Advocates for a More Open Stage List Unite!

[Sliq]

On one hand, everybody hates fighting on a goofy counter pick stage. No one enjoys being counter picked to some non sense.

On the other hand, I don't think immediately eliminating variety is a good idea either.

I think random elements are a terrible idea for stages.

Elements that are set or on a timer are fine.

Elements that deal damage or KO an opponent should be placed under severe scrutiny.

This coming from a guy who would be a douchebag and counter pick people to Brinstar in Melee.

 

[Boss N]

On one hand, everybody hates fighting on a goofy counter pick stage. No one enjoys being counter picked to some non sense.

On the other hand, I don't think immediately eliminating variety is a good idea either.

I think random elements are a terrible idea for stages.

Elements that are set or on a timer are fine.

Elements that deal damage or KO an opponent should be placed under severe scrutiny.

This coming from a guy who would be a douchebag and counter pick people to Brinstar in Melee.

I like fighting on goofy counter pick stages

 

[<π]

I believe Mushroomy Kingdom was banned in brawl because the stage moved to quickly to allow fluid combat, all the ledges are ungrabable, and the ceiling on 1-2 (now gone). I don't think the first to problems are resolved in Smash 4, and the changes in Smash 4 don't really change how we would look at that.

I think it was obvious I was being sarcastic. But I can't tell if you are being serious or not in this post.

 

[Sliq]

I like fighting on goofy counter pick stages

Let me amend my original comment. Only people with Down syndrome enjoy playing on goofy counter picks.

 

[MajorMajora]

I just had an epiphany: There's problem with the idea of deviant counter pick stages which I now realize, I'm afraid. However, there is a solution.

The problem is that the most exciting match will be the first, since it's on neutral and the matchup is the closest to even. The counter pick theoretically gives an advantage to one player: an advantage that grows as the deviance of the counter pick stages increase. The last, tie breaker match (if there is one) should be the most exciting. This is why I suggest a system in counter pick stages are done first and then a neutral is the final stage.

 

[Conda]

I like fighting on goofy counter pick stages

I think he means at tournaments in a competitive environment where players are focused on determining whose skillset is most dominant.

 

[MajorMajora]

I think he means at tournaments in a competitive environment where players are focused on determining whose skillset is most dominant.

The problem, as wide stage list advocates see it, is that the competitive definition of "skill" is too narrow. Adjusting to and taking advantage of different stage layouts and environmental factors is a skill. There are ways to make it predictable and skill based, and having these only show up in calculated counter picks is one of those ways: everyone knows what they're getting into when they start, it's just different from what it is now.

 

[<π]

There were hundreds of us who went to huge hundred plus man events with "wacky counter pick stages" 5 or 6 years into smash's life span. Most of us didn't have down syndrome.

MLG in LAs Vegas 06' ran with the same stage list I played on with those hundreds of other guys. Jimmy joe didn't win those. PCchris, M2K, and KoreanDJ took top 3 and no one blamed the stages. In fact when people DID blame a stage for the loss or the stock, we'd say "No Johns". Back then smash was about taking advantage of the situations the stage created, not complaining about them.

 

[<π]

I'm gonna double post like a jerk...

I don't say that to say it is the only way, Not by any means. My issue is people trying to push the idea that competitive play can only happen on static stages, that is just a complete and out right falsehood. Myself and 100s of us other old smashers know this from experience.This idea that the less random; the less intrusive we get the more competitive we become is so flawed. Any 2 individuals can make any one thing a competition, you don't make it more of a competition by changing little bits and pieces about it. Just like you can't make someone more dead or more alive. You are either competing or you aren't. You CAN change the skills you test. How fast, how strong, how smart. But a competition is a competition; there aren't different levels.

You can play the game with items competitively if you want. How you decide to play the game has never been the issue and people keep trying to make it one. The point of this thread has never been to shut down the Flat Platers (I love you guys) but to find a way for people who want a broader stage list to interact and share ideas on the stages. I'm all for jumping in and saying what you don't like, that's important too. But telling people they have down syndrome because they don't share your ideas is laughably immature. And telling people no one agrees with them when clearly people are here saying they do is wrong.

