A Discussion on Legal Stage Criteria.

[NegaNixx]

Welcome!

In this thread I'm looking to discuss the legality of stages in Super Smash Bros for Wiii U and 3DS. I'm not looking to legalize The Great Cave Offensive so don't worry! I'm simply seeking clarification on the criteria for a stage to be legal. Not so much what is legal but why is it legal, or illegal in some cases.

What defines a stage as legal? Generally speaking at an international level Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville are deemed as the most neutral of stages. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant but why those three? What makes them competitively fair?

What I'm trying to find here are concrete lines for competitive stages, so that we can execute stages that don't fall under those lines with reason and explain those reasons to people questioning it. Smash 4 as it is right now has no universal rules that everyone has to follow, we're more region specific until a major comes up and we have to conform, and majors have to dance around external issues other than the competitive nature of the game so they're not always the best for determining things like stages.

With all that being said I believe one just criteria for a legal stage would be for the stages to not give random rewards to players, giving boost akin (but not limited) to invincibility, super mushrooms, hammers, stat power ups and super armour. This rule makes one player statistically at an advantage based on not the options they made but a game's R#G, and/or throws character balance away, skill doesn't matter, being the better player matters a lot less when one player is now immune to damage, or has a lasting KO hitbox out with the push of a button.

Stages falling under this would be: WarioWare (3DS), PacMaze (3DS), Golden Plains (3DS), Find Mii (3DS).

This is merely an example, yes things like this are obvious but when it comes down to the less harsh stage gimmicks. What makes them unconventional as a whole that 'x' gimmick be removed from competitive play, or 'x' + 'y' gimmick is not suitable for a show of skill. If you can it'd be awesome if you can write stages that fall into the category of the gimmick as well that'd be amazing.

Thank you for reading and indulging me! Hopefully this helps us in the long run.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

From what I've seen other people say, I'd wager that the average idea of a "good" stage is one that doesn't interfere with the fight at all. Unfortunately, the list of such stages is vanishingly small, probably limited to BF/FD/SV/T&C. And I guess technically Temple but that's a bad stage for different reasons. And maybe Miiverse, which may or may not end up lumped together with Battlefield depending on how similar they are.

Overly broad statement: A Smash Bros. match should reward skill and knowledge.
Another overly broad statement: Stage choice is a factor in the outcome of any given match in Smash Bros.
Resulting overly broad conclusion: Our legal stages should reward skill and knowledge, not only of the opponent, but of the stage.

From here on out, we get into specifics and thus it turns a bit subjective. Personally, I'm reasonably comfortable playing on quite a large variety of stages, perhaps a result of spending the last 4 months studying them all. </shameless plug> But what one person considers knowledge another person may consider "jank." And there's clearly a line somewhere between "stage knowledge" and "having to focus on the stage more than the opponent."

Conjecture: Final Destination is popular not because it's particularly balanced, but because the flat no-platform structure minimizes the amount of attention one needs to devote to the stage. Even Battlefield has you thinking about how to take advantage of the platforms, Smashville's platform moves, and the rest of the stages just go downhill from there. Therefore, I conclude that one's personal taste regarding stage legality, "jank," etc. has more to do with how much attention they're willing to devote to the stage itself during a match than anything else.

Bold claim: If a person were to spend a solid chunk of time studying each stage like I did, their tolerance for stage hazards would go up as a result of becoming more familiar with them through sheer exposure.

On a person-to-person basis, I believe the question of "should this stage be banned" can be answered by asking two simple questions:

1. Does the stage trivialize the contest of skill between players?
2. Does dealing with the stage demand more effort than dealing with your opponent?

If the answer to either question is "yes" then there's grounds for a stage ban. Unfortunately, both are somewhat subjective questions. The first depends on the sort of skill that we want to encourage, while the second can vary between players based on how comfortable they are on the stage.

A final subject I want to touch on is that of stage variety and the effects it has on character viability. Brawl is a good case study for this, since the rise of the Ice Climbers is directly related to their worst stages getting banned in an effort to curb Meta Knight. While an extreme example, it serves to demonstrate that the community's love for "flat + plat" stages is not necessarily the most balanced stage selection. The Ice Climbers are not present in Smash 4, obviously, but the principle holds. This particular issue is strongly related to the question of what type of skill we wish to promote, since the legal stage list implicitly buffs and nerfs specific characters based on how they benefit/suffer from the selection.

...that was an awful lot of words for a not very clear answer to the OP. Sorry. But nowadays I've been thinking that with everyone so divided on what constitutes a "good" stage, a "legal" stage, a "starter" stage, etc., it'll probably be necessary for a decision to be made by fiat somehow, whether it be through a back room sort of body or something different, as opposed to any number of discussions such as this. Although it usually makes for interesting reading regardless so I can't really complain that much.

On a different note, I would pay good money to watch and/or participate in a tournament with the following stage list, no Gentleman's:

1. Mushroom Kingdom U
2. Mario Galaxy
3. Mario Circuit
4. Luigi's Mansion
5. Norfair
6. Woolly World
7. Orbital Gate Assault
8. Kalos Pokemon League
9. Coliseum
10. Gamer
11. Garden of Hope
12. Wii Fit Studio
13. Windy Hill Zone

 

[Sixfortyfive]

"Randomness" is pretty much the only criteria for a stage ban that I feel is 100% justifiable, even though I don't personally have much of a problem with it. (For example, I consider Poker to be a perfectly competitive game, despite the fact that luck of the draw in card games is obscenely random.)

I actually don't like the idea of banning stages on the grounds that they "force the player to fight the stage more than they fight the opponent." I think stage mastery should be a respected skill in competitive Smash, as stage mechanics are some of the core things that separate Smash from other fighting games in the first place.

A lot of stages get banned on the concept of "degenerate gameplay," and that's never settled well with me because I don't like the politics of arguing over what kinds of gameplay are degenerate.

I also don't like the idea of banning stages that create lopsided, borderline unwinnable match-ups, as I again feel that stage mastery should be respected as much as character mastery and that if you only play characters that get absolutely mauled on certain stages, then that's on you to find a sub that solves that issue.

Basically, if I was deciding the stage list, a lot more things would be legal and everyone would probably hate it, lol.

Mushroom Kingdom U

I like this stage so much. Why is it banned, anyway? Stage hazards?

 

[NegaNixx]

Thanks for replying! @ ParanoidDrone

I definitely agree with your point that stage banning based on something being 'jank' (I hate that term so much) is very subjective as people generally have very different levels of tolerance due to different and/or the amount of experience they've had with or against something. This thread is more or less to find some basic criteria and to gather information, than to come up with something conclusive.

And that stage list is amazing!

Love your Stage Analysis Series by the way :]

"
I also don't like the idea of banning stages that create lopsided, borderline unwinnable match-ups, as I again feel that stage mastery should be respected as much as character mastery and that if you only play characters that get absolutely mauled on certain stages, then that's on you to find a sub that solves that issue.

Basically, if I was deciding the stage list, a lot more things would be legal and everyone would probably hate it, lol.

Oh I'm all for a super liberal stage list but I would ban those stages that create unwinnable match ups as those essentially break the character, by making them so bad that they can in no way shape or form compete with a large overwhelming majority of the cast, (RIP Ganon on Hyrule Temple). That being said there's probably at least 30 stages I can see being competitive in this iteration of Smash and would love to see tournament tested at some point in time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Taking this to the right thread I guess...

This is an important discussion to be had. For starters, we can immediately disqualify the following:

• Stages with permanent hard circles (we're going to include Gamer here, because restarting until you get a "decent" Gamer is silly)
  
• Stages with excessive size (effectively, a "soft circle" on Wrecking Crew is just as problematic as a "hard circle" on Temple if you can't catch your opponent)
  
• Stages with excessively powerful, consistent camping spots (for example, under the wings of the red plane on Pilotwings qualifies, and I'd argue that the vast majority of all walkoffs qualify as well)
• Stages where every transformation or the vast majority of the time applies to the former
• Stages where gameplay is randomized to the point where the better player is not guaranteed to win

These are stages that are simply broken. You cannot have meaningful competitive play on them, because they are either home to a strategy that negates the game's depth, or they are home to elements that negate the game's competitiveness. With that, we can immediately throw out a little over half of the stagelist. I don't think we're going to really find much disagreement with any of this. So let's ditch the obvious stuff. What's left?

• Castle Siege (Fire Emblem Series)*
• Delfino Plaza (Super Mario Sunshine)*
• Duck Hunt (Duck Hunt)
• Garden of Hope (Pikmin 3)
• Halberd (Kirby Super Star)*
• Kalos Pokémon League (Pokémon X and Y)
• Kongo Jungle 64 (Donkey Kong Country)*
• Lylat Cruise (Star Fox: Assault)*
• Luigi's Mansion (Luigi's Mansion)*
• Mario Circuit (Mario Kart) (WiiU)
  
• Norfair (Metroid)*
• Orbital Gate Assault (Star Fox: Assault)
• Pokémon Stadium 2 (Pokémon Stadium 2)*
• Port Town Aero Dive (F-Zero)*
• Skyloft (The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword)
• Skyworld (Kid Icarus)*
• Smashville (Animal Crossing)*
• Town and City (Animal Crossing: City Folk)
• Windy Hill (Sonic Lost World)
• Wuhu Island (Wii Sports)
• Yoshi's Island (Super Mario World)*
• Battlefield
• Final Destination

Beyond there, it gets a little fuzzier.

