Advocates for a More Open Stage List Unite!

[Raijinken]

I support wider stage lists. Not fully wide, but anything predictable is fair in my opinion.

That, or just standardize to only FD forms. If you're going to remove certain stages that have hazards or other elements that can favor certain playstyles, might as well remove platforms and whatnot that cater to other playstyles, and strip it down to a flat stage like every other fighter in existence.

 

[Conda]

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.


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?

It's not 'higher level players are gonna ban then because reasons'. It's 'nobody would play the game with your desired ruleset at a professional career level (which is exactly whom you demand change the thing that inspires them to play smash professionally in the first place).

You can see the disconnect here. The players who are pros today are pros because Smash had a ruleset that inspired people to becomes that good and dedicate time and money into the game, and quit their day jobs to pursue it. Without that ruleset (aka: with your ruleset), the pros wouldn't be here, because the ruleset doesn't welcome them. In order to inpire competitive play, you have to make the game about THEM. Not the stage, not the items, but them. That's why random luigi side b is alright - it's THEIR move that has a random aspect, and their choice to use it during a match for the risk factor.

Any game or sport needs a defined focus on 'player skill, improvement, and dedication' to birth a healthy competitive aspect, where players and commentators are safe and welcome to dedicate time and money into it.

You are trying to bake a cake with mustard and expecting people to want to eat it and invest money into joining our mustard-cake franchise. It's not attractive and won't catch on, because it isn't a worthwhile investment of their money, time, and resources. It might be alright every now and then, but isn't an investable idea. Same goes for a Smash scene with hazard stages legal - could be fun here and there, but does not instill the competitive energy that makes a competitive game have any semblance of a healthy and alive scene.

You are ignoring this and, instead, treating it as if people are 'set in their ways' and 'resistant to change' and 'like playing boring hazard-less smash because they're traditionalists'. Why can't people change the rules to make things more entertaining for a select few viewers? Because this isn't a gameshow.


I've said the actual reasons many times here and those posts speak for themselves now. It's been a healthy discussion, and hopefully educational. I hope I helped out.

 

[Hyena]

There is something real to be said for the ability to adapt to randomness as indicating a higher degree of skill. I think this is generally something we should value more. On one level, it expands the capacity to demonstrate your still.

That said, nothing is so unsettling as seeing a player lose who didn't deserve to because of something random. I really, really sympathize with the OP--especially the call for more data--but one needs to tread carefully. Getting this wrong is bad for spectators, pros, and the feeling that the game is based on skill. Those are all vital.

 

[Arcade]

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

 

[Hyena]

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

I'm totally shooting from the hip here, but Yoshi Island's platforms seem more likely to save someone than kill someone. I think psychologically that is less jarring. You raise a good specific example for discussion.

 

[Plain Yogurt]

I'm totally shooting from the hip here, but Yoshi Island's platforms seem more likely to save someone than kill someone. I think psychologically that is less jarring. You raise a good specific example for discussion.

This is the only reason I can think of. When Randall saves someone it's hype, but when Brinstar lava kills someone it's bull****. Either way though, the game was affected out of both players' control. Why is Brinstar illegal but Yoshi's isn't?

 

[Shaya]

Random elements are not inherently uncompetitive. Do they detract from core game play skills? That applies to all stages/all elements.

Core game play skills is subjective, but for the basis of whatever, a rising platform or the incoming of a flock of shy guys have very little impact on most of anything, although throughout Brawl's life time, as well as I'm sure Melee, those "elements" have saved people/killed people in ways that otherwise would not have happened if the element didn't exist.

 

[Unbounded]

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.

Poker is for all intents and purposes, random. It's as random as a game could possibly get with no the chances of any two decks ever shuffled since the dawn of humanity having the exact same combination being essentially zero. The stakes are very, very significant as well, likely larger than those of smash, yet the players at the top are still the best of the best.

I'd say that professional poker players are pretty dedicated to their sport as well, and most definitely require a certain level of skill to be able to consistently be met with success in a game with that much randomness, wouldn't you?

Or are you suggesting that because poker is inherently random by design, that it isn't competitive?

 

[Reila]

That, or just standardize to only FD forms. If you're going to remove certain stages that have hazards or other elements that can favor certain playstyles, might as well remove platforms and whatnot that cater to other playstyles, and strip it down to a flat stage like every other fighter in existence.

I advocate to this. Instead of nitpicking small details of stages and then banning them, might as well just play Final Destination forms only.