We WANT to test skills that we think are fun and exciting but are undervalued in the more hardcore community. Personally I think (and I've said this scores of times now) that the more breadth we give our rule set the more people will attend and watch these events. M2K and Mang0 may not show up but I don't care if I can get even 2 jimmy joes to replace them, because new stars will come out of these types of events too.

But on the flip side it is okay to not want to test the ability to adapt and take advantage of hazards. It is fine to cater to a smaller group of like minded people who want those same things and produce events that they love! (and I say smaller because millions of people buy smash. Smash4 sold 2 million in 2 days in japan. Nintendo's items on invitational broke streaming records. Brawl sold over 10 million copies. And yet MAYBE 100,000 people are active participants or observers of the smash community. If we can't convert 1% of the purchases into active participants we are doing something wrong... well if that is our goal as a community)
What isn't okay is jumping down anyone's throat who doesn't share your opinions.

 

[Sliq]

But telling people they have down syndrome because they don't share your ideas is laughably immature.

Jokes on the internet are serious business.

If you thought I literally meant you need Down Syndrome to like those stages, well then you might have Down Syndrome.

Look, another joke. Let's pretend this one is an actual statement too, like a fool.

The bottom line is that stages with hazards are testing skill sets that aren't being tested on non-hazard stages. Currently, no one wants hazard stages as neutrals, which is saying something. It's saying a set should be determined by random damage caused by a stage hazard.

I don't have the full game so I have no idea what the stages look like, but look at Brawl banned stage list and that should give you an indication of what to reasonable expect.

Dynamic stages are fine, but random elements are not ideal. Things that can be planned for based on the timer aren't random, and are generally more accepted.

 

[Boss N]

Jokes on the internet are serious business.

If you thought I literally meant you need Down Syndrome to like those stages, well then you might have Down Syndrome.

Look, another joke. Let's pretend this one is an actual statement too, like a fool.

Does it look like I'm laughing?



There's nothing wrong with making jokes on the internet, however jokes in BAD taste is another thing.
There's a host of other things you could say that doesn't insult a group of people who never harmed you.

Like you could say that "people who like playing on goofy stages have to be shooting up everything underneath the kitchen sink to find them enjoyable"

That's something so ridiculous that it's obviously meant to be taken light-heartedly. There's people close to me in my life who have down syndrome or people would call "********", however they're some of the nicest, purest human beings you'll ever meet in your life and I'd appreciate it if you don't insult them, and that goes out to everyone.

Lets all not jump down this guy's throat guys, no more needs to be said on the subject. Now then to avoid this from becoming an ethics/hate thread,
So Nintendo has announced the stages to be used for their qualifiers on Sunday, they are:

Arena Ferox, Battle Field, FD & omega forms, Tomodachi Life & Yoshi's Island for the qualifiers, and all stages open for the national till the finals. Curious that the stage starts small then expands, what do you guys think this means and what does their initial selection say about these particular stages?

 

[infomon]

The bottom line is that stages with hazards are testing skill sets that aren't being tested on non-hazard stages. Currently, no one wants hazard stages as neutrals, which is saying something. It's saying a set should be determined by random damage caused by a stage hazard.

Neutrals don't exist, they aren't a thing. There's not necessarily a reason to have a starter/counterpick duality, and even if there is one, there's no reason "hazard" vs. "non-hazard" has to be the discriminator. Many people do want hazards as starters. I want whatever gives us the best test of skill as possible, and that includes hazards. Because like you said, they are a test of skill that isn't tested on non-hazard stages.

Non-random hazards are fine. Hazards with random elements might be fine if intelligent players are able to account for probabilistic risk appropriately so that the effect does not dominate the test of skill between the two players.

