A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[LiteralGrill]

Honestly, I'm sorry. I did overreact.

I think I'm more or less pissed at the fact that there's a FD-only option in Sm4sh than I am to people who'd use it. Haven't the people who made the game actually heard of the infamous Smash meme?

Apology accepted.

Probably, I did actually mention the meme in the OP even (under "cons" lol). Still the meme exists for a reason, yes it's part joke and stereotype but it's slightly based in truth. That psychological connection to FD = Competitive really does exist to a lot of people, it's why I mention it so often.

 

[popsofctown]

You know, except with a ton of really well known professional players.

No big deal.

The people that know those guys are professional players are the same ones that know the tournament format before finals is farcical.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The people that know those guys are professional players are the same ones that know the tournament format before finals is farcical.

While I won't laughably say that this doesn't happen, it's a bit of a bold statement to broadly apply that to all finals.

 

[Oops!]

I'm gonna jump back in here and add that after playing the demo at Best Buy, I noticed many of the stages change scenes, much like Castle Siege in Brawl. Personally, I'd find that distracting and annoying in a tournament, like I find Norfair flipping upside down distracting and annoying all of the time. If literally every stage except FD variants of these stages and BF have those sorts of changes, I would again argue in favor of a FD and BF only ruleset for tournaments.

That said, if there are a few stages without transitions, I think they should be allowed (excluding Wiley Castle; Yellow Devil sucks). Then again, maybe there'll be Hanenbow 2.0, which, though it technically fits my current description, would be awful. I don't know. We really can't say for certain until we've seen all of the available stages for Smash 4, but as it stands, I'm still rooting for the BF and FD and its variants only idea.

Did any of you get a chance to play the demo? What are your thoughts on the competitive viability of the stages that were featured there?

Edit: Town and City is also fair imo

 

[LiteralGrill]

The stages looked REALLY big. I can't tell since I couldn't go demo, but man the Wii U stages are enormous. Some stages also have hazards we didn't expect (even Pilot Wing with the random ceiling that killed someone). We may end up with serious circle camping issues causing stages to be banned, plus we'll have new hazards to deal with as well. So far out of all the stages shown only a couple look like they could be accepted by all with no question to be legal which is scary.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

lol battlefield FD's and smash ville all over again

 

[LiteralGrill]

lol battlefield FD's and smash ville all over again

See we joke but it's possible.

I really do think people either need to embrace more stages, or accept that we're just nailing the game down to so little and OWN UP TO IT. FD only is still quite a possibility, especially on the Wii U which just has a TON of huge stages. 3DS looks like we have at least 4 easy legal stages with no issues for the moment, but that still isn't much either. If we're going to cut, we should make it a definitive cut.

 

[Dapplegonger]

As far as Smash 4 goes, the only reason keeping me from saying FD only ruleset is that platforms are incredibly important to many characters. In Smash 64, Dreamland is the only neutral stage, in Melee, Battlefield is considered the most fair stage by many, not FD, and even Smashville in Brawl has at least one platform as well. If some of the FD stages in Smash 4 did have platforms, I'd be all for this ruleset. I'm sure the FD stages have varying sizes, and some have walled sides while some are floating. There is enough variety, if only some had platforms. Perhaps we could do a FD/Battlefield ruleset instead.

 

[LiteralGrill]

As far as Smash 4 goes, the only reason keeping me from saying FD only ruleset is that platforms are incredibly important to many characters. In Smash 64, Dreamland is the only neutral stage, in Melee, Battlefield is considered the most fair stage by many, not FD, and even Smashville in Brawl has at least one platform as well. If some of the FD stages in Smash 4 did have platforms, I'd be all for this ruleset. I'm sure the FD stages have varying sizes, and some have walled sides while some are floating. There is enough variety, if only some had platforms. Perhaps we could do a FD/Battlefield ruleset instead.

There's gotta be an odd number of stages for logistics reasons. So either 1 or 3 if we're really minimizing. If it's going to come down to have counterpicks and starters again, I'd rather just cut out counterpicks as they are functionally useless or go to a list striking system for all legal stages.

 

[Oops!]

