Advocates for a More Open Stage List Unite!

[Boss N]

Do you like Smash?
I hope so other wise the hell are ya doing here?

Do you love a nice solid competition, but still love playing on a stage like port Town Areodrive or Rainbow Road?

Do you love testing your skills & cunning in a fair, yet dynamic, ever shifting environment like Delfino plaza?
Likewise do you love watching players in this kind of environment, challenge themselves and seeing if they can adapt in time to regain/sustain their momentum?

Do you believe that smash can be more than just Omega forms and battlefields? Something Bigger, Better, More Exhilarating?

Or are you just someone who enjoys ALL aspects of the game, competitively or casually?

If you answered yes to even 1 of the above questions, this thread is for you. I myself have been trying rigorously to spread the idea to be more open with the stage list this game, and noticed that there's a significant amount of people who share this view. This thread is for anyone who's open to the idea of having a more Diverse stage list, this is a place where we can discuss how to best organize tournaments to optimize these stages while still keeping it fun. This is a place for giving a fair and objective analysis on stage evaluation and not just writing it off based on assumptions. This is a place where our voices can come together and show the rest of Smash boards that THIS can still be part of competitive smash if we give it a chance. If this thread becomes big enough, I'll even make a group.

Here's a list of positive things a more open stage list can do, common misconceptions about them, and easy ways to work around legitimate claims: (and please, if anyone can think of other good points I'll add it to the OP)

Benefits of a more open stage list

+ Creates a deeper meta-game based on taking advantage of stage environments

+Make matches more exciting and entertaining to watch for spectators

+Expands our audience and makes the scene more inviting to casual or outside players

+Evaluates players on multiple skills that are important to smash including
-Adaptability
-Control (maneuvering around stage obstacles
-Mind Games
-Creativity of character usage and game physics
-Critical split-second decision making

+Make even more dynamic options and interesting choices available options for players

Common Fears about Stage hazards
(+) Legitimate (-) False

- They add too much randomness to accurately determine a players true skill
History has proven otherwise. During the early years of melee, every stage was utilized in competitive tournaments (with cash prizes mind you) and on the west coast items where also included for the longest time. Despite ALL these possible random factors, there was still a very clear distinction between champions like Azen & Ken, and everyone else. There Are times where a legitimately good player is succumbed to random variables, but I'll get to a way to fix that.

+- Hazards are too unpredictable and may disrupt the flow of the game.
A lot of people are concerned that a player who might've been otherwise been winning would lose their stock out of nowhere because they where struck by a hazard they didn't see coming. It's true that there are instances where hazards don't telegraph themselves quickly enough for players to utilize in an advantageous way, but in the context of Smash 4 THIS HAS NOT BEEN THOUROUGHLY OR CRITICALLY TESTED AT ALL. & No, waiting a few seconds in training mode, then declaring 'banned' IS NOT A TEST.

+ Stage hazards, transformations, and walk offs promote camping and that's not fun to watch or play.
This does actually happen, in pokemon stadium in melee, it's common for rock or fire layout to appear, and both players wait on opposite ends of the wall or tree and wait it out for the transformation again. Players can't help it, it's smart playing, why should they approach and likely get damage when they can wait for the playing field to even out again?
However this can happen anywhere, even in stages like FD, M2K has proven you can ledge camp someone for possibly an entire match. also, THIS HAS NOT BEEN TESTED TO PROVE THIS HYPOTHOSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF SM4SH

WALK OFF CAMPING TEST PROCEDURE

To test walk off camping will be a viable tactic, it will require the tester to obtain a friend code from the forums. The "Tester" must remain anonymous about the experiment the whole time. The tester will purposely camp either off screen or just a little bit in front of off screen, or any location they think it will be possible, and remain there. The tester must get all their KO's by throwing their opponent off screen or hitting them hard enough without leaving their designated area. If the tester is constantly getting punished for this tactic and failing then Walkoff camping is not viable, but if they are then the stage in question will be "considered" ban worthy if enough evidence is presented by multiple people. Each tester must perform 3 matches on the same stage with at least 3 different people. Video Evidence is also required"

WALL INFINITY TEST PROCEDURE
So from the sounds of it Wall infinities are impossible to do in this game, however just to be safe it wouldn't hurt to give this a test. To test wall infinities will require a friend, purposely walking both of you over to a corner where you think it's possible, and the "Attacker" will do a bunch of tilts and other attacks to see how long they can keep the "victim" inside their barrage. Meanwhile the victim has to try to escape in a reasonable amount of time. If they are successful within 5-10 seconds then the stage is still viable, anything over 20 seconds should be questionable and anything over a minute is without question ban worthy.Tester must record how long they kept their victim in the combo and their percentage when they escaped. Procedure must be repeated at least 3 times with different opponents each time.
In case of event that such a stage is presented, another test must be performed to see how easy it is to abuse this area. Players will get a friend code from the forums and challenge their respective player. They must remain anonymous about the test until all the other testers have completed their experiments. Then they must lure their opponent to the corner. If they are successful multiple times, consistently across various opponents then the stage should be banned. Players MUST present video evidence!
CIRCLE CAMPING TEST PROCEDURE
If a stage has been claimed to be "unviable due to the ability to circle camp" then a controlled test must be performed. One person must be designated "the runner" and the other "the chaser". Both players have only 1 stock with 6min time limit, the goal of the runner is to stay alive as long as possible by staying as mobile as possible and keeping their opponent away using any & all means necessary. The goal of the Chaser is to knock out the runner as quickly as possible. If the clock times out before the runner is knocked out then the stage is "considered" ban worthy, however unanimous evidence must be presented by other testers in order to be fully pasted. The testers will try these combinations in this order:
-Both players are fast characters like Shiek (both ned to play the exact same character)
-Chaser is a slower character while runner is faster
-Chaser is slower character while runner is efficient at moving through the air (like multi jump characters, Villager's upB etc.)
-Chaser is a range heavy character while runner is faster
-Chaser is a range heavy character while runner is air efficient
-Chaser is Air efficient while runner is faster.

The reason for this many combinations is to determine if it's truly the openness of the stage that's causing it or the matchup.

