: East Michigan Differences

• Five starter stages, no Umbra. Two counterpicks being Duck Hunt and Dreamland. Duck Hunt has been discussed and criticized to the point that it may eventually get banned there. 1-2-1 striking.
• To my surprise, they lifted the ban off Miis and are allowing them in tournament play. They are strictly 1111 for their moveset. Default weight and height. According to their ruleset, they lifted the ban at some point, then rebanned them again only to recently lift the ban again.
• Wii U Gamepad is banned, but otherwise all wireless controllers are legal.

Follow up to that, how many of you that are TOs have asked your region's top players what their opinions are regarding stage lists/striking options?

I do polls and such and open up discussions in our group often to see what the public at large thinks when making rulesets. The problem is a lot of our players are really bad at making good arguments for or against something, and it becomes hard to really take some of them seriously when they just rant on about really silly stuff without going into detail why something should be a certain way. I have no problem with them as people by any means, but holy crap their arguments are 99% of the time really bad. There are some that give very constructive feedback and critiques, though, and I appreciate them for that. But otherwise it's me and a group of five other TOs working on different facets for our community, me mostly focusing on the stage aspect.

 

[LanceKing2200]

The problem is a lot of our players are really bad at making good arguments for or against something, and it becomes hard to really take some of them seriously when they just rant on about really silly stuff without going into detail why something should be a certain way. I have no problem with them as people by any means, but holy crap their arguments are 99% of the time really bad. There are some that give very constructive feedback and critiques, though, and I appreciate them for that. But otherwise it's me and a group of five other TOs working on different facets for our community, me mostly focusing on the stage aspect.

Oh goodness is this true. I'm very lucky in that New England has some very smart and articulate players at all levels of play. Pugwest is some kind of tactical genius, and helps me a ton, while I also have friends that are in the 0-2 club but still have a good head on their shoulders and can tell me what they see at their level of play from the rules.

 

[NotLiquid]

I really, really don't think that "distracting" is a reasonable complaint leveled against Umbra unless you're speaking of it from a spectator point of view. The color palette of this stage's most busy moments disallows for few characters to blend in, especially because for some incomprehensible reason half of these players still rock the edgy black color palettes. Only the shockwave is a mild disruption but this happens for even less time than the flash bang that is Final Destination, which follows a similarly turbulent background animation.

I'm down with the size of this stage - mostly because I feel that the stage selection already has its fair share of medium-to-small sized stages so something on the larger side shakes things up. It's kinda ironic that this stage comes around a time when people are heavily contesting 3 stock vs 2 stock again.

If some of the occasional cave of life that spawn were in any way permanent I could have definitely seen the argument to ban them but the thing about the positioning and appearance times is that it very rarely feels like this is a good gimmick that can lend to time out situations. This is just theory crafting on my end of course and I have no evidence to back it up; but say you're playing a Sheik, Sonic or anyone who can ignore the neutral vs... I dunno, anyone who's slower than them, where the former will easily be able to beat out the latter in keepaway and spacing. If there's ever a situation in which they opt for the complicated process of timing someone out by camping for 30 seconds underneath the stage when the platform is available, chances are they could probably time you out anyway on literally any other stage that has platforms. Not only that but the platform below the stage is incredibly unsafe regardless since a well timed hit from any character will likely lead into an early stage spike. Honestly, I think most people will actually opt to avoid toying with the lower platforms. Circumstantially speaking I don't think there are many opportunities when this instance is going to be of a benefit beyond recovery purposes.

I think that's what's probably the more riskier thing about allowing the stage. While on one hand I understand the Smashville comparisons, the fact that those platforms are above the main stage means you still need to properly recover in most cases to even reach the platform. The same can't be said for most of the platforms here which spawn underneath and absolve a large hurdle. Cloud players, for instance, are probably going to love this stage. Even so though, the players with the high ground will invariably have the advantage when the opposing player is required to actually get back on the stage.

Everything about this stage screams like the definition of a "counterpick" and it's way less intrusive than the likes of Duck Hunt, which although I like, obscures views, has an incredibly high up platform, has ducks that absorbs hits and has the dog that has ruined quite a lot of tourney stocks. Yeah they're scripted and predictable instances; but if there's any definition of a true distraction, those are it, because they physically tamper with your positioning and have far less impending moments to expect them.

And yes I probably realize that Duck Hunt isn't a very popular stage either for that reason (hell I think even ESAM tweeted saying he thinks UCT is worse than Castle Siege but that Duck Hunt is the worst of the lot), but even that stage has still not been nearly as reductive as it may seem and I feel like the same goes here, where the worst things to think about are temporary walk offs (which aren't even on equal level with the main stage half of the time) and recovery platforms.

Granted most of this is just theory crafting based on a player who's only had 5 hours of experience on it and hasn't even had the chance to try it out at the weeklies/local friendlies yet to see what actually happens in a more competitively tinged environment.

