Walk-offs should be given a chance

[cot(θ)]

If you're little mac, you HAVE to ban Kongo Jungle because you'll get outcamped easily -- barrel or otherwise.

The reason more bans are needed for more stages is because there are more stages that introduce balance issues related to a specific character or matchup.

For example, If you're Little Mac on a 9-stage list, you HAVE to ban Smashville and Duck Hunt, because you'll get outcamped easily. Now make it 13-starter where Kongo Jungle is included. Now you HAVE to ban Smashville, Duck Hunt, and Kongo Jungle.

The number of bans correlates with the number of legal stages because the number of stages causing character/matchup specific balance issues correlates with the number of legal stages.

 

[Overswarm]

The reason more bans are needed for more stages is because there are more stages that introduce balance issues related to a specific character or matchup.

For example, If you're Little Mac on a 9-stage list, you HAVE to ban Smashville and Duck Hunt, because you'll get outcamped easily. Now make it 13-starter where Kongo Jungle is included. Now you HAVE to ban Smashville, Duck Hunt, and Kongo Jungle.

The number of bans correlates with the number of legal stages because the number of stages causing character/matchup specific balance issues correlates with the number of legal stages.

That... isn't true. Little Mac literally cannot catch someone on Kongo Jungle -- I didn't mean "it's hard", I meant actually impossible. Characters are allowed to have bad matchups and bad stages.

 

[cot(θ)]

That... isn't true. Little Mac literally cannot catch someone on Kongo Jungle -- I didn't mean "it's hard", I meant actually impossible. Characters are allowed to have bad matchups and bad stages.

The matchup still becomes impossibly bad for Little Mac on those stages, especially Duck Hunt. Regardless of any of that, I'm just going to back up a bit and say I disagree with your premise of why stage bans are needed in the counterpicking phase, or would at least word it very differently.

It allows players to ban a specific stage due to balance reasons that are unique to a matchup or character

I think a better way of putting it is that stage bans are there to keep the advantage the loser gets from picking the stage in check. Duck Hunt and Smashville are really bad for Little Mac, to the point where being able to take him there is an overwhelming advantage, to the point where the counterpicker's advantage is just out of hand. So we let Little Mac ban these two stages so that the loser of the last game just gets a reasonable advantage.

Now we move to a list of 13 stages, and throw Kongo Jungle into the mix. Now Little Mac needs 3 bans in order to have a prayer of winning on his opponent's CP.

Obviously the number of stage bans required isn't directly related to the number of stages - it's not hard to make a 9-stage list that includes Smashville, Duck Hunt, and Kongo Jungle - but it's also pretty obvious that the more stages you add, the more likely you are to need more bans in any given matchup. So the claim that

The number of bans has no correlation with the number of stages legal.

is pretty far-fetched. If 2 bans are needed for 9 stages, it's likely that 3 bans will be needed for 13 stages. It may be a simplistic way of looking at things, but given that the alternative is to analyze all 2500 matchups or so on every stage to determine the right number of bans, I'd say it's good enough.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I was bored and decided to do a spot of research on Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio since in the (admittedly unlikely) event walkoffs get their day in the spotlight it would behoove us to know for certain how their blast zones are sized relative to each other.

Spoilers: They're identical.

Long version: As Mario, I performed an uncharged sweetspot fsmash on a Bowser training dummy set to "Control" directly underneath the spawn platform on each stage. Tests were repeated at various percents until the minimum percent to create black lightning was discovered. The same test was performed in both directions to ensure that Bowser was in fact in the middle. (He was.) A similar test was then performed with an uncharged usmash (front hitbox) to test the ceiling height. For comparison's sake, I repeated the tests on Final Destination to acquire a baseline.