Are cave of life effects degenerate? I'm not sure. Skyworld and Luigi's Mansion certainly lead to some fairly absurd situations, but can we really say that they're broken? I don't think we ever gave them a chance.
Yoshi's Island has walkoffs and a cave of life, but you can't camp the walkoff (in fact, it's the very worst position on the stage to be), and the cave of life is mitigated somewhat by the tiny blastzones - indeed, the more I play on the stage, the less problems I have with it. It's weird, different, and awesome, and it is also one of the very best counterpicks for Little Mac on the entire stagelist.
Windy Hill Zone has a random element that can swoop out of nowhere and gimp you if you are offstage; I personally consider this to be "too extreme", and I think it's entirely reasonable to draw the line at stage elements that can randomly and without warning end your stock (see also: Pictochat's "line"). Norfair similarly has semi-random hazards, and I think the fact that you can be knocked into a lava jet without knowing that it was there kind of ruins it. On the subject of semi-random hazards, Kalos has at least one transformation that can hit you very randomly and without much warning at all, and I'd consider that to be a limiting factor. Others may not, but we need a way to determine what is kosher and what isn't. I personally think the line needs to be drawn at hazards which are:
A) Not predictable,
B) Do not give much or any warning, and
C) Can end or significantly impact your stock.
But I'm not god, and I'm not sure who agrees with me there, and we need some metric we can agree on.

Here's something we should all agree on: hazards are not automatically a disqualifying factor.

Intrusiveness is also not automatically a disqualifying factor. There are plenty of stages in this game that force you to temporarily abandon an advantageous position, to reset to neutral. Stages like Halberd and Port Town. These stages are not inherently worse than those who don't, and we can find that stages basically move along a spectrum, from those where you are never forced to abandon an advantageous position (BF, FD) to those where sometimes your opponent is saved from such a position (SV, T&C), to those where you sometimes have to adopt your strategy heavily to maintain an advantaged situation (all moving stages, basically), to those where you have to completely adopt your playstyle to maintain advantage (Orbital Gate Assault), et cetera. To a certain degree, we may have to worry about this - if the intrusiveness is largely random, if it makes it completely impossible to hold an advantage, then we may have a problem.


Dragging this in from the other thread.

Well a few months ago I proposed in another thread that we rank the stages from the less degenerate/invasive/hazardous to the most.

These three words are not interchangeable and have very different effects on gameplay. There's nothing inherently degenerate, uncompetitive, or even problematic about a stage which is hazardous, and while invasiveness can be an issue, it shouldn't be a deciding issue. Whether a stage is legal or not should depend on whether or not competition is possible on it, not whether or not it is something we personally find tasteless. I don't like the way the game plays on Smashville a lot of the time, but I don't want it banned. And for stages with "invasive" elements we need a real reason to qualify them as "better" or "worse" for competitive play. Speaking of which...

Because since it's impossible for everyone to have the same view on what is degenerate and what isn't then the least we could do is get some consistency in the choices of stage lists. If there's a consensus on the fact that neutrals should be less degenerate/invasive/hazardous than CPs then it's proof that this list can be made.

Why? If you would play a stage game 2 or 3, why not game 1? This never made sense to me.

Edit : found it

Spoiler

1-Battlefield/omega
2-Smashville (moving platform)
3-FD (SOLAR FLARE)
4-Duck Hunt (duck killing game)
5-Town and City (questionnable moving platforms)
6-Castle Siege/Delfino (stage changing + temporary walkoffs)
7-Lylat Cruise (tilting take offs)
8-Skyloft/Wuhu (same as 6 + hitboxes)
9-DK 64/Big Battlefield (giant stage)
10-Halberd (RNG based player targetting hitboxes seriously why are people still thinking this stage is cometitively viable)
11-The rest (too big, too many hitboxes, too much rng, change of game mechanics)

To me a good stagelist stops at 6. Lylat is an error and went from being terrible in Brawl to terrible and buggy in Smash 4. Anything below can influence the outcome of a match too much.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying "the ones at the top are more competitively viable"? Well why play anything other than BF and Omega? Also, Wuhu has exactly three hitboxes and all of them are incredibly telegraphed. It's far more comparable to Siege and Delfino than to Skyloft. But I reject outright the idea that we should automatically consider static stages more competitive than non-static stages. For starters, they are a tiny minority. This is like talking about stages in Tekken and saying "stages without walls or ring-outs are automatically better". We need a reason why they're better.

Needless to say there are many things to discuss, mainly the placing of Lylat, Halberd, PS2 and the list can be extended to include all stages (though I wouldn't know which of MK8 or WHZ is best suited for competitive play).

MK8 by a mile.

 

[Raijinken]

Taking this to the right thread I guess...

This is an important discussion to be had. For starters, we can immediately disqualify the following:

• Stages with permanent hard circles (we're going to include Gamer here, because restarting until you get a "decent" Gamer is silly)
  
• Stages with excessive size (effectively, a "soft circle" on Wrecking Crew is just as problematic as a "hard circle" on Temple if you can't catch your opponent)
  
• Stages with excessively powerful, consistent camping spots (for example, under the wings of the red plane on Pilotwings qualifies, and I'd argue that the vast majority of all walkoffs qualify as well)
• Stages where every transformation or the vast majority of the time applies to the former
• Stages where gameplay is randomized to the point where the better player is not guaranteed to win

These are stages that are simply broken. You cannot have meaningful competitive play on them, because they are either home to a strategy that negates the game's depth, or they are home to elements that negate the game's competitiveness. With that, we can immediately throw out a little over half of the stagelist. I don't think we're going to really find much disagreement with any of this. So let's ditch the obvious stuff. What's left?

• Castle Siege (Fire Emblem Series)*
• Delfino Plaza (Super Mario Sunshine)*
• Duck Hunt (Duck Hunt)
• Garden of Hope (Pikmin 3)
• Halberd (Kirby Super Star)*
• Kalos Pokémon League (Pokémon X and Y)
• Kongo Jungle 64 (Donkey Kong Country)*
• Lylat Cruise (Star Fox: Assault)*
• Luigi's Mansion (Luigi's Mansion)*
• Mario Circuit (Mario Kart) (WiiU)
  
• Norfair (Metroid)*
• Orbital Gate Assault (Star Fox: Assault)
• Pokémon Stadium 2 (Pokémon Stadium 2)*
• Port Town Aero Dive (F-Zero)*
• Skyloft (The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword)
• Skyworld (Kid Icarus)*
• Smashville (Animal Crossing)*
• Town and City (Animal Crossing: City Folk)
• Windy Hill (Sonic Lost World)
• Wuhu Island (Wii Sports)
• Yoshi's Island (Super Mario World)*
• Battlefield
• Final Destination

Beyond there, it gets a little fuzzier.

Are cave of life effects degenerate? I'm not sure. Skyworld and Luigi's Mansion certainly lead to some fairly absurd situations, but can we really say that they're broken? I don't think we ever gave them a chance.
Yoshi's Island has walkoffs and a cave of life, but you can't camp the walkoff (in fact, it's the very worst position on the stage to be), and the cave of life is mitigated somewhat by the tiny blastzones - indeed, the more I play on the stage, the less problems I have with it. It's weird, different, and awesome, and it is also one of the very best counterpicks for Little Mac on the entire stagelist.
Windy Hill Zone has a random element that can swoop out of nowhere and gimp you if you are offstage; I personally consider this to be "too extreme", and I think it's entirely reasonable to draw the line at stage elements that can randomly and without warning end your stock (see also: Pictochat's "line"). Norfair similarly has semi-random hazards, and I think the fact that you can be knocked into a lava jet without knowing that it was there kind of ruins it. On the subject of semi-random hazards, Kalos has at least one transformation that can hit you very randomly and without much warning at all, and I'd consider that to be a limiting factor. Others may not, but we need a way to determine what is kosher and what isn't. I personally think the line needs to be drawn at hazards which are:
A) Not predictable,
B) Do not give much or any warning, and
C) Can end or significantly impact your stock.
But I'm not god, and I'm not sure who agrees with me there, and we need some metric we can agree on.

Here's something we should all agree on: hazards are not automatically a disqualifying factor.

Intrusiveness is also not automatically a disqualifying factor. There are plenty of stages in this game that force you to temporarily abandon an advantageous position, to reset to neutral. Stages like Halberd and Port Town. These stages are not inherently worse than those who don't, and we can find that stages basically move along a spectrum, from those where you are never forced to abandon an advantageous position (BF, FD) to those where sometimes your opponent is saved from such a position (SV, T&C), to those where you sometimes have to adopt your strategy heavily to maintain an advantaged situation (all moving stages, basically), to those where you have to completely adopt your playstyle to maintain advantage (Orbital Gate Assault), et cetera. To a certain degree, we may have to worry about this - if the intrusiveness is largely random, if it makes it completely impossible to hold an advantage, then we may have a problem.


Dragging this in from the other thread.