As far as Smash 4 goes, the only reason keeping me from saying FD only ruleset is that platforms are incredibly important to many characters. In Smash 64, Dreamland is the only neutral stage, in Melee, Battlefield is considered the most fair stage by many, not FD, and even Smashville in Brawl has at least one platform as well. If some of the FD stages in Smash 4 did have platforms, I'd be all for this ruleset. I'm sure the FD stages have varying sizes, and some have walled sides while some are floating. There is enough variety, if only some had platforms. Perhaps we could do a FD/Battlefield ruleset instead.

I don't think the FD variants of any of the stages are going to have platforms. But you're probably right about the different wall and ceiling lengths and heights.

There's gotta be an odd number of stages for logistics reasons. So either 1 or 3 if we're really minimizing. If it's going to come down to have counterpicks and starters again, I'd rather just cut out counterpicks as they are functionally useless or go to a list striking system for all legal stages.

The number of FD-like stages wiil depend on how many stages get a FD variant, but I agree that the ones allowed competitively should be an odd number. What's the difference between counterpicking and list striking?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Here's what I'm thinking after playing the demo. We do want a larger pool of legal stages; the typical smash player wants more legal stages than are commonly used in this day and age, and all else being equal, diversity is still an objective good. So we shouldn't be trying to minimize for the sake of minimizing; that's just contrary to what almost everyone actually wants, and even most people who usually favor small stage lists usually just dislike specific types of stages rather than stage variety itself.

In Wii U, I already see seven "solid" stages, stages that seem like they are just obviously legal and that rigorously meet everything we could want in a competitive smash stage:

Battlefield
Town and City
Pilotwings
Skyloft
Mushroom Kingdom U
Halberd
Final Destination

The last two we just know about from Brawl, but Halberd is legal almost everywhere while FD is legal everywhere. The only stage here I envision a need to fight for is Mushroom Kingdom U because some people are just scared of how many different things they've seen, but really, if you've played it and watched its mechanics carefully, it's such a great stage. Everything it does it gives HUGE tells for what it's going to do; you never get surprised by a transformation, an icicle, or really anything meaningful at all if you're just looking at the stage. It contains so many different elements so no character has a static advantage, but it never goes that far as to introduce a bias the other way toward the characters who love dynamic stages in themselves. It's already one of my favorite stages in the series!

I do think we need to test out some of the more tame walk-offs (like Coliseum) since walk-offs are not necessarily the inherent evil some believe them to be, and then stuff like Wily's Castle may be okay too after testing. However, those seven stand out to me as just seven great stages out the gate, and we still have many more stages to learn about (both unannounced as well as stages like Pokemon League that may be great but we don't know enough to judge). I forsee it not being hard to get a list of 13 or 15 just great stages, do a full list striking with those, and just use that as the ruleset that could make almost everyone happy.

The problem with a more "traditional" style of making rules and using "counterpick" stages is really twofold. From a "what's legal" standpoint, you spend almost all of your time arguing over which counterpick stages to allow as you really vigorously disagree over whether that Yellow Devil on Wily's Castle really is acceptable or not. Then from the player's perspective, what's a "starter" stage is really the only thing that matters; a prudent player is likely to just master whichever stages are starters, accept losing on wacky cp stages once in a while, and then just use his own counterpicks to ensure he can still win the set on starter style stages. In the long run, that makes those counterpick stages even more hated, and the tiny starter list that was not even a focus for years becomes all you have left. Just taking a somewhat broader pool of broadly acceptable stages and making them legal for game one just seems to obviously serve everyone's interests and should make for the best tournament game in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

So I'm going to re-bump this topic because I wanted to point something out...in this article...

http://smashboards.com/threads/from-brawl-to-super-smash-brothers-wii-u-the-differences.358932/

Djent says it best right here in the comments...

Seems like nerfed projectile game is a general theme here...

Reading through that analysis, you can see very clearly that the most frequently mentioned quality of most characters who had any kind of projectile game as part of their benefits, have been nerfed.

Does this not lend credence to the idea that Smash 4 is indeed being balanced for Final Destination as the competitive stage, and thus, making For Glory mode quite appropriate in its choice to limit the "For Anyone" mode to only Final Destination?