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

"We sadly don't have access to YIB or "frozen" PS, which would make a perfect 5th neutral, so we have to work with what we have."

Technically we can make frozen PS with a 5 player game where 3 characters act as the starting gun by sd-ing, but people don't seem to wanna do that.

 

[Cheap Shot]

The reason I asked about TOs vs Players is because I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread who are advocating against 3 starters (FD/BF/SV) for the simple reason of "more stages = better".

I spent a long time yesterday talking to our top players, and did some asking around of our lower to middle level players, and I've come to the realization that 3 starters and X CPs is the best possible stage list, let me explain why:

If you are playing a tournament set (Bo3), and both you and your opponent are playing optimally (You are both aware of the strengths and weaknesses of every character and stage, and make the best choices in every situation) the scenario is just a matter of your skill/reflexes vs your opponent's skill/reflexes. Game 1 should take place on a neutral stage, which gives no significant advantage to either player/character, which is why we have starter stages in the first place. In the following rounds, the loser of the previous round gets the advantage of stage choice (after 1/2 bans) and second character choice, in order to try and pull out a win. If those advantages aren't enough, then they lose 2-0, if they are enough to win, the other player gets a chance at the same advantage. Continue like this until a player wins the set.

This should be the goal of every player, to get to this point where they can optimally choose counterpicks that allow them to swing matches against players of similar or greater skill. The advantage of winning Game 1 is that you get the opportunity to face your opponent at their best (picking a stage and character that counters you), and if you win that, the set is over, you are clearly better. If you lose to those counterpicks, then you yourself get to counter their counter, but you have an additional advantage. The winner of Game 1 gets to play their counterpicks when the set is 1-1, rather than 0-1, which is his reward for winning Game 1. If Game 1 takes place on a "non-neutral" stage, then it throws a wrench into the whole structure. If the results of Game 1 don't go toward the player who proves to be better on a "neutral" stage, then they are going to get counterpicked against in Game 3 when their opponent didn't really earn the right to counterpick in a 1-1, as opposed to 0-1, situation.

Now everyone's definition of "neutral" stage is going to be different. FD, BF, and SV are all clearly even, fair, and different enough that they support varying playstyles. Unfortunately, to get the numbers up to 5 neutrals (because it must be odd) you have to take some liberties. T&C has been a staple, as has DL, but the two of them throw off the balance of neutrals because they are favored by the same characters that prefer BF. This tips the balance in their favor, because they are almost guaranteed to get one of their good stages Game 1. LC is an option, but due to the tilting and edge shenanigans, players don't like it. We sadly don't have access to YIB or "frozen" PS, which would make a perfect 5th neutral, so we have to work with what we have.

The fact of the matter is, there just aren't two more stages after FD/BF/SV that are both "jank free" (using this term very loosely) and conductive to a balanced Game 1 stage strike. This is not to say that other stages shouldn't be legal, quite the opposite in fact. Having a multitude and variety of CP stages is important to allow characters and playstyles to flourish. We should be fighting for every legal CP that we can, including weird ones like Wuhu and Peach's Castle, because they create more variety. The problem with 5 starters or FLSS is that Game 1 should be the most even, skill based competition possible, and subsequent games should be based on counterpicks and knowledge. Regardless of your feelings toward FD/BF/SV as stages, between the 3 of them you get a nice snapshot of the most consistent, even playing field possible.

Also, to nip this argument in the bud, No, top players don't want to "eliminate jank stages that they might not win on" or anything similar. Top players (like all players) are interested in making sure that the ruleset is fair for all, and gives everyone an equal chance to win in a test of skill. If that means they keep winning because they're more skilled, then so be it, but to say that "Top player X doesn't want Y stage legal because they might lose on it!" is a John. If a stage allows a lower skilled player, to beat a much higher skilled one, then it shouldn't be valid. No one should be happy with that outcome. If you honestly believe that more stage variety is necessary because it will allow someone to dethrone Zero (or whoever) then you aren't supporting a fair competition. If I was a top player, I would want to beat Zero on his best day, as fairly as possible, so no one could John for him, and so I could know that I am capable of beating him.

TL;DR: 3 starters offers more variety than 5 starters, because even though there are less choices, each choice being wholly unique means that choices are more meaningful.

This is where FLSS comes into play; who are we to say that any particular stage is actually neutral for every given matchup? In the first phase, everyone will strike the stages they don't like for the matchup and whatever stage is left will be the most neutral stage for that match.

 

[LanceKing2200]

This is where FLSS comes into play; who are we to say that any particular stage is actually neutral for every given matchup? In the first phase, everyone will strike the stages they don't like for the matchup and whatever stage is left will be the most neutral stage for that match.

This is one of those things that hard to explain, and sounds super condescending, but is true. In my scenario both player ban and pick stages optimally, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes players choose stages because they like the stage visuals/music. Sometimes they think they know something about the stage other people don't, and sometimes they just don't care and go with whatever.

