Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Vyse has stated that the Unity ruleset discussion may be divided into multiple threads. This particular thread will be for focusing on stage legality discussion (not to be confused with starter list discussion). The focus of this thread should be on discussion of which stages should or should not be legal under the unity ruleset, and why.
Main suggestions made for the ruleset:
Jungle Japes should be a counterpick.*
Pictochat should be banned. (This is was heavily debated although the general consensus seemed to be leaning on banning) (Pictochat mechanics thread http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=270499)
Despite the stages having little to no random effects, does that automatically mean that they are good competitive stages? I mean, simply knowing the stage and how it operates doesn't seem like it stops some tactics that abuse the mechanics of these stages.
For example, it is widely known that DK and Falco benefit heavily from JJ. Even if both parties know the stage well, the player that isn't Falco or DK (or any other character that benefits here) will be at a heavy disadvantge because of how polarizing the stage is.
Is there any point where those of you who are enforcing more dynamic stages will say that a specific stage is TOO GOOD for some characters? Not unplayable, but just too beneficial for some characters?
Despite the stages having little to no random effects, does that automatically mean that they are good competitive stages? I mean, simply knowing the stage and how it operates doesn't seem like it stops some tactics that abuse the mechanics of these stages.
Having no random elements does not make a stage automatically good for competitive play but it does not hurt it in anyway (usually). Temple has no random elements but it is a horrible stage for competitive play.
Randomness only really matters when the element of the stage which is random, is capable of causing major swings in the match. The klap trap is capable of this, however it is non random and therefore it is always the players fault for being hit by it.
For example, it is widely known that DK and Falco benefit heavily from JJ. Even if both parties know the stage well, the player that isn't Falco or DK (or any other character that benefits here) will be at a heavy disadvantge because of how polarizing the stage is.
You could say this, however DK's advantages on this stage are not nearly as massive as people make them out to be, and DK is not viable in the unity ruleset. Falco is certainly a larger threat on this stage however Falco on jungle japes is not as strong (in my opinion) as Metaknight on Rainbow cruise.
Is there any point where those of you who are enforcing more dynamic stages will say that a specific stage is TOO GOOD for some characters? Not unplayable, but just too beneficial for some characters?
Randomness only really matters when the element of the stage which is random, is capable of causing major swings in the match. The klap trap is capable of this, however it is non random and therefore it is always the players fault for being hit by it.
Even if the opponent knocks them into it? Despite both players being aware that the Klap Trap is coming?
Given the frequency of their appearance and the low percent in which they kill, is it outrageous to think that this can be considered too great as far as stage involvement goes in match-ups?
You could say this, however DK's advantages on this stage are not nearly as massive as people make them out to be, and DK is not viable in the unity ruleset. Falco is certainly a larger threat on this stage however Falco on jungle japes is not as strong (in my opinion) as Metaknight on Rainbow cruise.
If results and player testimony begin to point that Falco is actually that good on these stages thanks to tactics that hadn't been used back while this stage was universally legal, would that be grounds for banning? After all, now Falco has a MK/RC/Brinstar CP system going.
That's my main issue with the legality of these stages. Some of these stages heavily benefit certain playstyles, tactics, and characters. I'm simply wondering if all facets of their potential effect on tourneys have been explored. I believe the original reason that TOs began banning JJ was due to players feeling that it gave some characters too powerful an advantage.
Even if the opponent knocks them into it? Despite both players being aware that the Klap Trap is coming?
Given the frequency of their appearance and the low percent in which they kill, is it outrageous to think that this can be considered too great as far as stage involvement goes in match-ups?
If an opponent knocks another player into the klap trap its the players fault for getting hit. The klap trap comes every 10 seconds, being in position to be hit into the Klap trap is entirely controllable, and proper play will cause it to be exceedingly rare.
If results and player testimony begin to point that Falco is actually that good on these stages thanks to tactics that hadn't been used back while this stage was universally legal, would that be grounds for banning? After all, now Falco has a MK/RC/Brinstar CP system going.
Falco's relationship between Jungle Japes and Final destination is pale in comparison to Metaknight's Brinstar/Rainbow cruise ultimatum. But yes if Falco does infact turn out to be a threat far greater on jungle japes than he is now, that would be reason to ban the stage. As it stands however Falco is not nearly strong enough to warrent this stage being banned.