The only notable complaint I see against For Glory mode or the idea of Final Destination being the prominent competitive stage is due to many of the casts ranged options. Camping. That seems to have been fairly and broadly addressed...so what's left on the bucket list of anti-final destination folks?

 

[menotyou135]

To address the pros of FD only

No culling of stagelists, we'd have a universal standard from day one

A universal standard will arise over time anyway. Also, even if this idea catches on, not everybody will adopt it because of the fact it is different. There will be no universal standard.

Our metagame would develop much faster with less stages to learn (with the possibility of us being stronger players as well)

If anything this is a bad thing. Why do you want a metagame that evolves fast? A metagame that evolves fast is a metagame with very little depth. Also, less to learn means less knowlege required to be good. As long as a stage isn't gamebreaking or takes away from the skill/balance, it should be included because the depth involved is a positive thing. Making a shallow game is not in the interest of anybody who wants this game to succeed over time.

The game would be more recognizable and easy to learn for new players and viewers on live streams

Not necessarily. Without platforms, it would be difficult to play against projectile spam for new players. This would likely turn them off from the idea that competitive is good. It isn't any harder to follow a game on battlefield than it is on FD.

Faster Tournaments without having to use a counterpick system for stages

Yay. Sacrifice depth and strategy to shave one minute off a set.

Online events would be better as this stage is likely to have the least lag

Please tell me where you get your source for this? I don't see why FD would have any less lag than any other map outside of maps that are pointlessly complex and/or have hazards. I mean I guess you could argue that platforms mean more polygons used, but I doubt that they are trying to be a polygon efficient as possible when it is clear they are trying to make the game as beautiful as possible. Also the Wii U is significantly more powerful than the Wii, which is significantly more powerful than the GC.


To address the cons of a diverse stagelist.

It will take a while to get a solid stagelist down, years even

What is the problem with this exactly? As we see the metagame evolve, we will see a change in how the game is played. That keeps people interested. Also, at this point, I think most people know what makes a good stage. I doubt that there will be too much variation. And even if there is, so what? Diversity in metagames across various regions is one of the more interesting things about smash. It leads to changes in metagame when different regional playstyles meet.

It will be argued about for years and no one will ever completely agree

This is the same point as above. Just reworded differently.

Different regions will have different standards causing problems and dividing us competitively

Major tournaments will use pretty much the same standard. Eventually that standard will settle like it did in melee. Also, as stated above, diverstity causes a more diverse metagame when two different regional metagames meet.

 

[LiteralGrill]

To address the pros of FD only

No culling of stagelists, we'd have a universal standard from day one

A universal standard will arise over time anyway. Also, even if this idea catches on, not everybody will adopt it because of the fact it is different. There will be no universal standard.

We'll get one eventually, but there will never be one? What?

Minus that, we really could have a universal stagelist everyone played on if we stuck to our guns and made compromises with each other. It's not impossible. I think the reason it failed with Unity was some of the structural issues with the ruleset committee itself, not for the idea of it.

Our metagame would develop much faster with less stages to learn (with the possibility of us being stronger players as well)

If anything this is a bad thing. Why do you want a metagame that evolves fast? A metagame that evolves fast is a metagame with very little depth. Also, less to learn means less knowlege required to be good. As long as a stage isn't gamebreaking or takes away from the skill/balance, it should be included because the depth involved is a positive thing. Making a shallow game is not in the interest of anybody who wants this game to succeed over time.

Having players be the best they can be faster has advantages. I did mention that doing this sacrificed depth though. I agree that things shouldn't be banned until proven banworthy (I'm playing a lot of devil's advocate in this thread to just bring up the topic for discussion). The issue is, we know that's not how the actual community at large acts. It sucks, but it's true and it either takes a giant uprising from the people to make TOs work this way, or we have to accept it and work with what we have. I prefer the former, butt I also doubt it'll happen.

The game would be more recognizable and easy to learn for new players and viewers on live streams

Not necessarily. Without platforms, it would be difficult to play against projectile spam for new players. This would likely turn them off from the idea that competitive is good. It isn't any harder to follow a game on battlefield than it is on FD.