STANDARD HAZARD EVALUATION

Whoever wishes to participate will engage in at least 5 games on one stage with a different person each time, and record the match. Then we all review the footage everyone has gathered, or the person who recorded describes their general experience. If incidents had occurred then they must describe how many games it has happened to them out of their total. If it is something that's happening to everyone then the stage can be considered ban-worthy due to it's hazards that unfairly skews the match arbitrarily and abruptly deciding matches, instead of enriching the competitive environment.

Stages And their Features (Work in progress, please help!)
(-) Concerned Claims that need to be tested
(+) Concerned Claims proven to be true through quantifiable evidence

Gaur Plains
Size: Large Walk offs
3 levels, 1 base at the bottom and 4 large platforms on the side, all walk offs. Boss?
-Circle camping
-walk off camping

Boxing Ring
Size: Large. Walkoffs
Huge ring in the middle with ropes at both ends that act as springs, a walkway on both ends that go into a walkoff, a platform overhead that can be knocked down when damaged enough.
-walkoff camping
-lights being disruptive
-light camping
-circle camping

Wiley Castle
Size: Medium
Has moving platforms that appear and disseaper across the stage. Yellow Devil Boss
-Yellow Devil is disruptive to game play

3D Land
Size: medium? Scrolling
Obstacles include falling platforms and giant spikes (more info please)
- no one ever specified why scrolling stages are a problem yet they're written off anyways. NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED

Golden Plains
Size: medium Scrolling walkoff
Collecting coins will grant a status boost every 100 coins collected. Golden version will have increased power and less flinching.
-Gold power up will create an uneven advantage

Rainbow Road
Size: medium Travel stage temporary walkoff
A stage in spirit of Mute City melee & port town Aereo drive

Paper Mario
Tither Hither
walkoff, rotating windmill
USS Flavion
has a whale that lifts stage higher closer to ceiling blast zone
Bowser Castle
4 platforms towards each corner of the stage, a rotating corridor on the middle, can cause players to fall off.

Gerudo Valley
Two sides separated by a gap with a bridge. bridge will collapse when taken enough damage. Twinrova sisters will occasionally fly in to destroy either side for a brief period of time.
-too many intrusive factors

Spirit Train
size: medium. Roof of train is soft platform with the cabin & rear car serving as base platform, an additional car occasionally appears with different platform arrangements. after a period the car slowly goes off stage, KOing anyone still on it. A dark or bullet train will occasionally appear in front of the train and explode after 30 seconds causing damage anyone near it. Flashes it's last 5 seconds. Landing on the tracks in front of the train results in damage and combo vulnerability. Landing on the tracks behind train will result in near instant KO
-Too many intrusive factors

Dream Land
Size: small. Scrolling, walkoff
Stage scrolls to different layouts from kirby's dreamland, almost all have walkoffs.
- walk off camping

Unova
Size: medium
A base platform with 2 platforms above it towards it's ends. Occasionally it will briefly become a walk off stage when 2 stair cases appear and connect the stage. 1 of 3 legendary pokemon will appear in the background and cause damaging effects on the stage that can harm players.
-Too many intrusive elements
-Hazards aren't telegraphed.

Prism Tower
Size: small Travel stage
Starts briefly on plain walkoff, main platform rises and changes to traveling. Platform arrangement changes with each destination. Changes clearly telegraphed

Magicant
Size: medium? Flying men
4 platforms, flying men that assist whoever touches/throws items at.
- flying men will create unwanted 2v1 scenario

Mute City
size: small
2 floating platforms on the side and an F-Zero racer in the middle. Platforms rise up and down and car moves left and right. Floor causes damage.

Arena Ferox
Size: Large. moving platforms, transforming terrain.
one large base platform with terrain that changes between 1 of 4 different arrangements in spirit of Pokemon Stadium 1.

Reset Bomb Forest
Size: medium Transforming terrain
2 base platforms and 3 platforms in the first form, arrangement similar to the center area of Hyrule from 64.
2nd form includes platforms that are far more spread out from each other and a collapsable corner.

Tortimer Island
Size: Large Healing fruits, damaging beehives, random layouts
One long center stage that has different features with every play. Factors that can be on the stage include: Palm trees that can act as platforms, or drop fruit that can be thrown or heal minuscule percentage, or summon damaging bees, a pool of water in the center that opponents can get KO'd in, a dock that further increase the stage's length and prompt an occasional appearance by Kapp'n who serves as an extra platform that will go off screen occasionally.

Pictochat 2
Size: large damaging factors random terrain
Uuuuuugh there's no way I can list every single sketch transformation, especially since I still probably haven't seen all of them. All I can say is that half of the sketches are merely platforms that change the layout, while the other half are damaging obstacles. The question when testing this shouldn't be "how many damaging factors are there" rather "will players be able to adapt to this quickly enough to use them for an advantage?"
-hazards aren't telegraphed enough
Balloon Fight
Size: medium walk off, random layout, damaging lightning, instant KO Fish
The center is filled with water, on the sides are base platforms, by walking off stage you appear on the other side, but when launched will abide by standard stage knockout peramiters. Platforms are randomly arranged with each match. obstacles include numbers & slow moving lighting ball that do damage, and a fish that instantly KO's when a player is too close to the water.
-Too many intrusive factors.

Living Room
Size: Large Transforming terrain walk off random layout.
A flat, wide open area. Blocks will hover in the air casting shadows on the stage where they'll land. Will damage players if caught underneath them. Blocks are completely randomly arranged each time.
-Blocks aren't telegraphed enough.

Find Mii

Tomodachi Life

Pac-Maze

 

[Amiibo Doctor]

Is there a comprehensive list of stages and all their changes that I can see before I devote myself to something?

 

[Boss N]

Is there a comprehensive list of stages and all their changes that I can see before I devote myself to something?