These three words are not interchangeable and have very different effects on gameplay. There's nothing inherently degenerate, uncompetitive, or even problematic about a stage which is hazardous, and while invasiveness can be an issue, it shouldn't be a deciding issue. Whether a stage is legal or not should depend on whether or not competition is possible on it, not whether or not it is something we personally find tasteless. I don't like the way the game plays on Smashville a lot of the time, but I don't want it banned. And for stages with "invasive" elements we need a real reason to qualify them as "better" or "worse" for competitive play. Speaking of which...



Why? If you would play a stage game 2 or 3, why not game 1? This never made sense to me.



So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying "the ones at the top are more competitively viable"? Well why play anything other than BF and Omega? Also, Wuhu has exactly three hitboxes and all of them are incredibly telegraphed. It's far more comparable to Siege and Delfino than to Skyloft. But I reject outright the idea that we should automatically consider static stages more competitive than non-static stages. For starters, they are a tiny minority. This is like talking about stages in Tekken and saying "stages without walls or ring-outs are automatically better". We need a reason why they're better.


MK8 by a mile.

Curious as to the meaning of the asterisk beside ones like Castle Siege. Are those just indicating Past Stages and treating Battlefield and FD as new?

On the subject of hazards, as that's what I've spent the most time pondering, one vital point is that how "predictable" a hazard is, or how focused you must be on avoiding it, is something that also allows a little room for player taste and experience. You mention being knocked into a lava jet in Norfair without knowing it was there, yet there's always a rumbling sound and a few seconds of a giant wave of glowing lava headed your way to tip all but the least observant that there's a hazard inbound. There's room to play "expecting" a hazard, but ultimately it's the significance of the hazard's tell that should determine whether or not it's bad from that stance (without considering how much of the stage it potentially covers and how much you must play around it). Any lava in Norfair gives more notice and is easier to see (and less lethal, to boot) than a very specific Port Town transformation which gives negligible (if indeed any) warning. All a player can do on that particular stop is fight for the top platform or pray that the cars don't show up (if I recall there isn't even a track in the background to show their approach, but if I'm wrong about that then I'd change my entire view on the stage). MK8 is entirely fair from a hazard standpoint, as they're predictable, extremely well-warned, and not actually very lethal. On top of that, unlike Mario Circuit Brawl, the cars only rarely impact the main battle platform.

As for Kalos, it's a similar situation. The only dangerous hazards are the Legendaries' moves, more specifically Registeel and Ho-Oh, as theirs give little warning aside from the ominous presence of the Pokemon themselves. I'll need to test AncientPower more, but in an absolute worst-case scenario, waiting out Steel and Fire can be no worse than waiting out half of Stadium 1's forms. Of course, that doesn't mean Kalos should be legal, because it also doesn't mean that Stadium 1 would be legal if it was in Smash4.

Now for Caves of Life. I believe Skyworld would be fair exclusively if the ledges were grabbable after breaking. That's just preference, too, ledges that don't exist are only marginally worse than Lylat Screws. For that matter, the stage might make an excellent counter-pick against the dreaded (but manageable) planking sliptree Villager. After all, you can't plank if there's no edge.

Luigi's Mansion is the same way: The cave is completely destructible, and thus avoids issues present in Temple (disregarding size) where a perfectly teching player can only die from about three angles.

Something I've noticed a lot of players don't know: The dog's rising position in Duck Hunt is entirely predictable, as is the timing. It follows the same rules as the NES game on which the stage is based: he can only appear between the Tree and the Bush, and appears centered as close as possible to where the last duck fell, or in the center if all ducks in a wave were fly-aways. Not that this seeming randomness is the worst of Duck Hunt's issues, but an experienced (or old and nostalgic) player can control the odd platform as they please.

Those are just my thoughts on the above list. With perhaps an undue dose of bias (my friends are less accepting of many of these hazards than I am) and hatred of Lylat Screws, my group runs (shameless copypaste):

• Castle Siege (Fire Emblem Series)*
• Delfino Plaza (Super Mario Sunshine)*
• Duck Hunt (Duck Hunt)
• Halberd (Kirby Super Star)*
• Kongo Jungle 64 (Donkey Kong Country)*
• Luigi's Mansion (Luigi's Mansion)*
• Mario Circuit (Mario Kart) (WiiU)
• Pokémon Stadium 2 (Pokémon Stadium 2)*
• Skyloft (The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword)
• Smashville (Animal Crossing)*
• Town and City (Animal Crossing: City Folk)
• Wuhu Island (Wii Sports)
• Wooly World (Yoshi's Wooly World)
• Battlefield
• Final Destination

With slight variation if we're feeling somewhat experimental (wherein we add Norfair and Kalos) or feeling boring (wherein we remove Mansion, Circuit, Stadium 2, Wuhu, Skyloft, Wooly, and Siege).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@ S Sixfortyfive The reason I included that criteria is because there is admittedly a very large difference between managing the Combo Cannon on Halberd and managing Ridley on Pyrosphere. The cannon is powerful but highly telegraphed and doesn't fire too often. Ridley on the other hand basically demands your full attention whenever he's onscreen unless and until you manage to make him your ally. Flying Man on the 3DS was similar, being a powerful 3rd party AI character that could become allied with one player or another -- you basically had to split your attention between him and the actual opponent, which some would say is no bueno.

The line between "acceptable" and "not" is subjective, like I've said before, but it's definitely there somewhere.

And MKU is banned because of Nabbit, the icicles, and the urchins that sometimes ride the waterspouts. I'd say Nabbit is the biggest offender (see above about dividing one's attention) but the icicles and waterspouts can appear rather suddenly and their tells can happen off-camera.

 

[Funen1]

On the subject of hazards, as that's what I've spent the most time pondering, one vital point is that how "predictable" a hazard is, or how focused you must be on avoiding it, is something that also allows a little room for player taste and experience.

This is a point I want to discuss further. My perspective on dealing with stage hazards actually gained quite a bit of influence from outside of Smash. Story time, but I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

I've been playing Touhou games for over 5 years. While the official series does include 4 (soon to be 5) fighting games, I've mostly stuck with the bullet hell games, most of which are strictly single-player. As you'd expect from the genre, the games get ridiculously hard on the highest difficulty. You can make good progress by learning what can be learned - there are strategies for dealing with attacks that are aimed right at you, for instance. However, plenty of bullet patterns in these games have random elements to them, sometimes completely outside of your control. I was originally someone who thought that these random aspects were terrible gameplay, thinking that I couldn't really get "good" at any of them because I didn't have any control over them whatsoever. The catch was, this mindset caused me to plateau very hard for a while, and it wasn't until I got rid of this bad attitude that I managed to improve dramatically. With a single-player game in particular, complaining about how the game by itself works at a basic level really is pointless and only serves to needlessly limit yourself. You'll frequently need to handle precarious situations on the fly if you're gonna prevent them from defeating you.

This is the approach I take with Smash as well. Even though the competitive Smash environment focuses on multi-player, you're still not gonna be completely in control of everything, not even your opponent if they're smart enough to adapt to what you're doing (though the idea of "conditioning" them can certainly be appealing to some). Stage hazards and other elements that can potentially "intrude" into a fight are really no different at their core - just like how you would adjust to your opponent doing something completely different than what you're expecting, you can find ways to get around how the stage works. Obviously there are lines that need to be drawn in terms of what we should expect to adapt to, as @ Budget Player Cadet_ described above, but the window within which a stage would be perfectly acceptable to someone like me is certainly bigger than some people give it credit for (without naming any names here). Stages are always a factor in Smash, even the relative few that are completely static or close to it, but thinking that "fighting the stage" is somehow terrible at a fundamental level is, quite succinctly, scrubby.

That said, I agree that where the line should be drawn can get very murky. For instance, my perspective of stages like Skyworld, Luigi's Mansion, Wooly World, and some transformations of Gamer is that they are "cicle-camping light". This tactic is nowhere near as prevalent on these stages compared to Temple or GCO, but it can still be there to a noticeable degree. However, others are free to consider that the destructible nature of the first two mitigates that strategy enough to be acceptable. It's in this region where we would really need to deeply examine the "suspect" stages on a case-by-case basis, though it's clear that many of them haven't gotten their fair shot with the community at large.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I meant to talk about this in my first post here but forgot:

Regarding the idea of "acceptable" hazards, is it better for a hazard to be powerful, but predictable, or weak and unpredictable? Or to rephrase the question, is a hazard's strength or predictability a bigger deciding factor in deciding if it's "acceptable?"

 

[Scarlet Jile]

The reason people engage in competitive PvP is not the same reason someone engages in competitive PvGame. Competitive Smash is a player vs. player game, and anything that obstructs that goal (whether it's random elements or walk-offs) ultimately detracts from a competitive player's primary objective. If you like random elements, then that's fine. But that's a different type of game than what they are training for at top levels.

 

[Funen1]

The reason people engage in competitive PvP is not the same reason someone engages in competitive PvGame. Competitive Smash is a player vs. player game, and anything that obstructs that goal (whether it's random elements or walk-offs) ultimately detracts from a competitive player's primary objective. If you like random elements, then that's fine. But that's a different type of game than what they are training for at top levels.