It's not, but tons of players and new folks will be playing "competitively" on FD Only in For Glory. I already mentioned how similar things happened in PSASBR where once people psychologically attached the idea of competition to a stage everyone just played there, it's likely a similar thing could happen.

Faster Tournaments without having to use a counterpick system for stages

Yay. Sacrifice depth and strategy to shave one minute off a set.

I just listed them all fairly, it is technically an advantage.

Online events would be better as this stage is likely to have the least lag

Please tell me where you get your source for this? I don't see why FD would have any less lag than any other map outside of maps that are pointlessly complex and/or have hazards. I mean I guess you could argue that platforms mean more polygons used, but I doubt that they are trying to be a polygon efficient as possible when it is clear they are trying to make the game as beautiful as possible. Also the Wii U is significantly more powerful than the Wii, which is significantly more powerful than the GC.

No hazards and very little to load. I did say "likely" and not "definitely" didn't I?

To address the cons of a diverse stagelist.

It will take a while to get a solid stagelist down, years even

What is the problem with this exactly? As we see the metagame evolve, we will see a change in how the game is played. That keeps people interested. Also, at this point, I think most people know what makes a good stage. I doubt that there will be too much variation. And even if there is, so what? Diversity in metagames across various regions is one of the more interesting things about smash. It leads to changes in metagame when different regional playstyles meet.

I doubt most people know what makes a good stage as the idea to most people what that is is RADICALLY different. This thread alone shows that.

The variation across regions divides us and does't make the game any more interesting. It honestly just ends up making some regions worse. those that have lots of stages and take the time to learn all that extra information (that extra depth) have all of that work thrown out the window when some big event just bans all of the stages they did work on anyways. Or worse, bunches of people don't travel to events even close by because the rules are so different. It weakens our entire scene. I'd like more stages, but I'd settle for a reasonable number if people manage to just agree on it.

Plus regional differences actually cause issues. Let's say I have a stage Falco is pretty good on. He's not broken by any means on it, it's just a good stage for him. Now, let's say my community is full of Falco players. They play on the stage a LOT and some huge mentality comes around that it is actually broken (when it isn't) and it gets banned in one region. Funny thing is, this stage is also good for Jigglypuff, Donkey Kong, and a few others but that community lacked those characters to figure that out. Now other communities jump on the bandwagon where those who know the just is just fine eventually have to since practicing on a stage banned in half the country is pointless. See the issues? (P.S. I'm referencing a stage in Brawl actually if anyone knows it.)

It will be argued about for years and no one will ever completely agree

This is the same point as above. Just reworded differently.

Different regions will have different standards causing problems and dividing us competitively

Major tournaments will use pretty much the same standard. Eventually that standard will settle like it did in melee. Also, as stated above, diverstity causes a more diverse metagame when two different regional metagames meet.

Did a standard really ever settle for Brawl? Just because it happened in one game doesn't mean it will happen in another. I still know of places for Brawl with WAY more stages then legal at Apex if you want to site that as a standard, and even just over the last couple of years we've seen more stages banned. Hey, when Brawl came out tons of stages that are banned now were legal quite commonly. How many years did it take to get to that stable list? A minimum of around 8 years maybe longer. Wouldn't it be nice to have that sooner?

Reading through that analysis, you can see very clearly that the most frequently mentioned quality of most characters who had any kind of projectile game as part of their benefits, have been nerfed.

Does this not lend credence to the idea that Smash 4 is indeed being balanced for Final Destination as the competitive stage, and thus, making For Glory mode quite appropriate in its choice to limit the "For Anyone" mode to only Final Destination?

The only notable complaint I see against For Glory mode or the idea of Final Destination being the prominent competitive stage is due to many of the casts ranged options. Camping. That seems to have been fairly and broadly addressed...so what's left on the bucket list of anti-final destination folks?

In theory customized moves could help deal with ranged stuff too giving people more options.

I think what would be left is people do still want variety. I even want it, I like having lots of stages to play on and I know others will feel the same.