I'll work on one right now, however I don't have the full game and I won't have the demo till tomorrow so if people can pitch in and give any intel I'll add it to the OP

 

[Hitzel]

From what I've seen of a lot of the new stages, there's no reason to ban so many off the bat. There are a few with certain hazards and stalling potential that I understand, but others really don't look like a problem at all and it's hard to get behind banning so many without seeing how they play out in tournaments first.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I agree for the most part, but I still feel Magicant won't make it due to the ease of (even accidentally) creating a 2v1 scenario. You have to KO the flying man to get him to leave, and until then a player has to essentially fight one likely highly skilled player and a somewhat mediocre assistant. Great for casual play (I love the stage) but not really something fit for a a nice, clean, tournament match.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I agree for the most part, but I still feel Magicant won't make it due to the ease of (even accidentally) creating a 2v1 scenario. You have to KO the flying man to get him to leave, and until then a player has to essentially fight one likely highly skilled player and a somewhat mediocre assistant. Great for casual play (I love the stage) but not really something fit for a a nice, clean, tournament match.

I heard the Flying Man is rather easy to KO, but I've seen the non-Omega form maybe 2 or 3 times and he showed up only once. This is why we need actual testing.

 

[Oz37]

I would be so much more interested in the competitive scene if this was a thing. I was watching the CT and TL tournaments last night, and as great as it was to see solid gameplay, a couple of the commentators/players grated on my nerves with how they were forcing old rules/mind sets on a new game (and talking about things that were "stolen" from P:M...).

Furthermore, I just have a problem in general when the competitive scene seemingly dismisses such large portions of the game because it doesn't fit the narrow parameters they set up. Hopefully, custom moves are one of the things that will eventually make it past competitive scrutiny. /whinycasualrant

 

[Weavile's Wrath]

If we did use our Melee legal stages tunnel vision goggles, I could only foresee BF, FD(and all Omega forms), Yoshi's, Ferox, Lumiose, Tomodachi, and MAYBE Brinstar and Reset Bomb Forest. I think we should have all the above stages, plus at least Spirit Train, Mute City, Magicant, Pictochat 2, and Japes.

EDIT: Looks I forgot quite a few stages. I also think Tortimer, Paper Mario, Pac Maze, Dreamland, Rainbow Road, and Find Mii could also all be legal imo.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I agree. Adaptability should be important. Sure you can say that things like gaps can give major advantages to certain types of characters, but you could argue that removing them gives those same characters major disadvantages. I think before any actual tournaments are done, there should be mock tourneys where they record win loss records based on player, character, and stage and see how they vary. If a character does good on every stage, but dominates on one that's an issue. But I don't see a problem with certain characters being bad on some stages and really good on others. Some should still be banned just based on being too disruptive, but that needs to be determined by experiment rather than gut. THat said, I think round robin format wouldn't really work in a huge tournament due to time constraints.

 

[MajorMajora]

I'm an advocate for this.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Find Mii would be acceptable under just about any tournament style as long as both players are using alt palettes that are close enough to the same colour. That way, any time the Dark Emperor decides to cast stat-boosting magic, it affects both players equally and simultaneously.

 

[Exaggeratedhonesty]

I'm ok with this being a thing.

 

[Burnsy]

I'm open for experiment to some degree, but I won't touch a tournament with walk-off stages legal. I think they inevitably lead to degenerate gameplay and most people aren't satisfied with the result.

 

[Conda]

We've been here before (literally all of your points have been discussed in great length, there is no new piece of information that changes stage hazard legalization in Smash 4), and at the end of the day nobody really wants matches that are decided (lightly or heavily) by hazards - not the TOs, not the players, and especially not the audiences.

There's nothing wrong with playing on non-hazard stages. There is more than BF and FD - a stage can be different in flavour without having hazards. Hazards offer nothing - competitive play is about the PLAYERS presenting hazards to their opponents.

THAT is why people travel miles to play and commentate professionally. It's their decision, as they have a huge stake. Nobody wants their trip to be impacted by non-player related variables. It defeats the whole point of taking competitive play seriously, and we may as well not bother making a career out of it if people are going to treat it like "ehhh spice it up, play on stage hazard stages for our entertainment."

But your entertainment isn't the only thing that matters. There are people pouring money, effort, and time into the competitive scene and their careers -- a competitive Smash scene with stage hazards is NOT the competitive game they are dedicated towards and support with time, money, and passion.

Those wanting hazards have to keep in mind hazards are something nobody wants to play with in a competitive environment for money, where you have to travel miles and miles to attend a tournament.

As a viewer, you can start a petition and ask people to make hazard stages legal. But that doesn't mean people will want to actually make that part of the ruleset, because this is people's career and living, and they don't make drastic decisions like that lightly.

It's more than just a game to a lot of people, and those who simply want pros to play with hazards don't have enough of a stake or say in the matter to affect the careers of professional smash players, commentators, and TOs.

 

[Hitzel]

I'm open for experiment to some degree, but I won't touch a tournament with walk-off stages legal. I think they inevitably lead to degenerate gameplay and most people aren't satisfied with the result.

From what I understand, the larger blast zones on walkoff stages mean that you can't camp the edge, because standing close enough to the blastzones to effectively camp them means standing in an area where you lose % over time. If you stand where you won't take damage, the blast zones are too far away and the camping tactics don't net you kills.

No confirmation on that, but I've heard it several times now so it's at least worth looking into, if only to support a good moving stage that has a walkoff section or whatever.

 

[Aaronrules380]

We've been here before, and at the end of the day nobody really wants matches that are decided (lightly or heavily) by hazards - not the TOs, not the players, and especially not the audiences. There's nothing wrong with playing on non-hazard stages. Those fearing visual lack of variety have to keep in mind the FD variants for each stage.

Those wanting hazards have to keep in mind hazards are something nobody wants to play with in a competitive environment for money, where you have to travel miles and miles to attend a tournament.

As a viewer, you can start a petition and ask people to make hazard stages legal. But that doesn't mean people will want to actually make that part of the ruleset, because this is people's career and living, and they don't make drastic decisions like that lightly.

It's more than just a game to a lot of people, and those who simply want pros to play with hazards don't have enough of a stake or say in the matter to affect the careers of professional smash players, commentators, and TOs.