That's my main issue with the legality of these stages. Some of these stages heavily benefit certain playstyles, tactics, and characters. I'm simply wondering if all facets of their potential effect on tourneys have been explored. I believe the original reason that TOs began banning JJ was due to players feeling that it gave some characters too powerful an advantage.
If an opponent knocks another player into the klap trap its the players fault for getting hit. The klap trap comes every 10 seconds, being in position to be hit into the Klap trap is entirely controllable, and proper play will cause it to be exceedingly rare.
Falco's relationship between Jungle Japes and Final destination is pale in comparison to Metaknight's Brinstar/Rainbow cruise ultimatum. But yes if Falco does infact turn out to be a threat far greater on jungle japes than he is now, that would be reason to ban the stage. As it stands however Falco is not nearly strong enough to warrent this stage being banned.
I figured people would dislike the stage BECAUSE of skewed match-ups. After all, I'm sure Falco and DK mains wouldn't mind it legal while others would.
I've never seen a video where a DK/falco trounces someone on jungle japes. I've played on jungle japes vs high level DKs and good Falcos and it wasn't bad..
Might as well bring this up before this topic gets lost to other issues.
I believe Pirate Ship has a chance as a counterpick.
Things to Note:
1. The King of Red Lions ship signals the next main event
2. Bombs' trajectories can easily be seen. If you don't want to deal with them, the top platform is completely safe
3. Water camping is not that strong. You have limited movement and lots of lag after getting into the water. It just takes timing for moving in when the opponent retreats away. Excess camping can be prevented by the king of red lions or stage transformations. Strategies in the water can be useful, but I can't see them as overpowered in any way at the moment.
The bombs can reach the water, where the person in the water has limited movement. The island only leaves a very small, non-"campable" water portion on the right side. The tornado temporarily takes away water altogether temporarily. While the tornado is picking the ship up, the wind moves the characters in the water. The KoRL ship gives less space for camping at all and comes often (before every major event).
Bombs, I believe, can also hit like 5 or so possible spots on the stage, so if you play the stage enough you can easily memorize safer locations.
4. The stages' transformations are temporary, and have plenty of warning before any effects occur (! for island, dark skies for tornado, Bomb station, etc.). They also serve the purpose of preventing excess water camping, as stated above.
5. The actual ship itself inbetween transformations is fairly nice. Most (or a lot) of the time will be spent in the ship's default state instead of one of the transformations. And the ship itself never goes away during any transformation.
Structure the thread and define standards. By this I mean establish what everyone should know (similar to how you've linked the threads about stage mechanics.) What often occurs during debate are arguments of practicality and pragmaticism.
The idea is that if everyone is properly informed, there should be no need to compromise the fundamental competitive aspects of Brawl. Veterans and newcomers alike should be able to read the OP, generate a deep (or deeper) understanding of both stage mechanics and the significance of stages to the Smash competitive format (we are not the only fighting game that emphasizes stage interaction.)
For example, define/differentiate the following terminology and their relevance to Brawl's fundamental design:
Balance: The fact that we are seeing people use the argument that stages are unbalanced is ridiculous. No stage is balanced because every stage gives advantages and disadvantages to all characters. It is where they lie on a given spectrum and how they affect the balance of an entire list of legal stages that matters most.
Static vs. Dynamic: It's imperative that you highlight that stage interaction is an aspect of Brawl we cannot avoid. Relate to real-life examples (ie. is that Japanese metagame what we really want? Do we want to limit ourselves from utilizing all the competitive depth Brawl has to offer?)
Haphazard (Unpredictability or Randomness): If you cannot quantify, then at least qualify the significance of Brawl's random factor. Measure how often these haphazard events occur and weigh the potential effect they have on the match. (We don't remove tripping in our tournament format. Analyze why and relate that to other examples.)
Hazards: Are hazards okay? If so, to what extent? This correlates to the random factor. However, this relies HEAVILY on first proving the argument that stage interaction is not simply justified, but is an absolute must for the competitive format. (You'll more than likely draw back onto Static v. Dynamic argument and call upon Brawl's limited number of static stages compared to its dynamic ones.)