 

[Djent]

Reading through that analysis, you can see very clearly that the most frequently mentioned quality of most characters who had any kind of projectile game as part of their benefits, have been nerfed.

Does this not lend credence to the idea that Smash 4 is indeed being balanced for Final Destination as the competitive stage, and thus, making For Glory mode quite appropriate in its choice to limit the "For Anyone" mode to only Final Destination?

Heh. I didn't make that connection when I made that post. I just thought it was a way of making the game less "campy." But you might well be right.

I kind of hope we don't just play For Glory mode. Nonetheless, a more balanced FD is a good thing regardless.

EDIT: It occurred to me that the changes to throw lag could also serve as a way of making FD more balanced. The two most common complaints about FD (i.e., chaingrabs and projectiles) have both been addressed. I really think you're on to something here.

 

[Oops!]

I'm beginning to think it's going to take a turn like Pokemon has. Pokemon VGC's are always doubles, four Pokemon out of six while a large portion of Pokemon competitive players, as far as I can tell, play singles, 6v6.

Tournaments for Smash 4 sanctioned by Nintendo (assuming they keep doing it now) will use For Glory mode rules while tournaments done otherwise will continue to have varied stages. Obviously, it'd be much easier to be good at both formats in Smash 4 than it is in Pokemon, so there wouldn't be as much of a dividing line.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Heh. I didn't make that connection when I made that post. I just thought it was a way of making the game less "campy." But you might well be right.

I kind of hope we don't just play For Glory mode. Nonetheless, a more balanced FD is a good thing regardless.

EDIT: It occurred to me that the changes to throw lag could also serve as a way of making FD more balanced. The two most common complaints about FD (i.e., chaingrabs and projectiles) have both been addressed. I really think you're on to something here.

Look at this.

Throws (at least in Marth's case shown here) have clearly been tweaked. His up throw shows KO potential, as stated.

With almost pin-point accuracy, they nipped the only two issues in the bud that people had with Final Destination as the single stage in For Glory.

I don't think necessarily that in tournaments that means we should only use Final Destination, stage variety does occasionally make things way more interesting but I think it's quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that at this point, Sakurai was not bluffing.

This game will and is being balanced around Final Destination. This means For Glory as a mode will be competitively valid, and a justifiable stadium to exemplify skill.

 

[guedes the brawler]

I find Norfair flipping upside down distracting

Lava rain should be pretty distracting

 

[LiteralGrill]

II find Norfair flipping upside down distracting

You should sinceit actually isn't supposed to flip upside down! Bad joke aside, I think you meant Frigate Orpheon.

Lava rain should be pretty distracting

It's also on somewhat of a timer and has tells for which hazard is going to come a good bit before it does.

 

[ryuu seika]

Norfair is a horrendous stage regardless and, even without the lava, I don't think I would enjoy it.

 

[Oops!]

You should sinceit actually isn't supposed to flip upside down! Bad joke aside, I think you meant Frigate Orpheon.



It's also on somewhat of a timer and has tells for which hazard is going to come a good bit before it does.

Lava rain should be pretty distracting

Haha, my bad. I get them mixed up, but I don't like Norfair either. The inevitable battle for the enclosed platforms during the lava surges would also bother me in a competitive match.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Norfair is a horrendous stage regardless and, even without the lava, I don't think I would enjoy it.

But if it was good for competition would you make it legal despite not enjoying it?

Haha, my bad. I get them mixed up, but I don't like Norfair either. The inevitable battle for the enclosed platforms during the lava surges would also bother me in a competitive match.

There doesn't need to be a battle, you can actually grab the ledge, sheild, dodge, and there are even a few character specific exploits to avoid it entirely.

 

[ryuu seika]

Sure, my own personal enjoyment isn't the main factor in stage legality and never should be. If, however, dislike of a stage is universal, should that warrant a ban?

 

[Oops!]

There doesn't need to be a battle, you can actually grab the ledge, sheild, dodge, and there are even a few character specific exploits to avoid it entirely.

I had no idea; I don't play on it often, but that's interesting.

