Advantages and Disadvantages of a Battlefield-only stage list

[t3h Icy]

I think this has always been an interesting topic for discussion, and it's been discussed occasionally whenever stage list discussion comes up. I think due to the RoM5 drama going on right now and not having its own thread specifically for it before makes it a good time to make this.

Advantages
-Stage Striking, DSR, DMSR, Stage Counterpicking, Forced Character Selection are all removed, simplifying rules, and reducing time spent not actually playing sets.
-Arguably the most neutral stage in the game, and I would guess ~75% of sets start there due to stage striking.
-Match-ups don't change dramatically on Battlefield compared to other stages (Marth on FD, Peach on KJ64, Fox on PS, etc).
-Counterpicking as a whole is much more simpler and becomes just a change of characters.
-No lag or randomness as compared to other stages like PS, YS, and FoD (ICs dittos).
-Characters become somewhat more balanced among each other.
-Battlefield matches don't take as long as DL64, PS, etc, and is a lot more immune to timeouts. Despite DJN and Nintendude actually timed out on there tonight is interesting, but they played to do that intentionally. Match-ups such as Peach dittos which can naturally time out on DL64 are no longer a problem. This also helps tournaments run faster in general.
-Chaingrabbing, camping, etc, which are deemed lame to watch/play against are reduced.

Disadvantages
-Stage diversity becomes non-existant.
-Players that have become skilled/knowledgeable on other stages suffer a bit.
-"Battlefielding" (When a character clips the edge but doesn't grab it).
-Battlefield affects many characters recoveries negatively (Fox, Marth, Samus, etc), despite some slight character balance.
-Melee may become more bland.
-Disputes about how the doubles stage list changes would be a problem.
-This is a dramatic change to the stage list and likely wouldn't have everyone agreeing with it.
-Counterpicking is weaker.
-The ability to use multiple characters is not as useful.

Neutral/Facts/Other Notes
-Match-ups become more balanced and become easier to analyze. This can be good or bad.
-This may be more or less appealing to players by removing gimmicks, but making the game more bland.
-The background and stage's aesthetics are less kiddie than Yoshi's Story or Pokemon Stadium. Mostly a non-issue, but can be helpful for drawing in some people.
-Melee plays somewhat more like conventional fighting games.
-I believe most players would argue that Battlefield is the most neutral stage and it shows through stage striking. Players that believe a different stage is most neutral who think a 1-stage stagelist may disagree with Battlefield being the only one.
-Battlefield is very balanced in terms of vertical and horizontal deaths.
-Reducing the timer becomes a lot less of an issue. (Good or bad, depending on your stance about the timer).
-I don't believe there has ever been a tournament that used Battlefield only. Maybe some TOs could give it a test run if there's enough support of this idea.

My personal opinion would be for it, but it would have to be tried out to really know how this actually works out. So what's your opinion on it, do you think this would be a good step for Melee, etc? Also, should this thread pick up and many people think that a Battlefield only stagelist is a good idea, would any TOs be willing to try it out (say at some local or even a small smashfest)?

 

[Superspright]

I would agree except for the fact that FoD is the best stage. :D

BF is extremely balanced--but the edges sometimes mess up even the best.

 

[1000g2g3g4g800999]

The moving platforms on FoD are bad, it's a laggy stage, and it's too small.

 

[Bones0]

- I'm not sure how dumbing down character and stage selection is a pro. It removes a lot of skill required to be able to balance the different elements of each stage and how they will interact with you and your opponents' characters.

- It's pretty horrible to think about removing all but one stage so that there are less possible play styles to both use and fight against competently. All the skill in being able to adjust your play style to different elements (no plats, moving plats, high plats, low plats, big vs. small blastzones, etc) completely goes out the window. Instead you are only focused on how best to control space on BF, how to survival DI on BF, how to combo on BF, how to edgeguard on BF. You're basically cutting the depth of many game elements into 1/6th of what it is now.

- "Lame" tactics are avoided?! Maybe the FGC was right all along about our community if this is honestly the goal of changes being made to our rule set... We should also add in a ledge grab limit because grabbing the ledge is lame. We can also ban edge hogging. That's pretty lame when you're trying to get back and they're too cowardly to just hit you instead of holding on with invincibility.

