We need to talk about Lylat Cruise.

[cot(θ)]

The argument that you should be able to "work around" the hazard is fundamentally flawed. The player who pretends Lylat is an ordinary stage that won't ever cancel your attacks will have an advantage over a player who tries to "work around" them because he will be using all the tools at his disposal.

Given that the optimal strategy is to ignore the risk of tilt-cancelling because it's very rare and we don't know when it will happen, an optimally played match between two players runs the risk of being disturbed and the results changed without any warning because of it.

Stop spouting nonsense about "working around the issue". The smartest way to play on Lylat is to ignore the issue, and hope that you don't get screwed over. That's not the kind of hazard that raises the skill ceiling and adds depth - it's the kind of hazard that warrants a stage ban.

 

[S_B]

I'm not even sure why this is still a discussion...

To any who still feel like Lylat is a fine "neutral" stage...

Here's an example of how to avoid a stage hazard: On the Halberd stage, when you see the claw stop moving, it's about to attack, get ready to dodge.

Okay, now explain how to identify when your moves are about to be interrupted...or this "discussion" is over and logic dictates that Lylat has an unpredictable stage element that can and has ruined matches and should be banned.

 

[Skarfelt]

Or they can learn it. This is how I see it - if it's not random, then the player has no excuse. Good players will learn it, or they will lose the right to ***** about it.

Going on a slight tangent here to talk about this post. This is a huge attitude problem that is keeping myself (and I'd imagine others as well) out of the stage discussion thread to discuss anything involving banning stages. It's hostile and I'm not going to sit here and be told I'm bad for not learning potentially thousands of different outcomes across 50+ characters on just one stage. You're not promoting discussion, you're pushing your own agenda and refusing to listen to anyone else because of this linear, narrow argument that basically boils down to "git gud".

As I said in my previous post, this is a game that is simply about fighting your opponent. A stage whose optimal play involves, in any way, not fighting your opponent - by interrupting that fight regularly/intrusively or by actively discouraging the use of any movement attacks - is not a stage I want to be legal.

 

[Funen1]

Going on a slight tangent here to talk about this post. This is a huge attitude problem that is keeping myself (and I'd imagine others as well) out of the stage discussion thread to discuss anything involving banning stages. It's hostile and I'm not going to sit here and be told I'm bad for not learning potentially thousands of different outcomes across 50+ characters on just one stage. You're not promoting discussion, you're pushing your own agenda and refusing to listen to anyone else because of this linear, narrow argument that basically boils down to "git gud".

I'll admit @ Budget Player Cadet_ 's posts can sometimes seem a little harsh, even if he otherwise means well, but I don't know him well enough to really judge on that and am more willing to let him respond to this.

 

[S_B]

I'll admit @ Budget Player Cadet_ 's posts can sometimes seem a little harsh, even if he otherwise means well

I'm not entirely convinced...

His argument, when confronted with the burden of somehow proving what he's suggested, has become "STFU AND L2P NUB!!!!"

I mean, seriously, if it's possible to predict the tilting's effects, it should be perfectly possible to create/find a video demonstrating HOW...

 

[JmacAttack]

Wait, people

really complaining about recovering with Lylat's tilting ?
I mean, the stage was out in Brawl and had nearly identical physics, so we have basically had 7 years to practice/figure recoveries on it.

And after so many years, the only conclusion I've had with Lylat is that it *changes* your way to recover. There are few recoveries that require players to be very precise, or that can't be worked around, you'd just need to adjust and use safer recoveries, and I mean safer as in, "it will grab even if it moves a bit". it might be a drag to think a bit differently, but beneficial in the long run.
This is coming from who have used FREAKING ZELDA and still managed around Lylat.

The main (only?) issue with Lylat atm is those wonky cancels it may present, and I have no conclusion towards them just yet.
I can't believe how much I loved this one post.

