A Reevaluation of Stage Hazards

[LiteralGrill]

Actually, it'd be just like Sakurai to put Ridley in as a stage hazard, with all the people who've been asking for him to be a playable character (I don't think he'd work well as one anyway, but I'll stop before I upset somebody).

let's get back on topic, there are entire threads for this discussion.

 

[TopTierPichu]

in all seriousness I dislike the idea of having other non characters be hazards to have another character on screen in a 4 player madness just throws me off (I can't even stand assist trophies), i don't think the majority of hazards will be NPCs but just the stage being the stage, mind you some times those NPCs are on some stages like Kraid was in melee but that is a dime in a dozen.

 

[Burning Boom]

Well, I think that if you're playing 4-player versus, you're asking for chaos, especially on smaller stages. Doubles is a different matter, but I don't have much knowledge on that subject.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Doubles is a different matter, but I don't have much knowledge on that subject.

Attempting to get things back on topic, can anyone think of a stage in Brawl that could be legal but only in doubles?

 

[mimgrim]

Attempting to get things back on topic, can anyone think of a stage in Brawl that could be legal but only in doubles?

Big stages. I could like see Bridge of Eldin be in doubles, or possibly even New Pork Town as in doubles it is harder to camp, CG -> death, or circle stall as you have a teammate to help you prevent those things. In theory anyway, not sure in practice.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Big stages. I could like see Bridge of Eldin be in doubles, or possibly even New Pork Town as in doubles it is harder to camp, CG -> death, or circle stall as you have a teammate to help you prevent those things. In theory anyway, not sure in practice.

New Pork is still probably WAY too big. I remember back when Hanenbow was legal quite a bit in doubles only. One of the problems is when you get to a 2 v 1 on a huge stage the stalling happens still.

 

[mimgrim]

New Pork is still probably WAY too big. I remember back when Hanenbow was legal quite a bit in doubles only. One of the problems is when you get to a 2 v 1 on a huge stage the stalling happens still.

It probably is which is why I said "possibly even" but the general statement still stands that bigger stages are generally better in doubles then they are in singles. Eldin and New Pork were the first to come to my mind. But after some thought I could see Onett, Corneria, and perhaps Big Blue, Mario Bros, and 75m as doubles only.

 

[WindMajor]

Man I remember when I used to talk stages years ago. This kind of discussion really brings me back.

The two biggest obstacles that Brawl had to deal with was the spread of misinformation and the tendency to forge stage lists with emotions as opposed to logic. If there is a reason to dislike a stage, players will hold that reason close to their chest and never let go, even if the reason is completely wrong. The only advice I have is to use things that will trump emotion, like money or prestige. Despite not being very popular, logic allowed Norfair to make it onto MLG, and people still attended because MLG is MLG. Lots of prize money, lots of prestige. Had it been a tournament of less prestige, attendance would not be guaranteed. The Japanese Brawl players used to only play on three stages, but because Apex was Apex, they decided to start playing on more stages. See where I'm going with this?

It's sad to say, but getting a controversial stage legalized has more to do with politics than logic and reason. It's important to note though that logic is your starting point. A stage like Wario Ware won't get legalized, no matter how much **** you suck.

 

[Morbi]

Man I remember when I used to talk stages years ago. This kind of discussion really brings me back.

The two biggest obstacles that Brawl had to deal with was the spread of misinformation and the tendency to forge stage lists with emotions as opposed to logic. If there is a reason to dislike a stage, players will hold that reason close to their chest and never let go, even if the reason is completely wrong. The only advice I have is to use things that will trump emotion, like money or prestige. Despite not being very popular, logic allowed Norfair to make it onto MLG, and people still attended because MLG is MLG. Lots of prize money, lots of prestige. Had it been a tournament of less prestige, attendance would not be guaranteed. The Japanese Brawl players used to only play on three stages, but because Apex was Apex, they decided to start playing on more stages. See where I'm going with this?

It's sad to say, but getting a controversial stage legalized has more to do with politics than logic and reason. It's important to note though that logic is your starting point. A stage like Wario Ware won't get legalized, no matter how much **** you suck.