 

[mimgrim]

Norfair's problem isn't the lava (lava really isn't that bad compared to the main problem), it's that is has it is incredibly easy for a character like Wario to stall out on the stage because of his air mobility.

 

[Malex]

Sure, my own personal enjoyment isn't the main factor in stage legality and never should be. If, however, dislike of a stage is universal, should that warrant a ban?

I don't think that personal preference (even if it is "universal") should be the basis of something being banned or not. Does it happen? Probably.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sure, my own personal enjoyment isn't the main factor in stage legality and never should be. If, however, dislike of a stage is universal, should that warrant a ban?

If we use logic, just because a majority says something doesn't mean it is how it should be done.

If the stage warranted a ban (it was actually broken) yes. But in all honesty if the stage didn't actually cause a problem and wasn't broken, we technically shouldn't ban it.

 

[Malex]

Actually, the whole discussion of personal preference and banning reminds me of an excerpt from Sirlin's "Playing to Win." In it, he talks about "Hard Bans" and "Soft Bans." I'll post it.

The Two Excellent Examples of “Super Turbo”

Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, or “Super Turbo,” is a wonderful example of bannings in fighting games. As of this writing, the arcade game is ten years old and still played in tournaments. In fact, there are one or two tournaments per week in this game in Tokyo alone. The game is quite mature, and there is a decade of data about the game’s balance.

Many versions of Street Fighter have "secret characters" that are only accessible through a code. Sometimes these characters are good; sometimes they're not. Occasionally, the secret characters are the best in the game as in the game Marvel vs. Capcom 1. Big deal. That's the way that game is. Live with it. But Super Turbo was the first version of Street Fighter to ever have a secret character: the untouchably good Akuma. Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since. I believe this was the correct decision.

Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.

That's all well and good, but Japan has also shown signs of a soft-ban on another character in Super Turbo. I bring up this example because it lives on the threshold. It is just on the edge of what is reasonable to ban because it is "too good." Anything less than this would not be reasonable, so perhaps others can use it as a benchmark to decide what is reasonable in their games.

The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

If someone had made these claims in the game's infancy, no sort of ban would be warranted. Further testing through tournaments would be warranted. But we now have ten years of testing. We don't have all Old Sagat vs. Old Sagat matches in tournaments, but we do know which characters can't beat him and as a result are very rarely played in America. We likewise can see that this same category of characters flourishes in Japan, where Old Sagats are rare and only played by the occasional violator of the soft ban. It seems that the added variety of viable characters might outweigh the lack of Old Sagat. Is this ban warranted then? To be honest, I am not totally convinced that it is, but it is just barely in the ballpark of reasonableness since there is a decade of data on which to base the claim.

So, you could argue that Japanese players "prefer" that Old Sagat is not played, but it happens. Anyway, an interesting take on the situation.

 

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

Apologies if this has been discussed, but are we worried about the influx of online warriors that will only be used to the online ruleset?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Apologies if this has been discussed, but are we worried about the influx of online warriors that will only be used to the online ruleset?

Can you elaborate what you even mean by "online warriors", and what there is to worry about?

In Sm4sh 4, if you can perform well in For Glory, it will translate well in to normal couch/with friends play. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

 

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

Can you elaborate what you even mean by "online warriors", and what there is to worry about?

In Sm4sh 4, if you can perform well in For Glory, it will translate well in to normal couch/with friends play. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Players who only play online is what I mean. They will not be used to playing on platforms. Im bringing this up because I have known shrubs that are only used to FD and think platforms are not fair. We will be dealing with a lot of these people since a competitive online standard is being set.

 

[Malex]

I suppose they can do their complaining at sign ups. Ultimately, they will conform to the standard or they won't play. (This is true no matter what rules you play with)

What will we do? Nothing. We will continue on as normal.

 

[JoeInky]

My gut reaction is to say no simply because I prefer the idea of having varied stages.

But with nerfed projectiles, nerfed grabs and increased landing lag making platforms annoying as hell, I may have to go with yes for this.

I'm still going to wait for the game to release before I actually form a proper opinion depending on how many changes there are, but the idea of only playing on final destination kinda makes me feel sad, it just sounds bland - especially considering battlefield and smashville are my favourite stages.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

My gut reaction is to say no simply because I prefer the idea of having varied stages.