 

[Scala]

Have you guys discussed the possibility that this game might have been balanced with the assumption that Final Destination would be the only stage played?

 

[Conda]

The problem, as wide stage list advocates see it, is that the competitive definition of "skill" is too narrow.

That's something you have to take up with competitive players at tournaments. Tell them they are playing wrong and do not value the same exact type of skill that you do.

I want whatever gives us the best test of skill as possible, and that includes hazards.

Stating things like these as fact, and the pattern of blaming the competitive scene for not agreeing, is causing a problem clearly. Advocating for a more open stage list is great, but making objective claims about what 'true skill' is in competitive smash - and telling the competitive scene "you're doing it wrong" likely may not be too successful.

We need to test, we need to let the game mature, and we need to see how things turn out. Claiming you already know the answers is overconfidence in your viewpoint - it is as unhelpful as the attitude you're all claiming the competitive scene has (banning without testing - overconfidence in their viewpoint).

I'm all for a more open stage list that doesn't ban things like halberd and brinstar so long as, over time, the scene enjoys the dynamics of these stages and they do provide a better metagame and tournament experience.
However, this discussion sometimes teeters to the direction of being identical to the fervour found in early "the competitive scene needs to play with items on, THAT is true skill."

We cannot treat others' views in an antagonistic way, and we cannot stir up a 'viva la revolution!' vibe, where the competitive players are the conservative enemies and they need to be educated and/or dethroned. That's not a good community vibe, and we need to stop tossing around claims like "psh, hazards test true skill. competitive players are afraid of them."

 

[<π]

TO be fair a majority of the competitive scene IS afraid of hazards that's why we don't see them in melee and brawl anymore. Hazards don't test the skill sets that "majority" (and I say that loosely) want to test.

Hazards test different skills than the static stages do hazard management/control, probabilistic risk taking. I believe hazards make the match more interesting to a spectator because there are more avenues to introduce conflict, and conflict is exciting!

BUT if those elements aren't worth hazards, or are unapealing for some people who am I to argue? For a lot of people it is more important to see who wins when there is minimal interference. (because lets face it... its smash you can't get rid of random...) My hope is that whether you have items on or FD only you are very clear about what you are doing and why you are making those choices, and you don't make excuses for breaking your own rules. No random? Don't have Yoshi's, don't have Green Greens, don't have FoD.

 

[Conda]

TO be fair a majority of the competitive scene IS afraid of hazards that's why we don't see them in melee and brawl anymore.

Using words like "afraid" to describe how the competitive players feel about hazards is the type of thing I was talking about.

You do not think people came to the decision to not play on hazardous stages based on experience, testing, and so forth. Nope, you believe they are simply AFRAID of hazards.

Claiming the competitive scene is fearful and bans things they are afraid of us silly - it dumbs the entire discussion down and is a prime example of the antagonising I see happening in this thread and some others.

Hazards test different skills than the static stages do hazard management/control, probabilistic risk taking. I believe hazards make the match more interesting to a spectator because there are more avenues to introduce conflict, and conflict is exciting!

You are focusing on random hazards that do not incorporate player causality but, instead, player reaction to random events. That isn't a skillset many people find interesting to revolve a competitive game around at the higher levels, and is why it eventually gets phased out and limited to friendlies and side events. That's the type of skill that is in game shows and Mario Party. You cannot blame others, you can only start an alternate ruleset tournament and see how attractive it is to pros over time.

You are asking a lot of people and offering nothing in return. Too many demands being made of a group that people in this thread clearly don't respect the decisions of. Each post is flavoured with hints of "the competitive community is wrong" and "the pros are stuck up their own butt" and "the pros are afraid of hazards because they actually suck at the game." We need to move away from this if there's a decent discussion to be had. Otherwise, there are better threads on this topic that don't have this fire going on.

You can want what you want, but you cannot tell people what they 'should' want.