I am aware that there is a distinction between the two in terms of the interactions that go on, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the approaches one takes to playing those games have to be mutually exclusive. Sports like baseball and soccer are also primarily contests between people, but things like the weather can and do affect matches (assuming play isn't stopped entirely, of course). Players in those sports are still expected to account for, say, a slippery field or ball under those circumstances - it becomes the new "reality" of their situation, if you will. Stages in Smash are no different. You account for the "reality" of the game you're playing - in this case, what stage you're playing on, whether it be the different layouts on Delfino or the cannon on Halberd - or you really shouldn't be expecting to consistently do well in the first place.

 

[NegaNixx]

The reason people engage in competitive PvP is not the same reason someone engages in competitive PvGame. Competitive Smash is a player vs. player game, and anything that obstructs that goal (whether it's random elements or walk-offs) ultimately detracts from a competitive player's primary objective. If you like random elements, then that's fine. But that's a different type of game than what they are training for at top levels.

How is fighting the walk-offs fighting the game? It's still up to the opposing player to push you into them, the game never forces you to a walkoffs, the opponent does. And there are plenty of sports where one party has to fight against more than just the opposition.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Curious as to the meaning of the asterisk beside ones like Castle Siege. Are those just indicating Past Stages and treating Battlefield and FD as new?

Beats me, I just copy/pasted the list.

You mention being knocked into a lava jet in Norfair without knowing it was there, yet there's always a rumbling sound and a few seconds of a giant wave of glowing lava headed your way to tip all but the least observant that there's a hazard inbound.

Not with the jets in the background there isn't. If you're both over on the left side of the stage, and the camera is zoomed in on you, you could miss the jets entirely until there's suddenly a big fat hitbox over on your right. Additionally, audio cues are not always enough. Some tournaments have all their ducks in a row, but I can tell you right now that on many setups at my last tournament, you just couldn't hear the game very well over everything else going on.

There's room to play "expecting" a hazard, but ultimately it's the significance of the hazard's tell that should determine whether or not it's bad from that stance (without considering how much of the stage it potentially covers and how much you must play around it). Any lava in Norfair gives more notice and is easier to see (and less lethal, to boot) than a very specific Port Town transformation which gives negligible (if indeed any) warning. All a player can do on that particular stop is fight for the top platform or pray that the cars don't show up (if I recall there isn't even a track in the background to show their approach, but if I'm wrong about that then I'd change my entire view on the stage).

No, you're right, and that's what made me abandon the stage. :/ The warning is that the first two cars have no hitbox, and it is nowhere near enough warning. Not for a hazard that has such a negligible blind spot and kills around 50.

Now for Caves of Life. I believe Skyworld would be fair exclusively if the ledges were grabbable after breaking. That's just preference, too, ledges that don't exist are only marginally worse than Lylat Screws. For that matter, the stage might make an excellent counter-pick against the dreaded (but manageable) planking sliptree Villager. After all, you can't plank if there's no edge.

Speaking of general qualifications, why should this (the bolded) matter? Why not have a stage that temporarily lacks ledges? Is it somehow broken?

@ ParanoidDrone I think there's a curve; even a perfectly predictable hazard is too extreme if it kills at 30, and even a hazard that only knocks you prone and does 1% is too extreme if it happens at complete random. The further along either axis you go, the less of a problem it is.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

I am aware that there is a distinction between the two in terms of the interactions that go on, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the approaches one takes to playing those games have to be mutually exclusive. Sports like baseball and soccer are also primarily contests between people, but things like the weather can and do affect matches (assuming play isn't stopped entirely, of course). Players in those sports are still expected to account for, say, a slippery field or ball under those circumstances - it becomes the new "reality" of their situation, if you will. Stages in Smash are no different. You account for the "reality" of the game you're playing - in this case, what stage you're playing on, whether it be the different layouts on Delfino or the cannon on Halberd - or you really shouldn't be expecting to consistently do well in the first place.

It doesn't take 3 seconds to switch venues for all of the players and thousands of spectators in sports, otherwise I'm sure they would.

 

[Raijinken]

Beats me, I just copy/pasted the list.



Not with the jets in the background there isn't. If you're both over on the left side of the stage, and the camera is zoomed in on you, you could miss the jets entirely until there's suddenly a big fat hitbox over on your right. Additionally, audio cues are not always enough. Some tournaments have all their ducks in a row, but I can tell you right now that on many setups at my last tournament, you just couldn't hear the game very well over everything else going on.



No, you're right, and that's what made me abandon the stage. :/ The warning is that the first two cars have no hitbox, and it is nowhere near enough warning. Not for a hazard that has such a negligible blind spot and kills around 50.



Speaking of general qualifications, why should this (the bolded) matter? Why not have a stage that temporarily lacks ledges? Is it somehow broken?

@ ParanoidDrone I think there's a curve; even a perfectly predictable hazard is too extreme if it kills at 30, and even a hazard that only knocks you prone and does 1% is too extreme if it happens at complete random. The further along either axis you go, the less of a problem it is.

I shouldn't have worded that with "exclusively". Rather, to me, I'd consider it fair beyond discussion if the edges were grabbable. Since they aren't, it leaves room for discussion, though I'm still inclined to call it fair.

As for volume, that's something of a pet-peeve of mine when it comes to tournament setup. I rely so heavily on audio cues to play any game that I'm unlikely to bother attending a tournament that, as you call it, doesn't have their ducks in a row, just because of the handicap it puts on my performance. I guess I consider it in the same boat as schedule enforcement - poor setup shouldn't impact the quality of play or versatility. No one rules that you can only play on bright cheery stages just because the room the game is set up in is dark, y'know? Same sort of reasoning, to me, though I'm sure it doesn't make a lick of sense to most.

But I always forget some things aren't covered by the camera, since I've literally never been at such a point in Norfair across either game. For that matter, I can't think of an occasion in any Smash game on any stage where I've actually been blinded to a relevant stage hazard and it wasn't a result of Togepi or the sun's glare on a screen.

I meant to talk about this in my first post here but forgot:

Regarding the idea of "acceptable" hazards, is it better for a hazard to be powerful, but predictable, or weak and unpredictable? Or to rephrase the question, is a hazard's strength or predictability a bigger deciding factor in deciding if it's "acceptable?"

I'd rather a hazard be mere but unavoidable mild damage than kill me at 50, no matter how predictable. But I'm sure it's a matter of player opinion. I've got no issues with the majority of "stage-breaker" hazards so long as they're neutral. Looking across both versions of Smash4, the only hazards I outright dislike are the Dark Emperor (bias), Ridley (bias post-damage), Flying Man (same), Nabbit (despite his neutrality, he most certainly picks someone to screw), everything in Wario Ware (bias AND random) and the F-Zero machines (lack of warning on a highly lethal hazard). I'm even accepting of, Mom, Yellow Devil, and Flat Zone's hazards from a strength-per-predictability stance. Though those are disruptive for other reasons, of course.

 

[Funen1]

It doesn't take 3 seconds to switch venues for all of the players and thousands of spectators in sports, otherwise I'm sure they would.

Whether you can simply move to stages that are supposedly "better" is not the same thing as whether you should. It's the latter that this topic is trying to figure out: why should the line that separates "good" stages from "bad" ones be put in a particular place? The perspective of your post oversimplifies the reasoning that goes into making good stagelists.

Something I forgot to mention regarding your post before this one: you claim that random elements and walk-offs detract from a competitive player's objective, which I'm taking to mean "to win", but is this really always the case? What if the laser on Halberd decided to aim at me instead of my opponent, but I managed to aim it so that it would hit my opponent instead of me? What if Skyloft decided to send us to a transformation with a walk-off, but I managed to take advantage of our closer position to a blast zone and net a relatively early kill with a throw (I did this very thing in a doubles match at a local a week ago btw)? I'd hardly call that as detracting from me trying to win. My point is, being random (and I'll include "having a walk-off element" here) is not reason enough to exclude a stage from a stagelist. There have to be other reasons for these properties to be considered truly degenerate and, thus, the stage not worthy for use in tournaments.

 

[Puppyfaic]

Randomness should only be a factor if it can cause sudden, unintentional deaths. If you land on a walkoff and make use of it by throwing your opponent into the blast zone, that's fine. Sure, you happened there by chance, but you took advantage of the situation to turn it into your favor. On the other hand, something like the Yellow Devil is completely unacceptable. Your opponent whiffs a huge move that would've netted them a KO. You see your chance to swoop down and finish them off, winning you the game, but NOPE! The Yellow Devil's pieces attack you from the other side of the stage, allowing your opponent to recover and preventing you from winning the game.