Size: An extremely simplistic yet relevant topic that needs to be quantified. How does the length/height, proximity of blast zones, emphasis on recovery, layers of ground space (platforms), and degree of parallel floors (YI/Lylat/Brinstar) affect the viability of a stage?
All of these aspects (and in the case of size, multiple factors within an aspect) can be put on a spectrum/balance. One can measure the degree of where it lies on this balance and compose ratios, thus giving us a quantifiable factor. Example: How many big stages are there to little stages in all of Brawl? Can we reflect that ratio in our ruleset? What is too small to be legal and too big?
TL;DR
DRAW LINES. Implement and enforce a common ground. We need to prevent needless arguments that occur from a difference in standards/values. This is discussion of a "Unity" ruleset. There shouldn't be an argument over how Brawl was designed. We all can agree on it's design. We simply need to agree on how the ruleset can reflect this as accurately as possible without compromising what is competitive.
Finally, this is a curious question of mine that can be addressed later. What is it about Bridge of Eldin that makes it "uncompetitive?"
EDIT:
Potential idea? Think back to the days of Pokemon (for some it's still played), D&D, FF, you name it (because I can't think of any more) where you would look up the traits of characters and be able to use the chart to compare to other characters.
If we can select variables (I'm not saying use my variables) to use as comparables and quantify them, we can better communicate what is considered "balanced." Consider every line a balance (since each aspect is judged in duality). There are two ways to do this:
1) The standard every stage COULD be compared to a chart that depicts the ratios of the combined 41 stages of Brawl. This standard wouldn't look like a perfect asterisk, but it would reflect what Brawl truly is. From there, use generic scaling tools (High, Medium, Low) to adjust the lines of the asterisk to create a picture for each stage.
2) You could rank all 41 stages individually with each comparable and then adjust its visual presentation based on the rank to form a picture. (The stage is ranked #20 in all comparables? It will look like a perfect asterisk.)
Just a cool idea for those who enjoy visual presentations. If you're curious as to how the mechanics of this visual system would work, PM me.
I've never seen a video where a DK/falco trounces someone on jungle japes. I've played on jungle japes vs high level DKs and good Falcos and it wasn't bad..
I'm mostly basing this from sets I've seen first-hand prior to the stage being banned on EC. Falco's simple CG -> Dair into the water is a big problem for a few characters, especially with the threat of Klap Trap, regardless of whether or not Falco is timing to hit them with it.
I was the first person to push this as a reason (and it is what caused the BBR to have a split 11/11 counterpick/ban vote in the 3.1 ruleset). I retain the opinion that according the BBR definition of stalling that ruddercamping is legal. I however have changed in that I feel that even with ruddercamping legal the stage is fine for competitive play. Nobody has ever used ruddercamping before, making a single mistake while preforming it results in a stock loss, and the stages frequent transformation allow characters who cannot stop it at all times, to be given chances to gain the lead.
Edit:@noidea: I will get to that in a bit (watching mlp at the moment).
I would assume because the walk-off phase of the stage isn't a phase at all, but a constant.
That's why I see TO's favoring a stagelist without it. However, I don't believe it'd be considered uncompetitive by standards outlined by people like BPC or sunshade.
1) Keep Pictochat legal until it proves itself to be a problem in tournament.
2) Add in Jungle Japes, Norfair, Green Greens, and Pirate Ship one at a time, at a slow rate. Start with the least jarring addition, wait a few months, if nothing comes up add in the next one. Really, all four of those stages have patterns and save zones (if shifting safe zones in Norfair's case).
I was the first person to push this as a reason (and it is what caused the BBR to have a split 11/11 counterpick/ban vote in the 3.1 ruleset). I retain the opinion that according the BBR definition of stalling that ruddercamping is legal. I however have changed in that I feel that even with ruddercamping legal the stage is fine for competitive play. Nobody has ever used ruddercamping before, making a single mistake while preforming it results in a stock loss, and the stages frequent transformation allow characters who cannot stop it at all times, to be given chances to gain the lead.
Edit:@noidea: I will get to that in a bit (watching mlp at the moment).
Sonic homing attack camping is worse than rudder camping. On stages where he can there are usually no transformations to impede it.