I still think it's a ridiculous stance unless you can actually quantify it. Otherwise, shouldn't we ban any character who has a move with a random element like Luigi? Bad luck can happen in any rule set. Unless you can prove stages are actually having a significant impact on win probability I think saying you lost due to randomness is an excuse

 

[Conda]

I still think it's a ridiculous stance unless you can actually quantify it. Otherwise, shouldn't we ban any character who has a move with a random element like Luigi? Bad luck can happen in any rule set. Unless you can prove stages are actually having a significant impact on win probability I think saying you lost due to randomness is an excuse

It is not a ridiculous stance. This isn't an online matchmaking game of convenient brawling to everybody. Many players play competitive in real life - traveling, booking hotels, flying airplanes, practicing 8 hours a day, spending a ton of money in equipment, and so forth. THEY do not want to be investing their money and time on a game with random hazard counterpick stages.

The only reason to counterpick a stage with hazards is you're hoping general randomness plays in your favour. It reduces the competitive scene to having a large character-independent randomness factor. Nobody wants to invest money and time into that kind of competitive game, as it loses what makes it worth investing in.

You can ask to watch it, but you cannot ask others to spend their time, money, and careers on it. They can refuse, and continue playing a competitive smash that doesn't have stage hazards. It's up to them and what they feel is a competitive game that is worth investing everything in.

In brawl, hazards to a small extent were allowed for a while because the game was more about spacing and map control to begin with. But Smash 4 has enough skill-based combat meat on its bones that stage hazards of any real description would only harm the competitive scene.

A game with hazards is a game that very few people are going to get Professional about - spending thousands of dollars, thousands of hours, and their professional careers on.

 

[Aaronrules380]

The only reason to counterpick a stage with hazards is you're hoping general randomness plays in your favour. It reduces the competitive scene to having a large character-independent randomness factor. Nobody wants to invest money and time into that kind of competitive game, as it loses what makes it worth investing in.

You can ask to watch it, but you cannot ask others to spend their time, money, and careers on it. They can refuse, and continue playing a competitive smash that doesn't have stage hazards. It's up to them and what they feel is a competitive game that is worth investing everything in.

Can you actually prove that's the case though? It's fine to say that's why, but if you can't prove that it actually has a consistent effect on win loss percentage than I'd call it bull****. I think rather than have kneejerk reactions, we should test them out and plot out win loss percentage on different match ups as well as standard deviation between players and locations. How can you argue non random stages are more balanced or fair if you can't provide evidence for it? If a stage has a large standard deviation between win and losses where there isn't any consistency and things tend closer to 50 50 matchups they should be banned. But isn't it doing more of a disservice to people playing it for money if you don't actually test things and prove which stages are more fair

 

[Conda]

Can you actually prove that's the case though? It's fine to say that's why, but if you can't prove that it actually has a consistent effect on win loss percentage than I'd call it bull****. I think rather than have kneejerk reactions, we should test them out and plot out win loss percentage on different match ups as well as standard deviation between players and locations. How can you argue non random stages are more balanced or fair if you can't provide evidence for it? If a stage has a large standard deviation between win and losses where there isn't any consistency and things tend closer to 50 50 matchups they should be banned. But isn't it doing more of a disservice to people playing it for money if you don't actually test things and prove which stages are more fair

Smash has experimented with stage hazards in the past. I'm not sure on your experience level and I make no assumptions, but this (the OP) is by no means a new angle on this debate. I welcome you to continue vying for it, but this is people's careers. The same way you can't just try and change StarCraft's ruleset to incorporate more randomness, you can't try and change Smash's ruleset to incorporate more randomness.

People work too hard and play/commentate this game on a professional level to have their careers affected by audience members who want to see pro players deal with stage hazards. It's not an attractive option for people working in this field.

But by all means play with stage hazards for fun with your own friends or online in special 'hazard stage' tournaments, that's what all of the options in Smash Bros is for. Fun!

But for the competitive scene, things are a little more strict and serious for a very good reason - people wouldn't be investing their lives in it if it had zero structure. It would de-legitimize the whole endeavour and turn it into something not worth taking seriously and spending real-world time and money on.

I'm sorry that's the case, but the game still has these stages - enjoy them! Just don't expect the professionals to spend money and time competing on them, because it removes the whole reason they are doing this in the first place.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Smash has experimented with stage hazards in the past. I'm not sure on your experience level and I make no assumptions, but this (the OP) is by no means a new angle on this debate. I welcome you to continue vying for it, but this is people's careers. The same way you can't just try and change StarCraft's ruleset to incorporate more randomness, you can't try and change Smash's ruleset to incorporate more randomness.

People work too hard and play/commentate this game on a professional level to have their careers affected by audience members who want to see pro players deal with stage hazards. It's not an attractive option for people working in this field.

I'm not arguing to increase randomness. I'm arguing to actually test things and ensure they're more random. Smash 4 has different mechanics to past smash games. Basing it off of experience with those can be misleading. I'm not saying to encourage randomness. I'm saying to prove they significantly increase randomness through actual data. Some times things that seem random really aren't. I feel like it'd be better for everyone if we could quantify randomness instead of assume. And adding a small amount of randomness can still be beneficial to those players if it increases popularity of the tournament scene because it would lead to more tournaments and bigger prize pools

 

[Conda]

I'm not arguing to increase randomness. I'm arguing to actually test things and ensure they're more random. Smash 4 has different mechanics to past smash games. Basing it off of experience with those can be misleading. I'm not saying to encourage randomness. I'm saying to prove they significantly increase randomness through actual data. Some times things that seem random really aren't. I feel like it'd be better for everyone if we could quantify randomness instead of assume. And adding a small amount of randomness can still be beneficial to those players if it increases popularity of the tournament scene because it would lead to more tournaments and bigger prize pools

Randomness, hazards, and so forth is in the OP. I'm going off of that.

 

[Aaronrules380]

You address randomness, hazards, and so forth in your OP. I'm going off of that.

THis isn't my OP first off. Second, I'm arguing that random elements don't necessarily make the outcomes that much more random. If a player can consistently win even with random elements in place, can you really call the matches more random? It's impossible to eliminate all random elements, because even if they don't exist within the game itself things can happen in real life that influence matches. If a player can win matches just as consistently without hazards compared to with them, can you really argue they make matches more random?

 

[Conda]

What I meant to say is I was addressing the OP.