2 levels I am a huge fan of that are not legal but should be(IMO) are the two Pokemon League stages in both versions.
Unova Pokemon League has 3 main hazards: A walk-off that collapses onto the stage, dealing knockback to anyone who gets hit by it; A ball of lightning that telegraphs where it's going to hit; A sea of flames that envelops portions of the stage. Let's look at these hazards and determine if they take away from the stage being viable:
WALK-OFF STAIRS: The stage itself tells you when these are going to appear. When you see buildings begin to rise up in the background, you know the stage is going to become a walk-off. It's possible to take advantage of this transition by knocking your opponent off-stage as the stairs ram into the stage, netting extra damage. From here on, the stage becomes a temporary walk-off, in which now you have more room to move around and try to position yourself for MUCH earlier KOs. I don't see this as an issue; the hazard or the transition. While this hazard can be sudden, it won't kill anyone, and doesn't do that much damage(10%).
LIGHTNING BALL: In the background of the stage, multiple Pokemon can appear. If Zekrom appears, he'll soon take off in a ball of lightning. A small spark of electricity will denote where he is going to attack. This hazard can KO at high %s. This is an incredibly telegraphed hazard that is easy to see coming and easy to avoid. It can also alter the stage in a way to where it slants, and you're now fighting closer to one of the side blast zones. Again, positioning becomes key here. Do you knock your opponent into the lightning, or wait for the stage to move and try for an early KO? This hazard is one that has to be played off of by the players, and I see no reason to say it should be cause for Unova to be illegal, considering Halberd has a very similar hazard with its cannonball. While this hazard can be sudden, it is telegraphed, and KOing with it is not unintentional.
FIRE: Reshiram is another Pokemon that can appear in the background. If it appears, it will send ball of flame onto the stage. These balls will turn into flames that engulf portions of the stage in a raging fire. This fire closes off a part of the stage from being used, and close-range, aggressive play is promoted during this time, which is roughly about 10 seconds. However, it could also cause a cease-fire depending on the positioning of the players. The biggest issue with this hazard is the insane amount of damage it can do(11% per hit, and it can hit MANY times). But, this hazard will not KO until insanely high %s(150 and above), and because it does not KO early, nor does it happen instantaneously, I don't see an issue with it. It also doesn't always appear. You can either get Reshiram or Zekrom on the stage, but never both in a single match.

Bottom line here, Unova's hazards aren't game-changing enough to really warrant banning the stage. The stage tells you when each hazard is going to happen, gives you ample time to prepare, and you won't pay too dearly for a slip-up at 50%.
I'll talk about Kalos in another post.

 

[Raijinken]

Randomness should only be a factor if it can cause sudden, unintentional deaths. If you land on a walkoff and make use of it by throwing your opponent into the blast zone, that's fine. Sure, you happened there by chance, but you took advantage of the situation to turn it into your favor. On the other hand, something like the Yellow Devil is completely unacceptable. Your opponent whiffs a huge move that would've netted them a KO. You see your chance to swoop down and finish them off, winning you the game, but NOPE! The Yellow Devil's pieces attack you from the other side of the stage, allowing your opponent to recover and preventing you from winning the game.

2 levels I am a huge fan of that are not legal but should be(IMO) are the two Pokemon League stages in both versions.
Unova Pokemon League has 3 main hazards: A walk-off that collapses onto the stage, dealing knockback to anyone who gets hit by it; A ball of lightning that telegraphs where it's going to hit; A sea of flames that envelops portions of the stage. Let's look at these hazards and determine if they take away from the stage being viable:
WALK-OFF STAIRS: The stage itself tells you when these are going to appear. When you see buildings begin to rise up in the background, you know the stage is going to become a walk-off. It's possible to take advantage of this transition by knocking your opponent off-stage as the stairs ram into the stage, netting extra damage. From here on, the stage becomes a temporary walk-off, in which now you have more room to move around and try to position yourself for MUCH earlier KOs. I don't see this as an issue; the hazard or the transition. While this hazard can be sudden, it won't kill anyone, and doesn't do that much damage(10%).
LIGHTNING BALL: In the background of the stage, multiple Pokemon can appear. If Zekrom appears, he'll soon take off in a ball of lightning. A small spark of electricity will denote where he is going to attack. This hazard can KO at high %s. This is an incredibly telegraphed hazard that is easy to see coming and easy to avoid. It can also alter the stage in a way to where it slants, and you're now fighting closer to one of the side blast zones. Again, positioning becomes key here. Do you knock your opponent into the lightning, or wait for the stage to move and try for an early KO? This hazard is one that has to be played off of by the players, and I see no reason to say it should be cause for Unova to be illegal, considering Halberd has a very similar hazard with its cannonball. While this hazard can be sudden, it is telegraphed, and KOing with it is not unintentional.
FIRE: Reshiram is another Pokemon that can appear in the background. If it appears, it will send ball of flame onto the stage. These balls will turn into flames that engulf portions of the stage in a raging fire. This fire closes off a part of the stage from being used, and close-range, aggressive play is promoted during this time, which is roughly about 10 seconds. However, it could also cause a cease-fire depending on the positioning of the players. The biggest issue with this hazard is the insane amount of damage it can do(11% per hit, and it can hit MANY times). But, this hazard will not KO until insanely high %s(150 and above), and because it does not KO early, nor does it happen instantaneously, I don't see an issue with it. It also doesn't always appear. You can either get Reshiram or Zekrom on the stage, but never both in a single match.

Bottom line here, Unova's hazards aren't game-changing enough to really warrant banning the stage. The stage tells you when each hazard is going to happen, gives you ample time to prepare, and you won't pay too dearly for a slip-up at 50%.
I'll talk about Kalos in another post.

I totally agree about the Pokemon stages and sudden, unintentional deaths. But I'd also like to point out that the Yellow Devil is almost entirely predictable. All I'm not sure about is how a target is chosen for its eyebeams (I know, for instance, one event match made sure to target the player, but I haven't really played there enough lately to remember if its normal match AI targets a player or just shoots a predictable three-shot burst). Aside from that, it's just as predictable and indicated as Castle Siege's transformations. Plus, his pieces are pretty much non-lethal until extremely high percents.

 

[teluoborg]

These three words are not interchangeable and have very different effects on gameplay. There's nothing inherently degenerate, uncompetitive, or even problematic about a stage which is hazardous, and while invasiveness can be an issue, it shouldn't be a deciding issue. Whether a stage is legal or not should depend on whether or not competition is possible on it, not whether or not it is something we personally find tasteless. I don't like the way the game plays on Smashville a lot of the time, but I don't want it banned. And for stages with "invasive" elements we need a real reason to qualify them as "better" or "worse" for competitive play. Speaking of which...

But I'm not talking about intrusiveness OR hazards as a mean of qualification, but as a mean of classification. I already said that qualification is subjective and not 2 people will have the same perfect stage list. What I propose is to establish a classification in order to put some coherence in the different stage list.

Why? If you would play a stage game 2 or 3, why not game 1? This never made sense to me.

Because game 1 is supposed to not advantage a player or the other, and "CPs" are known for polarizing the gameplay and advantaging a type of character. I don't say that the starter/cp distinction should stay, but it has some sense in it.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying "the ones at the top are more competitively viable"? Well why play anything other than BF and Omega? Also, Wuhu has exactly three hitboxes and all of them are incredibly telegraphed. It's far more comparable to Siege and Delfino than to Skyloft. But I reject outright the idea that we should automatically consider static stages more competitive than non-static stages. For starters, they are a tiny minority. This is like talking about stages in Tekken and saying "stages without walls or ring-outs are automatically better". We need a reason why they're better.

You didn't understand. They are not better, they interfere less in the fight. Once again the point of this list is to classify the stages, not to judge their viability.

You don't want to play on BF/Omega/SV ? Fine, make your stagelist start at duck hunt.
You love player vs player vs stage fights ? then take the list upside down and take out the lowest numbers.
You think Wuhu belongs more to the CS/Delfino group than along Skyloft ? Well good, that's exactly the kind of discussion I'm looking for. I personally think Wuhu is more at its place along Skyloft because even though the hitboxes are telegraphed they do exist and hence they limit some options in some parts of the terrain at some times, and punish you harshly in case of mistake. If anything, I'd agree having to group Delfino with Skyloft and Wuhu but CS seems in its own league.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But I'm not talking about intrusiveness OR hazards as a mean of qualification, but as a mean of classification. I already said that qualification is subjective and not 2 people will have the same perfect stage list. What I propose is to establish a classification in order to put some coherence in the different stage list.

Okay, so what's the point of this classification? Why would the intrusiveness of the stage matter to people? Or, more importantly, why should it? Orbital Gate Assault is phenomenally intrusive and somewhat polarizing (although Little Mac is way better there than you might think), but that doesn't mean you can't have decent competitive play on it.

Because game 1 is supposed to not advantage a player or the other, and "CPs" are known for polarizing the gameplay and advantaging a type of character. I don't say that the starter/cp distinction should stay, but it has some sense in it.

TL;DR version: if a certain stage would polarize gameplay or advantage a character in a matchup, it would be struck in that matchup. If every strike is used and the stage still does this, then this is the result of player error or one character having a clear advantage in terms of adaptability, and therefore not a problem. If the starter list is very small, however, one character can gain an undue advantage.

If we strike from FD/BF/SV, then a character who really loves that particular kind of stage gets a huge advantage. What if, in the matchup, the two best stages for my opponent are FD and Smashville? I strike FD, they strike BF, and we end up on their second-best stage. If we strike from FD/BF/SV/T&C/CS/DP/LC/Halberd/DH, well, we're probably going to end up on their 5th-best stage. Which is also their 5th-worst stage. And if that stage happens to be Halberd... Well, we know that Halberd is kinda busted in some matchups, but obviously, this isn't one of those matchups! Just like we know that SV is generally pretty neutral in most matchups, but this isn't one of those matchups! If it were one of those matchups, Smashville wouldn't have been struck by either player, and Halberd would have been.