It's not the tilting while recovering that's the problem. For recovering, it's that the underside is hooked so that it will never let you get near the ledge, so if you get stuck underneath it, you're not coming back. Lylat's ledge, on top of that, is extra difficult to sweetspot. Recoveries like Lucario's, Rosalina's, and the two Pits' are the most affected, and it's even a problem in Omega Lylat. The slopes on the main stage cause certain moves to behave differently, and it can very negatively impact aerial approaches. The tilting completely ruins precise autocancel windows and makes many moves dangerous when they would otherwise be safe. It gives a large defensive advantage to the person on the high ground, but at the same time, it gives a large offensive nerf to the person on the high ground. By itself, it does not promote campier play, because these advantages don't last for very long and really can't be controlled, it just makes playing on the stage frustrating.

I honestly think the only reason it was legal in Brawl was because we barely had any legal stages left thanks to all the Meta Knight stage bans. I mean, Pokemon Stadium 2 was legal in Brawl too, and it's banned today, despite not being nearly as bad.

 

[Ulevo]

I know this is sort of on a tangent, but given the problems we've discussed with Lylat and the point that @Amazing Ampharos brought up about Duck Hunt further pushing the strike system towards a flat stage oriented system, I believe the best solutions are to either go with Delfino Plaza as the neutral, or to simply allow for a large stage list to be picked from at the get go.

With that said, do people feel that Delfino has the qualities to act as a starter that is relatively fair? I'll be honest, there are a couple of spots on the stage that can be abusive momentarily, and some characters enjoy it, but I've never played on the stage and felt like the stage choice gave me issues. I think it would be a fine starter, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I think this is important to discuss to decide the merits of having a 5 stage strike list as opposed to an open stage list. I think all of the important points about Lylat have been covered.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I know this is sort of on a tangent, but given the problems we've discussed with Lylat and the point that @Amazing Ampharos brought up about Duck Hunt further pushing the strike system towards a flat stage oriented system, I believe the best solutions are to either go with Delfino Plaza as the neutral, or to simply allow for a large stage list to be picked from at the get go.

With that said, do people feel that Delfino has the qualities to act as a starter that is relatively fair? I'll be honest, there are a couple of spots on the stage that can be abusive momentarily, and some characters enjoy it, but I've never played on the stage and felt like the stage choice gave me issues. I think it would be a fine starter, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I think this is important to discuss to decide the merits of having a 5 stage strike list as opposed to an open stage list. I think all of the important points about Lylat have been covered.

If we're entertaining the idea of Delfino Plaza as a starter in a non-FLSS scenario, then I think Skyloft and Wuhu Island should also be in the running.

That said I'd support FLSS over a starter/counterpick distinction.

 

[Ulevo]

If we're entertaining the idea of Delfino Plaza as a starter in a non-FLSS scenario, then I think Skyloft and Wuhu Island should also be in the running.

That said I'd support FLSS over a starter/counterpick distinction.

I understand that there is controversy over those two stages. I'm not going to say their current banned status in tournaments is legitimate, I definitely think they could use more usage. But I am not convinced they are fitting as starters. Wuhu in particular is a really large stage on a lot of transformations. Skyloft I'm not too familiar with, I admit.

 

[Pazx]

The argument that you should be able to "work around" the hazard is fundamentally flawed. The player who pretends Lylat is an ordinary stage that won't ever cancel your attacks will have an advantage over a player who tries to "work around" them because he will be using all the tools at his disposal.

Given that the optimal strategy is to ignore the risk of tilt-cancelling because it's very rare and we don't know when it will happen, an optimally played match between two players runs the risk of being disturbed and the results changed without any warning because of it.

Stop spouting nonsense about "working around the issue". The smartest way to play on Lylat is to ignore the issue, and hope that you don't get screwed over. That's not the kind of hazard that raises the skill ceiling and adds depth - it's the kind of hazard that warrants a stage ban.

This is convincing and is my new stance on the matter.

 

[fromundaman]

So 3 pages into the discussion on this stage and no one has mentioned yet that the reason the tilt canceling issue occurs at all is because the stage appears to have been created in a fundamentally different way than in Brawl.