For two lesser skilled and lesser experienced players, picking non-neutral stages for Game 1 is bad for them, even if they don't realize it, even if they really wanted to go Duck Hunt game 1 or whatever.

 

[paperchao]

This is one of those things that hard to explain, and sounds super condescending, but is true. In my scenario both player ban and pick stages optimally, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes players choose stages because they like the stage visuals/music. Sometimes they think they know something about the stage other people don't, and sometimes they just don't care and go with whatever.

For two lesser skilled and lesser experienced players, picking non-neutral stages for Game 1 is bad for them, even if they don't realize it, even if they really wanted to go Duck Hunt game 1 or whatever.

To be fair, it isn't FLSS's fault if 2 players strike to a stage that's not really neutral in the matchup, it simply allows everything at once so you have a better chance at getting the best stage possible for that matchup.

 

[ARISTOS]

The reason I asked about TOs vs Players is because I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread who are advocating against 3 starters (FD/BF/SV) for the simple reason of "more stages = better".

I spent a long time yesterday talking to our top players, and did some asking around of our lower to middle level players, and I've come to the realization that 3 starters and X CPs is the best possible stage list, let me explain why:

If you are playing a tournament set (Bo3), and both you and your opponent are playing optimally (You are both aware of the strengths and weaknesses of every character and stage, and make the best choices in every situation) the scenario is just a matter of your skill/reflexes vs your opponent's skill/reflexes. Game 1 should take place on a neutral stage, which gives no significant advantage to either player/character, which is why we have starter stages in the first place. In the following rounds, the loser of the previous round gets the advantage of stage choice (after 1/2 bans) and second character choice, in order to try and pull out a win. If those advantages aren't enough, then they lose 2-0, if they are enough to win, the other player gets a chance at the same advantage. Continue like this until a player wins the set.

This should be the goal of every player, to get to this point where they can optimally choose counterpicks that allow them to swing matches against players of similar or greater skill. The advantage of winning Game 1 is that you get the opportunity to face your opponent at their best (picking a stage and character that counters you), and if you win that, the set is over, you are clearly better. If you lose to those counterpicks, then you yourself get to counter their counter, but you have an additional advantage. The winner of Game 1 gets to play their counterpicks when the set is 1-1, rather than 0-1, which is his reward for winning Game 1. If Game 1 takes place on a "non-neutral" stage, then it throws a wrench into the whole structure. If the results of Game 1 don't go toward the player who proves to be better on a "neutral" stage, then they are going to get counterpicked against in Game 3 when their opponent didn't really earn the right to counterpick in a 1-1, as opposed to 0-1, situation.

Now everyone's definition of "neutral" stage is going to be different. FD, BF, and SV are all clearly even, fair, and different enough that they support varying playstyles. Unfortunately, to get the numbers up to 5 neutrals (because it must be odd) you have to take some liberties. T&C has been a staple, as has DL, but the two of them throw off the balance of neutrals because they are favored by the same characters that prefer BF. This tips the balance in their favor, because they are almost guaranteed to get one of their good stages Game 1. LC is an option, but due to the tilting and edge shenanigans, players don't like it. We sadly don't have access to YIB or "frozen" PS, which would make a perfect 5th neutral, so we have to work with what we have.

The fact of the matter is, there just aren't two more stages after FD/BF/SV that are both "jank free" (using this term very loosely) and conductive to a balanced Game 1 stage strike. This is not to say that other stages shouldn't be legal, quite the opposite in fact. Having a multitude and variety of CP stages is important to allow characters and playstyles to flourish. We should be fighting for every legal CP that we can, including weird ones like Wuhu and Peach's Castle, because they create more variety. The problem with 5 starters or FLSS is that Game 1 should be the most even, skill based competition possible, and subsequent games should be based on counterpicks and knowledge. Regardless of your feelings toward FD/BF/SV as stages, between the 3 of them you get a nice snapshot of the most consistent, even playing field possible.

Also, to nip this argument in the bud, No, top players don't want to "eliminate jank stages that they might not win on" or anything similar. Top players (like all players) are interested in making sure that the ruleset is fair for all, and gives everyone an equal chance to win in a test of skill. If that means they keep winning because they're more skilled, then so be it, but to say that "Top player X doesn't want Y stage legal because they might lose on it!" is a John. If a stage allows a lower skilled player, to beat a much higher skilled one, then it shouldn't be valid. No one should be happy with that outcome. If you honestly believe that more stage variety is necessary because it will allow someone to dethrone Zero (or whoever) then you aren't supporting a fair competition. If I was a top player, I would want to beat Zero on his best day, as fairly as possible, so no one could John for him, and so I could know that I am capable of beating him.

TL;DR: 3 starters offers more variety than 5 starters, because even though there are less choices, each choice being wholly unique means that choices are more meaningful.

Going to nitpick a bit. This is a well-worded response but I heavily disagree that allowing for 3 starters is a good thing and leads to a better meta. It doesn't.