If we're looking for a stage that doesn't advantage either character, the more starters, the better. Hell, Amazing Ampharos made a very convincing case that this is true for 3-5 even if the fifth added stage is complete garbage like 75m.

And what if the stage we strike to is advantageous to one character or the other? Well, that means one character fares significantly better than the other on the majority of all legal stages. That's not a bug, that's a feature - we reward characters that are able to adapt to more stages because it's a positive character trait, and we shouldn't guarantee bad characters their best stages to make their matchup spread better.

 

[Raijinken]

Okay, so what's the point of this classification? Why would the intrusiveness of the stage matter to people? Or, more importantly, why should it? Orbital Gate Assault is phenomenally intrusive and somewhat polarizing (although Little Mac is way better there than you might think), but that doesn't mean you can't have decent competitive play on it.





TL;DR version: if a certain stage would polarize gameplay or advantage a character in a matchup, it would be struck in that matchup. If every strike is used and the stage still does this, then this is the result of player error or one character having a clear advantage in terms of adaptability, and therefore not a problem. If the starter list is very small, however, one character can gain an undue advantage.

If we strike from FD/BF/SV, then a character who really loves that particular kind of stage gets a huge advantage. What if, in the matchup, the two best stages for my opponent are FD and Smashville? I strike FD, they strike BF, and we end up on their second-best stage. If we strike from FD/BF/SV/T&C/CS/DP/LC/Halberd/DH, well, we're probably going to end up on their 5th-best stage. Which is also their 5th-worst stage. And if that stage happens to be Halberd... Well, we know that Halberd is kinda busted in some matchups, but obviously, this isn't one of those matchups! Just like we know that SV is generally pretty neutral in most matchups, but this isn't one of those matchups! If it were one of those matchups, Smashville wouldn't have been struck by either player, and Halberd would have been.

If we're looking for a stage that doesn't advantage either character, the more starters, the better. Hell, Amazing Ampharos made a very convincing case that this is true for 3-5 even if the fifth added stage is complete garbage like 75m.

And what if the stage we strike to is advantageous to one character or the other? Well, that means one character fares significantly better than the other on the majority of all legal stages. That's not a bug, that's a feature - we reward characters that are able to adapt to more stages because it's a positive character trait, and we shouldn't guarantee bad characters their best stages to make their matchup spread better.

More accurately, if we have more stage that aren't quite the same, you end up with closer to fair matchups.

That's the issue with the flat+plat systems. With slight variance for arrangement, any character who likes platform play (Rosalina, DK, etc) is still going to have a stage-based advantage over Little Mac as long as they strike Final Destination and perhaps T&C (kinda makin' things up here for stage ideal-ness, it's something little studied in my group). The longer that list of flat+plat gets, it doesn't really still help Mac (though he can ban out things like Stadium 2, Battlefield, and Delfino that are basically perpetually bad for him). Even though you'd end up on, say, the 3rd or 5th best and worst stage for any matchup, you still can't ensure that the match is anywhere near balanced for characters as polar as Mac, since their reliance on ideal stage conditions is pivotal for their effectiveness.

Fortunately, there aren't many characters like this. But I thought it worth pointing out that approaching more balance doesn't imply you ever actually reach stage-influenced balance.

 

[teluoborg]

Okay, so what's the point of this classification? Why would the intrusiveness of the stage matter to people? Or, more importantly, why should it? Orbital Gate Assault is phenomenally intrusive and somewhat polarizing (although Little Mac is way better there than you might think), but that doesn't mean you can't have decent competitive play on it.

why should it matter ? LMAO
Just because you have an opinion (ie : stage hazards should be competitive standards) it doesn't mean it's right. Just because you have an ideal doesn't mean the whole scene should adhere to it.
So yes, there are people for whom stage intrusiveness matter, I'm one of them. BUT unlike you I understand that not all people share my views on competitive smash, even if I'm part of what seems to be the majority (at least for now) and I propose with this list a way for people to talk about stages objectively and let aside their personal opinion on what should and should not be legal.
If you find that idea useless then you either are incapable of discerning your personal tastes from objective facts or worse you simply don't care about the community and just want to push further your agenda.

TL;DR

[...]

That's not a bug, that's a feature - we reward characters that are able to adapt to more stages because it's a positive character trait, and we shouldn't guarantee bad characters their best stages to make their matchup spread better.

Such a big wall of text to say that certain stagelists will advantage certain characters.

It's nothing new and widening the stagelist will just delay the moment people figure out what the best characters are because of the supplementary information.

Also that's pretty sad to see you put so much effort in trying to convince me when I had already mentioned that I didn't want the starter/cp system to stay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

why should it matter ? LMAO
Just because you have an opinion (ie : stage hazards should be competitive standards) it doesn't mean it's right. Just because you have an ideal doesn't matter the whole scene should adhere to it.
So yes, there are people for whom stage intrusiveness matter, I'm one of them. BUT unlike you I understand that not all people share my views on competitive smash, even if I'm part of what seems to be the majority (at least for now) and I propose with this list a way for people to talk about stages objectively and let aside their personal opinion on what should and should not be legal.
If you find that idea useless then you either are incapable of discerning your personal tastes from objective facts or worse you simply don't care about the community and just want to push further your agenda.

I understand that there are people who disagree. I just don't see the justification. My philosophy on this is based entirely on "ban as little as possible" and "maximize game depth and therefore competitiveness", and when I look at how people are trying to justify removing elements from play, it just seems woefully arbitrary. And listing stages by intrusiveness has exactly one purpose: telling people who want to ban by intrusiveness which stages can be seen as legitimate and which are not. Which I think is arbitrary and silly. If having OGA legal adds depth to the game, who are we to complain about "intrusiveness"? It's like complaining about airdashes in Street Fighter - they're rare, fundamentally change how air-play works, but they're part of the game, even if they're only attached to a niche element (in this case, a character).

I get it; at least, I think I do. it sucks when it feels like you lost because of the stage, and adapting is hard, and it feels wrong to lose an advantaged state because you had to retreat or get your ass run over. Some people don't to play that way. But. These are things in the game we play. If we want to remove them, to mold the game into what we want it to, we should find good reasons for doing so. I guess it just bugs me that if I propose mandating that every diddy use the worst downB and sideB customs because I like it that way, I get looked at like a lunatic, but when someone says "Ban PS2, I don't enjoy that stage", they get paid attention to.

Such a big wall of text to say that certain stagelists will advantage certain characters.

Not... really... It's more of a preemptive counterargument to those who complain that, say, in Brawl this would lead to the MK/ICs matchup taking place on a stage that isn't great for ICs. I think these people are looking at it wrong - whatever the chosen stage is is neutral - any further to either side and it would be a counterpick for one of the characters.

It's nothing new and widening the stagelist will just delay the moment people figure out what the best characters are because of the supplementary information.

That's a pretty weird statement. Care to elaborate at all on that?

Also that's pretty sad to see you put so much effort in trying to convince me when I had already mentioned that I didn't want the starter/cp system to stay.

It's not just about you, and I'm definitely glad FLSS is catching on.

 

[Ulevo]

Stages that promote degenerative strategies, stages that are too large, and stages that interrupt gameplay without reasonable, visual cues to the players are ultimately what need to be banned.

 

[teluoborg]

I understand that there are people who disagree. I just don't see the justification. My philosophy on this is based entirely on "ban as little as possible" and "maximize game depth and therefore competitiveness", and when I look at how people are trying to justify removing elements from play, it just seems woefully arbitrary. And listing stages by intrusiveness has exactly one purpose: telling people who want to ban by intrusiveness which stages can be seen as legitimate and which are not. Which I think is arbitrary and silly. If having OGA legal adds depth to the game, who are we to complain about "intrusiveness"? It's like complaining about airdashes in Street Fighter - they're rare, fundamentally change how air-play works, but they're part of the game, even if they're only attached to a niche element (in this case, a character).

Well some people have a "have as little interference as possible in a duel" philosophy which while not being diametrally opposed to yours makes stage hazards something unwanted.
That's all there is to it, people want to ban OGA because it doesn't fit their ideal competitive smash scenario.

And listing stage by intrusiveness isn't the only way to talk about them, you can list them by platform layout, by size, by blastzone closeness, hazard frequency, layout change timer, etc. You just have to use your imagination (and @ ParanoidDrone 's work).

And the airdash analogy is bad, Street doesn't have anything like stage layout. If anything air dashes could be compared to recoveries, as some characters have way better recoveries than the rest of the cast but there is no way to turn them off and you can't enforce people to not use them. Stages are much more similar to timers, stock count or items than movesets in terms of how we can deal with them in the ruleset.

I get it; at least, I think I do. it sucks when it feels like you lost because of the stage, and adapting is hard, and it feels wrong to lose an advantaged state because you had to retreat or get your *** run over. Some people don't to play that way. But. These are things in the game we play. If we want to remove them, to mold the game into what we want it to, we should find good reasons for doing so. I guess it just bugs me that if I propose mandating that every diddy use the worst downB and sideB customs because I like it that way, I get looked at like a lunatic, but when someone says "Ban PS2, I don't enjoy that stage", they get paid attention to.