I have tested using rudder camping. You risk killing yourself. Everything except bombs completely prevents it. Another rudder camper can possibly push you and you die (?).
You need to get lucky with multiple bomb transformations to have any chance in using this. Pirate ship isn't really a camp-heavy stage since it doesn't advocate staying in one spot.
In the end, treat it like Sonic HA camping. Get a TO or ref to see it, and call the other person out on it, unless you're part of a good portion of the cast that can deal with it.
Basically, rudder camping is a crude gimmick.
Tornado: Wind pushes you out immediately. Opponent can easily punish this. Water eventually becomes unusable temporarily.
Island: The whole ship comes crashing down on you, so you must get out. Rudder campers can hide underneath the rock but that requires managing to get to the other side past an opponent (and get punished when you first resurface of course)
Sonic homing attack camping is worse than rudder camping. On stages where he can there are usually no transformations to impede it.
I have tested using rudder camping. You risk killing yourself. 3/4 transformations completely prevents it. Another rudder camper can possibly push you and you die (?).
You need to get lucky with multiple bomb transformations to have any chance in using this. Pirate ship isn't really a camp-heavy stage since it doesn't advocate staying in one spot.
In the end, treat it like Sonic HA camping. Get a TO or ref to see it, and call the other person out on it, unless you're part of a good portion of the cast that can deal with it.
Basically, rudder camping is a crude gimmick.
I agree except for the going to a TO part, it does not break any rules.
Before people start to ask, all characters but Falco, Lucario, Donkey kong, Bowser, Olimar, Jigglypuff, Pokemon trainer, and Luigi can stop ruddercamping. Those eight will need to wait till a transformation forces the camper out.
I believe the fact that Sonic homing attack camping is worse than Rudder camping proves his point.
One can easily identify that tactic as stalling. Identifying rudder camping as stalling is hard when there are several ways (albeit impractical because it puts the aggressor into a heavily disadvantageous position moreso than normally approaching in Brawl) to prevent it.
Examples include those listed in sunshade's thread.
We can use your examples as well to identify the impracticality of stopping ruddercamping. (In fact, sunshade highlights those examples at the very bottom of the OP.) Would you honestly attempt to wait for a stage transformation to force out a ruddercamper? How long could that take? The transformations are still random at best according to the stage mechanics thread. It isn't comparable to the air transformation on PS2 where you know it will end promptly.
Just for the record, it's very hard and very risky to ruddercamp in the first place. The ship is always teetering around so you risk undershooting it(causing a resurface) or overshooting it(causing a ship-spike) on every attempt.
And even worse, if you haven't positioned yourself PERFECTLY under the rudder, the ship might still teeter and spike/release you after you've actually begun the camping.
Rudder camping is in a select few match-ups an extraordinarily, flamboyantly, gay tactic. It can be used as a method of hazing less informed players (I didn't know you could short-hop then use a move to go under water until I read it in a thread by susa), but until it actually causes an issue in tournament, I can't (no matter how much I want to) say it should be banned.
I will however argue to the death that it is not stalling, assuming you are using the BBR definition of stalling.
I only mentioned the TO part because the section on stalling is a bit ambiguous
The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
In some matchups, that position is impossible to reach, even though it is only temporary position.
Logically, it's not much of a problem if you look at similar situations on other stages. Even the whale and some other transformations in Pictochat makes someone untouchable for a short while.
I tried rudder camping for like 30 minutes at one point, and the longer times were around 45 seconds. I usually couldn't get much more than like 30 seconds depending on when I started. That was with the ship rocking, etc. I'd rather be sonic and go to SV.
The only problem with that idea is that it doesn't put into account how people will judge the significance of the aspects within "Polarizing" and "Random" differently (people have different standards). For example, I may argue that Castle Siege is more polarizing than PS1. You argue the opposite. How can I present to you my argument as accurately and unbias as possible? By using a scalar method. Castle Siege is more polarizing because aspects A), B), C) and D) are judged to be higher on the scale* than they are for PS1.
*Note that it's possible to quantify the weight of these aspects as well (thereby dispelling the problem of different standards) because they are ranked in comparison to all other stages. Say A) and B) are in favor of Castle Siege but C) and D) favor PS1. Measuring the weights of these aspects through something unbias, such as an overall ranking of each comparable to all stages, helps us solve our differences.