I am about to go on a tangent, but bear with me, it will make sense:

I don't know if anyone here has ever gone to the stage creator and tried to put multiple platforms next to each other. If you have, you may have realized that the edges don't align completely and that at certain angles your actions will be canceled as you "fall" from one platform to the next. At some rare angles, you can even fall between the platforms completely.

Well as sad as this is, it appears that the stage creator uses a rudimentary version of whatever they did to make the stages, as Lylat is NOT one big platform, but actually 3 straight platforms connected at the engines. This is why moves can be canceled as you "fall" off the platforms and why you sometimes go into tumble animation, especially when you are moved by shieldstun over the engines as it counts it as having been pushed off of a platform and leads to an untechable knockdown.
I personally abuse this with Pacman by Z-dropping high shieldstun fruits on anyone shielding on the engines and then option selecting into a FF Fair jablock if I see the tumble. This is honestly super dumb and should not be a thing.
Another way for Pacman to abuse this is to throw out grabs on top of the engines when a tilt start, then when your grab gets canceled, punishing the person attempting to punish the whiff.

This theory is even further supported by the fact that there are moves that can allow you to actually "Fall through" the engines, such as Kirby's rock (There is a replay of this on one of the WiiUs at my local arcade; I know who's it was so I'll try to get a hold of it and post it at some point) or this:

QAC being quick attack cancel?
I doubt anyone clicked my link last page, but I actually mention in the linked post that Pikachu can randomly go through the engines with QA. Dunno why or how.

This happens because the moves shrink the character's hurtbox enough that they can slip between the platforms.


TL: DR Version

Lylat is not one big platform but 3 separate ones connected at the engines. The janky stuff such as attacks getting canceled and characters going through the stage will always happen at the engines as you are "Falling" from one platform to the next due to the tilts, directional momentum on moves or blockstun. When you "Fall" due to blockstun, you will always be put in an untechable knockdown. This is in fact super stupid.


Final Thought:

While I personally like the stage due to the fact Pacman benefits a lot from it, it is a pretty dumb stage and probably shouldn't be a starter.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm not entirely convinced...

His argument, when confronted with the burden of somehow proving what he's suggested, has become "STFU AND L2P NUB!!!!"

I mean, seriously, if it's possible to predict the tilting's effects, it should be perfectly possible to create/find a video demonstrating HOW...

Complex != Unpredictable. I can't tell you where every hitbox on skyloft is; that doesn't mean it's impossible to know which paths have hitboxes. If the tilting is predictable, and consistent movement leads to consistent results (this is really not something I should have to prove), then of course it's possible to predict and learn the effects. Of course, @ cot(θ) kinda nailed it either way, so...

Going on a slight tangent here to talk about this post. This is a huge attitude problem that is keeping myself (and I'd imagine others as well) out of the stage discussion thread to discuss anything involving banning stages. It's hostile and I'm not going to sit here and be told I'm bad for not learning potentially thousands of different outcomes across 50+ characters on just one stage. You're not promoting discussion, you're pushing your own agenda and refusing to listen to anyone else because of this linear, narrow argument that basically boils down to "git gud".

I really don't want to sound harsh, but at some level we have to examine to basis of competitive play, and we have to say, "it's on the player to learn these things". You can figure it out, or you can ignore it, but if you ignore it, and you could have learned it, as a competitive player you should not complain about the interactions. It's like if I don't learn the swordfighter matchup, and then get screwed over by something I didn't know the character could do - I made the active choice not to learn a niche, rare matchup, and I don't get to complain because of it. Except that with Lylat, you can expect to go there once or twice per tournament, whereas Mii Swordsman is almost never seen.

For what it's worth, I fall into the latter category - I'm not going to learn the tilting, or at least not all of it (because I don't think it matters that much in general - I'm certainly going to stop using Pika's bthrow over those engines), but I recognize full well that I lose any and all right to complain when something happens with regards to the tilting that messes me up.

As I said in my previous post, this is a game that is simply about fighting your opponent. A stage whose optimal play involves, in any way, not fighting your opponent - by interrupting that fight regularly/intrusively or by actively discouraging the use of any movement attacks - is not a stage I want to be legal.