Overall, you are asking a lot of the professional players and commentators, yet you are not keeping in mind why they take the game seriously to begin with.

"If a player can consistently win even with random elements in place, can you really call the matches more random? "

My point has been made, which is that players and commentators do not want to invest time and money, in a professional career-focused way, on that kind of meta. Where that kind of skill is part of their career and professional investment.

" If a player can win matches just as consistently without hazards compared to with them, can you really argue they make matches more random?"

It's about asking a player to become as invested in the game that has stage hazard randomness, versus the game that doesn't. They'd go for the one without the stage hazards being legal, because their career and professional investment, which they spend a lot of time and money on, is not a joke to them. The hazards do not enhance the experience at all, it muddies it up and makes it less worthwhile as a serious investment.

I've said it all in my previous posts. This isn't just an online competitive games where you can ask players to shake things up but remain as invested and professional about it. If the game becomes less controlled and more of a joke, then they'll have less reason to take it seriously themselves. And you'll be left with less professional players and commentators, and less people in general who are investing time and money in covering and playing the game for your entertainment.

It's the same way Chess players wouldn't try to master the game if it had randomness, or its own version of 'stage hazards', as part of the rules. Even if thsoe hazards took skill to overcome, it's a skillset people will not spend the time and money in mastering.

That is what you and the OP need to keep in mind. To say it again: You are asking a lot of the professional players and commentators, yet you are not keeping in mind why they take the game seriously to begin with.


edit:
Good luck asking someone to fly to another country to play Smash competitively, where they might lose due to a stage hazard K.O.ing them, or a stage hazard racking up their % more than their opponent was able to on their own, giving their opponent an easier K.O.
Nobody would get as invested in Smash if that's what it was for the past decade.

 

[Aaronrules380]

What I meant to say is I was addressing the OP.
"If a player can consistently win even with random elements in place, can you really call the matches more random? "

My point has been made, which is that players and commentators do not want to invest time and money, in a professional career-focused way, on that kind of meta. Where that kind of skill is part of their career and professional investment.

" If a player can win matches just as consistently without hazards compared to with them, can you really argue they make matches more random?"

It's about asking a player to become as invested in the game that has stage hazard randomness, versus the game that doesn't. They'd go for the one without the stage hazards being legal, because their career and professional investment, which they spend a lot of time and money on, is not a joke to them. The hazards do not enhance the experience at all, it muddies it up and makes it less worthwhile as a serious investment.

Ok, but can you prove less people would be invested? It might be that DIFFERENT people would be invested, but that isn't necessarily the same thing. And how can you argue that it makes it less worthwhile or skill based if win rates are just as consistent? If you can consistently win a stage with stage hazards against a given opponent in a given match up, then there must clearly be skill at play. Arguing that stage hazards decrease skill is worthless if you can't actually back it up. And even if it does increase variability slightly, if it also increases the audience I'd argue that in the long run it would be a net benefit to the pro community because it would lead to more tournaments, bigger prize pools, and more locations. All of these things could more than compensate a pro player if it meant they didn't need to win as much, or go as far, or had more chances to win even if they had a 1% less chance of winning in a specific tournament

Edit: Your arguement is that there being random elements is bad because it makes it more likely to lose just due to luck. But if it can be proven that it's possible to win just as consistently on a stage with stage hazards than as on one without, that arguement becomes false because if it was more luck based than by necessity it would affect the win loss rates and make them edge towards 50/50. If win loss rates can be just as consistent on a stage hazard stage than on one without, how can you argue that the results are actually more random?

 

[Conda]

Run two tournaments - one with hazards, and one without. See where the top players gravitate, and then see what tournament stream viewers would rather watch.

Viewers will follow the players who take the game more seriously and have a larger investment of time and money in the game. Commentators will want to provide coverage of the most skill-based impressive and historical tournaments.

'Items on' or 'hazards on' tournaments have been experimented with in the past. It is fun locally, but hard for players to take it seriously enough to actually invest real money and time on. And viewers do not want to watch players who do not take their game seriously enough to make that sort of investment.

No-items and no-hazards rulesets are the ones that develop the most dedicated playerbase who invest time and money into the game, and commentators will cover their matches, and players will want to watch those matches - because the people playing take it seriously and are dedicated. But only because the ruleset encourages that level of dedication.

Your arguement is that there being random elements is bad because it makes it more likely to lose just due to luck. But if it can be proven that it's possible to win just as consistently on a stage with stage hazards than as on one without, that arguement becomes false because if it was more luck based than by necessity it would affect the win loss rates and make them edge towards 50/50. If win loss rates can be just as consistent on a stage hazard stage than on one without, how can you argue that the results are actually more random?

No, my argument is that a competitive smash ruleset with hazards is a ruleset that doesn't develop dedicated players - the players that invest time and money into becoming professional players that people want to watch.

You can ask for players to play with stage hazards in tournaments, but you can't expect them to dedicate their time and money in a competitive scene that has stage hazards enabled. You don't have to agree - it's their investment of time and money that makes the competitive scene exciting and engaging. You can ask for whatever ruleset you want, but you cannot ignore why people play smash bros seriously on a competitive/professional level to begin with.

 

[Second Power]

I'd definitely like having more stages legal than illegal. I also see this as possible. The way I see we should whittle down our stage list follows:

• Hazards you cannot anticipate and react to (cars in Mute City Melee, power ups in Wario Ware). Hazards which you can take actions towards (Brawl Frigate's flip which you can react to, Magicant's Bird Man which you can anticipate) are fair game.
• Next, whether it is possible to walk off camp. If so, any stage where this is effective should be banned. Note the phrasing, "where this is possible" rather than "walk offs". Gaur Plains, for example, doesn't seem like walk off camping would be effective as your opponent can attack from beneath you (I think? For the life of me, I couldn't find gameplay of it on youtube.). Similarly, it might be difficult in Gerudo Valley where the witches can take out entire sides of the stage.
• One player being able to stall the match indefinitely with their opponent being unable to stop them in any way shape or form. Example includes any stage where circle camping is possible. Similar, wall infinites in past games.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Run two tournaments - one with hazards, and one without. See where the top players gravitate, and then see what tournament stream viewers would rather watch.

