Advocates for a More Open Stage List Unite!

[guedes the brawler]

Magicant NEEDS to be legal in doubles, by the way.

 

[smashbro29]

Normally I can get on board with going a little beyond what the tournament scene allows but in Smash 3DS the stages are all so bad.

 

[Conda]

to all casuals who want to play competitive smash complaining about the stage list:

i assume you want more options for the stage list because you plan on attending tournaments correct? go to a couple tournaments and see what it's like. chances are at least bomb reset forest and AM island will be legal as counter picks anyway. you will get better perspective as to why the rules are what they are.

(i am hoping the community can dicides on at least seven stages though.)

A very good post. This is not a topic people can really have much of a perspective on if they do not attend tournaments and understand the scene inside out. And I do not mean this in an 'elitist' or 'exclusive' way - I mean one in a purely smpathetic and educational way. People generally understand things a lot quicker when they personally experience it themselves.

If you are not an attendee - become one, and maybe you'll begin to understand why the stage list tends to be how it is. We'd love to have you at our tournaments! You're welcome with your smash compadres.
Compete in tournaments, pay entry fees, book a hotel, play other players, play friendlies with items-on because tournaments are fun like that, and get into the whole vibe of what it means to be at a physical location to compete in a fighting game.

 

[TheMasterDS]

I got to say, your remarks about travel seem awfully silly in today's online world. First off there's many events which won't involve hours of travel and hotels, local and online ones, that will be impacted by decisions made here. Second if you're traveling far for an event these days it's because the event is prestigious and therefore worth it, not because it's the only way to compete. Third people who watch his stuff on Twitch and such are real people as well and are worth humoring at least.

I can understand anyone who takes a hard line. My opinion though is that shouldn't be an end all be all and it would be healthy for the scene if there were different types of tournaments being held keeping things fresh for viewers. Maybe these events are often online or as side events. Experimentation with tournament rules, I think, is great for eSports. Does the Smash community like the word eSports? I do so I'm applying it.

 

[Noa.]

Online tournaments probably won't be as serious as live tournaments because it's difficult to pay money for an online tournament. It's very easy to put your money into the pot and split it among the winners at the end of the day at a live event, but I haven't seen any online tournaments with a cash pot. Not saying that that couldn't happen, just that it hasn't happened in smash yet. To the best of my knowledge anyways.

Without money on the line, it would just be glorified friendlies.

 

[TheMasterDS]

I've definitely known there to be online tournaments in other games with prize pools. Mind you those might be offered more by sponsors or tournament runners than people entering but still. It's not unheard of. (Example after 10 seconds of googling. HearthStats invitational. Online tournament held by Hearthstone stat tracker. Prize pool 5000 dollars.)

My point is it's a healthy scene where there are multiple types of tournaments coexisting, each having a place in the scene. Some can be strict, some can be liberal, some can make up crazy new rules to try to address issues with other tournaments, some can attempt to mimic built in modes like For Glory. With enough people interested all these things can exist at once.

 

[<π]

A very good post. This is not a topic people can really have much of a perspective on if they do not attend tournaments and understand the scene inside out. And I do not mean this in an 'elitist' or 'exclusive' way - I mean one in a purely smpathetic and educational way. People generally understand things a lot quicker when they personally experience it themselves.

If you are not an attendee - become one, and maybe you'll begin to understand why the stage list tends to be how it is. We'd love to have you at our tournaments! You're welcome with your smash compadres.
Compete in tournaments, pay entry fees, book a hotel, play other players, play friendlies with items-on because tournaments are fun like that, and get into the whole vibe of what it means to be at a physical location to compete in a fighting game.

Broken record. Myself and several other smashers have shared our experiences about traveling to events with more "lax stages" It has happened, does happen and will continue to happen.

@ TheMasterDS Brings up a good point though. The goal shouldn't just be the grassroots scene. If the aim is at sponsors we need to be hosting events that draw in viewers. If the aim is at players you don't need to travel to compete, smash4's online is clearly leagues ahead of what brawl did.

You can just look at the sales and see that smash has the potential to be the next Starcraft or LoL, and even more so now with Nintendo backing a competitive scene. These games will sell millions with our without the help of the competitive community. But if we want to see this become a REAL esport we've gotta figure out what our priorities should be. (and hint; it is how many people will watch the event.)