Given that Smash has a history of stages that straight-up attack you, I find this statement bizarre. In smash, you can never simplify it down to Player vs. Player. Even on just Final Destination/Omega, the way the stage is built can fundamentally change a matchup - if you counterpick my Pikachu to an omega stage with flat sides, it's way worse for me than if you counterpick him to Final Destination or Omega Lylat. The matchup is always PvPvS, and what we need to examine is if the stage aspect significantly lowers the skill level needed to fight each other (as is the case on, for example, Pyrosphere, where the dominant strategy is so random that you might as well flip a coin, or Temple, where the optimal strategy is so trivial to execute that you might as well not bother). The idea that optimal play on lylat somehow involves not fighting the opponent is simply not true.

 

[Sinister Slush]

So 3 pages into the discussion on this stage and no one has mentioned yet that the reason the tilt canceling issue occurs at all is because the stage appears to have been created in a fundamentally different way than in Brawl.

I mean, most people are aware many old stages were messed with.
Delfino another example of a stage gone awry with the blastzones shrinking when it's moving or rising while sometimes giving it large wide view of everything that makes it seem like you're on Kongo jungle.

I've made stages before and noticed the whole platform problems though.

 

[S_B]

Given that Smash has a history of stages that straight-up attack you, I find this statement bizarre.

Yes, and most of those stages are outright banned due to those hazards.

The few that do have hazards that are legal are like Halberd where the hazards are telegraphed 5-10 seconds in advance and are SUPER easy to identify.

Once again, it's not that the stage "attacks you" that's the issue. Is that the moment it will "attack you" is generally difficult to identify to the point that it's not worth considering a game mechanic that players should have to play around.

As @ fromundaman pointed out, characters can even occasionally fall THROUGH the stage.

 

[Ulevo]

So I suspected as much, but I was never able to actually confirm that you could be pushed in shield stun in to a tumble animation. This to me makes the matter even worse, though @ fromundaman 's explanation on how the stage was built makes for an excellent theory.

 

[Skarfelt]

I really don't want to sound harsh, but at some level we have to examine to basis of competitive play, and we have to say, "it's on the player to learn these things". You can figure it out, or you can ignore it, but if you ignore it, and you could have learned it, as a competitive player you should not complain about the interactions. It's like if I don't learn the swordfighter matchup, and then get screwed over by something I didn't know the character could do - I made the active choice not to learn a niche, rare matchup, and I don't get to complain because of it. Except that with Lylat, you can expect to go there once or twice per tournament, whereas Mii Swordsman is almost never seen.

I understand where you're coming from here but I still disagree. This is more a question of "can" vs "should" - I can learn every single character in the game to a competitive standard to have someone for every possible matchup but I shouldn't be expected to - the time commitment is just too much for a relatively minor issue. Even if I know ROB is better against Yoshi than Fox, I'm not going to pick ROB as I'm not as familiar with that character. I could learn ROB for it, sure, but it's not mandatory. In regards to Lylat, I think it's just much easier to ban the stage so we can focus on advancing character meta instead of expecting every player to spend hours learning the mechanic. Using Melee's meta development as an example, if we had a stage that had forced every competitive player to spend hours learning to simply play the stage optimally - not to exploit it, but to just learn it - I doubt we would have been able to see character metas advance as incredibly far as they have. If Marths had to spend so much time learning a potential counterpick stage, would they have been able to advance the Falco matchup?

Now, I understand there are a few key differences. For one, Lylat does not force you to learn the stage to play on it- I'm not going to pretend that I avoid the stage as Fox due to the tilt bugging, I avoid it due to the ledges - but I also think that any player that does put the time in isn't going to see an advantage worth anywhere near the amount of time required to put in to learn everything. The other difference is that Smash 4 has far, FAR more characters to develop and I'd personally rather see people develop all of their characters and look into solving all the matchup qualms such as the aforementioned Fox-Yoshi matchup instead of spending so much time getting a negligible advantage.