Which would be okay in my books.

 

[yahooda]

Personally I wouldn't mind if the only legal stages were FD and Battlefield, if you've played other fighting games like Street Fighter where every stage is identical it doesn't bother you to use the same stage every time. It would be cool if there could be more legal stages, though, but the stages on the 3DS are very unbalanced. You could probably pull it off at smaller tournaments, though.

 

[Reila]

Personally I wouldn't mind if the only legal stages were FD and Battlefield, if you've played other fighting games like Street Fighter where every stage is identical it doesn't bother you to use the same stage every time. It would be cool if there could be more legal stages, though, but the stages on the 3DS are very unbalanced. You could probably pull it off at smaller tournaments, though.

Why only FD and Battlefield? Why restrict ourselves only to the same old boring Final Destination, when all stages have FD variations?

Also it is not like the Wii U stages are balanced either.

 

[Raijinken]

I advocate to this. Instead of nitpicking small details of stages and then banning them, might as well just play Final Destination forms only.

Which would be okay in my books.

At the very least, it keeps Mac viable.

As for the hazard stages, a lot of them are pretty crazy, but the only ones that seem unfairly random are Wario Ware, the Flying Man on Magicant, and as always, Flat Zone 2. New Pictochat hazards look a little unfriendly, too, compared to the old version.

 

[<π]

Random elements are not inherently uncompetitive. Do they detract from core game play skills? That applies to all stages/all elements.

Core game play skills is subjective, but for the basis of whatever, a rising platform or the incoming of a flock of shy guys have very little impact on most of anything, although throughout Brawl's life time, as well as I'm sure Melee, those "elements" have saved people/killed people in ways that otherwise would not have happened if the element didn't exist.

As a melee samus main I'd ban YS because once a shy guy flew in and interrupted my charge beam kill. never forgave that stage.

@ Conda
Hi, I've been playing smash games competitively for 10+ years. I'm the "nobody" you keep talking about. Who would train tirelessly on brinstar and mutecity. The nobody who sat there with a timer and tried to figure out when the lava would change and what percents it would kill me at, how to Best DI it. I'm the nobody who spent time and money traveling all over the east coast for events with stages that were random and had hazards. And you know what? I wasn't the only one either. M2K flew in for our events, PCchris, KDJ. In fact at the time the standard rulesets included all of these stages and "top players" never batted an eye at it.

Lets just say my years of experience was a fluke though...

Even now people spend WAY more money and WAY more time on EVEN LARGER prize pools. Games like League of Legends have random elements build into even the basic attack. Games like call of duty have a random range a bullet can land and random fire spreads. Games like poker are entirely centered around random elements and people play those games for hundreds of thousands of dollars. melee and brawl have never gotten consistent prizes pots that high because as excited as we get for making it to EVO our competitive scene is very very small compared to street fighter and League and CoD.

I say this a lot but... Smash brothers is one of the largest selling game franchises in the world, but in spite of sites like this one, for a "fighter", we have the smallest turn over rate for people who actively participate in the competitive community. Historically people don't buy smash brothers to only play on FD. It honestly blows my mind that people believe that if we make the game "more fair" and "less random" people will start lining up to play! This is super smash brothers not street fighter, not tekken!.............

If you want to play the game with just M2K and ZeRo that's fine by me. I love top players, I know a bunch of these guys personally, but before I want to see them happy because they won a few hundred bucks this weekend, I want to see the scene grow. I want to play against the smashers from 10 years ago who were out to prove they were the best at the game! Not just at the best at Omega FD. And I think there is a big world of people out there who would be very willing to test their skills with a hazard or two on stage, because I'd win. Over the years I've met traveled with, laughed with, and played with scores of them.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

http://smashboards.com/threads/stage-analysis-discussion-thread.367708/unread

Surprised no one linked this.

 

[Shaya]

The thread was talking about a wider stage list and devolved quickly into the stage analysis thread, thoughts on a merge?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

My experiences playing competitive Brawl in the Midwest tell me that, as the stage list shrank, the general support for the game shrank too. There was a lot going on culturally with Brawl, but I have no doubt that banning too many stages really did very significantly harm competitive Brawl far moreso than having too many legal ever could have. It made the game grow stale quickly (there's just less going on when you play on a tiny fraction of the stages), and it super emphasized the strengths of a few of the "best" characters and greatly hastened the metagame contracting around those to the exclusion of otherwise good characters who preferred now banned stages. I mean, no one really wants WarioWare legal; that stage is super random and significantly detracts from the skill test of the game. How about Jungle Japes though? There is literally not a single random element in that stage (Klaptrap is on a timer), and the different layout adds to the diversity of the game by emphasizing diffrent character strengths and weaknesses than Battlefield and Final Destination. I actually like playing on really crazy stages in smash games, but I can accept banning a lot of those and only really get upset over the thing when we start just banning way too much and taking away stages that have nothing of real signficance wrong with them, something I'm quite convinced hurts these games way more than leaving too much legal ever could.