Viewers will follow the players who take the game more seriously and have a larger investment of time and money in the game. Commentators will want to provide coverage of the most skill-based impressive and historical tournaments.
T
he hazards-on tournament will be left in the dust, as it has in the past when 'items on' or 'hazards on' tournaments have been run.

Fun locally, but hard for players to take it seriously enough to actually invest real money and time on. And viewers do not want to watch players who do not take their game serious enough to make that sort of investment.

That's because the community currently has a bias that random elements must mean more random outcomes. I'm arguing that this isn't true. Rather than just go on assumptions that these things must make things more random, we should actually prove it. Saying more top players is also a fallacy because they're only the top in the current metagame where these things aren't allowed. If we have one player who wins 90% of the time on final destination in a certain match up, but the other wins 90% of the time on a stage with hazards, how can you say the one has more skill than the other.

I think we limit the community by perpetuating these viewpoints without actual case by case evidence. I think if smash competitive community is to continue growing, it will need to lessen the divide between players who are competitive and casual. Unless we can prove with facts and data that it will have a negative impact on skill, I think we need to try and broaden the experience. If we can prove definitively that certain stages with hazards are no more luck based than stages like FD or battlefield, than I think we should include them regardless of the circumstances

 

[Conda]

That's because the community currently has a bias that random elements must mean more random outcomes. I'm arguing that this isn't true. Rather than just go on assumptions that these things must make things more random, we should actually prove it. Saying more top players is also a fallacy because they're only the top in the current metagame where these things aren't allowed. If we have one player who wins 90% of the time on final destination in a certain match up, but the other wins 90% of the time on a stage with hazards, how can you say the one has more skill than the other.

I think we limit the community by perpetuating these viewpoints without actual case by case evidence. I think if smash competitive community is to continue growing, it will need to lessen the divide between players who are competitive and casual. Unless we can prove with facts and data that it will have a negative impact on skill, I think we need to try and broaden the experience. If we can prove definitively that certain stages with hazards are no more luck based than stages like FD or battlefield, than I think we should include them regardless of the circumstances

Again, you are speaking as if just because competitions don't enable stage hazards, that YOU cannot play with stage hazards. This is where the passion to legalize stage hazards comes from. Why do the professional players have to dedicate time and money into a ruleset that you personally enjoy?

The unbiased truth is that we can only expect people to dedicate real money and time in a game that warrants it. In a game whose ruleset isn't swayed by people who demand more entertainment value for the sake of it, but rather in a game that believes in balance, order, and player skill above all else.

The strongest competitive games out there now follow these guidelines. The reason for that is because those guidelines are the REASON players get so invested in the game competitively to begin with. Without those guidelines, you no longer have the dedicated professional players and commentators (no m2k, no mango, no hungrybox, no zero, no prog, no d1, etc). They would not have put other jobs to the side in favour of taking Smash seriously as a career if it was not a game whose competitive rules took itself seriously.


Whether you agree or not doesn't affect what it takes for a game to inspire the level of dedication that births professional competitive players and commentators.

I would not be here, along with many others, if the competitive community didn't take its competitive rules seriously, and didn't value order, uninterrupted player skill, randomness-reducing, and so forth. It's the same reason starcraft's competitive ruleset demands a controlled map environment - if it didn't, nobody would have taken the game seriously enough for it to become the biggest competitive game out there (same goes for LoL).

 

[Aaronrules380]

Again, you are speaking as if just because competitions don't enable stage hazards, that YOU cannot play with stage hazards. This is where the passion to legalize stage hazards comes from. The unbiased truth is that people would not be taking the game seriously if it were not able to be taken seriously.

Whether you agree or not doesn't affect what it takes for a game to inspire the level of dedication that births professional competitive players and commentators.

No, it has nothing to do with that. I'm saying your arguements are circular and without evidence. If we can prove stage hazards in a given stage involve just as much skill as FD or battlefield, than they should be allowed. I'm not saying we should just allow stage hazards. I'm saying we should test it and see on a case by case basis which stages are actually subject to huge character bias, vastly increased randomness in the outcome, or other issues.

You're arguement is based solely around an idea. If you can prove that idea on a case by case basis, than you have a point. But just saying stage hazards increase randomness and lessen the impact of skill is ridiculous if you have no evidence because it is something that can be proven. If a stage has been proven to be no more random than FD or battlefield, it must involve just as much skill. I'm saying we need to quantify things and then decide, because it's more accurate and deepens the amount of skill and bolsters the smash community in the long run.

Also, I'm saying we should base tournament rules on what the most skill based set up is. If melee players don't want to migrate it's entirely irrelevant. Smash 4 does not need to have the same community as melee. If it can be proven that a certain ruleset maximizes skill, that is what should be gone with even if it alienates some of the current top players. If a ruleset involves a ton of skill and depth, it'll attract tournament players. I don't see why it matters whether those tournament players were smash tournament players in the past

 

[Conda]

No, it has nothing to do with that. I'm saying your arguements are circular and without evidence. If we can prove stage hazards in a given stage involve just as much skill as FD or battlefield, than they should be allowed. I'm not saying we should just allow stage hazards. I'm saying we should test it and see on a case by case basis which stages are actually subject to huge character bias, vastly increased randomness in the outcome, or other issues.

You're arguement is based solely around an idea. If you can prove that idea on a case by case basis, than you have a point. But just saying stage hazards increase randomness and lessen the impact of skill is ridiculous if you have no evidence because it is something that can be proven. If a stage has been proven to be no more random than FD or battlefield, it must involve just as much skill. I'm saying we need to quantify things and then decide, because it's more accurate and deepens the amount of skill and bolsters the smash community in the long run.

Smash's competitive scene has been around for more than a decade. My points are not based off of ideas.

Are you actually asking that competitive players begin playing with stage hazards - hosting real tournaments, spending money and time, and traveling internationally - just to provide enough evidence for you personally? There is nobody who is going to be willing to do this, as it is their careers. It's like asking baseball players to play with a 4th base, just because you think it'll make things more interesting for viewers.