I agree with everything aside from that last notion. I am an adamant believer that you can accomplish anything you want if you suck the right ****.

 

[SmasherP82]

I agree with everything aside from that last notion. I am an adamant believer that you can accomplish anything you want if you suck the right ****.

wait? So if I suck the right **** I'll finally be better at moving stages? (I'm sorry I have to say this but that just sounds nasty)

 

[Morbi]

New Pork is still probably WAY too big. I remember back when Hanenbow was legal quite a bit in doubles only. One of the problems is when you get to a 2 v 1 on a huge stage the stalling happens still.

Sometimes I stall against bots on New Pork City. That map is WAY too big... WAY too big... WAY too big. Sorry, I wished to emphasize that point.

 

[TimeSmash]

Rainbow Cruise right? That thing's banned because playing competitively on a constantly changing stage is annoying as heck. You can wall of pain a person so hard when the ground below them gives out.

Annoying as heck isn't a valid reason in my mind. And someone getting punished by the stage simply moving means they aren't accustomed to the stage.

Rainbow Cruise is unique in the fact that the hazard is the stage itself, much like PokeFloats. I can see why these stages are banned because they are way too dynamic and because they distract too much from the fight itself. I think that a stage hazard should serve somewhat as a distraction, but one that you can merge into your gameplay and isn't too crazy (think Norfair lava or most moving stages).

As long as we're on the topic of moving stages, I think that Mute City would make a badass stage if the cars were removed. Aside from the walk-off edges, anyways.

I hold to the rule if the stage itself can kill you, a ban is warranted. Competitive Smash is you vs. the opponent in terms of character skill. Using hazards to your advantage doesn't really help that. And in addition, if players should use stages to their advantage, why not allow all the stages?

I would say that's a good way to ban a stage, but there are exceptions to the rule. Didn't we discuss even how a stage like Smashville can kill you? Players use different stages because they (or their chracters, to an extent) are better suited for that stage. However, if a stage offers a huge advantage to one character, then its legality is up for question.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It probably is which is why I said "possibly even" but the general statement still stands that bigger stages are generally better in doubles then they are in singles. Eldin and New Pork were the first to come to my mind. But after some thought I could see Onett, Corneria, and perhaps Big Blue, Mario Bros, and 75m as doubles only.

Hmm... Onett could be interesting, there was once a lot of fight for that stage to be in singles even. And Corneria is interesting, hazards aside, I wonder if the camping spots would be as effective in doubles?

Man I remember when I used to talk stages years ago. This kind of discussion really brings me back.

The two biggest obstacles that Brawl had to deal with was the spread of misinformation and the tendency to forge stage lists with emotions as opposed to logic. If there is a reason to dislike a stage, players will hold that reason close to their chest and never let go, even if the reason is completely wrong. The only advice I have is to use things that will trump emotion, like money or prestige. Despite not being very popular, logic allowed Norfair to make it onto MLG, and people still attended because MLG is MLG. Lots of prize money, lots of prestige. Had it been a tournament of less prestige, attendance would not be guaranteed. The Japanese Brawl players used to only play on three stages, but because Apex was Apex, they decided to start playing on more stages. See where I'm going with this?

It's sad to say, but getting a controversial stage legalized has more to do with politics than logic and reason. It's important to note though that logic is your starting point. A stage like Wario Ware won't get legalized, no matter how much **** you suck.

To start, I've read every single page of every stage discussion thread you can imagine, and in a strange way it's an honor to see a "hero" of mine here.

Next, you raise very fair points. If we start from the VERY beginning, we can at least fight SOME of the misinformation. Taking a stand for stages that have a better chance for staying vs something like what people did for Rumble Falls may also be a good idea, focus where an impact can actually be made. I got plans to start testing stages as much as possible day 1 instead of having fun playing the game. I shall sacrifice.