 

[Boss N]

Hey everyone, I'm finally back from GUTS3 so the OP will be updated later this evening. I really want to get this thread back on topic so I'll only briefly address @ Conda & @ dskank : As I just said, I have returned from Gaming Underground's Tournament Spectacular 3 at Foxwoods, it was my first Huge regional. The only other big event I've been to was Kings of New England I, however since I started playing competitively back in june this year I have not missed a single weekly event at the Grid gaming in Connecticut. Even when I moved back to Boston for school, even though it was the first week of school I still went to Smashing Grounds at Framinghand and haven't missed a week so far. I understand what it's like to go to tournaments and whats at stake, I'm one of those players whose willing to drive HOURS on end and drop over 100$ in gas if it meant participating in a prestigious event.

& I'm still all for this.

Lets REALLY get back on topic though guys, what do you guys think about this?
It's an experiment I created to help determine how unbalanced stages are, here's how it goes:

You choose a character, and you have either: an CPU with a level between 7-9 (whatever level gives you just enough of a fight that you still need to work for it, but just easy enough to know that you can ultimately win.) OR a friend who you know is slightly lower or equal to your skill level. (This I admittedly have been unable to test so I'm not sure how it'll go.) MAKE SURE BOTH PLAYERS ARE USING THE SAME CHARACTER.

You Choose a stage, start with battlefield and FD as these will be your control variables. Rules should be a time match set between 3-5 minuts with items off.

You battle with the computer and record the win/lose ratio at the end. If the stage is balanced then the ratio should be even.
If the stage is unbalanced then the ratio should be noticeably imbalanced and skewed in one direction.

I gave this model a test run in Brawl using G&W, after years of hiatus and it holds up accurately according to the standard competitive brawl stage list. However science only works if the results can be repeated, so I want people's help with this experiment, either participate alongside me when the game comes out, or forward anyone you know who already has a copy over to this thread. Be sure to include which character was used. (ideally use Mario since he is the most well rounded character but it wouldn't hurt at all to see some variety, it would also give us an idea how certain character types fair on certain stages.)b Also record your matches if able to, if there's a particular instance in the stage that really stuck out at you then you can point to it for later observation and experimentation.

Use this Format when presenting findings:

Character-CPU(Including level) Or Human-Time limit

Stage name
(Wins in your name) : (loses to your name)
Additional notes about the stage itself or how your character handles on it.

Repeat for every stage you test.

Someone on another thread suggested instead of measuring win/loss ratio, just record how many wins you get against a computer, if they have a significant number of wins, even if you have more victories in the end, it would supposedly be an indication that an unskilled player can win using the unfair stage advantages or randomness.

If the model turns out to be all over the place... then it's back to the drawing board. However I wanted to provide a more logical and scientific method of stage banning instead of just guessing, so what do you think?

 

[Conda]

I don't even know where to start with the idea of facing CPUs to see if it's balanced. Best of luck.

 

[Senario]

So, what IS the reason Yoshi's Island is a starter if competitive players won't tolerate randomness?

Because Randall is a moving platform not a stage hazard. Also i believe randall ends up on opposite sides of yoshis every 10 ish seconds.

Moving platforms have never been considered stage hazards. Damaging lava which can help people recover or not die from a spike are.

 

[<π]

Okay... I saw you post this somewhere else and kind of wrote it off... it actually isn't as bad of an idea as I thought on paper. Its a pretty neat idea...

It just has way too many variables for the results to be really accurate.
Like me versus Ed even though we use the same character and placed similarly at events we have wildly different play styles so different stages will play to those strengths skewing the results.
What if Ed is better at stages without hazards and I am better at stages with hazards? this would skew the results too.

The whole idea behind picking from different stages is that it gives not only your character, but you, a personal advantage over your opponent. I think your tests would only confirm that.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Because Randall is a moving platform not a stage hazard. Also i believe randall ends up on opposite sides of yoshis every 10 ish seconds.

Moving platforms have never been considered stage hazards. Damaging lava which can help people recover or not die from a spike arent.

I think he means Yoshi's Island (Brawl) with the support ghost, not the one with Randall. AFAIK the former is random, or close enough to it.

 

[TheMasterDS]

Yeah it's sort of ridiculous. It doesn't even test how various characters take to the different stages but rather whether you specifically struggle to make it work. It's silly because you'd attribute you losing to a bot/friend to a stage being bad rather than you being unfamiliar with the stage.