Local smash tourneys may try this sort of thing, because less is on the line -- but using them as evidence wouldn't suffice for you, would it. But the big tournaments and most dedicated of players and commentators don't want to do this, and wouldn't have been taking smash seriously if stage hazards have been part of the ruleset for the past 10+ years.

We've been through this as a community, it's like survival of the fittest rulesets. The competitive scene has been around for a long time, and honestly nobody has the time and willingness to organize big enough tournaments with hazards and other similar elements to convince you.

And the fact that nobody wants to do it should be evidence enough that it wouldn't work, and isn't better than our current no-hazards rules. I mean yeah, hazards can be fun, but that's why pros play friendlies an goofy fun matches on hazard stages. But they would never travel internationally to play on these stages competitively, and they would never take the game as seriously as they do if hazards were part of the competitive ruleset.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Also, I'm arguing that whether the melee community migrates is irrelevant and shouldn't be part of the arguement. If

Smash's competitive scene has been around for more than a decade. My points are not based off of ideas.

Are you actually asking that competitive players begin playing with stage hazards - hosting real tournaments, spending money and time, and traveling internationally - just to provide enough evidence for you personally? We've been thourhg this as a community - the competitive scene has been around for a long time, and honestly nobody has the time and willingness to organize big enough tournaments with hazards and other similar elements to convince you.

And the fact that nobody wants to do it should be evidence enough that it wouldn't work, and isn't better than our current no-hazards rules.

No and they don't have to. Why does everyone in the melee community have to migrate? I'm saying long run the community is healthier if we adopt a ruleset that maximizes skill and depth even if it alienates the current base. If smash 4 tournament scene has a skill approach based more on adaptabilty and playing around all types of stages, it won't stop melee players who don't want to adopt that skill set from staying on melee. If we can create a larger and more cohesive fan base in the long run, that's what's really important, not pleasing a bunch of melee diehards

Nobody wants hazards because they have a certain perception of them. I'm arguing that if we can prove that perception is wrong the community could adapt. Smash 4 isn't melee or brawl. It shouldn't be bound by things that were true in those games if we can't prove they're true here

 

[Conda]

I am speaking of SSB64, Melee, Brawl, and P:M when I speak of the decade+ old competitive smash community.

"I'm arguing that if we can prove that perception is wrong the community could adapt."

Good luck. I've made my points. We'll see if your ruleset can make players, commentators, and Tournament Organizers excited enough to travel internationally, spend thousands on travel costs and equipment, and quit their day jobs.

But it won't, and it is because it is not the game they want to play and we already know this. And it's not the game viewers want to watch, nor is it the game commentators want to commentate.

But best of luck in changing what it takes for a competitive game to stir up dedicated professional competitive players and commentators. Maybe starcraft will include lava hazard maps in their competitive ruleset too. Heck, the viewers need to be entertained.

Again, what you are forgetting is players will not become dedicated in a game with stage hazards. Period. Ignoring this means ignoring what it means to be a competitive player, and shows a lack of understanding to what 'competitive play' is to them.


Watch the smash bros documentary on youtube - it's a great watch and will shed a lot of light onto what competitive professional play and commentary actually takes to do as a career. And you'll understand why 'shaking the rules up purely for the entertainment of a few people who demand it' is not a thing anyone who has a career with this game takes to heart.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I am speaking of SSB64, Melee, Brawl, and P:M when I speak of the decade+ old competitive smash community.

And I'm arguing that's irrelevant because Smash 4 isn't any of those games and we shouldn't force it to be. If stage hazards in a given smash 4 stage can be proven to reduce how competitive the game is they should be banned. And perhaps in the short term we should limit stages we're unsure about until they're properly tested. But suggesting that we should just act on assumption and never test them helps nobody and doesn't allow the community to evolve

 

[Conda]

And I'm arguing that's irrelevant because Smash 4 isn't any of those games and we shouldn't force it to be. If stage hazards in a given smash 4 stage can be proven to reduce how competitive the game is they should be banned. And perhaps in the short term we should limit stages we're unsure about until they're properly tested. But suggesting that we should just act on assumption and never test them helps nobody and doesn't allow the community to evolve

Again, you are essentially demanding that tournament organizers and commenters, as well as streamers, spend money and time on organizing tournaments 'experimentally', and that pro players travel to these 'experimental' tournaments. Tournaments, mind you, that have a ruleset (stage hazards legalized) that they already know didn't work in Melee, Brawl, and Project M.

Tournaments are serious business - they are a ton of work for everyone involved, very expensive, and can be a huge headache for commentators and organizers (in a good way we enjoy it). It is our jobs, after all.

But you want them to spend their time on money on experimenting, just so we can discover the same thing. But you argue that it'll be different with Smash 4, and competitive players, commentators, organizers, and viewers will now Love the stage hazards in Smash 4.

Again, good luck in convincing people. But do not expect people to spend real life money and time in organizing these events whenever someone demands we change the ruleset.

Should we organize items-on professional tournaments with top-player attendees too? Nobody would come, but would the waste of money and time suffice as evidence?

 

[Plain Yogurt]

Conda can you explain to me why Luigi, Peach, G&W aren't banned? They have very powerful random elements that could change the outcome of a match.

On top of that, while stage lists have cropped more prominent hazard stages as time has gone by, I note that even 14 years after its release, Melee still has Yoshi's Story, Fountain of Dreams, and Pokemon Stadium legal. Yes Randall is technically on a timer, but I wouldn't be surprised that most of the time when he saves people it isn't because the player predicted he would. Better ban that stage too, since he could influence the outcome of the match. Fountain of Dreams has platforms that move up and down that can effect a player's combos. Where's that ban?

Looking at Brawl, Halberd was legal at Apex this year, if I recall correctly. How did that happen? Yoshi's Island is near-universally legal despite a support ghost suddenly popping up and rescuing a doomed character.

You're probably right. Lots of the stages people are advocating for will probably be banned. But I'm not impressed by your claim when there's still so many legal elements that are out of the player's control. Hell, Smash 64 shouldn't even have a competitive scene by your logic of "Absolutely no randomness/hazards" because even the most "fair" of the stages, Dreamland, has Wispy Woods.