Again : "have as little interference as possible in a duel" philosophy. PS2 mechanics changes interfere in the duel. It's as simple as that. You can dislike this philosophy but you can't make people drop it as much as people can't make you drop yours.

That's a pretty weird statement. Care to elaborate at all on that?

Well to make it simple when you play a game competitively there is a certain amount of time before the meta is established where all is fair and everything seems possible. Right now Smash4 is in this honeymoon state but as knowledge and skill goes up the meta will begin to get in shape and the strategies to win tournaments will revolve around it.
There will be strong characters and weak characters, there will be high risk high reward strats and low risk medium reward strats and medium risk no reward strats, there will be safe picks and situational picks, and of course there will be good stage matchups, neutral stage matchups and bad stage matchups.

Now some people believe that by dramatically increasing the number of effective stages (as was said by AAmpharos in another thread having a starter/cp system means it is only worth it to master starters, reducing the number of effective stages to 3 or 5 nomatter how many CPs exist) will add "game depth" while all it will do is increase the duration of the honeymoon phase (which is already dramatically increased by the inclusion of customs) because of all the extra information the community has to learn.
Once this phase ends there will be a meta. It might or might not be different from the starter/cp meta but in the end there will be the same defining characteristics : good characters and bad characters, good strats and bad strats, good stages and bad stages etc.

So that's what I meant by that sentence, hope that makes more sense now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well some people have a "have as little interference as possible in a duel" philosophy which while not being diametrally opposed to yours makes stage hazards something unwanted.
That's all there is to it, people want to ban OGA because it doesn't fit their ideal competitive smash scenario.

And listing stage by intrusiveness isn't the only way to talk about them, you can list them by platform layout, by size, by blastzone closeness, hazard frequency, layout change timer, etc. You just have to use your imagination (and @ ParanoidDrone 's work).

And the airdash analogy is bad, Street doesn't have anything like stage layout. If anything air dashes could be compared to recoveries, as some characters have way better recoveries than the rest of the cast but there is no way to turn them off and you can't enforce people to not use them. Stages are much more similar to timers, stock count or items than movesets in terms of how we can deal with them in the ruleset.

Again : "have as little interference as possible in a duel" philosophy. PS2 mechanics changes interfere in the duel. It's as simple as that. You can dislike this philosophy but you can't make people drop it as much as people can't make you drop yours.

Fair enough. I'd argue that those with that philosophy are really playing the wrong game (it'd be like having a "no fireballs" philosophy in Street Fighter or a "no X-Factor" philosophy in Marvel), but hey, if you have a game, play it how you want. Also seriously shoutouts to ParanoidDrone, he's pretty awesome.

Well to make it simple when you play a game competitively there is a certain amount of time before the meta is established where all is fair and everything seems possible. Right now Smash4 is in this honeymoon state but as knowledge and skill goes up the meta will begin to get in shape and the strategies to win tournaments will revolve around it.
There will be strong characters and weak characters, there will be high risk high reward strats and low risk medium reward strats and medium risk no reward strats, there will be safe picks and situational picks, and of course there will be good stage matchups, neutral stage matchups and bad stage matchups.

Now some people believe that by dramatically increasing the number of effective stages (as was said by AAmpharos in another thread having a starter/cp system means it is only worth it to master starters, reducing the number of effective stages to 3 or 5 nomatter how many CPs exist) will add "game depth" while all it will do is increase the duration of the honeymoon phase (which is already dramatically increased by the inclusion of customs) because of all the extra information the community has to learn.
Once this phase ends there will be a meta. It might or might not be different from the starter/cp meta but in the end there will be the same defining characteristics : good characters and bad characters, good strats and bad strats, good stages and bad stages etc.

So that's what I meant by that sentence, hope that makes more sense now.

Now I get what you're saying, yeah, makes a fair bit more sense. I don't know if I necessarily agree, but I'm going to hazard a guess you probably know more about the development of at least the previous smash games than I do.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Well to make it simple when you play a game competitively there is a certain amount of time before the meta is established where all is fair and everything seems possible. Right now Smash4 is in this honeymoon state but as knowledge and skill goes up the meta will begin to get in shape and the strategies to win tournaments will revolve around it.
There will be strong characters and weak characters, there will be high risk high reward strats and low risk medium reward strats and medium risk no reward strats, there will be safe picks and situational picks, and of course there will be good stage matchups, neutral stage matchups and bad stage matchups.

Now some people believe that by dramatically increasing the number of effective stages (as was said by AAmpharos in another thread having a starter/cp system means it is only worth it to master starters, reducing the number of effective stages to 3 or 5 nomatter how many CPs exist) will add "game depth" while all it will do is increase the duration of the honeymoon phase (which is already dramatically increased by the inclusion of customs) because of all the extra information the community has to learn.
Once this phase ends there will be a meta. It might or might not be different from the starter/cp meta but in the end there will be the same defining characteristics : good characters and bad characters, good strats and bad strats, good stages and bad stages etc.

So that's what I meant by that sentence, hope that makes more sense now.

A valid point, but if I'm being honest I'd rather squeeze as much data out of that "honeymoon" phase as possible. If it turns out that stages X Y and Z are bad for whatever reasons when the dust settles and we have substantial videos, tourney results, etc. to back it up, sure. We can ban it without further complaints from me. But my fear is that if we don't push for it now, then it'll never happen and be doomed to the purgatory of "what if" since I highly doubt anyone will acquiesce to a major shift like adding new stages to the list after everything's stabilized.

@ Budget Player Cadet_ you'll make me blush at this rate.

 

[proto3296]

From what I've seen other people say, I'd wager that the average idea of a "good" stage is one that doesn't interfere with the fight at all. Unfortunately, the list of such stages is vanishingly small, probably limited to BF/FD/SV/T&C. And I guess technically Temple but that's a bad stage for different reasons. And maybe Miiverse, which may or may not end up lumped together with Battlefield depending on how similar they are.

Overly broad statement: A Smash Bros. match should reward skill and knowledge.
Another overly broad statement: Stage choice is a factor in the outcome of any given match in Smash Bros.
Resulting overly broad conclusion: Our legal stages should reward skill and knowledge, not only of the opponent, but of the stage.

From here on out, we get into specifics and thus it turns a bit subjective. Personally, I'm reasonably comfortable playing on quite a large variety of stages, perhaps a result of spending the last 4 months studying them all. </shameless plug> But what one person considers knowledge another person may consider "jank." And there's clearly a line somewhere between "stage knowledge" and "having to focus on the stage more than the opponent."

Conjecture: Final Destination is popular not because it's particularly balanced, but because the flat no-platform structure minimizes the amount of attention one needs to devote to the stage. Even Battlefield has you thinking about how to take advantage of the platforms, Smashville's platform moves, and the rest of the stages just go downhill from there. Therefore, I conclude that one's personal taste regarding stage legality, "jank," etc. has more to do with how much attention they're willing to devote to the stage itself during a match than anything else.

Bold claim: If a person were to spend a solid chunk of time studying each stage like I did, their tolerance for stage hazards would go up as a result of becoming more familiar with them through sheer exposure.

On a person-to-person basis, I believe the question of "should this stage be banned" can be answered by asking two simple questions:

1. Does the stage trivialize the contest of skill between players?
2. Does dealing with the stage demand more effort than dealing with your opponent?

If the answer to either question is "yes" then there's grounds for a stage ban. Unfortunately, both are somewhat subjective questions. The first depends on the sort of skill that we want to encourage, while the second can vary between players based on how comfortable they are on the stage.

A final subject I want to touch on is that of stage variety and the effects it has on character viability. Brawl is a good case study for this, since the rise of the Ice Climbers is directly related to their worst stages getting banned in an effort to curb Meta Knight. While an extreme example, it serves to demonstrate that the community's love for "flat + plat" stages is not necessarily the most balanced stage selection. The Ice Climbers are not present in Smash 4, obviously, but the principle holds. This particular issue is strongly related to the question of what type of skill we wish to promote, since the legal stage list implicitly buffs and nerfs specific characters based on how they benefit/suffer from the selection.

...that was an awful lot of words for a not very clear answer to the OP. Sorry. But nowadays I've been thinking that with everyone so divided on what constitutes a "good" stage, a "legal" stage, a "starter" stage, etc., it'll probably be necessary for a decision to be made by fiat somehow, whether it be through a back room sort of body or something different, as opposed to any number of discussions such as this. Although it usually makes for interesting reading regardless so I can't really complain that much.

On a different note, I would pay good money to watch and/or participate in a tournament with the following stage list, no Gentleman's:

1. Mushroom Kingdom U
2. Mario Galaxy
3. Mario Circuit
4. Luigi's Mansion
5. Norfair
6. Woolly World
7. Orbital Gate Assault
8. Kalos Pokemon League
9. Coliseum
10. Gamer
11. Garden of Hope
12. Wii Fit Studio
13. Windy Hill Zone

Norfair Gamer and Luigis mansion should at least be given a chance. I personally think it's more fun to have crazy stages, but not too crazy such as halberd. If you're going to say the reason halberd isnt banned is because it's easy to see the hazards, it's very easy to see the hazards on norfair.