Hazards are cool, and there is a logical reasonable discussion to be had that the competitive scene is having elsewhere. But in this thread, many arguments rely upon us already believing that the competitive scene is not intelligent or critically sophisticated enough to legalize hazards and play competitive matches for money on them professionally.


The argument that some put forth rely on people believing that the competitive scene does not make intelligent thought-out decisions based on testing and experience. That's the only reason for an 'advocacy group against competitive TOs and players' to spring up before the game is even out and played competitively for a while. Some people are convinced the pros will make bad decisions, because they believe they are not fit to make good decisions.

Other threads have much more reasonable and less slyly inflammatory discussion on this topic.

 

[infomon]

@ Conda I appreciate what you're saying, but you're maybe being a bit too defensive on behalf of "competitive" players.

For example, @ Sliq said:

Currently, no one wants hazard stages as neutrals, which is saying something.

And I replied:

I want whatever gives us the best test of skill as possible, and that includes hazards.

...as a direct response. "I want x", so while I acknowledge that other players feel differently, I was actually the one pointing out that we don't all agree about what "competitive skill" necessarily means.

So when you replied to my comment:

Stating things like these as fact, and the pattern of blaming the competitive scene for not agreeing, is causing a problem clearly. Advocating for a more open stage list is great, but making objective claims about what 'true skill' is in competitive smash - and telling the competitive scene "you're doing it wrong" likely may not be too successful.

Emphasis mine. I agree with your statement, but I was not making an objective claim, I was pointing out my opinion as an example of the variety of opinion about what competitive skill means, which was being absently dismissed.

When some people make comments of "most people don't find x interesting/relevant", people like @ <π and myself will have to keep pointing out "actually, many of us do find that interesting/relevant." This isn't even a competitive vs. noncompetitive thing.

I have intended no inflammation.http://smashboards.com/members/π.15375/

 

[san.]

Of course, there are both competitives and non-competitives on both sides of the argument.

 

[Delzethin]

Yeah, it's complicated.

I just hope some wider-yet-still-reasonable stagelists are given a valid chance, at least. Whether it's the predominant thought or just the loudest, there seems to be a really prevalent "ban first, ask questions later" mentality around here...

@ Boss N : Looks like even Nintendo themselves think there are more than just three viable stages. I'm kind of surprised by Tomodachi Life being one of their picks, though. It doesn't seem like it leans as close to neutral as, say, Prism Tower.

 

[Conda]

Yeah, it's complicated.

I just hope some wider-yet-still-reasonable stagelists are given a valid chance, at least. Whether it's the predominant thought or just the loudest, there seems to be a really prevalent "ban first, ask questions later" mentality around here...

I agree.

But I strongly suspect, drawing from experience from how this dynamic has worked for the past ten years, that the reason most people here (yourself and some others excluded) are arguing for more testing for stage hazards is because they want hazards to be legal at the end of the day. They are not saying "hey, if we still decide to ban them after testing, then that's cool", they are saying "if we still decide to ban them, then you made the wrong decision."
Asking the pros to 'consider' the stages is really a demand that they be made legal. If the pros still decide to ban them after careful thought and testing, then people will still be unhappy.

They want the competitive community to spend more time, do more tests, and try things out to come up with a more well-thought-out decision, which is great. The problem is that if the decision still isn't what THEY want, then they will still be unhappy and heavily antagonise the competitive community for making bad decisions.

There is too much of a focus on saying "hazards are good, legalize them", rather than saying "hazards might be good, we should test them more."
The latter argument -"hazards might be good, we should test them more" - is good and one we can talk about!
But the former argument - "hazards are good, legalize them" - is not discussable in a reasonable way, yet is very frequent in this thread.


If after the competitive scene and TOs go through the process of trying out all of the stages, they come to a stage list that is reasonable yet still doesn't include random stage hazards, these threads will still spring up.
People will still be angry and blame the competitive scene for not giving these stages enough testing, even though they did. Or they will blame competitive players for not being skilled enough to play with stage hazards in competitive tournaments. Both are arguments that are presented often in this thread.