I don't agree with attacking top player opinions based on the idea of wanting meta stagnation either. But bad ideas are bad ideas.

1) Smashville is not an in-between of Battlefield and Final Destination. It is WAY closer to FD than it is to BD, and similar characters do better on those two stages than they do against characters on Battlefield ( are the main culprits of this). This is the biggest erroneous assumption that people make when debating stages. In fact, I would rather claim T&C as the in-between before I would claim Smashville. It's a fun stage but not the middle road between the three.

2) If 3 stage starters are used, you are implicitly allowing pretty much every game to start on SV. I went a tournament with only three starters and there was absolutely no point to stage striking. Characters tend to be weighted closer to either FD or BD, and those are usually always struck, leaving only SV as the pick. This would be fine if SV was an in-between; it is not though.

More stages allow for a whittling down to find that which leads to the most even stage for the MU. Whittling down stages has only ever increased imbalance, never decrease it. If you're going to get rid of a stage, it needs to be with a very good reason.

 

[teluoborg]

People play Omegas instead of FD for a variety of reasons, not just because of the light (it's mostly walls and/or music IMO).

I don't think music is a factor in competitive play, and most of the time it's replaced with palutena's temple so your argument about walls is invalid.

 

[Ghostbone]

(in the context of going from 3 to 5 starters) This tips the balance in their favor, because they are almost guaranteed to get one of their good stages Game 1.

I don't think you understand what you're saying

Let's say there are 7 legal stages, presumably you could order them 1 - 7 with 1 being the best for you and 7 being the worst.

If you only have 3 stages as starter, those could be 1,2,3 or 5,6,7 or 2,5,6 etc. With battlefield/FD/SV, for Sheik it's close to 1,2,3 or 1,2,4 in a lot of matchups. By using a 3 stage starter list, you're tipping the stagelist INSANELY in her favour. Having less starters will always inherently make the first game on a less balanced stage. You complain that increasing the stagelist makes game 1 more unbalanced but infact it's exactly the opposite, the more you decrease the size of the starter list the more unbalanced it becomes towards certain characters (this is more obvious with ICs in Brawl, who would absolutely love to start on one of BF/SV/FD every set because those 3 are their best stages).

And if a character is bad on 5 out of the 7 legal stages, we don't let them play on their 2nd best stage just to even out game 1. You complain that other stages favour similar characters to battlefield, but if theoretically 5 out of 7 of the legal stages are battlefield clones, then yes, you should be able to start on battlefield game 1 because that's the median stage, and thus the most balanced in the matchup.

BF, SV, FD ARE NOT even/fair in every matchup, in fact I'm pretty sure BF and FD are two of the most banned stages in sets lol.

 

[LanceKing2200]

I don't think you understand what you're saying

Let's say there are 7 legal stages, presumably you could order them 1 - 7 with 1 being the best for you and 7 being the worst.

If you only have 3 stages as starter, those could be 1,2,3 or 5,6,7 or 2,5,6 etc. With battlefield/FD/SV, for Sheik it's close to 1,2,3 or 1,2,4 in a lot of matchups. By using a 3 stage starter list, you're tipping the stagelist INSANELY in her favour. Having less starters will always inherently make the first game on a less balanced stage. You complain that increasing the stagelist makes game 1 more unbalanced but infact it's exactly the opposite, the more you decrease the size of the starter list the more unbalanced it becomes towards certain characters (this is more obvious with ICs in Brawl, who would absolutely love to start on one of BF/SV/FD every set because those 3 are their best stages).

And if a character is bad on 5 out of the 7 legal stages, we don't let them play on their 2nd best stage just to even out game 1. You complain that other stages favour similar characters to battlefield, but if theoretically 5 out of 7 of the legal stages are battlefield clones, then yes, you should be able to start on battlefield game 1 because that's the median stage, and thus the most balanced in the matchup.

BF, SV, FD ARE NOT even/fair in every matchup, in fact I'm pretty sure BF and FD are two of the most banned stages in sets lol.

You are assuming that:

A) There are that many legal stages that can be used as starters

B) That many starters are evenly distributed in fairness across characters and

C) FD/BF/SV is not the "4,5,6" of MOST characters.

Sheik ALREADY has an enormous advantage on most stages, because she's the best in the game. SV/FD is not a free game 1 for Sheik, despite her strength.

 

[19_]

You are assuming that:

A) There are that many legal stages that can be used as starters

B) That many starters are evenly distributed in fairness across characters and

C) FD/BF/SV is not the "4,5,6" of MOST characters.

Sheik ALREADY has an enormous advantage on most stages, because she's the best in the game. SV/FD is not a free game 1 for Sheik, despite her strength.

What about little mac? The little mac player will always have control of where to go first because YOU MUST strike FD unless you are crazy.