 

[dskank]

Moving platforms have never been considered stage hazards. Damaging lava which can help people recover or not die from a spike arent.

ive played many a tourney(brawl) where brinstar was legal as a counter pick, and the stage never seemed unfair to me because the lava is very telegraph and both players have the opportunity to exploit it. i could see how the lava would be a bigger problem in goes like melee and pm where characters are less floaty, but smash 4's arial movement is more like brawl so i see no reason why brinnstar should not be a legal counter pick in smash 4.

thoughts?

 

[Tybis]

ive played many a tourney(brawl) where brinstar was legal as a counter pick, and the stage never seemed unfair to me because the lava is very telegraph and both players have the opportunity to exploit it. i could see how the lava would be a bigger problem in goes like melee and pm where characters are less floaty, but smash 4's arial movement is more like brawl so i see no reason why brinnstar should not be a legal counter pick in smash 4.

thoughts?

Besides being telegraphed, Brinstar's acid is also only semi-random. Assuming these same stage mechanics have been preserved in Smash 4, then it shouldn't be hard getting a feel for when the acid will rise to the important stage-covering levels.

How are Brinstar's blastlines this time around? They still smallish, or have they been expanded as well?

Moving platforms have never been considered stage hazards.

Eh, I'd disagree.
This obviously isn't a selectable stage, but I think platforms can be considered hazardous. Randall and other moving platforms can very much be a hazard for Ness when he tries to recover, for example. Frigate Orpheon's side platforms could whisk you away to the side blastlines if your opponent forces you on there. Pictochat's suddenly appearing platforms could very well interrupt your combo/punish, etc.

 

[T0MMY]

As a long-time established tournament host I am always looking for ways to make my events enjoyable by many to bring about the best experience. Unfortunately when it comes to stages there are too many people who feel they lost illegitimately due to stage hazard rather than an opponent earning the win.
Getting rid of the non-competitive stages seemed like the best response to this, but this alienated many people who wanted more "fun" than competition. So a great alternative was to allow for my attendees to go to ANY stage they AGREED to - any of them! There were a couple exceptions where I banned some stages due to time constraints (large stages or stages that can be exploited through camping/keep-away tactics). If players could not agree to a stage I would random a stage from the list of stages that were toggled "ON" - utilizing the tools the game developers gave us to play with and did not need any out-of-game rules imposed on my attendees.
This alternative was a success and the complaints went away.
I'd suggest anyone who hosts to try this out.

This time around though I have a great support with all my attendees when I introduced "FOR FUN" an event where all stages were used with items and... well, I am sure you are familiar with this concept.
The second event was, of course, "FOR GLORY" and was Final Destination only, no items.
Looks like I'm going to get an even better response using this plan :^)

 

[Senario]

As a long-time established tournament host I am always looking for ways to make my events enjoyable by many to bring about the best experience. Unfortunately when it comes to stages there are too many people who feel they lost illegitimately due to stage hazard rather than an opponent earning the win.
Getting rid of the non-competitive stages seemed like the best response to this, but this alienated many people who wanted more "fun" than competition. So a great alternative was to allow for my attendees to go to ANY stage they AGREED to - any of them! There were a couple exceptions where I banned some stages due to time constraints (large stages or stages that can be exploited through camping/keep-away tactics). If players could not agree to a stage I would random a stage from the list of stages that were toggled "ON" - utilizing the tools the game developers gave us to play with and did not need any out-of-game rules imposed on my attendees.
This alternative was a success and the complaints went away.
I'd suggest anyone who hosts to try this out.

This time around though I have a great support with all my attendees when I introduced "FOR FUN" an event where all stages were used with items and... well, I am sure you are familiar with this concept.
The second event was, of course, "FOR GLORY" and was Final Destination only, no items.
Looks like I'm going to get an even better response using this plan :^)

Essentially a long explaination of apex rules with the gentleman clause. If both players agree then other stages and items are fine. If both players agree.

I do dislike the for fun and for glory names though. Feels like it implies only fun mode is fun and glory mode isnt when fun is subjective.

 

[Boss N]

Okay... I saw you post this somewhere else and kind of wrote it off... it actually isn't as bad of an idea as I thought on paper. Its a pretty neat idea...

It just has way too many variables for the results to be really accurate.
Like me versus Ed even though we use the same character and placed similarly at events we have wildly different play styles so different stages will play to those strengths skewing the results.
What if Ed is better at stages without hazards and I am better at stages with hazards? this would skew the results too.