 

[san.]

@ Conda

The problem is that many of these stages have been thoroughly tested: http://smashboards.com/threads/bbr-stage-analysis-project.307804/ yet many fall under traditionally banned, typically based on the whims of the TO. That's fine if it's the TO's preference, but imo that's all it is for some of these and can attribute it to any reason. Many decisions could go either way depending on how heavily you weighed certain tactics/events on the stage. Soon, we'll have a better understanding how the smash 4 stages will work.

With smash 4, sharking, circle camping, wall infinites, and chain grabs have been addressed without anything standing out to replace them. Some stages deemed controversial because of these outdated tactics should and are being re-evaluated in this and the stage discussion thread.

 

[<π]

Using words like "afraid" to describe how the competitive players feel about hazards is the type of thing I was talking about.

You do not think people came to the decision to not play on hazardous stages based on experience, testing, and so forth. Nope, you believe they are simply AFRAID of hazards.

Claiming the competitive scene is fearful and bans things they are afraid of us silly - it dumbs the entire discussion down and is a prime example of the antagonising I see happening in this thread and some others.

How do you define afraid? I was using Google's definition:

"worried that something undesirable will occur or be done."
"unwilling or reluctant to do something for fear of the consequences."

Afraid does not mean fearful. The definition I intended almost word for word describes how you've talked about these kinds of stages.

You are focusing on random hazards that do not incorporate player causality but, instead, player reaction to random events. That isn't a skillset many people find interesting to revolve a competitive game around at the higher levels, and is why it eventually gets phased out and limited to friendlies and side events. That's the type of skill that is in game shows and Mario Party. You cannot blame others, you can only start an alternate ruleset tournament and see how attractive it is to pros over time.

You are asking a lot of people and offering nothing in return. Too many demands being made of a group that people in this thread clearly don't respect the decisions of. Each post is flavoured with hints of "the competitive community is wrong" and "the pros are stuck up their own butt" and "the pros are afraid of hazards because they actually suck at the game." We need to move away from this if there's a decent discussion to be had. Otherwise, there are better threads on this topic that don't have this fire going on.

You can want what you want, but you cannot tell people what they 'should' want.

Hazards are cool, and there is a logical reasonable discussion to be had that the competitive scene is having elsewhere. But in this thread, many arguments rely upon us already believing that the competitive scene is not intelligent or critically sophisticated enough to legalize hazards and play competitive matches for money on them professionally.


The argument that some put forth rely on people believing that the competitive scene does not make intelligent thought-out decisions based on testing and experience. That's the only reason for an 'advocacy group against competitive TOs and players' to spring up before the game is even out and played competitively for a while. Some people are convinced the pros will make bad decisions, because they believe they are not fit to make good decisions.

Other threads have much more reasonable and less slyly inflammatory discussion on this topic.

I've been saying it over and over again, but that IS a skill people find interesting in competetive play. We've named countless games where random occirence is the main draw, But I'll skip that. People in the gaming industry have pooped their heads into the thread and given their opinion on how unnecessary this draw for flat plat is in a competitive community, we can ignore that though. I've have personally spoken from past experience with scores of other high level smashes, but hey lets skip that too.

Lets talk history. Before brawl there was a very big stage list for melee. I got a source link here: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/orlandoaugust-25-27-2006

I'll post the important stuff here though:

Stage & Character Selection
6. Stages banned for Singles Only: Great Bay and Mushroom Kingdom 2
7. Stages banned for Doubles Only: Fountain of Dreams and Mute City
8. Stages banned for Singles & Doubles: Yoshi’s Island (Pipes), Fourside, Hyrule Temple, Flatzone, Brinstar Depths, Icicle Mountain, Big Blue, Mushroom Kingdom 1, Venom, Yoshi’s Island 64, Peach’s Castle, and Kongo Jungle, Onett.
9. No stage may be used twice in a Best of 3 or Best of 5 Series. The random select stages are the only stages that may be used more than once in a best of 11 series.