Attack|Black Lightning % (WFS)|Black Lighting % (C)|Black Lightning % (FD)
Fsmash (sweetspot, uncharged)|103%|103%|118%
Usmash (front hitbox, uncharged)|134%|134%|133%

I conclude from these results that Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio have identical blast lines and that the specifics of their platform mechanics (and the mirror in WFS) constitute the only meaningful difference between the two. That said, they are indeed narrower (but not shorter) than Final Destination in this regard, so even if neither player camps the side they will still tend to die earlier than usual unless they end up using only vertical kill moves.

 

[Staticky]

Wow this thread is still ongoing. I'm going to stop holding back and I'm going to put my cold, hard opinion out there. I won't even bother saying no offense because I think it'll be pretty offensive lol.
Alot of people will say, "Oh, Halberd's legal, why can't all these other stages be legal?" or "Delfino has a walkoff, why aren't walkoff's legal?". The truth is, the only reasons these stages are legal is to stop the "liberals" from complaining about always seeing the same stages. If you run into any of the top 10 players in a certain Smash game, you could bet your a** they wont say they want to see more legalized stages. I will also bet you that most of them would prefer a barebones Battlefield, FD, Smashville stagelist over a stagelist with 20 legalized (including walkoffs) stages. Most people who want to legalize these "janky" type of stages aren't that good at the game. They usually are playing the game competitively for fun. Competition is fun, I get it.

In the case of the "Smashville?" type of players, they focus more on the competition (winning) over seeing more variety in the game. Because of this serious determination, these types of players are usually the one's placing highly at tournaments.

Backroom's have been established in Smash games to keep the peace between these two sides, so keeping the Gentleman's rule while still adding those unique, weird stages to the game offer's a good balance IMO. If walkoffs were added to this game, the balance would be broken.

Walkoff's will never be legal, test as much as you want, even if they reach your terms of "balance", not enough of the community will accept them as viable. I would love to see more variety in the stagelist. Unfortunately, the game just doesn't have enough maps that fit the criteria.

 

[Charey]

So you don't have a real argument so you just call people casuals because they don't agree with you? There are reasons to not want walk offs legal, please argue on those merits rather then resort to personal attacks.

 

[Rikkhan]

So you don't have a real argument so you just call people casuals because they don't agree with you? There are reasons to not want walk offs legal, please argue on those merits rather then resort to personal attacks.

Reasons? there is already 6 pages of disscusion, and even smashcapps organized a tournament with GOOD players and prove that walkoffs were bad. What else can be added?

At this point is clear, stage liberals will defend any stage no matter what. I feel a good part of them are either non-competitive (more stages more fun! Right?) or just against the mainstream ("smashville? that's too mainstream, I play on OGA, you probably never heard of it")

 

[MajorMajora]

Dear fellow stage liberals:

As the person who started this topic, and as one who believes whole heartedly in getting rid of the bias we have towards many banned stages, I have a favor to ask. I understand if many of you won't agree, and that's fine, if you have a point I want you to discuss it, but I truly believe this:

We should stop defending this topic, at least for now.

Not that I have stopped believing in the scientific process, but that I think we are giving our cause a bad name by going for what is identified by the public as a radical agenda.

Let's say we host a tournament. What do you think will happen? Either it'll be a liberal circle jerk fest no one takes seriously (unlikely), or a few people walk off camp, have some success with it, and with a small sample size of 1 and no time to develop counter strategies, people will through the data we have long asked for in our face, despite the data being relatively meaningless on its own, and use it as justification to ignore liberal ideals and write them off as ridiculous (likely).

The issue is not one of data, but of the toxic biases that are within the Sm4sh community.

The only way to weed out these biases is to show positive results from liberal projects that are more likely to be seen in the near future: FLSS, expanded stage lists, the expansion of customs-on meta. Then something like this might seem less ridiculous.

I truly believe that many liberal ideals are the key to forging a unique identity of smash 4, separate from past installments, and I feel they are important to the future of this game that we all love. But now is not the time for this discussion. It is one we will need to have one day, but today is not that day, which I now realize. I apologize for starting this discussion before we needed to, and I ask we let this thread die.