In short, comparables are necessary. The more you have, the more accurate you can assess the balance of the stage. (For those literate in reading financial data, you know what I mean.)
I guess I just need to get used to the fact that the BRC is using a different stalling rule and as a result various tactics that were not previously stalling are now considerable as stalling.
Given the new wording, ruddercamping is against the rules when used against the 8 who cannot stop it, and in all other cases it is fine, if you can actually preform it.
In other news, scrooging, jumping higher than your opponent's character can jump, and homing attack under the stage are now all illegal.
The only problem with that idea is that it doesn't put into account how people will judge the significance of the aspects within "Polarizing" and "Random" differently (people have different standards). You'd have to be more specific in order to quantify them. Hence more variables and axises.
I have a large thread about the legality of every stage in the game, and you can literally attribute every single stages banning to overcentralization (the result of excessive polarization) and/or marginalization of player skill (the result of excessive randomness). (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=278606)
It's sad to see me agree with that thread to near entirety.
And realize that people will disagree, either on
A) the amount of overcentralization and/or marginalization of player skill (hence we could still use a scale here)
B) how significant that amount* is to competitive play (different values, something that can't be easily quantified)
*Example
A: Even if Pictochat is the most random stage in Brawl (disregard the accuracy of that statement), randomness is okay!
B: No it's not!
A: Yes it is!
No way I can say this without being too nitpicky, but the OP really isnt making suggestions anyone agrees on, so it shouldnt say that theyre suggestions for the ruleset.
I like Niddos idea.
And NOID I made a post about variables in the general unity thread. Specifically I tried to look at characteristics in stages we find both tolerable and intolerable.
Conclusion: Here are the things people really seem to hate. Caves, Blastzone movement, circle camping, walkoffs, and heavy random factors that include both timing and spatial elements (but not solely one or the other). These qualities can account for almost all banned stages.
The only stages that are banned and do not contain these are Norfair, PTAD, Hanenbrow, Jungle Japes. Of those four; Norfair, PTAD, and Jungle Japes all have hazards that feasibly can kill at extremely low percents; or what I would call Heavy hazards.
Things we seem to be ok with are level interaction of any degree, hazards to almost any degree (this causes the biggest debate on certain stages being legal), level movement, stages with overpowered characters, temporary walk offs, and random factors so long as they are solely based on timing or spatial randomeness and not both.
Someone also explained to me you could circle camp on hanenbrow, and that walkoff stages cause the overpowered tactic of just camping the edge.
It wouldn't overcentralize but it would (assuming you are using the BBR's stalling rule and not the BRC's) force players of the 8 characters who cannot stop rudder camping to ban pirateship or face exceedingly gay, nearly unwinnable, match-ups. For everyone else it would be irrelevant, provided the player knew his character's options.
No way I can say this without being too nitpicky, but the OP really isnt making suggestions anyone agrees on, so it shouldnt say that theyre suggestions for the ruleset.
Things we seem to be ok with are level interaction of any degree, hazards to almost any degree (this causes the biggest debate on certain stages being legal), level movement, stages with overpowered characters, temporary walk offs, and random factors so long as they are solely based on timing or spatial randomeness and not both.
Someone also explained to me you could circle camp on hanenbrow, and that walkoff stages cause the overpowered tactic of just camping the edge.
You should read the thread I linked to about stage legality. The two reasons for all stages being banned are gone over and applied to all stages in the entire game.
Japes should be banned. The ledges there are glitchy and cause problems with several moves, mostly zairs and tethers. Klap Trap runs on a schedule but so do the cars in Port Town. See where I'm going with this?
The cars in Port Town aren't an issue either, genius. But you can't compare them like that anyway, seeing as there is only ONE Klap Trap and the safe zone is literally the entire stage minus two small areas.
And "glitchy ledges" (which I've never experienced there) is hardly a reason to ban a stage, lol.
Uh, the cars that kill you at 60% are the entire reason most people want the stage banned. Whatever though.
Pick zero suit there and try to do an aerial side-b, or try to zair with TL or Samus. It freaking sucks. When that stage was legal I had to ban it every set. :|
There's also the fact that Falco auto-wins there. It's bad design.