 

[Pazx]

You are assuming that:

A) There are that many legal stages that can be used as starters

B) That many starters are evenly distributed in fairness across characters and

C) FD/BF/SV is not the "4,5,6" of MOST characters.

Sheik ALREADY has an enormous advantage on most stages, because she's the best in the game. SV/FD is not a free game 1 for Sheik, despite her strength.

Game 1 should always be played on the most neutral stage for the matchup, with a 7 stage list that is each players 4th best (and 4th worst) stage. This stage is not always one out of BF/FD/SV. Because of this, 3 starters is undesirable for competition. That's it, there's nothing more to it. If you have some other priority in mind besides "play on the most neutral stage for the matchup at hand" then I'm not sure why you think your posts belong in the competitive discussion subforum.

"The most neutral stage" does not refer to the stage where the matchup is closest to 50:50, but rather the stage where the matchup plays out most similarly to the way it would play out taking all legal stages into consideration.

 

[LanceKing2200]

What about little mac? The little mac player will always have control of where to go first because YOU MUST strike FD unless you are crazy.

Hence why I said MOST characters. There isn't going to be any stage combination that caters to all matchups perfectly.

And to respond to both you and Pazx, what matchup's "stage 4" ISN'T FD/SV/BF? I suppose DL and TC might be a few, but is the few MUs that take advantage of that throwing off the balance of having multiple similar stages?

Ok here's an example. Let's take the current 5 starters of FD/BF/SV/TC/DL. if you play ZSS, the stages in order of best to worst are:

1. BF 2. DL 3. TC 4. SV 5. FD

the "middle" number for you is 3, TC, but the most even stage for most matchups (factoring in the other character) is SV. This is true for other characters like MK as well.

 

[Pazx]

Hence why I said MOST characters. There isn't going to be any stage combination that caters to all matchups perfectly.

Actually, there is: make every stage a starter.

And to respond to both you and Pazx, what matchup's "stage 4" ISN'T FD/SV/BF? I suppose DL and TC might be a few, but is the few MUs that take advantage of that throwing off the balance of having multiple similar stages?

Ok here's an example. Let's take the current 5 starters of FD/BF/SV/TC/DL. if you play ZSS, the stages in order of best to worst are:

1. BF 2. DL 3. TC 4. SV 5. FD

the "middle" number for you is 3, TC, but the most even stage for most matchups (factoring in the other character) is SV. This is true for other characters like MK as well.

You can't look for the "stage 4" if you're only running 5 starters, so I'm not entirely sure why you used that as an example. That said, I think you'd actually find that ZSS's 4th best stage in most matchups would be Lylat, T&C or Smashville, only one of which is present in your 3 starter system. Why should I care about which stage is the most even for "most matchups", when I am using a system that allows players to strike to the most even stage for ALL matchups?

I know from experience living in a region that runs 7 stages with full list stage striking that I typically don't start on any of the 3 stages you've suggested, meaning that SOMEBODY is striking them.

 

[Yikarur]

lold @ "most even stage for most match-ups is SV"
I cannot understand why people hype SV so much. It's just laziness. SV is terrible in A LOT of match-ups. The most "neutral" stage is most likely omega because it's more likely that 1on1 is balanced based on For glory rules..
SV is not balanced at all and everyone knows that already.

 

[Nul]

I'm a TO and up until UCT I've run:

Neutral ( BF / FD / SV / T&C / LC )
Counter-pick ( DL64 / DH ) + Doubles: ( DP / KJ )
With 1 ban per head.

With the addition of UTC and reading this thread, I'm deeply considering 7 Neutrals + CP DL64, maintaining doubles additional Counter-picks, 2 bans overall. It is mostly because this argument that Pazx brought up now has been brought up before in Brawl (albeit IIRC early days - pre MK rampage.) Why it didn't work in Brawl was likely because of the fact that MK was polarizing - it didn't matter. Here, it isn't that bad. Mobility is always going to do well, and with that, the character has more "good" stages than those who don't.

Right now, Las Vegas (where I am) meta is looking to be my above list (DL64 as Neutral instead) + UCT as CP, with 1 ban overall. This is due to our newest and nationally recognized TO being pressured by other national / international TOs / backers who are feeling that our top skill players' ideas (of general stagnation) are best. Personally, I dislike it. I have a lot of spectator words on my ears, and visuals (stage variance particularly) is consistently #2 of what we can help, only truly out-shined by commentary quality, and occasionally beat by big names playing. This comes from people who are low-skilled, don't play Smash, and don't even play games more than an hour a week.

Honestly, top players' words as law is bad. You can line up what they say to if it will favor them in-game, and it happens a lot. If Nintendo would have listened to only top players, patches and new characters could have easily been on the chopping block. Why? Because then the good stay good consistently with minimal effort, some new talent comes trickling in, and the money flows as the pros expect. Not to say there aren't exceptions, but there aren't enough vocal exceptions. In pro physical sports, there are rules because of something one person did, not said, and applied as soon as the season / series reset. What did those pros do? They adapted. Here in eSports-land, our top players have more say in what goes on in the game they play. I'm fairly sure physical pro sports when they began to walk also had the same problem. I'm in the boat of TOs taking back the game.