- Melee on BF is just as far from a traditional fighter as Melee on any other legal stage. If our goal is to make our game FGC-approved, we should just do FD-only on Stamina Mode.

- A TO can run a BF-only tournament, but as long as there are TOs running the current rule set, I can't see a lot of people entering because it's just so boring to play the same stage all day, and as hard as it may be for some people to believe, not everything views BF as the pinnacle of balance in this game. I felt like half the pros I read were about matchups being more neutral or characters being more balanced and stuff. This is all completely subjective, and more importantly, prone to changing over time. It'd be pretty stupid to get of all of these great stages just so a year or two from now we realize that the game boils down to just a handful of linear strategies with only a few characters excelling.

I view stage diversity the same as genetic diversity in the evolutionary process. Diversity protects us from all-our-eggs-in-one-basket syndrome. Keeping diversity makes it a lot less likely that a minority of tactics or characters will ever dominate. It also means that even when players find something that works on a stage, it may or may not be the same on a different stage, and that only promotes further adaption of the technique instead of limiting how much it can evolve. With a game as old as Melee, the quickest way to become extinct is to stop evolving.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I hate this idea, but I think a much more valid suggestion is to play all 3 games on the stage you struck to.

[I hate that idea too, but its still better]

 

[EPsilon933]

- I'm not sure how dumbing down character and stage selection is a pro. It removes a lot of skill required to be able to balance the different elements of each stage and how they will interact with you and your opponents' characters.

It removes the random things like changing platform heights, wind, shyguys, and especially the entire floor changing

- It's pretty horrible to think about removing all but one stage so that there are less possible play styles to both use and fight against competently. All the skill in being able to adjust your play style to different elements (no plats, moving plats, high plats, low plats, big vs. small blastzones, etc) completely goes out the window. Instead you are only focused on how best to control space on BF, how to survival DI on BF, how to combo on BF, how to edgeguard on BF. You're basically cutting the depth of many game elements into 1/6th of what it is now.

I think it changes the game to focus more on character vs character, rather than stage(character vs character). I know Street Fighter and Marvel all have the same stage sizes. They seem to not have a problem with static sizes

- "Lame" tactics are avoided?! Maybe the FGC was right all along about our community if this is honestly the goal of changes being made to our rule set... We should also add in a ledge grab limit because grabbing the ledge is lame. We can also ban edge hogging. That's pretty lame when you're trying to get back and they're too cowardly to just hit you instead of holding on with invincibility.

I don't know how to comment on this

- Melee on BF is just as far from a traditional fighter as Melee on any other legal stage. If our goal is to make our game FGC-approved, we should just do FD-only on Stamina Mode.

Melee is different from traditional fighters. Why not embrace its certain differences?

- A TO can run a BF-only tournament, but as long as there are TOs running the current rule set, I can't see a lot of people entering because it's just so boring to play the same stage all day, and as hard as it may be for some people to believe, not everything views BF as the pinnacle of balance in this game. I felt like half the pros I read were about matchups being more neutral or characters being more balanced and stuff. This is all completely subjective, and more importantly, prone to changing over time. It'd be pretty stupid to get of all of these great stages just so a year or two from now we realize that the game boils down to just a handful of linear strategies with only a few characters excelling.

I'm going to try BF only for hours on end next time I get to play friendlies. It does happen to have the best balance for characters. Everything about it is somewhere in the middle of sizes. 2nd/3rd highest ceiling of the neutral 5, floor feels averaged size, etc

I view stage diversity the same as genetic diversity in the evolutionary process. Diversity protects us from all-our-eggs-in-one-basket syndrome. Keeping diversity makes it a lot less likely that a minority of tactics or characters will ever dominate. It also means that even when players find something that works on a stage, it may or may not be the same on a different stage, and that only promotes further adaption of the technique instead of limiting how much it can evolve. With a game as old as Melee, the quickest way to become extinct is to stop evolving.