So that left quite a few stages on. Notably Mute CIty, Brinstar, Corneria, Green Greens AND POKEFLOATS!!!!!!!!. But hey to make it easy PICTURES

The 2006 season MLG had 6 open events all across the nation each one had over 100 attendees

Here is some more source:
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_New_York_Opener_2006
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_Dallas_2006
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_Anaheim_2006
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_Chicago_2006
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_Orlando_2006
http://www.ssbwiki.com/MLG_New_York_Playoffs_2006

The pots started at 5000$ for each of these. The stage list was never a deterrent back then. Brawl changed the melee community. With tons of invested players leaving with the rest of the scene the hardcore guys stayed and the melee mindset changed with them fitting what they wanted. When someone would lose a few sets they "shouldn't of" or "wouldn't of" instead of no johns a new stage would get banned. So now instead of the 14 stages we had legal for 3 or 4 years we are now down to 5.

I say all of that to say this. Random/hazards have never been a deterrent for this scene. Melee was at one of its healthiest points durning that time, before youtube and modern social media and before modern streaming. So saying people will not, do not, and have not competed and thrived with wider rulesets is wrong. I've proved it.

 

[Conda]

Exactly my point. 8 years have passed and the ruleset has evolved and changed to match the experiences and intelligence everyone has gathered in that time. However, you deem it all wrong. You will not be happy until we revert back to how Smash's comp rules were many years ago. Any evolution is seen as faulty devolution and any experience anyone has gained is deemed incorrect, because it goes against what you personally think is the best ruleset.

What people who disagree with the norm do is start their own tournament series with their own rules, and see how it turns out. If it's a better ruleset and more people turn up at your tournaments versus hazard-less tournaments, then that's awesome! It will catch on. But someone changed the ruleset many years ago and it caught on in a huge way, and melee/smash is bigger than ever for it. You have to do the same, telling the competitive community why they're wrong and what they've done for the past many years is wrong is not going to work.

Maybe we evolved wrongly and should go back to a looser ruleset, but the ruleset did not change for no reason, and it's likely very important to understand why and how the changes were made before deeming competitive players who enjoy those rules 'wrong'.

 

[Piford]

Smash 4 should evolve on it's own. We should really see if more stages will bring in more people, or if less stages will. We should see what stages actually measure competitive skill, while which ones don't. We shouldn't let past mindsets affect how this game works.

 

[Delzethin]

I wouldn't say "deeming them wrong" so much as questioning if they apply to the new game. You argue that we can't just dismiss the changes that were made to rulesets in the last few years, which is a fair point. At the same time, though, we can't automatically assume they apply to Smash 3DS to the letter. Some of the game-breaking tactics and playstyles that caused stages to be banned in previous games no longer work, meaning stages in this new game that are similar to those should be tested again to see if they're viable now. If those stages turn out to be viable after all, it's a good thing. If not, then at least we came to that conclusion through research and not through knee-jerk reactions.

Conda, you seem to think we're all strawmen in here. I don't understand.

 

[Conda]

Smash 4 should evolve on it's own. We should really see if more stages will bring in more people, or if less stages will. We should see what stages actually measure competitive skill, while which ones don't. We shouldn't let past mindsets affect how this game works.

Agreed! Which is why bringing up Melee's ruleset from 8 years ago shouldn't mean anything when we talk about SSB4 in 2014.

@ Delzethin , I wasn't speaking about everyone.
And I agree - we should make educated choices with the ruleset. I just strongly dislike the tone in this thread that continually states that the competitive players are making kneejerk choices and banning stuff with zero thought. They test stuff constantly - we all do. We talk about stages in specifics, try them out at local smashfests, and eventually we'll realise if a certain stage is competitive-friendly or not. Even if we previously banned it erroneously.

The idea that the competitive scene are chickens with their heads cut off, unable to make thought-out decisions over a period of time, is ridiculous and derogatory. It's hard to discuss stages when that kind of stuff is being tossed around and accepted, as it is antagonistic to the large group of players and TOs.

