A Discussion on Legal Stage Criteria.

[cot(θ)]

I personally use the "dank and jank" criteria for determining stage legality.

Jank is related to randomness. A random element reduces the importance of the skill gap between players by making the outcome partially dependent on RNG. However, needing to play around the random hazard emphasizes the skill gap between the two players. If the reduction in the importance of the skill gap due to randomness outweighs the increased importance of the skill gap due to the additional gameplay elements, the stage is "jank".

Just how much jank is acceptable is very subjective, and it's also hard to objectively measure how important the skill gap is (especially factoring in stage knowledge as a skill). I personally use zero-jank policy, but my view on what is and isn't jank is very liberal. For example, I do not consider Gamer and Norfair to be jank.

A stage is "dank" if it enables "dank" strategies. A dank strategy is one that trivializes the skill gap between players. For example, circle camping on Temple is dank, as is hiding on the bottom floor of Luigi's Mansion and teching everything. This is also a bit of a subjective measure - how much of a reduction in skill gap is too much? Which strategies are actually too easy to perform? Personally, I haven't yet seen evidence that walk-off camping is dank, or that circle camping on Gamer is dank (because Mom can stop you).

There are definitely "scales" of dank and jank, and it's a bit subjective where to draw the line, but I think these are pretty good criteria to start with when deciding which stages to ban.

 

[Piford]

Dank is usually used as something of high quality in modern language, so I would not use it as a word to describe strategies that marginalized players skill. Also, I usually want to avoid using the word jank as it's not really a word and is really subjective and often things being described as jank are terrible reason to ban a stage (such as water).

 

[cot(θ)]

Dank is usually used as something of high quality in modern language

Exactly - those dank strategies are *too* good. Anyway, I personally associate "dankness" with that icky feeling you get when you edge-hog someone (in previous games), or when leafstooling C. Falcon as he recovers. A good strategy, but not very skill-intensive, which is why a stage that centralizes the match on those strategies should be banned.

Also, I usually want to avoid using the word jank as it's not really a word and is really subjective and often things being described as jank are terrible reason to ban a stage (such as water).

The scene is flooded with people who think stages should be banned due to what they call "jank", and I would like nothing better than to stop them from using that word as code for "not FD and I haven't learned it yet". Despite being the basest of rhetoric, it does influence people who make rules. Being able to at least argue that something is not actually jank is pretty useful in my opinion.

 

[TheGameCrewNerds]

smashville
battlefield
final destination
town and city
duck hunt
castle siege
delfino plaza
lylat cruise
pokemon stadium
skyloft
wuhu island

(p.s the ness wario glitch is hard to do in competitive and if you can good for you)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

(p.s the ness wario glitch is hard to do in competitive and if you can good for you)

Thank you for not being a scrub.

 

[Drogmyre]

Thank you for not being a scrub.

Honestly, what exactly is so difficult about not standing in that specific spot as Wario vs. Ness? You'd either have to not be aware of the glitch, or seriously screw up to let Ness pull it off.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

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.

The laser's randomness is trivialized by its being broadcast several seconds in advance. It's not that it's a good thing, it's that its effect on the outcome is not the result of chance. The claw is more problematic, but the drawbacks of having an occasional and easily avoidable stage hazard are negligible in the context of such an atrocious selection of competitive stages.

The difference between hazards like the claw & laser vs. something like walk-offs is that you can't rely exclusively on the claw & laser to substantially increase your odds of winning against a player much better than you. These are not just goofy accidents that Sakurai hasn't learned from; they are strategically implemented to make the casual experience more bearable for players of inferior skill. No matter how much you like these elements, the case that they belong in competitive play is impossible to make without also redefining what you think competitive play should mean. If you think walk-offs belong in competitive play, you are also inferring that it's reasonable for player skill not to necessarily determine the outcome of a competitive game. In that case, the burden of proof is with you to change the meta, not me to keep it more or less the same.

 

[cot(θ)]

The laser's randomness is trivialized by its being broadcast several seconds in advance. It's not that it's a good thing, it's that its effect on the outcome is not the result of chance. The claw is more problematic, but the drawbacks of having an occasional and easily avoidable stage hazard are negligible in the context of such an atrocious selection of competitive stages.

The difference between hazards like the claw & laser vs. something like walk-offs is that you can't rely exclusively on the claw & laser to substantially increase your odds of winning against a player much better than you. These are not just goofy accidents that Sakurai hasn't learned from; they are strategically implemented to make the casual experience more bearable for players of inferior skill. No matter how much you like these elements, the case that they belong in competitive play is impossible to make without also redefining what you think competitive play should mean. If you think walk-offs belong in competitive play, you are also inferring that it's reasonable for player skill not to necessarily determine the outcome of a competitive game. In that case, the burden of proof is with you to change the meta, not me to keep it more or less the same.

I honestly don't believe walk off camping is a problem. Sure, you're intentionally putting yourself in a high risk high rate situation, and that might increase variance, but a skilled player that know how to respect the walk offs will still consistently beat an unskilled walk off camper.

Also, don't argue that the status quo is to have walk offs banned. Walk offs were never banned because of walk off camping. They were banned in previous games because of combos/chaingrabs which could force the player into the blast zone off an easy-to-land attack from practically anywhere on the stage.