Ooohh, nice motivational paragraph


I think I might have accidentally implied making Melee closer to a traditional fighting game in my post. I'm just saying that static stages still work

 

[Dan Salvato]

As a low tier main, narrowing down stage selection greatly harms my game. Pretty much every stage can help me in some way or another, depending on opponent.

 

[Jolteon]

Where did this crazy idea that Battlefield-only makes Melee closer to a fighting game come from? Removing this much content from a game is the last thing the FGC would do.

 

[RFrizzle]

Can someone please tell me whats's wrong with our current stage list?

 

[t3h Icy]

By all means, I've never played Battlefield-only, and on paper (to me) I think it would be fun, but I have no idea. I just made this thread since it's been talked about before, but hasn't been specifically discussed, and I thought this would make a good time to.

 

[the_CAM_factor]

id rather we added stages back >.<

 

[Stevo]

there is also the option of battlefield only for the first match.

I think that should be discussed as an option as well.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Advantage: Battlefield has the second best music of any neutral, right after Yoshi's Story.

 

[King Funk]

Advantage: Battlefield has the second best music of any neutral, right after Yoshi's Story.

What about Fountain of Dreams?

 

[Jim Morrison]

It's a close third, but the trade-off for it is that we never have to hear DL64 again.

 

[EPsilon933]

What about Fountain of Dreams?

This guy knows what's up!

 

[Battlecow]

I support BF only

just more competitive, less jank overall

honestly every time I see someone get saved by randall I'm a little bit queasy.

 

[Mahie]

Don't complain about randall, the cloud is on a timer and if you haven't learned it yet in 2012 it's on you.

Battlefield only sounds like an awful idea. Really doesn't make feel like playing that kind of game, at all.

BF only round 1 might be a decent idea, I'm not sure.

 

[Hax]

Randall's on a timer, so he's not a problem

seems legit

 

[Gea]

Can someone please tell me whats's wrong with our current stage list?

Too few stages. I liked FC's stagelist.

 

[_Xanatos_]

I'd rather keep some randomness than lose stage diversity.

Plus Randall isn't random.

 

[outofphase]

more stages means more diversity and jank equals hype alot of the time. id prefer more stages than less, and definitely not only 1. one of the things i like about smash is character and stage interaction are needed to win. bf only wont balance the game, we have stage striking and counterpicking for that. plus i think bf only will be found to be less balanced than we think now. similar to what bones said, diversity is what balances things not singularity.

 

[Divinokage]

Man if its BF only, im definitely not playing anymore. lol. That would be a joke of the game smash. If I really wanted to fight side to side with my opponent only I'd play SF.

 

[Gea]

Stage striking and counterpicking is not to balance the game's characters. It comes down to the previous mindset of "well we only want stages that don't have over-centralizing strategies or marginalize the "skill" of the players in the process." Since this is all debatable the stage list has changed a few times and slowly grown more conservative (a mistake in many ways imo, but I understand why many players prefer not to play on Mute or Brinstar).

There have been stages basically removed in the mistake of character balance (I would argue that brinstar and mute got the most pressure when jiggs was seen as a dominating threat who got a "free win" when counterpicking) but at the end of the day was jigglypuff really dominating under that ruleset? Were sets suddenly worse at FC due to the larger ruleset? I'd say matches like Kage vs Darkrain on Brinstar are excellent examples of counterpick stages working as intended.

But whatever, to be fair some stage changes, like striking instead of random, are certainly changes for the better. The rest is community preference, and unfortunately I feel like players make judgment calls before really understanding the stages, even after fighting there many a time.

 

[Tee ay eye]

battlefield has the highest top-platform of all the neutrals, so some characters (i've heard ICs) can be top-platform camped on that stage. i'd imagine it could possibly invalidate some other characters, as well.

 

[ZeldaFreak0309]

I just don't see what's wrong with the current stageset that would warrant such a big change.

The way the metagame has been developing is fine--by changing something so big you're almost certainly going to invite unforeseen ****ty things into the metagame (Fox has a really easy time camping slower characters like Peach on the top platform, for example).

 

[Lovage]

BF only will never ever happen, just to be real

as to the question of if it's legit or not, nah it's mediocre. if u were going to neuter the stage list i would just make it 3 stages: battlefield, dreamland and fod/yoshis

 

[Bones0]

Melee is different from traditional fighters. Why not embrace its certain differences?