TL;DR:
7 Neutral + DL64 / 2 bans sounds good to me.
More stage choice has been noted by spectators on my end.
Adapting is more appealing.
Top players aren't in control of the money, the TOs / backers are.

I don't know about you, but I'm sure that if X top player said they won't make it, I'm sure another 3%+ players would sign up. Let's try to stay away from stagnation.

Forum hiatus hopefully over.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

UCT's thread is finally up. In other news, I hate the current state of air travel in the US.

On topic, after finally getting the chance to experience UCT for myself, I firmly believe that it's legal material. I'm in the camp that supports FLSS so I haven't given any real thought to a starter vs. counterpick distinction, but I don't think it should be banned. Even the platform setups that would normally raise eyebrows (walkoffs, the one under the stage, and the solid block) are temporary, just like every other platform layout on the stage. And the solid block in particular moves along at a pretty good clip and doesn't pause anywhere, so I think it's flat out impossible to camp it in any meaningful way. The walkoff platforms are permeable from below, which gives an alternative (yet risky) angle of approach, but again: temporary. The platform under the stage has grabbable ledges, making it easier to challenge someone who's on it at the time, but yet again: temporary. Half of any fight will be a glorified FD match on top of all the rest. Battlefield-sized blast zones make it an interesting conceptual foil to Town & City.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Question for the thread. How many of us are actual TOs that control the stage lists for our regions as opposed to just passionate players who want a certain stage list?

Follow up to that, how many of you that are TOs have asked your region's top players what their opinions are regarding stage lists/striking options?

I will limit myself at the moment to only answer this.
I am the TO of my local community, I've run events since about 2010, and have almost always allowed a very wide stage variety.
Right now we run a 9-stage FLSS, 2 bans and no DSR.
And I've always kept an open suggestion box that nobody seems to really fill up, they seem content with the system and if there is nothing to fix, then change is not necessary.

 

[Pazx]

I haven't actually put my thoughts on UCT up yet, so here goes nothing:

Umbra Clock Tower is a Skyloft clone.

Obviously that's not true, but they fill the same niche role in the stagelist, and it's probably closer to Skyloft in terms of "How Legal Should This Stage Be?" than it is to any of the currently legal stages. They share a lot of similarities: an interesting, dynamic platform layout, same ceiling height (read: HIGH), and the same "problems" (walkoffs, circle camping due to solid platforms/going under the stage). The only major differences are that Skyloft's transformations actually alter the main stage's platform a little more than anything UCT has to offer, and UCT spends considerably more of it's time looking like an FD/SV clone than Skyloft does.

I originally thought that Skyloft and UCT would be considered the 8th and 9th most likely candidates for legality (allowing us to FLSS once again which is nice) but I'm now wary of introducing two similar stages, when they're both quite different to anything the typical 7 stage list currently has to offer. Maybe instead of Skyloft I should be reassessing Delfino (which I've never been a fan of), Castle Siege, or Halberd.

In the mean time I'm a fan of 7 starters + 1 CP, with my first choice for the counterpick being UCT, although I wouldn't be opposed to the CP being Final Destination or Dream Land, and I could understand the reasoning behind making it Lylat or Duck Hunt. In the long term, I see 7 stage FLSS being the future. UCT is worth a trial but I'm not sure I can see it sticking around.

 

[Ulevo]

I like Nul's proposed ruleset, with the exception that there is 1 Ban instead of 2 and DSR is in effect.

 

[HenryXLII]

Ok so I have finally gotten to play a good number of sets for Umbra Clock Tower, and I have to say.... its become one of my favorites. This amy come from limited match up experience, but I think this stage could be a solid pick rather than a counter pick. Here is my reasoning.

The platforms in this stage serve as a double edge sword. They add the complexity of regular platforms to the game, but are there for such a short time period that platform strong characters can't camp them. And being on the platform when it flies away puts you in a really awkward spot. The constant need to mix up your strategy, to chose to use the platforms or to just ignore them is simply great and something I feel no other stage has to offer.

Recovering on this stage is interesting. The stage is not mirrored, sot the edge on the left is like a normal ledge and pretty easy to reach. But the right side is much higher with a smaller edge. I like this because it makes the left a much better defensive position while the offense has incentive to pressure you to the right which adds for some interesting strategies.

This stage has the same ceiling as battlefield, but without the platforms there constantly, making vertical kill options less effective which I feel we REALLY need in our stages. So many stages have low ceilings and having a high ceiling is something I feel more stages need.

I also love how the stage tilts ever so slightly, making zoning a lot more difficult

Lastly there is the walk off section. And simply put, I am ok with it. Camping it is not a super viable option due to having to recover when the platform leaves, but what really makes this part work is the fact that you can attack safety from underneath the walk off. I have even gotten a few kills this way

I really hope this stage becomes legal, and if we ban it, I am going to be legitimately upset.