Given that Smash has a history of stages that straight-up attack you, I find this statement bizarre. In smash, you can never simplify it down to Player vs. Player. Even on just Final Destination/Omega, the way the stage is built can fundamentally change a matchup - if you counterpick my Pikachu to an omega stage with flat sides, it's way worse for me than if you counterpick him to Final Destination or Omega Lylat. The matchup is always PvPvS, and what we need to examine is if the stage aspect significantly lowers the skill level needed to fight each other (as is the case on, for example, Pyrosphere, where the dominant strategy is so random that you might as well flip a coin, or Temple, where the optimal strategy is so trivial to execute that you might as well not bother). The idea that optimal play on lylat somehow involves not fighting the opponent is simply not true.

I totally agree on optimal play segment - I'll adjust my statement to more accurately be that the standard optimal play is completely adjusted by Lylat's tilting. FD adjusts optimal play to more defensive, projectile-based play whereas Lylat's optimal play is very similar to stages like Battlefield - it just has the added chance of killing you for playing that style.

As for the first part, Smash has stages that attack you but those are not the ones we use in competitive play. Stages are a big part of matchups but is the player's personal ability to play that stage meant to be a big factor? I think that's where we disagree. Stages basic layout changes how matchups are played and who's at an advantage but it's very rare that the player who has more experience on the stage should win with basic stages. Even stages with gimmicks like Duck Hunt aren't intrusive enough to push the matchup's advantage into the hands of the player with more experience on Duck Hunt but I'd argue that Lylat does and that's something I don't want to have in a legal stage. Your signature mentions that the best player should always win on the legal stages from your ruleset and I just have to disagree with that. I was able to beat the top player in the country on Halberd due to his unfamiliarity with the stage - I'm not saying Halberd should be banned or otherwise but I'm saying that stage familiarity and stage advantage is very relevant in whether the best player wins or not.

All this said, my opinions and your opinions are very subjective. The main point of my initial post was to try and be more open in general towards people discussing stages. At the minute, the stage discussion on this forum is very much "the 13 stage list is correct and if you disagree you are wrong" and, well, I disagree.

 

[Crow!]

I do not understand the mindset that learning character matchups does more to advance the game's "meta" than learning stages does.

 

[Linq]

Kind of annoyed by people assuming that because something is not random means it's learn-able. If you're not familiar with programming, at least in the case of most games (Smash included), NOTHING IS RANDOM. What we perceive as random is actually a bunch of numbers being multiplied, shifted, masked, or other operations that create a seemingly random sequence. Let's assume Sm4sh uses a Mersenne Twister random number generator. The state of the rng can be determined by observing 623 consecutive values. After that, the next number generated can be predicted with absolute certainty. Therefore, all players should be expected to remember the past 623 "random" events (probably including particle effects), and perform the necessary math operation in their head to determine the next value, and further know which values correspond to different actions with a give character. Seems reasonable, right?

 

[S_B]

Kind of annoyed by people assuming that because something is not random means it's learn-able. If you're not familiar with programming, at least in the case of most games (Smash included), NOTHING IS RANDOM. What we perceive as random is actually a bunch of numbers being multiplied, shifted, masked, or other operations that create a seemingly random sequence. Let's assume Sm4sh uses a Mersenne Twister random number generator. The state of the rng can be determined by observing 623 consecutive values. After that, the next number generated can be predicted with absolute certainty. Therefore, all players should be expected to remember the past 623 "random" events (probably including particle effects), and perform the necessary math operation in their head to determine the next value, and further know which values correspond to different actions with a give character. Seems reasonable, right?

Pretty much this.

It is 100% impossible to not know that a stage hazard on Halberd is about to attack you (unless you're in a goddamn coma or something). In all three cases, there is a clear visual indicator that a stage hazard is about to trigger. There is no ambiguity about where the attack will hit, either.

Even knowing exactly which points on Lylat cause this issue, we're talking about mere PIXELS of deviation between an attack being cancelled and it NOT being cancelled. It is neither appropriate or realistic to expect players to have this level of accuracy when it comes to determining A) which of the three platforms they're technically standing on at the time and B ) at what exact moment the aforementioned may change.