The whole idea behind picking from different stages is that it gives not only your character, but you, a personal advantage over your opponent. I think your tests would only confirm that.

Yeah it's sort of ridiculous. It doesn't even test how various characters take to the different stages but rather whether you specifically struggle to make it work. It's silly because you'd attribute you losing to a bot/friend to a stage being bad rather than you being unfamiliar with the stage.

Alright fair enough, how would you guys design such an experiment?

 

[TheMasterDS]

Have tournaments where more stages are legal and look at what happens.

If you wanted to force the issue then make a goofy tournament where only questionable stages were allowed in. Like in such a tournament you could only play, say, Tortimer's Island, Reset Bomb Forest, Rainbow Road, Jungle Japes, Paper Mario, Mute City and Spirit Tracks. I think it would be interesting to find out not just how the matches went but by the end of the tournament which ones of those 7 were people using as neutral picks? Which one of them were they using as counterpicks? If you have stage bans which stages soaked them up? This in addition to how the matches went would be great information to have.

 

[Rakath]

The best way to test stages is scientifically, exploring the variables and how they play out:

- Walk off Camping: Test to see how easy it is for a gimp KO from a walk-off camp in the given stage by playing to that style. Someone who is very good at camping plays against a pro player, in that stage, and record/keep track of the results.
- Walls: Wall-infinites were a reason to remove stages like Corneria in Brawl, see if those can still be achieved in Sm4sh.
- Damage Hazards: Test how devastating the hazard is when it hits (Brinstar vs. Norfair), how predictable/readable the hazard is (any damage hazard vs. Warioware), and how commonly they happen. Not all hazards are created equally.
- Platform Hazards: Test how the hazards interrupt various easily gimped recoveries (Ness) and if they are actually a concern for most players. Usually they aren't but I have some doubts about Paper Mario's third form.
- Scrolling: In past titles the scrolling stages were moving too fast in places to allow combat (Rainbow Cruise), do any of the scrolling stages in Sm4sh move fast enough to unseat combat. Are the Blast lines too narrow and abuseable?
- Size: This is really the only one that can be... well, eyeballed. Most large stages allow for too much chase slanting the meta heavily in favor of fast characters doing hit and runs against slow characters. If a stage feels too Ridley big, then I can see that as a viable concern.

Doing this in tournaments might not be best, but if we want to explore a bigger stage pool, then we would need to actually play the stages or we get nothing but hot air and opinions. Which don't do much.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The best way to test stages is scientifically, exploring the variables and how they play out:

- Walk off Camping: Test to see how easy it is for a gimp KO from a walk-off camp in the given stage by playing to that style. Someone who is very good at camping plays against a pro player, in that stage, and record/keep track of the results.
- Walls: Wall-infinites were a reason to remove stages like Corneria in Brawl, see if those can still be achieved in Sm4sh.
- Damage Hazards: Test how devastating the hazard is when it hits (Brinstar vs. Norfair), how predictable/readable the hazard is (any damage hazard vs. Warioware), and how commonly they happen. Not all hazards are created equally.
- Platform Hazards: Test how the hazards interrupt various easily gimped recoveries (Ness) and if they are actually a concern for most players. Usually they aren't but I have some doubts about Paper Mario's third form.
- Scrolling: In past titles the scrolling stages were moving too fast in places to allow combat (Rainbow Cruise), do any of the scrolling stages in Sm4sh move fast enough to unseat combat. Are the Blast lines too narrow and abuseable?
- Size: This is really the only one that can be... well, eyeballed. Most large stages allow for too much chase slanting the meta heavily in favor of fast characters doing hit and runs against slow characters. If a stage feels too Ridley big, then I can see that as a viable concern.

Doing this in tournaments might not be best, but if we want to explore a bigger stage pool, then we would need to actually play the stages or we get nothing but hot air and opinions. Which don't do much.

Agreed on all counts, although this unfortunately means the meat of the experimentation and testing will have to wait until October 3, since most of us don't have a Japanese copy and are getting most of our information from streams and word of mouth.