 

[19_]

LanceKing2200

Right now, Las Vegas (where I am) meta is looking to be my above list (DL64 as Neutral instead) + UCT as CP, with 1 ban overall. This is due to our newest and nationally recognized TO being pressured by other national / international TOs / backers who are feeling that our top skill players' ideas (of general stagnation) are best. Personally, I dislike it. I have a lot of spectator words on my ears, and visuals (stage variance particularly) is consistently #2 of what we can help, only truly out-shined by commentary quality, and occasionally beat by big names playing. This comes from people who are low-skilled, don't play Smash, and don't even play games more than an hour a week.

Honestly, top players' words as law is bad. You can line up what they say to if it will favor them in-game, and it happens a lot. If Nintendo would have listened to only top players, patches and new characters could have easily been on the chopping block. Why? Because then the good stay good consistently with minimal effort, some new talent comes trickling in, and the money flows as the pros expect. Not to say there aren't exceptions, but there aren't enough vocal exceptions. In pro physical sports, there are rules because of something one person did, not said, and applied as soon as the season / series reset. What did those pros do? They adapted. Here in eSports-land, our top players have more say in what goes on in the game they play. I'm fairly sure physical pro sports when they began to walk also had the same problem. I'm in the boat of TOs taking back the game.

Oookaaayy...

Man I am really getting conflicting information here.

I'm not trying to bash anyone here but I think there has been some huge miscommunication. I hope.

 

[LanceKing2200]

LanceKing2200


Oookaaayy...

Man I am really getting conflicting information here.

I'm not trying to bash anyone here but I think there has been some huge miscommunication. I hope.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. THERE IS NO grand conspiracy by top players to stagnate the game's meta to one that they benefit from. Top players benefit from the game being FAIR and a test of SKILL, not from stagnation that leads to boring and predictable games.

 

[Seiniyta]

I feel like UCT is overall a more 'fair' stage then Duck Hunt is. DH has too many 'random' elements to it.

I'm very well aware that technically DH stage doesn't have a random element with the rising platform. But keeping track fo the ducks whilst also keeping track of your opponent is really taxing and I've seen a bunch of times how a player got completely surprised by the platform rising which lead to a kill or saved by it. The ducks also absorb projectiles and you can hide behind the bush (though that's rather minor)

If DH is legal with all those elements, legalizing UCT is a no brainer as it's way less intrusive in many respects. The walkoffs are more approachable (even if a bit risky from below as mentioned earlier) and don't last as long as Castle Siege.

 

[Pazx]

I feel like UCT is overall a more 'fair' stage then Duck Hunt is. DH has too many 'random' elements to it.

I'm very well aware that technically DH stage doesn't have a random element with the rising platform. But keeping track fo the ducks whilst also keeping track of your opponent is really taxing and I've seen a bunch of times how a player got completely surprised by the platform rising which lead to a kill or saved by it. The ducks also absorb projectiles and you can hide behind the bush (though that's rather minor)

If DH is legal with all those elements, legalizing UCT is a no brainer as it's way less intrusive in many respects. The walkoffs are more approachable (even if a bit risky from below as mentioned earlier) and don't last as long as Castle Siege.

I feel like Duck Hunt is overall a more 'fair' stage than UCT is. UCT has too many random [note the lack of inverted commas, as UCT is one stage that might actually be truly unpredictable unlike Lylat/DH, and it seems even less predictable than Delfino/Wuhu/Skyloft both in terms of timing and order of transformations ty based ParanoidDrone ] elements to it.

I don't believe any of the individual"transformations" of UCT have any random elements but the order in which they appear is believed to be entirely non-predictable. Keeping track of which transformation you're on, how long it's been since the last transformation and which way the platforms move within each transformation is very taxing, and I've seen a bunch of times where a player gets completely surprised by a platform, often getting killed or getting saved by it. There are also walk-offs, solid platforms facilitating both caves of life and circle camping, the stage tilts, and the background and camera are very distracting (although that last one is rather minor).

If UCT is legalised with all of these elements, keeping Duck Hunt should be a no-brainer as it's way less intrusive in most aspects. It also doesn't have walkoffs or glitchy transformations, take that Castle Siege!

 

[Ajimi]

Question for the thread. How many of us are actual TOs that control the stage lists for our regions as opposed to just passionate players who want a certain stage list?

Follow up to that, how many of you that are TOs have asked your region's top players what their opinions are regarding stage lists/striking options?

I am the TO of my local scene (in France), although I do not pretend to be a very big deal. I created it, but it's still rather new, and we do not have a lot of players yet. I made our entire ruleset myself, but everybody seems fine with it. (7 stages FLSS.)