I won't ask for it to be locked (not sure I can even do that in the first place), because I understand this thread has gone well beyond my OP, but I beg we all let it die, if only to bring the topic back on a more opportune time.

Edit: I understand some people have pointed out that I've used the words "toxic bias". Sorry for the misunderstanding. There is toxic bias, and I believe it is a problem, but I never believed all against an opinion I have are due to toxic bias. Many of you on the other side of the fence are very respectable and intelligent. Please forgive my accidental insult.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

I don't understand why you're calling it "toxic bias" when we're against walk-offs, as if it's a brand new concept. It's not like we've had since Smash 64 to test them or anything.

 

[Akira213]

I think you misspelled the word "shouldn't" in the title of this thread.
More stage variety is nice, but not when it involves people dying from back throws at 20%. These stages are also massive nerfs to characters who focus on the offstage game, in a meta that is already focused on the ground game. The big kill boxes, new ledge mechanics, and better recoveries are bad enough already for characters who want to shine offstage. Throwing walk-offs into the mix practically invalidates them. These stages simply aren't balanced for competitive play, and promote campy and defensive play in a game that already favors defensive play.

 

[cot(θ)]

Dear fellow stage liberals:

As the person who started this topic, and as one who believes whole heartedly in getting rid of the bias we have towards many banned stages, I have a favor to ask. I understand if many of you won't agree, and that's fine, if you have a point I want you to discuss it, but I truly believe this:

We should stop defending this topic, at least for now.

Not that I have stopped believing in the scientific process, but that I think we are giving our cause a bad name by going for what is identified by the public as a radical agenda.

Let's say we host a tournament. What do you think will happen? Either it'll be a liberal circle jerk fest no one takes seriously (unlikely), or a few people walk off camp, have some success with it, and with a small sample size of 1 and no time to develop counter strategies, people will through the data we have long asked for in our face, despite the data being relatively meaningless on its own, and use it as justification to ignore liberal ideals and write them off as ridiculous (likely).

The issue is not one of data, but of the toxic biases that are within the Sm4sh community.

The only way to weed out these biases is to show positive results from liberal projects that are more likely to be seen in the near future: FLSS, expanded stage lists, the expansion of customs-on meta. Then something like this might seem less ridiculous.

I truly believe that many liberal ideals are the key to forging a unique identity of smash 4, separate from past installments, and I feel they are important to the future of this game that we all love. But now is not the time for this discussion. It is one we will need to have one day, but today is not that day, which I now realize. I apologize for starting this discussion before we needed to, and I ask we let this thread die.

I won't ask for it to be locked (not sure I can even do that in the first place), because I understand this thread has gone well beyond my OP, but I beg we all let it die, if only to bring the topic back on a more opportune time.

From page 1 of this thread:

This is such a tiresome argument to have. The only way you'll ever convince anyone of this is if you get really good, and find another like-minded really good player in your region, and you both get really good on walkoffs and prove that the metagame doesn't devolve into dank walkoff camping.

Believe me now?

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Mate, that really wouldn't solve anything. Having 2 people who advocate for and like walkoffs isn't the way to "prove walkoffs are great and should be legal."

 

[Zelder]

Yeah guys, it's an issue of toxic biases! There is no data around walk off stages. There have never been walk off stages in Smash Brothers history, and their addition to Smash 4 is a novel one! Unfortunately, we just don't have any experiences to draw from in regards to walk offs. It's such a shame.