Emotions do really suck, but in a way I think the 3DS version of smash will help though. It will be the more "casual" version to people looking at competition as of now, and with SO many more 3DS consoles out we'll want to be able to be a bit more welcoming to the new people who may come pouring in, and having less restrictions will make them feel welcome. And some transparency when making decisions will make them feel properly represented so they care to be well informed and look things up. As bad as PSASBR was during my time with it, anyone who needed to know something or had a question got it answered and it did TONS to making things better in discussions.

And worse comes to worse, us focused on the 3DS can MAKE our own prestige, have the largest and best tournaments on our console. There's already a lot of things in favor of us doing things differently in several other ways, we may even be forced to with stages, so I have hopes that logic and information will win out this time.

If not, I can always make like a 100 page long thread where we discuss it all day.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

hey guys
instead of coming up with absurd, baseless criteria
use the method I promote in this thread http://www.smashboards.com/threads/grims-views-on-stage-legality-the-competitive-criteria.315529/

please and thank, god bless

 

[Ghostbone]

Basically any moving stage or any stage with a variable hazard (only ones that wouldn't fall under that in Brawl are like, Onett's cars and the Klaptrap on Japes) should be banned.

Has to do with forcing one player to commit to an action giving the other player a free punish opportunity they didn't earn.
And randomness in general being something we want to avoid where we can.

And tbh it's impossible to make a set of criteria that you can fairly judge every stage on, every stage is unique and different elements will have varying degrees of effects, it's better to judge every stage individually most of the time, even if it's not objective (hint, there is no objective criteria for banning anything).

 

[Thor]

Basically any moving stage or any stage with a variable hazard (only ones that wouldn't fall under that in Brawl are like, Onett's cars and the Klaptrap on Japes) should be banned.

I know I'll be called bat**** crazy for saying this, but in SSB 64, I honestly didn't mind either the wind on Dreamland (which could push a Resting Jigglypuff to its death and choose directions semi-randomly) or the randomly located tornados on Hyrule too much. If those stages returned (and better yet, if random fast tornados were removed) I would support Dreamland for Starter and Hyrule for CP (at least in Doubles), even though they both contain variable hazards.

Although Dreamland technically doesn't force a player to commit to an action (not that I know of...).

 

[Ghostbone]

And this is why you judge every stage individually

Dreamland's wind is obviously such a minor/accountable hazard compared to what we gain from having the stage legal (in 64 it's basically the only neutral stage, in Melee the size of the stage and blastzones is very important for most matchups).

Hyrule's pretty BS and would be banned in Melee or Brawl (even if we had 64 wall physics), but since it's only one of like, 3 viable stages to play on, it's usually legal (though there is a movement to ban it or at least have it as counterpick only). But it also has to do with the campy nature of the stage rather than just the tornados.

 

[Thor]

Wow derp, just emulated it up and you're right, I was thinking the stage was half as long as it really was. But if Sakurai compressed everything but the 3 platforms in the middle I think the stage would be acceptable (because it'd be way less campy), except for the cavern of life, and here's something else that will get me tomatoed, but how about making JUST the walls of the greenhouse (not the top) untechable? Like, sides of all stages and every platform can be teched (sides of all stages like Smashville, Battlefield, FD, etc.) but not this one structure (and maybe parts of say, Temple that contribute to the cavern of life)? I'm sure there are a million reasons I've not thought of that not allowing certain parts of stages ('floating' only, no grounded walls like Shadow Moses Island when the pillars are up) to be teachable is an atrocious idea, but I'd be interested to see what happens if that stage was shrunk and people couldn't tech the greenhouse.

[bullet passes hair]

Eh, I gotta get out of here, my ideas are dumber than I thought...

 

[WindMajor]

I draw the line when certain components of the stage are just unreasonable to deal with. For example, I think the hazards on Halberd are fine because they are telegraphed enough to justify it being your mistake and not the stage's. However, things like reversed controls on Spear Pillar really get in the way, to the point where I don't even blame the player if they lost because of it. I think my limit on this would be where the BBR drew the line. I think it's reasonable to expect players to not throw out random attacks near the bombs in Green Greens, to stay grounded and avoid the lava plumes in Norfair, to avoid the cars in PTAD, etc. However, Spear Pillar? That's past what I find acceptable.