 

[Tybis]

- Scrolling: In past titles the scrolling stages were moving too fast in places to allow combat (Rainbow Cruise)

Agreed with basically everything besides this. Rainbow Cruise was a common counterpick in Brawl (unsure about Melee, though I have seen a handful of matches there). A better example I think would be Rumble Falls or Infinite Glacier, which sped up to truly ludicrous speeds that would completely overshadow combat. In the latter two "traveling" stages, you had to constantly keep up with the stage, while with Cruise, it wasn't an unmanageable speed, and even had a "neutral" period on the boat where there was no footwork at all.

 

[Rakath]

Cruise was the wrong example, I originally had Big Blue there but that wasn't an issue for stage progressions that was an issue for... Big Blue. Falls and Glacier are better examples, but it's the same concept that needs testing.

 

[Boss N]

Have tournaments where more stages are legal and look at what happens.

If you wanted to force the issue then make a goofy tournament where only questionable stages were allowed in. Like in such a tournament you could only play, say, Tortimer's Island, Reset Bomb Forest, Rainbow Road, Jungle Japes, Paper Mario, Mute City and Spirit Tracks. I think it would be interesting to find out not just how the matches went but by the end of the tournament which ones of those 7 were people using as neutral picks? Which one of them were they using as counterpicks? If you have stage bans which stages soaked them up? This in addition to how the matches went would be great information to have.

I've tried suggesting this on other threads regarding the topic, however I've found that there are people out there that absolutely refuse to play on stages like this no matter what the circumstances are. We even seen this on this very thread. Thats why instead I started to push the idea of an experiment instead, as it would provide critics proof that they're ok to play on.

However if there's anyone here who's a TO this wouldn't be a bad idea to try, not to mention it sounds like a lot of fun.

Agreed with basically everything besides this. Rainbow Cruise was a common counterpick in Brawl (unsure about Melee, though I have seen a handful of matches there). A better example I think would be Rumble Falls or Infinite Glacier, which sped up to truly ludicrous speeds that would completely overshadow combat. In the latter two "traveling" stages, you had to constantly keep up with the stage, while with Cruise, it wasn't an unmanageable speed, and even had a "neutral" period on the boat where there was no footwork at all.

Cruise was a reasonable stage to play on, yet it still got banned in melee. (Idk about brawl) Anyone know why?

 

[Rakath]

Based on the ssbwiki, Cruise got banned in both games for assuring a high tier character a win over anyone else, basically for the section I was thinking of when I used it as an example (the carpet/teeter totter/donut block section after the ship crashes before the top level). There are a lot of disappearing platforms and none of the platforms have edges to grab. It was kept legal/counterpick because it was a predictable path and there were enough sections where you could fight without having to focus on the climb.

 

[UltiMario]

Rainbow Cruise got banned because after like 2008 people got tired of playing on Stages that weren't flat and hazardless. Same reason Mute City, Brinstar, and Pokefloats got banned. There's even been a lot of discussion for banning PS1 in Melee despite being a good stage just because Rock Formation is a thing. People just are not flexible with stage lists like they were in the early 00s

Those stages having a few very polarizing match-ups had something to do with it, sure, but those arguments were more justifying the bans rather than being the reason in itself.

 

[TheMasterDS]

I've tried suggesting this on other threads regarding the topic, however I've found that there are people out there that absolutely refuse to play on stages like this no matter what the circumstances are. We even seen this on this very thread. Thats why instead I started to push the idea of an experiment instead, as it would provide critics proof that they're ok to play on.

However if there's anyone here who's a TO this wouldn't be a bad idea to try, not to mention it sounds like a lot of fun.

This would be less of a factor with an online tournament wouldn't if?

Course then again some of these dynamic stages present issues for the "match begins after streaming ref suicides and everyone waits until then" solution for tournament streams. Hmm.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Rainbow Cruise got banned because after like 2008 people got tired of playing on Stages that weren't flat and hazardless. Same reason Mute City, Brinstar, and Pokefloats got banned. There's even been a lot of discussion for banning PS1 in Melee despite being a good stage just because Rock Formation is a thing. People just are not flexible with stage lists like they were in the early 00s

Those stages having a few very polarizing match-ups had something to do with it, sure, but those arguments were more justifying the bans rather than being the reason in itself.

Actually, the way I've heard it the removal of stages like Rainbow Cruise actually made certain high-tiers even more high-tier by removing counterpick stages that worked against them. Mute City got banned because Armada as Peach once destroyed a Falco there. That's hardly banworthy, it's just a counterpick. One doesn't simply ban stages to stop a character from getting owned on them unless the match-up is borderline unwinnable. And even then, you can simply ban players from taking that character to that stage, like Ness and Saffron City in Smash 64.