I mean, seriously, there were Brawl tournaments that banned Halberd and Delfino, two super obviously fair stages, and when I main G&W and those are good stages for me while terrible stages for me like Smashville and Final Destination are always legal, it begins to feel unfair. People talk like there's some abusive stuff that's so good on Halberd and Delfino; I just see how Smashville and Final Destination make the most abusive thing in competitive Brawl (Ice Climbers infinites) as easy as possible which is just obviously "worse" than anything on Halberd or Delfino to the point that the Halberd and Delfino bans wherever they exist feel totally arbitrary. I put thousands of hours of work into G&W with the assumption that the rug wouldn't be pulled out from under me and the rules redesigned to be literally the worst possible ruleset for my character; I'm not even bitter over it because Brawl is all in the past, but I don't want something like that to happen to anyone with the new game.

The main thing I want from smash 4 stages isn't to have every stage I could ever want to play legal. I just want to have a real diversity and to keep everything that is reasonably okay. I can accept playing on signfiicantly fewer than 30 stages. I can't accept playing on 5. Everyone can get most of what they want out of stage rules in the new game. Stage liberals like me can have the gameplay diversity (and also not see characters who like dynamic stages just get screwed by the rule changes like in Brawl). The stage conservatives can have their game where we don't have significantly random or disruptive stages. We just have to all accept not getting every last thing we want and instead take that reasonable middle of the road option where all sides get most of what they want (note: this also means no constantly shifting rules where we "compromise" and then later one side takes everything else they wanted). This probably means a number of legal stages somewhere in the low teens all fully legal (that means legal in game one), and I'm quite convinced smash 3ds offers enough quality stages to make that happen even with what little I know now before the US release and would find it surprising if the Wii U version weren't the same way.

Starting off we should play with a very large number of legal stages just to get some real and serious experience about what's going on on all the different stages, we should discuss them all as a community, and we should find that set that is going to result in the greatest outcome for most of us. Jumping the gun on banning stages all over the place is going to make it very hard to discover what stages are actually any good; there seem to me to be around 20ish 3ds stages with some prospects of quality. I really doubt all of those will work out, but I don't think we'll know which of that set work well and which don't if we don't just try them all and hash it out. If we just instantly only play on 5 of them, I guarantee we're leaving a lot of good stuff on the table, and the game is just poorer as a result.

 

[Raijinken]

My experiences playing competitive Brawl in the Midwest tell me that, as the stage list shrank, the general support for the game shrank too. There was a lot going on culturally with Brawl, but I have no doubt that banning too many stages really did very significantly harm competitive Brawl far moreso than having too many legal ever could have. It made the game grow stale quickly (there's just less going on when you play on a tiny fraction of the stages), and it super emphasized the strengths of a few of the "best" characters and greatly hastened the metagame contracting around those to the exclusion of otherwise good characters who preferred now banned stages. I mean, no one really wants WarioWare legal; that stage is super random and significantly detracts from the skill test of the game. How about Jungle Japes though? There is literally not a single random element in that stage (Klaptrap is on a timer), and the different layout adds to the diversity of the game by emphasizing diffrent character strengths and weaknesses than Battlefield and Final Destination. I actually like playing on really crazy stages in smash games, but I can accept banning a lot of those and only really get upset over the thing when we start just banning way too much and taking away stages that have nothing of real signficance wrong with them, something I'm quite convinced hurts these games way more than leaving too much legal ever could.

I mean, seriously, there were Brawl tournaments that banned Halberd and Delfino, two super obviously fair stages, and when I main G&W and those are good stages for me while terrible stages for me like Smashville and Final Destination are always legal, it begins to feel unfair. People talk like there's some abusive stuff that's so good on Halberd and Delfino; I just see how Smashville and Final Destination make the most abusive thing in competitive Brawl (Ice Climbers infinites) as easy as possible which is just obviously "worse" than anything on Halberd or Delfino to the point that the Halberd and Delfino bans wherever they exist feel totally arbitrary. I put thousands of hours of work into G&W with the assumption that the rug wouldn't be pulled out from under me and the rules redesigned to be literally the worst possible ruleset for my character; I'm not even bitter over it because Brawl is all in the past, but I don't want something like that to happen to anyone with the new game.