I am the one supporting the differences... The OP referenced BF-only being more like traditional fighters as a pro. I don't even agree that BF-only is more like traditional fighters (at least moreso than FD-only or any other stage only), but the reasoning is absolutely horrible.

 

[EPsilon933]

I am the one supporting the differences... The OP referenced BF-only being more like traditional fighters as a pro. I don't even agree that BF-only is more like traditional fighters (at least moreso than FD-only or any other stage only), but the reasoning is absolutely horrible.

But then you mentioned about stamina mode. Probably too much of a hyperbole

I don't think we should make Melee into a trad' fighter, I agree. The depth of Melee is its movement. In 1 of those games, their depth is more in moveset

BF only is better than FD only because having a platform game goes better with Melee

 

[Gea]

1 stage only is still bunk, it's ignoring the importance of stage on gameplay

 

[EPsilon933]

1 stage only is still bunk, it's ignoring the importance of stage on gameplay

I'm not trying to make Melee into a trad fighter, but I don't think having multiple stages is as important as some might make it out to be. The movement mechanics are still there. Having more stages is like having more maps in a shooter game (Bones or fps players correct me maybe). It brings in new uses for movement which this game is based on

And like, gameplay > content. YS, FOD, and DL have random things that are bad for gameplay

Spoiler

Ok, I think I'm starting to contract myself now. I was arguing in favor of BF only for fun

 

[Seartu]

I would cry if I never had a wall to missile into /crybaby

 

[omgwtfToph]

hi I played in FD-only tournaments for a year

having only one stage on the random is boring sry

 

[Theftz22]

Good god no. Why is everyone trying so hard to kill melee right now?

 

[JKJ]

Good god no. Why is everyone trying so hard to kill melee right now?

They figured ROM5 wasn't enough, so they want to put the last nail in the coffin.

Seriously, though, I believe in bigger stage diversity. What is wrong with Brinstar/Mute City/Jungle Japes as counterpicks, NEUTRALS even? Even Pokefloats and Rainbow Cruise should be allowed, however the number of stage bans would have to be increased so that a player who mains a character who has a lackluster jump (Read: Bowser/DK/Ganon/Yoshi/Ness/ ANYONE WHO HAS BAD VERTICAL MOVEMENT AND CAN BE GIMPED EASILY WHILE JUMPING) would never be forced to play on one of the two, as that is simply unfair. But I think that the stage list is too small nowadays; I feel like nobody wants to take the time to learn stages anymore. Learning stages creates a more diverse and evolving metagame, and I think it adds color and fun to the game. Why is it that everyone loved FC's stagelist, or even the Jungle Japes doubles match at ROM5? Different stages make it more fun to watch and to play. Everyone may not agree, but this is how I feel. Obviously certain stages are easy to ban, like Hyrule Temple or Big Blue or ANY STAGE WITH A WALL MY GOD THE SHINE INFINITES but most stages fall into the grey area (I feel). Stages with walk-off edges, in my opinion, are auto-ban as well.

Whatever happens, Battlefield only is an ungodly and wicked idea. I am disappointed that it is even a thought.

 

[UltiMario]

If the top 6 were the only 6 character in Melee, this would probably be a good idea.

But there are at least 3 more viable characters other than that, and maybe up to 5 more, with 15 characters after that even left in this game.

The tighter stage diversity will directly narrow character diversity even more than it does.

It will also make the game much more boring to watch.

Without counterpicking the tier list directly shifts in the favor of characters that are better on BF than others.

In the end you make a worse game for no upside but faster tournies, and recently smash has gotten better at keeping tournies up to pace than it used to be, so that really isn't a problem. Assuming M2K doesn't extend tournies by an hour from button checking, at least.

 

[oksas]

imagine a youtube search results list where every thumbnail is battlefield

*pukes*

 

[t3h Icy]

Well, I think that's a wrap then!

 

[Hax]

Without counterpicking the tier list directly shifts in the favor of characters that are better on BF than others.

counterpicking/non-battlefield stages almost always make spacies better

 

[Krynxe]

Requested lock