 

[Boss N]

This would be less of a factor with an online tournament wouldn't if?

Course then again some of these dynamic stages present issues for the "match begins after streaming ref suicides and everyone waits until then" solution for tournament streams. Hmm.

Good point, once the WiiU releases probably the only 3DS tournaments that are going to be around are online ones, so that point is going to be completely void on critics part. In fact I wonder if online friendlies are going to be the key to spotting stage abuses.

Rainbow Cruise got banned because after like 2008 people got tired of playing on Stages that weren't flat and hazardless. Same reason Mute City, Brinstar, and Pokefloats got banned. There's even been a lot of discussion for banning PS1 in Melee despite being a good stage just because Rock Formation is a thing. People just are not flexible with stage lists like they were in the early 00s

Those stages having a few very polarizing match-ups had something to do with it, sure, but those arguments were more justifying the bans rather than being the reason in itself.

Actually, the way I've heard it the removal of stages like Rainbow Cruise actually made certain high-tiers even more high-tier by removing counterpick stages that worked against them. Mute City got banned because Armada as Peach once destroyed a Falco there. That's hardly banworthy, it's just a counterpick. One doesn't simply ban stages to stop a character from getting owned on them unless the match-up is borderline unwinnable. And even then, you can simply ban players from taking that character to that stage, like Ness and Saffron City in Smash 64.

Even if either or both of those are true they're still incredibly shallow reasons to ban stages. That's like banning omega forms because lil Mac has the advantage in them. I'm starting to wonder if there's ever been a fair method of determining stage bans.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Even if either or both of those are true they're still incredibly shallow reasons to ban stages. That's like banning omega forms because lil Mac has the advantage in them. I'm starting to wonder if there's ever been a fair method of determining stage bans.

That was kind of my point exactly. Those reasons for stage bans are incredibly shallow if not outright invalid.

Because how would you like it if you were the Peach player in that match-up, and after a single victory against a Falco there they banned that stage completely? It's not like Falco has any other disadvantageous match-ups, so is having a single stage and character combination that works against him really that terrible? And heck, why didn't the Falco player just ban or strike Mute City in the first place?

 

[Conda]

What you need to do, and I recommend it heavily, is to attend tournaments to play the side-events. They're very fun and have all sorts of stages legal, depending on the event. Going by what you've been saying, this is the kind of play you'd enjoy a lot. It is there for you to play. You can even start your own tournament series that focuses more on a more lax ruleset.

That would be awesome, and I seriously recommend more players do that who enjoy that way of playing - if your points are correct and many people would prefer to play on stages with hazards, then it will become a popular tournament ruleset and people all over will start running their own tournaments with that as the ruleset. After all, that's how rulesets in competitive scenes catch on and get played - people put in the work to organize the tournaments.




So what are my thoughts on this thread, after not posting for a while?

There is some talk about specifics, but the boiled down emotion is focused on one thing: Banning. It feels wrong, and I empathise with that feeling when it comes to how other people play the game. Sometimes you feel a certain things is better than the thing that is popular, and it can be frustrating. You feel banning limits the game - removes features, waters it down, makes it boring, etc.

The general dislike here for stage bans as a practice is fine. But not everyone's personal gameplay likes and dislikes can nor should affect the whole competitive scene. Especially when the advocates are not respectfully considering the experience of pro players and commentators in the circuit. Very self-contained distrust of the comp. ruleset going on here, but I wish you the luck in getting your voice heard.

I don't recommend getting fired up if changes are not implemented, though. We can't legalize stages just because some people want them to be legal, due to them feeling they know things the pros do not. We have to be more responsible and contained than that. And being responsible takes time, a dose of caution, and willingness to sacrifice and compromise for the greater good.

If certain stages provide a balanced competitive arena, then they'll be legal. Who decides that isn't up to you nor me, but the majority and those actually playing these stages competitively at tournaments. You cannot try to enact changes that simply affect others, as everyone else has a say too. And it's clear what their say is, especially if they are high up - "We need the stage to not get in the way too much, so we can determine the best player at the time of the tournament."