The main thing I want from smash 4 stages isn't to have every stage I could ever want to play legal. I just want to have a real diversity and to keep everything that is reasonably okay. I can accept playing on signfiicantly fewer than 30 stages. I can't accept playing on 5. Everyone can get most of what they want out of stage rules in the new game. Stage liberals like me can have the gameplay diversity (and also not see characters who like dynamic stages just get screwed by the rule changes like in Brawl). The stage conservatives can have their game where we don't have significantly random or disruptive stages. We just have to all accept not getting every last thing we want and instead take that reasonable middle of the road option where all sides get most of what they want (note: this also means no constantly shifting rules where we "compromise" and then later one side takes everything else they wanted). This probably means a number of legal stages somewhere in the low teens all fully legal (that means legal in game one), and I'm quite convinced smash 3ds offers enough quality stages to make that happen even with what little I know now before the US release and would find it surprising if the Wii U version weren't the same way.

Starting off we should play with a very large number of legal stages just to get some real and serious experience about what's going on on all the different stages, we should discuss them all as a community, and we should find that set that is going to result in the greatest outcome for most of us. Jumping the gun on banning stages all over the place is going to make it very hard to discover what stages are actually any good; there seem to me to be around 20ish 3ds stages with some prospects of quality. I really doubt all of those will work out, but I don't think we'll know which of that set work well and which don't if we don't just try them all and hash it out. If we just instantly only play on 5 of them, I guarantee we're leaving a lot of good stuff on the table, and the game is just poorer as a result.

Pretty much this. I watched the TourneyLocator tournament, and while it was nice seeing some skilled play so early in the game's life, having a three-stage stagelist was extremely boring. Even if it was "For safety", not allowing Prism, Ferox, or Tomodachi (which the vast majority of players seem to think are fair) just made it feel like the thought behind the stagelist was "Well, we don't QUITE want to only go to Final Destination, so let's just add these other two safe stages."

I at least am at the point where I tune out of skilled matches on Battlefield, FD (regular, reskins are still fairly new so I'm still watching them), and Yoshi, just because I've seen them so much in other games.

 

[Conda]

To those bringing up poker and Lol:

I've been talking about STAGE randomness, not player-controlled random risk-management elements (poker, LoL, COD, luigi/peach/GW, etc). Understanding the difference is important.

Stage hazards are not things that require improving player-dependant risk-management skills, which is what makes poker what it is. I'm confused as to why some people brought risk management player-based randomness into the discussion, when this thread is about external stage hazards. You've not hit on a nail we didnt take into consideration.


Also, poker skill is based on betting, bluffing, endurance, and looong sets - NOT just getting the best hand by random chance. You cant have a balanced game like poker without those elements. If the OP wants to introduce random elements that are outside the player's control, then you have to be willing to change the rules in a big way.

Why only FD and Battlefield? Why restrict ourselves only to the same old boring Final Destination, when all stages have FD variations?

Also it is not like the Wii U stages are balanced either.

Because stripped down high level play that focuses on the players and not the fleeting stimuli of new stages is what high level play is about in fighting games. FD and BF is never boring to watch - the stage isnt whats in center-stage (teehee, i just wanted to say that).

FYI, i think all stages without hazards should be legal, as they have been so far. Increases flavour enough without having to add hazards that will change how interested people are in match outcomes.

 

[Renji64]

Nobody wants to travel out to tourney just to end up losing by a random stage hazard. More variety is great but there is only so much to work with.

 

[Conda]

Im amazed that people feel anyone is arguing for Omega FD only. We are not. Brawl had a good legal list (including halberd and delfino). Are thise not excitig enough? Do you want players to travel miles and spend money to play on brinstar? Good luck developing a community of dedicated professional-level career focused players around that.

Also, the brawl scene shrank not due to a change in stage legality, but because people got bored and the game had too much uncontrollable randomness in it (tripping). Adding MORE is not a benefit to anybody who plays the game at a professional level.

 

[Boss N]

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.

You said that there already had been experiments done on these stages, can you share the procedure & it's results?