 

[<π]

Exactly my point. 8 years have passed and the ruleset has evolved and changed to match the experiences and intelligence everyone has gathered in that time. However, you deem it all wrong. You will not be happy until we revert back to how Smash's comp rules were many years ago. Any evolution is seen as faulty devolution and any experience anyone has gained is deemed incorrect, because it goes against what you personally think is the best ruleset.

What people who disagree with the norm do is start their own tournament series with their own rules, and see how it turns out. If it's a better ruleset and more people turn up at your tournaments versus hazard-less tournaments, then that's awesome! It will catch on. But someone changed the ruleset many years ago and it caught on in a huge way, and melee/smash is bigger than ever for it. You have to do the same, telling the competitive community why they're wrong and what they've done for the past many years is wrong is not going to work.

Maybe we evolved wrongly and should go back to a looser ruleset, but the ruleset did not change for no reason, and it's likely very important to understand why and how the changes were made before deeming competitive players who enjoy those rules 'wrong'.

Oh no no no....

I don't see it as wrong. If thats how I came across I appologize. You said:

That isn't a skillset many people find interesting to revolve a competitive game around at the higher levels, and is why it eventually gets phased out and limited to friendlies and side events.

I'm saying that there is and always has been a place for random and hazards in high level competitive smash. That was the point of my post.

With the melee community getting much much smaller after brawl the ruleset mirrored that shrink in opinions. The same thing happened with brawl community but at a much faster rate. The difference is melee had an amazing boon after its near death crisis, and the ruleset they were using carried over. The Smash Brothers video, the #OneUnit deal, nintendo pushing to ban the stream and getting over turned really pushed melee into the for front. It was the community's doing not the game's and definitely not the ruleset.

 

[Delzethin]

The idea that the competitive scene are chickens with their heads cut off, unable to make thought-out decisions over a period of time, is ridiculous and derogatory. It's hard to discuss stages when that kind of stuff is being tossed around and accepted, as it is antagonistic to the large group of players and TOs.

Except that's not what we're arguing, either. There seems to be a vocal minority that refuses to play on anything other than the most basic stages, and they've been loud enough so far about SSB3D's stagelist that they've had an undue amount of influence on discussion. The fact that multiple competitive players--and semi-competitive players, like myself--have posted in here that they like the idea of wider stagelists and think they benefit the metagame shows that at least to some extent, the idea that competitive players only want BF-YI-FD-Omegas and that adding more stages would only alienate them is unfounded.

We just want to prove this vocal minority A) isn't thinking clearly and B) doesn't represent the majority. If we thought all competitive players were wrong, then what'd that make the competitive types in this thread, wolves in support of sheep? Heh.

 

[X Japan]

3 stock, custom move sets, 5 mins, hazards on.

COWBOY THE F**! UP and play.

 

[cptnOlimar]

I'd agree to this to a specific extent. I think it's not good legalizing stages like Wily Castle when 50% of the damage is dealt by a stage hazard. But **** YES, please allow more stages than only BF, FE and Yoshis Island. Let's take Mute City for example, what's the Problem with this stage? You can't go off-stage, there aren't any hazards except for the ground. If you hit the ground, it's your fault (or your opponent pushed you, but it's not a stage hazards fault), so there isn'tany randomness to it. It is still all 100% skill based, so why not legalize it?


EDIT: LOL@ swears getting censored here. Wat.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

My early sampling of the stages in smash 4 3ds out of day one play tells me liberals should be able to do okay even if not win the world. A few stages seem maybe not as good as I hoped (walk-offs in general, Magicant, Find Mii), but some others that are being quickly dismissed by others just scream "should be legal" to me (Rainbow Road and Mute City are just obviously okay, seriously, and Pac-Maze is a pretty strong contender). I'm going to start gathering some serious data in the "morning" (I unlocked tons of stuff tonight, but I'm tired now...), but for now, I'm quite certain that we have no reason at all to ban down to 5 stages or something dumb like that. It's not even about allowing stages that are extremely hazardous, that have walk-offs, or are generally crazy. There are legitimately a lot of stages in this game that are none of those things; you just have to be willing to give the stages a bit of a chance and expand your comfort zone a tiny bit and there's so much here!