Rainbow Cruise got banned because after like 2008 people got tired of playing on Stages that weren't flat and hazardless. Same reason Mute City, Brinstar, and Pokefloats got banned. There's even been a lot of discussion for banning PS1 in Melee despite being a good stage just because Rock Formation is a thing. People just are not flexible with stage lists like they were in the early 00s

Those stages having a few very polarizing match-ups had something to do with it, sure, but those arguments were more justifying the bans rather than being the reason in itself.

Precisely. If the OP is correct, and players DO in fact want to play on stages with hazards, then that's awesome. They'll do so, especially if people start hosting tournaments with these stages on and the players enjoy them and feel they were fair. There's nothing to argue about, you just have to go out there and sell the product and hope people buy it. If they prefer the product they already have, either work on how you're 'selling' the product to them, or realize the other product is better for the majority of customers.

The community decided against hazard stages after having them legal for many years - this shows that we've already been through this. A lot of players don't see the value in re-legalizing hazard stages only to realise we end up getting tired and bored of them later on.


If you don't believe that will happen, OP, then prove us wrong and host a series of tournaments online or something that people can take seriously and dedicate their competitive careers on. There's no other way to go about it, and I wish you the best of luck. I'd love to commentate your tournaments if there is a community of competitive players that are dedicated enough to your ruleset to become pro-level players and entertaining to watch/commentate. Because the current ruleset promotes that level of dedication and mastery by its players, hopefully a ruleset with hazards on does as well. That'd be awesome!

Cheers

 

[TheMasterDS]

Honestly It hink it's a different era now to then. In the 00s I can see a focus on catering to players rather than to viewers because that was before Twitch even existed. However now, especially with the advent of reasonably solid online Smash Bros, we are in an era of catering to viewers.

That said I totally agree. All that's needed to start down this path is a reasonably charismatic streamer with a capture kit and some reasonably good people who are down to throw down.

 

[Conda]

Honestly It hink it's a different era now to then. In the 00s I can see a focus on catering to players rather than to viewers because that was before Twitch even existed. However now, especially with the advent of reasonably solid online Smash Bros, we are in an era of catering to viewers.

That said I totally agree. All that's needed to start down this path is a reasonably charismatic streamer with a capture kit and some reasonably good people who are down to throw down.

Players who are inspired by a skill-first ruleset with no stage hazards are the players who get good enough and masterful at the game (whose success is dictated only by their skill, as they can't depend on anything else). And those masterful players are the players who attract sponsors and viewers, which fund large tournaments,

As fun as hazards may or may not be, the players who want to focus on being the best they can be at just using their character (which is what has made smash blow up in the past couple of years btw) will not want to play on hazard stages.

But I could be wrong!

Start some tournaments and see if the players with the highest level of dedication to improving their character-focused fighting skills prefer your ruleset. See if they realise that hazards-on tournaments promote a higher level of dedication and player skill than hazards-off tournaments.

That's the only way to do it - you cannot browbeat people into changing the ruleset, you have to show us that your ruleset is superior and attracts high-level players, as well as an audience. Then it may be worth making that the ruleset, since it'll be a proven concept. Otherwise, we do not want to risk changing the ruleset and having high-profile tournaments w/ hazards on become a trainwreck, misrepresenting how good competitive smash can be.

We've been slammed like that in the past. We are very careful about the rulesets we all agree to use now because we've grown wise from those experiences.

 

[Weavile's Wrath]

Can we just have a wider list at the beginning and narrow it from there based on stages that don't work well?
After all, we don't have enough knowledge about the game to go crazy banning things right now. This is the same reason I would like 3 stocks. It's easier to get rid of bad stages than to add ones that aren't that bad.

 

[Conda]

The mainline competitive scene will stick to what works best. If a Hazards-On ruleset ends up working best at creating the higher skilled playerbase, then that'll be where the competitive meta shifts. But do understand that people have seen through experience, and can also logically hypothesize, that a hazards-off ruleset (for competitive mainline tournaments) produces the playerbase with the highest skill level,

This higher skill level creates more entertainment value for viewers, as well as historical battles, which all combine to actually fund tournaments through sponsors who want to take advantage of how large the viewership for these skill-based competitive gaming tournaments have become.

So, if hazards-on can create a MORE skilled playerbase, it will thus create a more entertaining viewer experience (due to higher skill level of players), and attract more sponsors and high-stakes tournaments, and so forth.

Currently, hazards-off tournaments provide ALL of these things, thus nobody is interested in hazards-on tournament rulesets.