I'll admit it. I'm pretty new to competitive Smash and have no idea how previous stage banning processes have gone. But you can't say "Ban all stages with random/stage-changing elements" when we have so many such things currently legal. If you can explain those things, fine.

Also, little thing that REALLY stuck out to me as a baseball fan. I know what you meant but:

It's like asking baseball players to play with a 4th base, just because you think it'll make things more interesting for viewers.

Baseball already has four bases. Home Plate's a thing.

 

[Conda]

Luigi, Peach, and G&W are controlled instances of randomness. Specific moved have random elements. They are designed with this randomness in mind. Peach's turnip pluck is slow because it has a chance of spawning a good turnip. Luigi's Side B is slow and unpredictable because it can sometimes be very powerful (but can also hurt you if you use it onstage and blast yourself offscreen). G&W's side B is slow, has low range, and is highly telegraphed and will give you a poor number as often as a good number.

(I honestly shouldn't be posting here anymore, I am beginning to say things that don't need to be said and aren't constructive. It's bringing me back to the pre-brawl days honestly (the subject matter, I mean) and is kind of nostalgic. I'm just reposting things I've said before, things that other people have said before, and things that are likely documented in google search through the past ten years.)

Like I said, best of luck in getting tournament organizers, commentators, and a selection of pro players to take you up on your offer. Honestly, maybe if you rose the money somehow through a community push it could happen, I don't know. That's all I can say. Cheers!

 

[Plain Yogurt]

I thank you for answering the first part of my question, at the very least. I feel that the explanation does even less for your stance (particularly in the case of Peach) but if you must go you must go. Can anyone else explain to me why positive game-changers are allowed but negative ones aren't?

 

[Senario]

We've been here before (literally all of your points have been discussed in great length, there is no new piece of information that changes stage hazard legalization in Smash 4), and at the end of the day nobody really wants matches that are decided (lightly or heavily) by hazards - not the TOs, not the players, and especially not the audiences.

There's nothing wrong with playing on non-hazard stages. There is more than BF and FD - a stage can be different in flavour without having hazards. Hazards offer nothing - competitive play is about the PLAYERS presenting hazards to their opponents.

THAT is why people travel miles to play and commentate professionally. It's their decision, as they have a huge stake. Nobody wants their trip to be impacted by non-player related variables. It defeats the whole point of taking competitive play seriously, and we may as well not bother making a career out of it if people are going to treat it like "ehhh spice it up, play on stage hazard stages for our entertainment."

But your entertainment isn't the only thing that matters. There are people pouring money, effort, and time into the competitive scene and their careers -- a competitive Smash scene with stage hazards is NOT the competitive game they are dedicated towards and support with time, money, and passion.

Those wanting hazards have to keep in mind hazards are something nobody wants to play with in a competitive environment for money, where you have to travel miles and miles to attend a tournament.

As a viewer, you can start a petition and ask people to make hazard stages legal. But that doesn't mean people will want to actually make that part of the ruleset, because this is people's career and living, and they don't make drastic decisions like that lightly.

It's more than just a game to a lot of people, and those who simply want pros to play with hazards don't have enough of a stake or say in the matter to affect the careers of professional smash players, commentators, and TOs.

What this guy said. There is no way top players will go for this. I'm not even a top player in melee or PM and I don't think I would go for more hazards in a tournament setting and not friendlies. If I traveled all the way out to a tournament and used my own money to get there/brought a setup and I wanted to win the prize money I would want the least amount of randomness in the game. And usually that amounts to randomness attributed to somebody's character which has downsides. Peach takes a while to pull out a turnip, Luigi's side b is kinda slow and easy to defend against, Game and watch is game and watch and his side B has maybe a 2-3/9 chance to get something good and if you don't you get punished for it.

That said, there is a gentleman's rule. If both players agree to it they can play tournament matches of any type on any stage with any rules. Usually invoked if people are playing somebody massively better than them and cannot win. My friends played Hungrybox and M2k at a tournament in doubles once, they decided to agree on Hyrule temple with pokeballs on high for the second game of their set. Just saying. Though I don't think ppl would go for what you are proposing at all.

 

[Conda]

Honestly, this is a sports-wise and games-wide phenomenon. Sports do not contain random field elements. The basketball court doesn't tilt, people don't squirt waterguns at volleyball players, and people don't toss out extra tennis balls onto the court in tennis matches. Competitive players and athletes are dedicated to their sport because of the lack of randomness on the court, and the focus on their own abilities versus their opponent's abilities.

Without that, you don't have a competitive sport or game. Why? Because the players do not want to play your sport or game.
This isn't unique to Smash - people in general don't like dedicating their livelihood and careers to a game/sport that has stage-hazard-esque random elements.

 

[Plain Yogurt]

Peach takes a while to pull out a turnip, Luigi's side b is kinda slow and easy to defend against, Game and watch is game and watch and his side B has maybe a 2-3/9 chance to get something good and if you don't you get punished for it.

Points taken on Luigi and G&W, but it seems my ignorance is showing for Peach. I was under the impression that turnips were a very important part of her game. Is it not silly that she could pull out a bob-omb and suddenly it's one false move away from being blown up? I'll concede that using characters was a mediocre point on my part, though, because I suppose in the grand scheme of things Peach is always using her turnips in the same situations, regardless of the type.

Sports do not contain random field elements.

This isn't true at all. If it rains before or during the game the field becomes wet, which can effect the way the ball moves or sometimes cause players to slip and slide. Some American football games even take place in the snow, which I imagine is a very different game than one played in clear weather. Shall we drop everything and reschedule the game because a player slipped and fell trying to run for a fly ball in the rain? Not to mention the element of the referee/umpire.

I'd like to mention that I'm not necessarily for hazard stages, and some of the one's being suggested are really sketchy to me (Pictochat 2 ain't happening guys.), but if we're arguing that a stage should be banned, the reason "It has a damage hazard" alone is a poor argument.

When all's said and done though, you guys are very likely right: regardless of how much these elements actually affect anything or how incredibly predictable they are, higher level players are just gonna ban them anyways because reasons, and I find that unfortunate. I'd still like an answer regarding the stages I discussed in my earlier post though: why aren't the Yoshi's, FoD, and Pokemon Stadium banned?