On another note, in terms of how much hazards should be able to punish you, I always believed that if it's acceptable for Ice Climbers to get one grab and remove your stock at 0%, then it's acceptable for a hazard to do the same. Whether it was the stage or the player that hit you, as long as it was reasonable to avoid, you should have just avoided it. No johns.

To start, I've read every single page of every stage discussion thread you can imagine, and in a strange way it's an honor to see a "hero" of mine here.

And it's an honor to be someone's "hero". I feel really old now though haha.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

But how is it fair that the stage will target only one player with the claw in every (average) Halberd game?
Doesn't matter if it's telegraphed, it's still unearned.

Plus even if it does target both players, the specific time that it targets both players can make a big difference.

/making Ghost's argument for him

 

[Thor]

Well, reversed controls mess up both players... like, it's probably a reason you just look to avoid them for a time - and if they've practiced reversed controls than it's just them using stage hazards to their advantage, and the issue of it being reversed is avoidable by simply practicing with reversed controls, so no johns. If you SD even at 0% thanks to the stage, well, a stage hazard, like an IC grab, got you good. Should've just not tried aerial combat and not used your recovery right away - no johns.

Note that I actually disagree with most of what I just wrote (I don't appreciate trying to Falco Phantasm exactly when my controls flip...) but I do think zero-death hazards are a bit extreme unless the stage has many other redeeming qualities (I might put Smashville as a CP if it had the Chimera from New Pork City, but that's my opinion).

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I have always been a very liberal stage list advocate but this thread has actually gotten me rethinking my stance on sspecifically halberd. That claw directly interferes with the match. Lots of hazards are tools to be used but the claw can just outright get in the way of the actual match. Say you are recovering and it is close to attack time. You now have a pure random chance of having the claw directly interfere with your recovery by forcing an airdodge or killing you outright if you don't. Or it could completely leave you alone. This is a random effect that directly impacts who has the advantage that can occur in a fashion that cannot be played around. The rest of the hazards on this stage are no problem though. laser is too easy to work around.

I have a similar opinion of the line in Pictochat that had an active gimping effect prior to it visibly appearing.

 

[WindMajor]

But how is it fair that the stage will target only one player with the claw in every (average) Halberd game?
Doesn't matter if it's telegraphed, it's still unearned.

Plus even if it does target both players, the specific time that it targets both players can make a big difference.

/making Ghost's argument for him

An argument against things that are unearned is silly. The opponent did the same exact input to throw a waddle dee as he did to throw a gordo. No extra effort was given, but the extra reward was there. Was that earned? What about a stitch face? Or getting saved by the support ghost in Yoshi's Island? Or having the Smashville platform be in the right place at the right time? Or winning because your opponent randomly self-destructed?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Don't need to be black-and-white about it

There is obviously an advantage to keeping Smashville, Dedede and Peach legal that isn't present for Halberd. And a self-destruct isn't 'random', it's because you exert pressure. You would never self-destruct if your opponent didn't exist.

 

[WindMajor]

The thing that hooks all those things together is culpability. It's always somebody's dumb mistake to blame for misfortune falling upon them. You don't self-destruct on purpose, it's an accident that happens when you push the wrong buttons. Peach and Dedede's lame attacks don't always land when they're thrown, you have to let them hit you so it'll be successful. Smashville's platform doesn't always save people, but when it does, why weren't you on the platform ready to ensure their death? It's the same thing for Halberd. The claw doesn't always hit you, but when it does, it's nobody's fault but your own. The only difference that I can see between a gordo and a claw is the person attacking, but it doesn't really matter if it's your opponent or the stage that's attacking you, what matters is whether you can dodge it or not. The fact that the claw is telegraphed also matters, because it means that both players should brace for impact. It's having the same affect on both players until the last second.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Hold up dude
Yes, both players can brace for impact. Or the worse player/the player who is behind and needs momentum can take the chance that the claw won't target them, and attempt to capitalize on the claw targeting the other player.
This doesn't happen with Smashville, the platform starts in a random position but after that you always know where it's going to be; chance has much less of an effect on the outcome.