 

[teluoborg]

A valid point, but if I'm being honest I'd rather squeeze as much data out of that "honeymoon" phase as possible. If it turns out that stages X Y and Z are bad for whatever reasons when the dust settles and we have substantial videos, tourney results, etc. to back it up, sure. We can ban it without further complaints from me. But my fear is that if we don't push for it now, then it'll never happen and be doomed to the purgatory of "what if" since I highly doubt anyone will acquiesce to a major shift like adding new stages to the list after everything's stabilized.

You are right but the longer the honeymoon phase, the more we'll have to watch tournament sets where players get cheesed.

I think it's important for the competitive health of the game to reach a stable level sooner than later, especially when the game in question has so many good characters, customs and gameplay updates on the way.

But this is a very meta discussion that I don't think is fit for this thread, only remember that "more content" = "more depth" if and only if time is unlimited. Which it is not.


PS @ Budget Player Cadet_ : glad we could agree that personal preference plays a major role in this.

 

[Drogmyre]

Norfair Gamer and Luigis mansion should at least be given a chance. I personally think it's more fun to have crazy stages, but not too crazy such as halberd. If you're going to say the reason halberd isnt banned is because it's easy to see the hazards, it's very easy to see the hazards on norfair.

Gamer and Norfair aren't terrible, though Gamer has some setups that encourage degenerate play (not all the time, though.)

Luigi's mansion, however, is basically Cave of Life: The Stage, and it should not be legal. I can't think of an instance or a matchup where Luigi's Mansion encourages better play, or encourages a more skill based matchup. Abusing a cave of life is a degenerate strategy. I'd hate to imagine what a character like Sheik, who already has kill issues, would go through if Mansion was legal.

 

[SeanS]

Ban Duck Hunt effective immediately. This stage:

- is conceptually based on interfering with fighting in the middle of the stage, and literally taunts the player for effect
- has deceptive camera angles off stage, inferfering with edgeguards
- has imbalanced platforms, some of which are sufficiently high and low-space to encourage camping and interrupt the flow of play

I have literally no clue why this is legal, even as a CP it is outrageously bad for competition.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ban Duck Hunt effective immediately. This stage:

- is conceptually based on interfering with fighting in the middle of the stage, and literally taunts the player for effect
- has deceptive camera angles off stage, inferfering with edgeguards
- has imbalanced platforms, some of which are sufficiently high and low-space to encourage camping and interrupt the flow of play

I have literally no clue why this is legal, even as a CP it is outrageously bad for competition.

...Are you serious? There's nothing wrong with anything listed here. One of them is an element which literally only punishes players who don't know what they're doing (if you know what you're doing, you won't need the Camera to play along at that point). The platforms have been shown extensively not to be degenerate, save for in a handful of matchups where the stage needs to be banned, with characters which, for the most part, are not viable as solo mains anyways (I should know, I play one of them). And interfering with fighting in the middle of the stage is not taboo - learn how to play around the dog. Deal with it.

 

[SeanS]

Your argument largely rests on the idea that I am a scrub who needs to get good. This is an ad hominem reply that isn't worth any refutation whatsoever.

But I will say that you basically have to do this if you want to defend this stage because you are incapable of justifying any actual merit of this stage in light of its introduction of artificial difficulty and its broad tendency to interrupt and slow down the pace of combat that would be seen on any neutral stage.

There is a difference between a counterpick stage that disadvantages a character (like Halberd for edgeguarding characters) and one that blatantly flattens skill gaps through obviously non-competitive design.

 

[DavemanCozy]

I think the current Starter / CP system is what is limiting the stage list to only 9 stages.

To avoid going into arguments of whether this system works or not, let's forget all that for a moment and see what this system does or aims to do:

1. Make game 1 start in a stage deemed neutral, fair as possible for all those involved.
   
2. The following game(s) give a chance to get a victory on the next game (hence "counter" picking) while letting the winner choose stages to strike.

This means we have a number of stages that are deemed "fair" for match 1, and we have a number of stages that are deemed as "counters" for game 2 along with the choice to go back to a "neutral" stage. Whether you think this is effective or not, this is the gist of what the stage striking procedure and counter picking procedure aim to do.

I've never really understood where the number of bans that need to be given to the winner on game 2 comes from. How is this number decided? In Melee, for example, there are at all times 6 legal stages, 1 which is a counter pick with only 1 ban for the winner when counter picking. Right now the Smash4 stage list and stage picking procedure is roughly copy pasting the one used in the Brawl ruleset, having 9 stages available with 2 bans for the winner.

This is something I just realized that has been bothering me for a while: I don't really understand how the stage system we're currently using works. I want to know how these numbers came about. I want to know how the number of stages we should have was determined. Furthermore, I want to know if there's a place where I can find this information, because I can't find it anywhere. When I'm given a ruleset, I want to understand how it works.

I now see why there are debates going on around here about the Starter/CP system, some saying that it isn't a good system for this game and should be scrapped in favor for Full Stage List Striking. I've read the words of many of you, which continue to provide insight on how we choose stages. But I think that a big issue of how stages are chosen is that many tournament organizers simply don't want to diverge from what is the current standard, which is a problem because this means that only 9 stages can be legal and there are obviously many more that could be considered as well.

I'm not saying we should scrap the Starter/CP system, all I'm asking is how are the numbers chosen:

• Why 2 bans for the winner?
• Why 9 stages?
• Is there a formula it follows.

I really look forward to reading your info.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Your argument largely rests on the idea that I am a scrub who needs to get good. This is an ad hominem reply that isn't worth any refutation whatsoever.

No, my argument rests on the basis of nothing you described being broken. The "you're a scrub, get good" part explains why you got it so wrong.

But I will say that you basically have to do this if you want to defend this stage because you are incapable of justifying any actual merit of this stage in light of its introduction of artificial difficulty

I don't think you know what that term means, particularly with regards to fighting games.

and its broad tendency to interrupt and slow down the pace of combat that would be seen on any neutral stage.

Newsflash: this isn't broken. Yeah, if you're playing around the middle sometimes the dog will pop up. A good player will use this to their advantage, to escape from pressure situations or trap the opponent. A bad player will complain about it "slowing down the pace of combat" and demand that it be banned so that they don't have to adapt.

There is a difference between a counterpick stage that disadvantages a character (like Halberd for edgeguarding characters) and one that blatantly flattens skill gaps through obviously non-competitive design.

Yes, and examples of the latter include Temple, Pyrosphere, and Coliseum. They do not include Duck Hunt. You seriously think this stage flattens skill gaps? Prove it.

 

[Piford]

Here's basically how it should work. If one player can consistently beat another player on a fair stage (something like Final Destination), and they should be able to beat you just as consistently on another fair stage within reason. This is under the assumption that both players have the same stage knowledge

So if I can beat my friend 80% of the time on FD, and can beat him 84% of the time on Wuhu Island, then Wuhu Island is a fair stage. If I can beat my friend only 76% of the time on Smashville, it's probably still a fair stage. If I can only beat my friend 10% of the time on Pyrosphere, it's probably not a fair stage.

There's obviously some more meat to it, but something should be legal if its a fair stage as we want to give players as many options as possible without taking skill out of the game.

 

[thehard]

How about we get a statement from as many major and minor TOs as we can about what makes a stage legal (maybe what makes a stage illegal is easier)? I don't think this debate can ever be resolved but for the sake of professionalism SOME standard needs to be set.

All I can say is that it's best to experiment this early on. If Skyloft is still banned in majors 3 years from now what are TOs going to say when asked why it's illegal? There is no concrete evidence that supports Skyloft's exclusion from tournaments, especially when compared to the current legal stages. Being unable to afford someone an explanation of why things are is TERRIBLE for a competitive scene.

#stagesmatter

 

[ParanoidDrone]

How about we get a statement from as many major and minor TOs as we can about what makes a stage legal (maybe what makes a stage illegal is easier)? I don't think this debate can ever be resolved but for the sake of professionalism SOME standard needs to be set.

The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of the big names in Smash don't really frequent Smashboards for whatever reason. (I guess they don't want to get swarmed.)

I mean, if you can get GIMR in here to have an honest discussion about stage lists then that'd be great, but...yeah. (GIMR just being the first name that came to mind.)

 

[Jaxas]

The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of the big names in Smash don't really frequent Smashboards for whatever reason. (I guess they don't want to get swarmed.)

I mean, if you can get GIMR in here to have an honest discussion about stage lists then that'd be great, but...yeah. (GIMR just being the first name that came to mind.)

It doesn't need to be here on Smashboards; is there anywhere else that a lot of TOs do go? Facebook, Twitter, Smashboards, /r/smashbros, what other big Smash communities are there?

 

[Piford]

The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of the big names in Smash don't really frequent Smashboards for whatever reason. (I guess they don't want to get swarmed.)

I mean, if you can get GIMR in here to have an honest discussion about stage lists then that'd be great, but...yeah. (GIMR just being the first name that came to mind.)

GIMR already gave his thoughts on Wuhu Island. It was a mix of shoddy reasoning, uniformed, and some legitimate stuff. It really came down to it should be tested and from what I see of Wuhu Island in actual tournament play, it ends up being about as campy a stage as smashville and definitely a competitive one.