 

[Riskman]

While I agree that we definitely should give some of these stages a go competitively, I also agree that it should be player vs player, and not player vs player vs stage. Some of the stage hazards are obscenely annoying and even team up with a player (Birdman why'd you have to ruin Magicant). A lot of the stages in this game are kinda iffy on whether they should be legal or not but in all honesty you do need to remember what exactly sets apart Smash from other games; the stage plays an enormous part in how you will perform in a match. Having a couple of these slightly crazy but not too bad stages (for example Jungle Japes) there just as counterpicks could really help some characters who may under-perform on stages like Battlefield and FD thanks to their very far out blast zones. We need to do extensive testing, maybe even at tournaments, to see whether these stages are really viable instead of looking once and turning a blind eye towards them. Just my two cents.

 

[Conda]

Precisely. Even casual players who play at home and want a decisive 'alright, seriously tho' match at the end of their session know the value of stages without hazards for proper competition.

 

[Plain Yogurt]

Brawl had a good legal list (including halberd).

Do you want players to travel miles and spend money to play on brinstar?

I'd really like you to tell me why you've been saying stage hazards with any sort of randomness cannot be allowed while you make two completely contradictory statements like this. Are you trying to tell me Halberd doesn't have random stage hazards that don't influence the match at all? Or are you saying that minimal hazards are okay as long as they don't dominate the match flow? Because if it's the latter then you and I and many of the other posters in this thread have been on the same page this whole time.

And I'm gonna keep going back to it until I get an actual answer that isn't "It doesn't happen often enough to matter": Why is Randall, who can completely change a game, an okay stage element? By this logic of "All matches should be clean, with no interruptions or intervention from the stage" Yoshi's Story should be banned.

 

[Aaronrules380]

To those bringing up poker and Lol:

I've been talking about STAGE randomness, not player-controlled random risk-management elements (poker, LoL, COD, luigi/peach/GW, etc). Understanding the difference is important.

Stage hazards are not things that require improving player-dependant risk-management skills, which is what makes poker what it is. I'm confused as to why some people brought risk management player-based randomness into the discussion, when this thread is about external stage hazards. You've not hit on a nail we didnt take into consideration.


Also, poker skill is based on betting, bluffing, endurance, and looong sets - NOT just getting the best hand by random chance. You cant have a balanced game like poker without those elements. If the OP wants to introduce random elements that are outside the player's control, then you have to be willing to change the rules in a big way.



Because stripped down high level play that focuses on the players and not the fleeting stimuli of new stages is what high level play is about in fighting games. FD and BF is never boring to watch - the stage isnt whats in center-stage (teehee, i just wanted to say that).

FYI, i think all stages without hazards should be legal, as they have been so far. Increases flavour enough without having to add hazards that will change how interested people are in match outcomes.

I'd argue though that if you're familiar with a stage and how it works, it might be possible to take stage hazards into account and use them in your favor via risk reward management. I'm not talking stages like warioware which are blatantly impossible to predict. But lets say a stage occasionally has a damage hazard appear on one side of the screen. If players are aware of it, and aware of how often it tends to appear, they can take that into account and aim for the chance that the stage hazard activates. And that's in the case where stage hazards aren't completely dictated by the time. Because what about stages that change in a completely set manner as time passes? If a player knows about when a stage hazard will appear, they might be able to take that into account (And given tourney play is done on a timer, this shouldn't really be that hard). It's obviously a case by case basis, but that's why it should be tested. Not necessarily in tournaments, but I find it hard to believe that nobody has the time to run these tests in the off time. And a lot of stage hazards are telegraphed, meaning if you pay attention you can know exactly what will happen ahead of time

 

[Conda]

This entire thread undermines the professional players and rulemakers, and assumes they make choices lightly and with little experience influencing their decisions.

 

[onjai_x3]

One of the things that ran me away from the competitive scene was the boring stages. I love dynamic levels.

 

[Boss N]

This entire thread undermines the professional players and rulemakers, and assumes they make choices lightly and with little experience influencing their decisions.

You make very good points in your favor, however I think you mis-understand the intent.

This thread isn't about making EVERY stage legal, that is absurd as there is the possibility that some stages are unfair. This is about having a more OPEN stage list, and objectively looking at these stages to determine if they really are ban worthy using quantifiable and definitive evidence. I'm not trying to undermine the competitive community, rather I'm trying to make a bridge between the two audiences and make them understand each other a bit better, this community has a problem with this divide and I wanted to provide a way they can come together more peacefully.