 

[ReturningFall]

Wow this thread is still ongoing. I'm going to stop holding back and I'm going to put my cold, hard opinion out there. I won't even bother saying no offense because I think it'll be pretty offensive lol.
Alot of people will say, "Oh, Halberd's legal, why can't all these other stages be legal?" or "Delfino has a walkoff, why aren't walkoff's legal?". The truth is, the only reasons these stages are legal is to stop the "liberals" from complaining about always seeing the same stages. If you run into any of the top 10 players in a certain Smash game, you could bet your a** they wont say they want to see more legalized stages. I will also bet you that most of them would prefer a barebones Battlefield, FD, Smashville stagelist over a stagelist with 20 legalized (including walkoffs) stages. Most people who want to legalize these "janky" type of stages aren't that good at the game. They usually are playing the game competitively for fun. Competition is fun, I get it.
In the case of the "Smashville?" type of players, they focus more on the competition (winning) over seeing more variety in the game. Because of this serious determination, these types of players are usually the one's placing highly at tournaments.
Backroom's have been established in Smash games to keep the peace between these two sides, so keeping the Gentleman's rule while still adding those unique, weird stages to the game offer's a good balance IMO. If walkoffs were added to this game, the balance would be broken.
Walkoff's will never be legal, test as much as you want, even if they reach your terms of "balance", not enough of the community will accept them as viable. I would love to see more variety in the stagelist. Unfortunately, the game just doesn't have enough maps that fit the criteria.

1st off, you're ad-homonym-ing. 2nd off, I'd like to hear where you heard the "competitive" players want fewer stages. I always got the impression that when you play this game 10 hours a day you begin to want some variety.

Dear fellow stage liberals:

As the person who started this topic, and as one who believes whole heartedly in getting rid of the bias we have towards many banned stages, I have a favor to ask. I understand if many of you won't agree, and that's fine, if you have a point I want you to discuss it, but I truly believe this:

We should stop defending this topic, at least for now.

Not that I have stopped believing in the scientific process, but that I think we are giving our cause a bad name by going for what is identified by the public as a radical agenda.

Let's say we host a tournament. What do you think will happen? Either it'll be a liberal circle jerk fest no one takes seriously (unlikely), or a few people walk off camp, have some success with it, and with a small sample size of 1 and no time to develop counter strategies, people will through the data we have long asked for in our face, despite the data being relatively meaningless on its own, and use it as justification to ignore liberal ideals and write them off as ridiculous (likely).

The issue is not one of data, but of the toxic biases that are within the Sm4sh community.

The only way to weed out these biases is to show positive results from liberal projects that are more likely to be seen in the near future: FLSS, expanded stage lists, the expansion of customs-on meta. Then something like this might seem less ridiculous.

I truly believe that many liberal ideals are the key to forging a unique identity of smash 4, separate from past installments, and I feel they are important to the future of this game that we all love. But now is not the time for this discussion. It is one we will need to have one day, but today is not that day, which I now realize. I apologize for starting this discussion before we needed to, and I ask we let this thread die.

I won't ask for it to be locked (not sure I can even do that in the first place), because I understand this thread has gone well beyond my OP, but I beg we all let it die, if only to bring the topic back on a more opportune time.

Personally, I'm not sure pro-walkoffs are the minority as much as anti-walkoffs are just more vitriolic and violent about their opinions (and hence more willing to put words and time down expressing their opinions). For proof, I'd like to submit the tone of this board. Toxic bias indeed.

That said, you're probably right we should just let this topic die. If for no other reason than the fact that it's devolved into all the civility and productiveness of a religious war. And we free thinkers are the ones who inevitably get killed.

Maybe we should just not care what the rest of the "community" thinks and go our own way instead. I seriously doubt opinions are going to change on the matter.

 

[Staticky]

1st off, you're ad-homonym-ing. 2nd off, I'd like to hear where you heard the "competitive" players want fewer stages. I always got the impression that when you play this game 10 hours a day you begin to want some variety.



Personally, I'm not sure pro-walkoffs are the minority as much as anti-walkoffs are just more vitriolic and violent about their opinions (and hence more willing to put words and time down expressing their opinions). For proof, I'd like to submit the tone of this board. Toxic bias indeed.

That said, you're probably right we should just let this topic die. If for no other reason than the fact that it's devolved into all the civility and productiveness of a religious war. And we free thinkers are the ones who inevitably get killed.

Maybe we should just not care what the rest of the "community" thinks and go our own way instead. I seriously doubt opinions are going to change on the matter.