And I was saying that YES all the things you mentioned have the same problem as Halberd, they randomly affect the outcome of the match, but I was saying that they are WORTH keeping legal for the things they bring to the game, while Halberd isn't. Which you didn't address.

 

[Burning Boom]

Hold up dude
Yes, both players can brace for impact. Or the worse player/the player who is behind and needs momentum can take the chance that the claw won't target them, and attempt to capitalize on the claw targeting the other player.
This doesn't happen with Smashville, the platform starts in a random position but after that you always know where it's going to be; chance has much less of an effect on the outcome.

And I was saying that YES all the things you mentioned have the same problem as Halberd, they randomly affect the outcome of the match, but I was saying that they are WORTH keeping legal for the things they bring to the game, while Halberd isn't. Which you didn't address.

Evaluating whether or not we should allow something because of some arbitrary value we attach to it is ridiculous, at that point, we're not actually talking about how we play the game, but personal emotions. Also, Halberd is an interesting stage, has a unique-ish stage layout, the base can be gone through for half of the battle, it's one of the few stages with walls, it has kick-ass music, an argument can always be made towards value, especially since we're comparing things that are very different in purpose.

Back on topic though, if you get hit by the claw on Halberd (or any of its other hazards) than it's your fault, even if you're in a position where you couldn't prepare yourself defensively, you put yourself in that position, and all of the hazards on Halberd give you a decent warning.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

How exactly do you intend to evaluate stages, if not by some arbitrary value we attach to them?

Of course it's your fault, any loss ever is your fault, that's the essence of no johns. Even being ****ed over by WarioWare could be argued to be 'your fault'. Reasonableness isn't objective; Ghost happens to believe that Halberd's level of randomness is unreasonable, you (probably) believe that WarioWare's level of randomness is unreasonable. Neither of you are wrong, stage legality is just opinions.

btw halberd doesn't have walls lol

 

[WindMajor]

Hold up dude
Yes, both players can brace for impact. Or the worse player/the player who is behind and needs momentum can take the chance that the claw won't target them, and attempt to capitalize on the claw targeting the other player.
This doesn't happen with Smashville, the platform starts in a random position but after that you always know where it's going to be; chance has much less of an effect on the outcome.

And I was saying that YES all the things you mentioned have the same problem as Halberd, they randomly affect the outcome of the match, but I was saying that they are WORTH keeping legal for the things they bring to the game, while Halberd isn't. Which you didn't address.

I don't understand your argument at all. They all have the same cons, but one is unacceptable because it doesn't have all the same pros? Or the pros don't amount to anything worthwhile? Am I getting it right?

 

[Burning Boom]

]

How exactly do you intend to evaluate stages, if not by some arbitrary value we attach to them?

Of course it's your fault, any loss ever is your fault, that's the essence of no johns. Even being ****ed over by WarioWare could be argued to be 'your fault'. Reasonableness isn't objective; Ghost happens to believe that Halberd's level of randomness is unreasonable, you (probably) believe that WarioWare's level of randomness is unreasonable. Neither of you are wrong, stage legality is just opinions.

btw halberd doesn't have walls lol

Really? Huh, I thought I remembered the deck extending down to the bottom boundry.

Anyway,you're correct in that I have a problem with Wario Ware, but it's not because it's imbalanced, that it could kill you, or really anything that's applicable to too many other stages (aside from other obvious bans like Hanebow). It's that the game comes to a screeching halt out of necessity whenever a minigame comes up. Most require you to go very out of your way to "pass" like standing still, taunting, popping balloons, chisseling stone, staying in a small area, and more. Of course, you could ignore the commands, but the problem comes in that not only does the game reward you for "passing" through power-ups, it often punishes you for failing with a nerf. Also, this kind of thing can happen very frequently, at complete random, so the game could slow to a crawl.