I am really interested by ruleset-crafting since a long time though, and I do not believe any party (TOs, top players, spectators or "lambda" players) should have any particular weight. I welcome real arguments and discussions with open arms, but status is irrelevant to me.

 

[Seiniyta]

I feel like Duck Hunt is overall a more 'fair' stage than UCT is. UCT has too many random [note the lack of inverted commas, as UCT is one stage that might actually be truly unpredictable unlike Lylat/DH, and it seems even less predictable than Delfino/Wuhu/Skyloft both in terms of timing and order of transformations ty based ParanoidDrone ] elements to it.

I don't believe any of the individual"transformations" of UCT have any random elements but the order in which they appear is believed to be entirely non-predictable. Keeping track of which transformation you're on, how long it's been since the last transformation and which way the platforms move within each transformation is very taxing, and I've seen a bunch of times where a player gets completely surprised by a platform, often getting killed or getting saved by it. There are also walk-offs, solid platforms facilitating both caves of life and circle camping, the stage tilts, and the background and camera are very distracting (although that last one is rather minor).

If UCT is legalised with all of these elements, keeping Duck Hunt should be a no-brainer as it's way less intrusive in most aspects. It also doesn't have walkoffs or glitchy transformations, take that Castle Siege!

I'm not sure why you felt the need to reply in such a manner but that aside.

I don't think you'll be caught off guard by random platforms appearing like with ducks interfering with your projectile. It's way more obvoius then during the midst of battle killing two ducks as you're attacking your opponent and the dog just rising up randomly as well.

I'm not for banning DH by the way. I hate the stage (for the aformentioned reasons) but despite that I don't feel like it should be banned. But in a more conservative stage list (I prefer more liberal ones personally anyways) it did surprise me somehow DH avoided being axed alongside Delfino/Halberd/Castle siege.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I feel like Duck Hunt is overall a more 'fair' stage than UCT is. UCT has too many random [note the lack of inverted commas, as UCT is one stage that might actually be truly unpredictable unlike Lylat/DH, and it seems even less predictable than Delfino/Wuhu/Skyloft both in terms of timing and order of transformations ty based ParanoidDrone ] elements to it.

I don't believe any of the individual"transformations" of UCT have any random elements but the order in which they appear is believed to be entirely non-predictable. Keeping track of which transformation you're on, how long it's been since the last transformation and which way the platforms move within each transformation is very taxing, and I've seen a bunch of times where a player gets completely surprised by a platform, often getting killed or getting saved by it. There are also walk-offs, solid platforms facilitating both caves of life and circle camping, the stage tilts, and the background and camera are very distracting (although that last one is rather minor).

If UCT is legalised with all of these elements, keeping Duck Hunt should be a no-brainer as it's way less intrusive in most aspects. It also doesn't have walkoffs or glitchy transformations, take that Castle Siege!

UCT's platform order is only random in terms of the order you see them. The timing is more or less consistent, and it follows the same "everyone takes a turn" rule as Pokemon Stadium. Although I'll grant that it's harder to keep track of 7 forms than 4.

Napkin math: It should take roughly 3-3:30 for UCT to cycle through all platform arrangements, give or take a bit. I'm ballparking the numbers a bit but it gives you an idea.

 

[blackghost]

i can't stand the "distracting" argument. so should we turn off music and all other visual aesthetics? old smash games had no visuals like this not because it was in the players best interest but because the gamecube and wii couldn't handle the visuals that are in some of these games and run 4 player ffa with item craziness and not stutter frame wise.
play on UCT for like more than 5 times and that fortitudo roar won't bother you, you'll barely notice.
UCT is one of two a transforming stages with constant blast zones. it should be legal. it does so many thing right: it punishes campers by forcing them to recover to the stage, it allows for spacing and zonging character to have the room to set up thier walls, it forces shiek and zss to have to play the game anothet way, it has large blast zones which is something we need more of, and unlike smashville is doesnt favor one style of play or killing (at least blatantly)
Stop using jank as a reason. its an excuse an inarticulate one at that. jank doesnt mean anything. my least favorite thing (beside melee elists) in this community

 

[Nul]

I like Nul's proposed ruleset, with the exception that there is 1 Ban instead of 2 and DSR is in effect.

I've always used DSR with Gentlemen's. I'm still feeling for 2 bans. (non-sticky)

Man I am really getting conflicting information here.

I can get over-complicated, mental problem, really. Anything I can clear up? Also note that the post has some pent-up emotion running through it.

 

[paperchao]

So does anyone know when the tgc6 vods are going up? It's going to be interesting seeing such a big stagelist with so many talented players attending.

 

[jespoke]

I really liked LanceKing2200 's explanation of what should be in focus. I may agree with the responses that 3 starters would bring it to excessive Smashville among other things, but it got me thinking.

The size of the starter list doesn't actually matter as long as the list itself is not skewed in the favor of either Little Mac or ZSS. And any counterpicks may not upset this balance.

Edit: The rest of the post was just talking in circles.