But with nerfed projectiles, nerfed grabs and increased landing lag making platforms annoying as hell, I may have to go with yes for this.

I'm still going to wait for the game to release before I actually form a proper opinion depending on how many changes there are, but the idea of only playing on final destination kinda makes me feel sad, it just sounds bland - especially considering battlefield and smashville are my favourite stages.

Maybe the varied landscapes of the many different final destinations will have more affect than you think though. I honestly feel like we may be underestimating just how much of an impact even just changing the scenery will have on the feel of a stage even if it's the same layout, technically.

 

[Deleted member]

Maybe the varied landscapes of the many different final destinations will have more affect than you think though. I honestly feel like we may be underestimating just how much of an impact even just changing the scenery will have on the feel of a stage even if it's the same layout, technically.

General Aesthetic of a stage actually has a huge impact. For example, I downloaded a Luigi's Mansion skin to replace Dracula's Castle in Project M, and it renders all my previous music tracks unusable. The stage plays the same, but the atmosphere and crud feel completely different. I bet the same principal will apply to the varied Final Destinations.

 

[KeketheBasedCat]

I feel like the two cons you listed "Arbitrarily cutting perfectly good stages" and "arbitrarily making some characters better" are big enough to invalidate the idea entirely.
Also, we've only seen footage of like 20 characters right? Are we that sure that Sakuri is balancing moves around For Glory mode? Even if he is, are we sure that's not just another one of his occasional bad ideas?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I feel like the two cons you listed "Arbitrarily cutting perfectly good stages" and "arbitrarily making some characters better" are big enough to invalidate the idea entirely.
Also, we've only seen footage of like 20 characters right? Are we that sure that Sakuri is balancing moves around For Glory mode? Even if he is, are we sure that's not just another one of his occasional bad ideas?

If observed changes in grab > throw distance, and across the board projectile nerfs end up being in the final build (seems unlikely those are unintentional), those cons don't even exist.

We have actual, tangible evidence of these things being done to the mechanics, you'd have to have a pretty strong point to argue against the validity of For Glory modes "Final Destination Only" rule set.

 

[KeketheBasedCat]

How does observed changes in grab>throw distance negate the fact that we'd be cutting out perfectly good stages? Also what about characters who don't reply on projectiles or throw distances to be good on a flat stage (for example, if ice climbers were to have an infinite or if a character had a particularly good static stage-control item like diddy did in brawl.)
Also, let's say that there is (somehow) no character with a clear advantage on flat stages with no platforms. Even then, unique stage interactions and stage-dependent matchups are a defining quality of the smash series. We would just be short-changing one of the gameplay aspects that sets the smashs series apart from other fighting games.

 

[Oops!]

I suppose they can do their complaining at sign ups. Ultimately, they will conform to the standard or they won't play. (This is true no matter what rules you play with)

What will we do? Nothing. We will continue on as normal.

This is exactly what I was talking about when comparing it to Pokemon. The non-Nintendo-officiated competitive scene might stay the same while the Nintendo-officiated competitive scene relies on the FD-only ruleset and thinks platforms are weird. As I said, though, the gap between the two wouldn't be as large as in Pokemon. Throwing a few platforms into the fray isn't nearly as different as singles and doubles. But I think what @ BBG|Scott-Spain said about the "online warriors" is a perfectly valid fear.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Apologies if this has been discussed, but are we worried about the influx of online warriors that will only be used to the online ruleset?

I've brought it up a few times yes. It is a really big point that lots of new people will have FD = Competition in their heads.

I suppose they can do their complaining at sign ups. Ultimately, they will conform to the standard or they won't play. (This is true no matter what rules you play with)

What will we do? Nothing. We will continue on as normal.

That's a bad idea. I'm not saying we have to change just to please a few folks, but just ignoring them isn't smart either. We did that for a lot of things in Brawl and we hurt the scene incredibly by doing so.

The won't play can be a much more powerful effect then you would thinks, we could lose potential smashers by the thousands if we just ignore them. Now, educating people is a different story, or compromising even.