Like I somewhat said, if top players wanted variety, we would most likely see it already.

So you don't have a real argument so you just call people casuals because they don't agree with you? There are reasons to not want walk offs legal, please argue on those merits rather then resort to personal attacks.

Thanks @ Rikkhan for speaking for me already. But anyway dude, if you actually looked through the thread you would see I already put mad work into actual constructive arguments. I didn't call anyone a casual anyway, so chill.

 

[Zelder]

1st off, you're ad-homonym-ing. 2nd off, I'd like to hear where you heard the "competitive" players want fewer stages. I always got the impression that when you play this game 10 hours a day you begin to want some variety.



Personally, I'm not sure pro-walkoffs are the minority as much as anti-walkoffs are just more vitriolic and violent about their opinions (and hence more willing to put words and time down expressing their opinions). For proof, I'd like to submit the tone of this board. Toxic bias indeed.

That said, you're probably right we should just let this topic die. If for no other reason than the fact that it's devolved into all the civility and productiveness of a religious war. And we free thinkers are the ones who inevitably get killed.

Maybe we should just not care what the rest of the "community" thinks and go our own way instead. I seriously doubt opinions are going to change on the matter.

I'm surprised you were able to type all that, considering how hard you put yourself up on the cross and all.

 

[Illuminose]

Can the people in favor of walkoffs please stop acting like they're taking the high road and we're all just ignorant? Seriously, it's uncalled for.

 

[cot(θ)]

Can everyone please stop acting like they're taking the high road and we're all just ignorant? Seriously, it's uncalled for.

Fixed.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Honestly, I have to agree with the point that walkoffs encourage people to camp; why go for the risky combo that could backfire if you can sit by the blastzone, grab and back-throw for the same result with less risk, especially if you are good at predicting? It's less risky and thus optimal, so tournaments would devolve into "who got the last B-Throw blastzone KO" rather than actual skill.

Walkoffs also heavily favor characters with good grab games for that reason. They're banned for being degeneratively-promoting.

 

[Divemissile]

Dear fellow stage liberals:

As the person who started this topic, and as one who believes whole heartedly in getting rid of the bias we have towards many banned stages, I have a favor to ask. I understand if many of you won't agree, and that's fine, if you have a point I want you to discuss it, but I truly believe this:

We should stop defending this topic, at least for now.

Not that I have stopped believing in the scientific process, but that I think we are giving our cause a bad name by going for what is identified by the public as a radical agenda.

Let's say we host a tournament. What do you think will happen? Either it'll be a liberal circle jerk fest no one takes seriously (unlikely), or a few people walk off camp, have some success with it, and with a small sample size of 1 and no time to develop counter strategies, people will through the data we have long asked for in our face, despite the data being relatively meaningless on its own, and use it as justification to ignore liberal ideals and write them off as ridiculous (likely).

The issue is not one of data, but of the toxic biases that are within the Sm4sh community.

The only way to weed out these biases is to show positive results from liberal projects that are more likely to be seen in the near future: FLSS, expanded stage lists, the expansion of customs-on meta. Then something like this might seem less ridiculous.

I truly believe that many liberal ideals are the key to forging a unique identity of smash 4, separate from past installments, and I feel they are important to the future of this game that we all love. But now is not the time for this discussion. It is one we will need to have one day, but today is not that day, which I now realize. I apologize for starting this discussion before we needed to, and I ask we let this thread die.

I won't ask for it to be locked (not sure I can even do that in the first place), because I understand this thread has gone well beyond my OP, but I beg we all let it die, if only to bring the topic back on a more opportune time.

Edit: I understand some people have pointed out that I've used the words "toxic bias". Sorry for the misunderstanding. There is toxic bias, and I believe it is a problem, but I never believed all against an opinion I have are due to toxic bias. Many of you on the other side of the fence are very respectable and intelligent. Please forgive my accidental insult.

So it isn't that your idea is bad, it's that we're all biased? Good logic.