Halberd on the other hand, has few hazards, they're easily avoided, are infrequent, and often just make you play a bit differently, rather than overriding what the game is actually about.

Although they both have hazards, the difference between Halberd and Wario Ware is so big that I don't think that they can be compared in terms of specifics.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't understand your argument at all. They all have the same cons, but one is unacceptable because it doesn't have all the same pros? Or the pros don't amount to anything worthwhile? Am I getting it right?

That's right. The decisions are
"Do we ban Halberd?"
"Do we ban Peach?"

For Halberd, we can use the randomness as a con and also factor in the advantages of having another stage to play on, how the randomness can be mitigated, etc...
For Peach, we can use the randomness as a con, and also factor in the advantages of having another character to play as, how the randomness can be mitigated, etc...
And in that respect, Halberd and Peach are on a completely different level, which is why I said not to look at things in black-and-white terms.

]Anyway,you're correct in that I have a problem with Wario Ware, but it's not because it's imbalanced, that it could kill you, or really anything that's applicable to too many other stages (aside from other obvious bans like Hanebow). It's that the game comes to a screeching halt out of necessity whenever a minigame comes up. Most require you to go very out of your way to "pass" like standing still, taunting, popping balloons, chisseling stone, staying in a small area, and more. Of course, you could ignore the commands, but the problem comes in that not only does the game reward you for "passing" through power-ups, it often punishes you for failing with a nerf. Also, this kind of thing can happen very frequently, at complete random, so the game could slow to a crawl.

Halberd on the other hand, has few hazards, they're easily avoided, are infrequent, and often just make you play a bit differently, rather than overriding what the game is actually about.

Although they both have hazards, the difference between Halberd and Wario Ware is so big that I don't think that they can be compared in terms of specifics.

See this sounds a lot more like attaching arbitrary values to stages and personal emotions than what I was saying about Halberd

 

[Burning Boom]

See this sounds a lot more like attaching arbitrary values to stages and personal emotions than what I was saying about Halberd

Your actual complaints didn't bother me, it was the idea of assigning value to say, Peach vs. Halberd, when they're obviously very different (character versus stage). At least the comparison's being made up to that point were on very similar concepts of design portions of them shared, but assigning them comparable values as whole just seems rather silly.

Also, I don't see what "arbitrary values" I assigned, I simply talked about the hazards, and they're affects on general play, from my personal experience. The only thing that I can see being deemed arbitrary is how I said that WW overrides the game, but I showed reasoning, and I don't think you could say I'm wrong. If you want to hear my "personal emotions" about Wario Ware, it'll get a lot more.... "colorful" let's just say.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My reasoning for why Halberd should be banned - it introduces an element of chance, which is a direct antithesis of competition - seemed a lot less arbitrary than "weeeellll this is how the game should be played imo, and warioware makes you do all of this weird stuff that I don't like - OH and it slows down the game, which is pretty bad too", no?

That is not to say that we should ban everything that has a random influence on the outcome of the match, which is what I've been trying to say. Peach brings a lot more to the game than Halberd does, comparing a character and a stage is silly, but I wasn't the one that brought up that comparison - Twinkie did.

 

[BlueXenon]

To be honest, I haven't read the other posts in this thread yet because I'm going to sleep soon, but this is my opinion. I might reply to other posts tomorrow.

I think stages with hazards and hitboxes should be legal in tournaments as long as it doens't promote extremely defensive play and follows a predictable pattern. If a stage flips every 2 minutes, that is very predictable and you should know to prepare for it. If you die because you didn't know about it, that's your fault and you should have took the time to learn the stages. Metaknight has caused many good stages to be removed from the stagelist in brawl, but hopefully this doesn't happen again in Smash 4. I also think the more stages there are, the more balanced the game is because different characters are better or worse on different stages. The removal of stages in brawl hurt a lot of mid tier characters imo and further separated the top tier from the mid tier in how good they are.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It separates the mid tiers from the top tier further

but the alternative is that the top tier is spread out further
cause MK is broken on lots of stages
ICs are broken on some stages
Falco/Diddy/Olimar/Snake are really good on some stages
Wario is really good on some stages

etc... etc...
with the starter list we have, all of the top/high tiers are closer together than they would be otherwise, and the metagame is healthier because of it