 

[Unbounded]

My early sampling of the stages in smash 4 3ds out of day one play tells me liberals should be able to do okay even if not win the world. A few stages seem maybe not as good as I hoped (walk-offs in general, Magicant, Find Mii), but some others that are being quickly dismissed by others just scream "should be legal" to me (Rainbow Road and Mute City are just obviously okay, seriously, and Pac-Maze is a pretty strong contender). I'm going to start gathering some serious data in the "morning" (I unlocked tons of stuff tonight, but I'm tired now...), but for now, I'm quite certain that we have no reason at all to ban down to 5 stages or something dumb like that. It's not even about allowing stages that are extremely hazardous, that have walk-offs, or are generally crazy. There are legitimately a lot of stages in this game that are none of those things; you just have to be willing to give the stages a bit of a chance and expand your comfort zone a tiny bit and there's so much here!

This actually sort of matches my impressions. Find Mii seemed pretty decent at first, but showed itself to be kinda 'meh'. At the same time when I was fighting on Rainbow Road and Mute city the hazards were completely predictable and significantly telegraphed. Those were the stages I was expecting to not work out at all.

At the same time, I'm still personally somewhat up in the air about Tomodachi life, but it feels like a pretty solid stage.

 

[Boss N]

Hey everyone, sorry I've been MIA for awhile, too much SM4SH Goodness. I'm sure you're all enjoying the game as much as I am, if not more, but has anyone noticed anything about the stages yet or noted any key observations?

Also if anything you had found was presented in other threads, could you link them in this one or quote them? it would be better if we had one place we can reference and collect all this information.

 

[Piford]

From what I've played, I think this would be a good legal stage list
FD
BF
Yoshi's Island
Arena Ferox
Prism Tower
Rainbow Road
Reset Bomb Forrest
Tomodachi Life
Mute City
Brinstar
Corneria
Gaur Plains
3D Land
Other stages that could work are Paper Mario, Distant Planet, and Tortimer's Island, but I think those stages above are the best.

 

[Boss N]

Wow this is better than I imagined!
Which ones would you say would be good starters and which ones as counter picks?

 

[Piford]

Starters would probably be
FD
BF
Yoshi's
Prism Tower
Tomodachi Lide

And Counter-Picks would be
Arena Ferox
Rainbow Road
Reset Bomb Forrest
Mute City
Brinstar
Corneria
Gaur Plains
3D Land
With Distant Planet, Paper Mario, and Tortimer's Island being counterpicks if legal.

 

[Boss N]

Does anyone want to test walk-off camping with me?

 

[Illuvial]

Competition should be fair

Stages like Gaur Plains, 3D Land, Balloon Fight, Magicant and every other horribly hazard based map influence that fairness negatively. They either impact so many MUs negatively or just the general meta negatively by making matches too unfair

We can't have a stagelist with every stage or even half the stages being viable because at that point you're altering the balance and fairness of competition, which is a no no. Unless you have some kind of horribly tedious ban-related solution so that players could ban a ****ton of stages, but at that point I guarantee you that players would ban every stage but the 5 or 6 stages the community has decided SHOULD be in the actual stagelist, so it wouldn't change anything aside from making sets take longer.

 

[Neoleo21]

Lethal random hazards are fine if they are as slow and predictable as Halberd's

 

[TheMasterDS]

Question: If it turns out we like a 3DS exclusive stage like, say for example, Tomodachi Life, and the Wii U Version has custom stages like Brawl did would it be possible to remake the stage in the Wii U version and make it legal there as well? Or are custom stages just not worth bothering with universally?