Can we just have a wider list at the beginning and narrow it from there based on stages that don't work well?
After all, we don't have enough knowledge about the game to go crazy banning things right now. This is the same reason I would like 3 stocks. It's easier to get rid of bad stages than to add ones that aren't that bad.

That is what will happen. What this thread is arguing is that not playing on hazards is bad for the meta, which is an unproven point and, if anything, already clearly incorrect due to the level of skill that exists in competitive fighting game scenes - none of which include stage hazards. It's not a necessary element, and one that players have experiences unfairness and boredom in in the past. Viewers also grow tired of it, because they want to watch a player who depends fully on their own skills, and not jumping around the stage to utilize a stage mechanic. That is what side events and side tournaments are for, as well as online tournaments.

 

[Exaggeratedhonesty]

Salt.

 

[Lozjam]

@ Conda . You state that Stage Hazzards "takes the spotlight" away from the competition. That is far from the truth. Guess what genius! Smash is all about movement. This is how characters react to different positions. Why don't we all just play on Final Destination? Well, it is completely unfair to multiple characters as @Amazing Ampharos will definitely agree too. If stage hazards are easily telegraphed, what is the problem? It just provides extra mastery of the stage to compete in it. What is wrong with that? If a hazard comes on a timer then competitors will merely have to watch the clock. If they fail(for most stages in Smash 4), a little damage is dealt. Most of them aren't even lethal(In Smash 4). And if our top players such as M2King are willing to do it, why not us? It will draw in more people to the community, far more than the Melee community and it will create an overall stronger Meta with a more balanced cast with diverse stages.

 

[Conda]

@ Conda . You state that Stage Hazzards "takes the spotlight" away from the competition. That is far from the truth. Guess what genius! Smash is all about movement. This is how characters react to different positions. Why don't we all just play on Final Destination? Well, it is completely unfair to multiple characters as @Amazing Ampharos will definitely agree too. If stage hazards are easily telegraphed, what is the problem? It just provides extra mastery of the stage to compete in it. What is wrong with that? If a hazard comes on a timer then competitors will merely have to watch the clock. If they fail(for most stages in Smash 4), a little damage is dealt. Most of them aren't even lethal(In Smash 4). And if our top players such as M2King are willing to do it, why not us? It will draw in more people to the community, far more than the Melee community and it will create an overall stronger Meta with a more balanced cast with diverse stages.

Your post implies the OP and this thread is specifically about "timed hazards that do little damage." I can't really make much of a response to that reframing of the discussion.

 

[TheMasterDS]

That is what will happen. What this thread is arguing is that not playing on hazards is bad for the meta, which is an unproven point and, if anything, already clearly incorrect due to the level of skill that exists in competitive fighting game scenes

I'll agree that some stages are awful and should be avoided, I just would rather it not be assumed which ones they are when the only danger is one or two "ruined" competitions. Breaking eggs and so on.

Then again this is a weird argument as you seem to agree and say that it will happen. The only difference is that I think it should happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Conda]

Nobody is 'assuming' anything.
By assuming the competitive players are going to blindingly and sheepishly ban stuff for no good reason, without actually explaining why you believe that, you show that this thread stems from a bad place. This thread's argument relies on us agreeing that perfectly fine stages will be unfairly banned. People in this thread are in agreement that "competitive players will be stupid and ban things that shouldn't be banned". There is reasonless antagonization occurring, which shouldn't be a welcome attitude on this forum.

Many posters here do not consider that any intelligence has been utilized by competitive players and TOs in the past when things were banned - you assume they were wrong, because you must assume they are incompetent. This is a prejudicial, unjustifiable, and antagonistic perspective to have. The competitive players and TOs are not your enemy, yet you make assumptions about the 'bad things they are guaranteed to do'. You assume we are going to ban before giving stages reasonable analysis and testing., because you don't feel we are capable of doing so. You feel we are programmed to ban things for elitism and the fun of being elitist.

A thread like this shouldn't exist, as premises like that are inflammatory, even if they're worded as if you are an "advocate" for improving the scene.

You feel the competitive players and TOs make bad decisions, thus you pre-emptively assume they are going to ban perfectly fine competitive stages. So what' is there to rationally discuss? Why should I put the energy in to write out descriptive and analytical posts if the root of this perspective is "the dumb people in charge are gonna do dumb things again in smash 4."