1. The cars KO'ing you at 60% is a ridiculous criteria when you have characters like the Ice Climbers that can KO you at one point and the fact that they are easy to avoid.
2. It "sucks", ok. Doesn't sound like a reason to remove a stage to me.
3. Firstly, prove he auto-wins there. Do you have any tournament data or recorded matches? Secondly, MK auto-wins on Brinstar, that's what stage bans are for.
Pick zero suit there and try to do an aerial side-b, or try to zair with TL or Samus. It freaking sucks. When that stage was legal I had to ban it every set. :|
While I understand that recovering from the sides on a stage as mindbogglingly wide as jungle japes can be difficult I think this is another one of those "your character has a weakness, get over it" moments.
Despite the stages having little to no random effects, does that automatically mean that they are good competitive stages? I mean, simply knowing the stage and how it operates doesn't seem like it stops some tactics that abuse the mechanics of these stages.
Of course not. But any stage which is banned will have one (or more) of the following three aspects to thank:
-Excessive randomness (WW, Picto)
-Overcentralization (Temple, etc.)
-We're scrubs and we don't like it (PS2 WOLOLOLOLO)
For example, it is widely known that DK and Falco benefit heavily from JJ. Even if both parties know the stage well, the player that isn't Falco or DK (or any other character that benefits here) will be at a heavy disadvantge because of how polarizing the stage is.
Is there any point where those of you who are enforcing more dynamic stages will say that a specific stage is TOO GOOD for some characters? Not unplayable, but just too beneficial for some characters?
Well... I suppose you could, but adding more stage bans is usually the better thing to do, as it:
-strongly encourages playing more than one character
-notes the strength in a different manner (if we flat-out ban Japes because it is "too good" for falco or DK, they gain nothing from it-throw in a stage ban to deal with it, and they don't get a ridiculously strong counterpick, but neither does their opponent)
-Raises stage variability overall (example: what if a Ness wants to take ICs to JJ? You wouldn't necessarily auto-ban it over Brinstar, but the matchup isn't broken there...)
The only problem with that idea is that it doesn't put into account how people will judge the significance of the aspects within "Polarizing" and "Random" differently (people have different standards). For example, I may argue that Castle Siege is more polarizing than PS1. You argue the opposite. How can I present to you my argument as accurately and unbias as possible? By using a scalar method. Castle Siege is more polarizing because aspects A), B), C) and D) are judged to be higher on the scale* than they are for PS1.
I would claim that we certainly aren't arguing apples and oranges (like you seem to be implying)... It's just that the line is extremely blurry. PS1, CS, SV, PS2... stages like these are lumped in so close together in terms of polarization (extremely depolarizing)
*Note that it's possible to quantify the weight of these aspects as well (thereby dispelling the problem of different standards) because they are ranked in comparison to all other stages. Say A) and B) are in favor of Castle Siege but C) and D) favor PS1. Measuring the weights of these aspects through something unbias, such as an overall ranking of each comparable to all stages, helps us solve our differences.
I suppose, but if so, why gauge randomness on the same chart? What we have here is not a bunch of factors contributing to overall competitiveness, we have a bunch of factors contributing to polarization, which is the overarching factor...
Japes should be banned. The ledges there are glitchy and cause problems with several moves, mostly zairs and tethers. Klap Trap runs on a schedule but so do the cars in Port Town. See where I'm going with this?
First of all, I think banning PTAD because of the cars (infact, banning PTAD at all) is really stupid. If anything because of that one choke point where it becomes incredibly difficult to avoid them without going into specialfall or commanding the single lone platform for most characters. But for the most part, smart people don't get hit by the cars. Not even in Brawl-, where getting comboed into the cars is a genuine threat.
Second of all, even if that were a good reason, there's a very serious difference not mentioned in your analogy. The cars overrun the main part of the playing field; where the fight would normally happen. You have to already be in a ****ty position, or go out of your way to get hit by the klaptrap.
Furthermore, ledges are glitchy? If you play a tether char and think you can't deal with it, ban Japes. Not that hard. Even then, the alternative of "learn the stage" is open. I imagine japes is probably not that bad for ZSS or Olimar.