 

[Pazx]

I mean, most people are aware many old stages were messed with.
Delfino another example of a stage gone awry with the blastzones shrinking when it's moving or rising while sometimes giving it large wide view of everything that makes it seem like you're on Kongo jungle.

I've made stages before and noticed the whole platform problems though.

Slight nit-pick, but Delfino was busted in Brawl too as far as I'm aware. Same goes for Siege (not shrinking blast zones but rather other transformation related glitches).

 

[Ulevo]

Yeah as far as I can tell, Castle Siege and Delfino are basically the same as their Brawl counterparts, including the incredibly low blast zones on certain transformations.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Not really liking some of the attitude I see in these posts.

Regardless of how I feel about starter / cp system (I don't think it works in this game), I think that Town and Duck Hunt are better as starters than Lylat.

As for legality, Lylat should stay. I hate Battlefield edges in Melee, but I learned to deal with them. If you give me a stage that tilts slightly, I'm gonna learn to deal with it. Nothing is particularly game breaking about the tilting (see Pilotwings for some real messed up tilts).

 

[Sinister Slush]

In some or most regions, T&C is already a starter. I'd still put duck hunt over lylat as a starter if I hosted a tournament tho.
People will at least choose Duck Hunt over everybody's first strike being Lylat.

 

[S_B]

Yeah as far as I can tell, Castle Siege and Delfino are basically the same as their Brawl counterparts, including the incredibly low blast zones on certain transformations.

At least the changing blast zones are 100% predictable, though.

 

[Pazx]

Not really liking some of the attitude I see in these posts.

Regardless of how I feel about starter / cp system (I don't think it works in this game), I think that Town and Duck Hunt are better as starters than Lylat.

As for legality, Lylat should stay. I hate Battlefield edges in Melee, but I learned to deal with them. If you give me a stage that tilts slightly, I'm gonna learn to deal with it. Nothing is particularly game breaking about the tilting (see Pilotwings for some real messed up tilts).

The issue is not the tilting, it is the glitches that occur on the engines and the ledges.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Slight nit-pick, but Delfino was busted in Brawl too as far as I'm aware. Same goes for Siege (not shrinking blast zones but rather other transformation related glitches).

Yeah as far as I can tell, Castle Siege and Delfino are basically the same as their Brawl counterparts, including the incredibly low blast zones on certain transformations.

No, no,, no and no.
Delfino was banned 90% because of Meta Knight. 5% Blastzone camping and 5% for walls issues.
Siege wasn't banned at all, but most people didn't ever play on it so it got kinda forgotten.

 

[Ulevo]

No, no,, no and no.
Delfino was banned 90% because of Meta Knight. 5% Blastzone camping and 5% for walls issues.
Siege wasn't banned at all, but most people didn't ever play on it so it got kinda forgotten.

Where in my post did I say anything about reasons for its status as a legal or banned stage? I'm just reinforcing that they are effectively the same stages as they were in Brawl.

 

[Pazx]

No, no,, no and no.
Delfino was banned 90% because of Meta Knight. 5% Blastzone camping and 5% for walls issues.
Siege wasn't banned at all, but most people didn't ever play on it so it got kinda forgotten.

Yeah I didn't imply they were banned either, my region had both stages legal until we stopped running Brawl tournaments.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I think I misread "busted" as "bad/bannable".

Thanks, years of being on the losing side of the stick defending stages that lead me to instinctively overreact.
I apologize.

 

[teluoborg]

TL: DR Version

Lylat is not one big platform but 3 separate ones connected at the engines. The janky stuff such as attacks getting canceled and characters going through the stage will always happen at the engines as you are "Falling" from one platform to the next due to the tilts, directional momentum on moves or blockstun. When you "Fall" due to blockstun, you will always be put in an untechable knockdown. This is in fact super stupid.

Well that was very insightful, thank you very much. That puts Lylat on the same level as PS2 which means for BPC it's the perfect starter and for everyone else it's barely worthy for FFAs.