 

[Thor]

Yeah no offense but Diddy, Olimar, and Falco are all probably helped by the loss of RC [certainly not hurt much;. Diddy's bananas hang around a lot, Olimar loses some of the random gimps factor that kills him, and Falco can camp easier and shoot lasers on the level and chaingrab somewhat more and he also won't get on the wrong side of random gimps (note that I use the word randomly very poorly - I mean to say that a stray blow may lead to edgeguards on RC, such as on the swinging platform near the top left of the stage, while that will not happen nearly so much on FD or BF. Note: I support RC, even though I don't necessarily enjoy fighting MK there). Meanwhile, I think Pit is aided somewhat by RC (steering arrows, many places to recover to with those wings, smaller blast zones at certain areas can alleviate some of his occasional KO issues). Maybe I'm all wrong about this (maybe RC helps Falco and hurts Pit???) but I'm sure there's someone you can make the case for who is -X against various top tiers and adding RC back helps them/hurts them less than the top tiers.

-----

Bottom line: I think one reason certain characters are so dominant is that they are powerful on neutral stages where their weaknesses are harder to exploit, while stages like RC help expose them for mid-tiers (and in the case of Brinstar and Donkey Kong, cover some weaknesses of mid-tiers). But MK causes "sketchy" stuff to be banned because he can exploit nearly everything making it that much harder for other top tiers against him while not helping mid-tiers as much (Pit doesn't gain as much from taking MK to RC as he would from taking Falco or Diddy there, if he benefits in taking MK there at all).

EDIT: Read GT's post, and I agree about the spreading of the top tier. I don't know that the metagame is "healthier" but I do agree we shouldn't make ICs broken (but don't ban FD for it, that stage is fine for so many other MUs).

 

[WindMajor]

edit: mega ninja'd

@Grim: Your thoughts on randomness contradict each other, so I'm just gonna ignore them. It looks like to me that you're making a case on redundancy, and using an instance of randomness to reject a stage completely. As an example, it's like saying that Dreamland in Melee should be banned because we already have a perfectly static Battlefield which is nearly identical, and the randomness that comes with the tree in the background brings nothing worthwhile that Battlefield doesn't already bring.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Except Dreamland does bring enough to the game to warrant the randomness, imo
Where-as Halberd, arguably, doesn't

Explain the contradiction plz
I pointed out a NEGATIVE of Halberd that CONTRIBUTES to the stage being banned
This is also a NEGATIVE of Peach/Dedede/Smashville, but the POSITIVES out-weight this negative
No contradictions there bro

 

[Burning Boom]

My reasoning for why Halberd should be banned - it introduces an element of chance, which is a direct antithesis of competition - seemed a lot less arbitrary than "weeeellll this is how the game should be played imo, and warioware makes you do all of this weird stuff that I don't like - OH and it slows down the game, which is pretty bad too", no?

That is not to say that we should ban everything that has a random influence on the outcome of the match, which is what I've been trying to say. Peach brings a lot more to the game than Halberd does, comparing a character and a stage is silly, but I wasn't the one that brought up that comparison - Twinkie did.

Wait, are you trying to imply that WW doesn't introduce an element of chance? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .

Now, you took my argument, paraphrased it to sound ridiculous, and said that that proved something. See, I can do that with your argument, let's try: "I, I I, might get HIIITT!! Who's to say that if I hadn't failed so hard on every defensive level as to actually get hit by the super-telegraphed attack, I wouldn't have won! Luck cannot co-exist with competition (ignore trading card games, Poker, lots of other video games, and Golf when I say this please)." See, doesn't that sound stupid, whiney and arbitrary now? Yet it proves nothing (except for the luck with competition point I threw in there).