#Banned

Edit since I have more time to precise my thoughts :
the viability of a stage does not rely on the predictability or the "avoidability" of its hazards, it's about how intrusive they are.
Take as an example Halberd and Norfair : one has two hitboxes that target one character randomly and one of them leaves you less than one second to react, the other has hitboxes that target no one in particular and leave you time to react to them. Yet, since Halberd's hazard occupy less space and time in a match it is regarded as more competitively viable than Norfair with its huge predictable hitboxes that constantly change the landscape and are present during the majority of the match.

Lylat is the same, we now know what causes those trippings and take offs, but that doesn't make them any less intrusive. Furthermore, the fact that this mechanism is present during 100% of a match makes Lylat worse than Norfair.

 

[cot(θ)]

Well that was very insightful, thank you very much. That puts Lylat on the same level as PS2 which means for BPC it's the perfect starter and for everyone else it's barely worthy for FFAs.

#Banned

Edit since I have more time to precise my thoughts :
the viability of a stage does not rely on the predictability or the "avoidability" of its hazards, it's about how intrusive they are.
Take as an example Halberd and Norfair : one has two hitboxes that target one character randomly and one of them leaves you less than one second to react, the other has hitboxes that target no one in particular and leave you time to react to them. Yet, since Halberd's hazard occupy less space and time in a match it is regarded as more competitively viable than Norfair with its huge predictable hitboxes that constantly change the landscape and are present during the majority of the match.

Lylat is the same, we now know what causes those trippings and take offs, but that doesn't make them any less intrusive. Furthermore, the fact that this mechanism is present during 100% of a match makes Lylat worse than Norfair.

I don't think it's really about it's intrusiveness, but about whether you can reliably have a competitive match on that stage. PS2 changes the optimal way you have to play on its transformations. It's unique, and perhaps a bit wonky, but certainly not uncompetitive. Lylat just screws you over sometimes even when you are playing optimally.

FWIW, I'm running an experimental ruleset right now which has PS2 as a starter, and Lylat banned entirely. So I would rank Lylat WAY below PS2 in terms of competitive gameplay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well that was very insightful, thank you very much. That puts Lylat on the same level as PS2 which means for BPC it's the perfect starter and for everyone else it's barely worthy for FFAs.

It's funny because nobody has ever given me a decent reason why PS2 shouldn't be legal. It's sad because it's true.

Edit since I have more time to precise my thoughts :
the viability of a stage does not rely on the predictability or the "avoidability" of its hazards, it's about how intrusive they are.
Take as an example Halberd and Norfair : one has two hitboxes that target one character randomly and one of them leaves you less than one second to react, the other has hitboxes that target no one in particular and leave you time to react to them. Yet, since Halberd's hazard occupy less space and time in a match it is regarded as more competitively viable than Norfair with its huge predictable hitboxes that constantly change the landscape and are present during the majority of the match.

Lylat is the same, we now know what causes those trippings and take offs, but that doesn't make them any less intrusive. Furthermore, the fact that this mechanism is present during 100% of a match makes Lylat worse than Norfair.

Lavaville was the best thing to happen to Brawl-. As someone who actually worked on that project, I cannot possibly understand this attitude.

 

[teluoborg]

It's funny because nobody has ever given me a decent reason why PS2 shouldn't be legal. It's sad because it's true.

I don't think it's really about it's intrusiveness, but about whether you can reliably have a competitive match on that stage. PS2 changes the optimal way you have to play on its transformations. It's unique, and perhaps a bit wonky, but certainly not uncompetitive.

There you have it.
It's not my fault you don't understand people in general don't see "being proficient in low gravity mode" or "taking advantage of the conveyor belts" as valuable smash bros skills that should determine the outcome of tournaments. You do, well good for you. But your values are different from everybody else's. That's all. End of discussion.

If you still don't get it you can imagine it like this : you like chocolate cakes, the rest of the world doesn't and you're looking for someone able to convince you that it tastes bad. It's futile.

Lavaville was the best thing to happen to Brawl-. As someone who actually worked on that project, I cannot possibly understand this attitude.

Brawl-
Fun was had with this mod, and I loved Lavaville. And I love playing Ganonball™ on Norfair in Brawl.
But what does it have to do with the competitive viability of Norfair ?

PS @cot(θ) : Sorry but it is indeed about intrusiveness. You don't have to believe me, just look at Melee and Brawl history. Neutrals and CP stages have been classified this way because of their intrusiveness. It might not have been a conscious choice, but the stage lists are there.
You can have competitive matches on Gamer, on MK8 and on Palutena's Triple Temple. Playing on them is just against the general consensus.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Pretty sure Norfair's real issue is not the hazards, but the borderline circle camping.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Pretty sure Norfair's real issue is not the hazards, but the borderline circle camping.

This is literally the first time I've heard of circle camping on Norfair.

 

[Jaxas]

Back in Brawl, I though the issue was planking (and things like it) due to all the edges, and the thought that it made MK too good (Planking, Sharking, Ledge-cancel everything, fly away forever then snap to the ledge, etc)?
Lava certainly didn't help, though.

 

[Sinister Slush]

This is literally the first time I've heard of circle camping on Norfair.

Off topic but huh... the realization that I lost to both kryz and Big lou at MLG Dallas, 13th and 17th place to knock me out at 49th place. That's kinda cool I guess?

 

[S_B]

Off topic but huh... the realization that I lost to both kryz and Big lou at MLG Dallas, 13th and 17th place to knock me out at 49th place. That's kinda cool I guess?

Can you link to the specific time when the circle camping happens?

Not doubting you but I can't seem to find it by panning around...

 

[Sinister Slush]

Prolly not the best example, but just the timeout happening by grabbing ledges and going top platform to top platform happening.
If I wanted too, I could do this against LM as Yoshi if he banned Duck Hunt. Though circle camping also possible for yoshi.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There you have it.
It's not my fault you don't understand people in general don't see "being proficient in low gravity mode" or "taking advantage of the conveyor belts" as valuable smash bros skills that should determine the outcome of tournaments. You do, well good for you. But your values are different from everybody else's. That's all. End of discussion.

If you still don't get it you can imagine it like this : you like chocolate cakes, the rest of the world doesn't and you're looking for someone able to convince you that it tastes bad. It's futile.

If your performance on the air segment or electric segment is winning you tournaments, you are clearly outplaying your opponent - especially given that the stage is only like that for 30 seconds in a 6-minute match. It just doesn't make that big of a difference. And whether or not it's a "valuable" skill is not something we should be deciding in the first place. What if I don't think being able to DI Diddy's dthrow is a valuable skill that should determine the outcome of tournaments*? That sounds absurd, right? Or, to keep it to stage-related things, what if I don't think being able to tech stagespikes is a valuable skill? We have enough stages where stagespiking is effectively impossible (Delfino, Duck Hunt, various Omega stages, Skyloft, Wuhu, Mario Circuit)... It's just a silly concept. Then again, I'm clearly in the minority, and the smash community has NEVER needed a good reason to ban things, so why start now?

*(The difference in this analogy being, being able to DI Diddy's dthrow correctly means the difference between dying at 100 and not dying at 100, and therefore actually does matter to a very significant degree. Or, to put it another way, if Nairo and Ally faced off on PS2, and Nairo totally understood the stage and Ally had played it for the first time that day, Ally would still almost certainly kick Nairo's ass. #ShotsFired)

Brawl-
Fun was had with this mod, and I loved Lavaville. And I love playing Ganonball™ on Norfair in Brawl.
But what does it have to do with the competitive viability of Norfair ?

What Lavaville proved beyond a shadow of a doubt was that it wasn't the hazards that were the problem, it was the layout (or the layout plus the hazards). That's all I'm really saying here - Norfair as a stage is disturbingly broken and really unviable, but it's not just because of the hazards. And this way of thinking about hazards really helps understand where I stand on the issue.

You can have competitive matches on Palutena's Triple Temple

Wat