You say that the stage shouldn't affect the match, but every stage does, even if just through its layout. Besides, a big part of being a good player is being able to adapt to situations, and different stages offer many interesting situations that we must adapt to. If someone is only good on three stages of the game, are they actually any good at the game?

Finally, since you seem to think that Peach is better than Halberd, I'll prove you wrong in the only objective way MATHEMATICALLY. It's simple really, in Brawl (the only way we can judge such things up to this point) we have less legal stages in most lists, than we do legal characters, therefore a stage has inherently more value. As I've said, I don't think this is a very relevant argument, but I felt like finally addressing it since it's become so prominent in your posts.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The thing that hooks all those things together is culpability. It's always somebody's dumb mistake to blame for misfortune falling upon them.

I saw this in a signature, it describes the concept VERY well.

KishPrime;13162627 said:

If I may sum it up as follows - what we're saying is that when I get hit by a car and my opponent takes advantage, I blame myself for letting myself get in a bad position. When you get hit by a car, you curse your bad luck and blame the stage for interfering with your match.​

It's kinda tough. I do admit it's honestly quite easily to work around the claw, but I don't like how randomly it can screw someone for no reason. I wouldn't complain if it were legal though.

Metaknight has caused many good stages to be removed from the stagelist in brawl, but hopefully this doesn't happen again in Smash 4. I also think the more stages there are, the more balanced the game is because different characters are better or worse on different stages. The removal of stages in brawl hurt a lot of mid tier characters imo and further separated the top tier from the mid tier in how good they are.

It separates the mid tiers from the top tier further
with the starter list we have, all of the top/high tiers are closer together than they would be otherwise, and the metagame is healthier because of it

Bottom line: I think one reason certain characters are so dominant is that they are powerful on neutral stages where their weaknesses are harder to exploit, while stages like RC help expose them for mid-tiers (and in the case of Brinstar and Donkey Kong, cover some weaknesses of mid-tiers). But MK causes "sketchy" stuff to be banned because he can exploit nearly everything making it that much harder for other top tiers against him while not helping mid-tiers as much (Pit doesn't gain as much from taking MK to RC as he would from taking Falco or Diddy there, if he benefits in taking MK there at all).

EDIT: Read GT's post, and I agree about the spreading of the top tier. I don't know that the metagame is "healthier" but I do agree we shouldn't make ICs broken (but don't ban FD for it, that stage is fine for so many other MUs).

I'll say something a bit out there, but what is more important, a "healthy metagame" or a "healthy scene"?

Look at what Brawl is today, such little variety, so many matches just the same boring thing. Sure, these kind of things slowly happen to ANY fighter, a tier list is seriously established, a bunch of people eventually drop it and leave, you start seeing the exact same matchups often, and you are left with the same people winning the same tournaments with the random people left sticking around hoping to somehow break in and still filling the pot with money, less and less money too.

Sure, some characters in top tiers get a ton better with some stages, but some of those stages were also some low tier character's chances of victory flushed down the drain. Ganon isn't going to be beating a competent MK player often, but Norfair may be his chance to take down that Ike he met in a bracket and get a win. Maybe these stages gave people with some serious stage knowledge and edge, and knowing their character got them somewhere more then just out in the first round. People like to have variety, they like to watch matchups and players with different characters. Every time you see a low tier main come to a tournament and start plowing through, winning matchups you wouldn't believe the hype builds, more people watch, our scene grows. Every time an Ice Climbers vs MK match on Smashville happens, we lose tons of people. I literally watched a grand finals match lose HALF its viewers on a stream to this because at that point, they could look up the winner later as no one wants to watch that boredom.

So yes, top tier characters get stages they are good on, but so do the low and mid tiers, and those stages can build hype, add variety, and keep the scene healthier and more entertaining for everyone.

(Side note characters that need TONS of rules just to attempt to level them out for play *coughMKcough* should have just been banned in the first place instead of banning things just to keep him around, we lost WAY more then we got from keeping MK legal. Thankfully next smash should have the capability for patches so we don't do anything as stupid as we did with MK).