Now earlier you mentioned that there had already been experiments had been done on a lot of these stages, I had asked you if you could provide the procedure and the experiments results, but you haven't yet. This is a place where we share and measure quantifiable evidence, not to debate about stage legality, there are other threads for that. If you can back up your argument with solid, presentable evidence, then your claims will have validity to them. Right now however it seems like your trying to prove a point without any, which is what I'm trying to avoid in this thread.

To everyone else, I'm glad this thread is getting a lot of attention, I'll start adding stuff to the OP after my class but for now, what do you think would be a good procedure to start testing with?

 

[<π]

Im amazed that people feel anyone is arguing for Omega FD only. We are not. Brawl had a good legal list (including halberd and delfino). Are thise not excitig enough? Do you want players to travel miles and spend money to play on brinstar? Good luck developing a community of dedicated professional-level career focused players around that.

Also, the brawl scene shrank not due to a change in stage legality, but because people got bored and the game had too much uncontrollable randomness in it (tripping). Adding MORE is not a benefit to anybody who plays the game at a professional level.

I'm a little hurt I called you out in my post and everything with this huge block of text... Well, I guess I am that nobody you keep mentioning, lol.

I won't say it as in depth as I did last time, clearly you could care less what I say. But people, myself included, have and will travel to play on brinstar. In melee I made sure of that if you beat me in a match you were going to Brinstar. The list of people who traveled to events with hazards (specifically brinstar) include most of the old school top players you hear about now. M2K, Hugs, Ken, KdJ, Hbox, Mang0, PCchris, Armada etc, etc. have all traveled literally cross country and in many cases out of the country to play on these stages and in most cases were still able to come out far above the competition.

Making claims that just aren't true over and over again do not make them true @ Conda .

Also, brawl's failure wasn't linked to just tripping. You can't just make guesses show proof and evidence of what you are saying. Or at the very least tell us what YOU think and how YOU feel like: "I don't like brawl because it was random." "I wouldn't travel and spend money on an event."

I mean I can't tell you that you aren't allowed to make baseless guesses at what everyone wants, but I can tell you you are wrong and show evidence why.

Semi unrelated; I just want to leave you guys with an idea:
Top players don't make the rules, rules make top players.

 

[Accelerator]

OP, you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Stages with hazards do not create a deeper meta game, it let's the fastest characters take advantage of the hazards. The characters who profit the most from more open stage list are always the higher tier characters.

People strive for a neutral stage list for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious one being because this is a competitive environment. You take out as many factors of randomness as possible. The MOST important reason is that it is an artificial way to balance the cast of characters.

You keep saying that stage diversity and hazards promote player skill, but this is simply not the truth. Stage hazards have always benefited not the smartest, or even more skilled player; but on the basis of the character they're using. A fast character can EASILY abuse a slower character who tries to navigates through stage hazards.

You cannot adapt to something if your characters don't have the tools to do so. Not every character has a viable answer to any given situation at any time, sometimes it's completely out of their control. That is why we strive for a neutral stage list with as little randomness and hazards as possible, so characters without these tools don't suffer.

 

[Conda]

OP, you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Stages with hazards do not create a deeper meta game, it let's the fastest characters take advantage of the hazards. The characters who profit the most from more open stage list are always the higher tier characters.

People strive for a neutral stage list for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious one being because this is a competitive environment. You take out as many factors of randomness as possible. The MOST important reason is that it is an artificial way to balance the cast of characters.

You keep saying that stage diversity and hazards promote player skill, but this is simply not the truth. Stage hazards have always benefited not the smartest, or even more skilled player; but on the basis of the character they're using. A fast character can EASILY abuse a slower character who tries to navigates through stage hazards.

You cannot adapt to something if your characters don't have the tools to do so. Not even character has a viable answer to any given situation at any time, sometimes it's completely out of their control. That is why we strive for a neutral stage list with as little randomness and hazards as possible, so characters without these tools don't suffer.

Precisely. Competitive play is about putting players in the spotlight.

This is why dota and LoL stick to one stage for competitive play - because the stage is not the attraction, its the players. Stages are not a part of dota-like games that offer much in the way of competitive interest, as the core game in the default map is very structured.

But many games do have stage variety, yet dont feel the needless need to include hazards and other gameshow-like elements.

Starcraft has stages that present different strategic options and limitations, as does Smash and FPS games. This is good, but hazards to not need to be included as well.
You can have a variety of stages without hazards.

 

[<π]

Precisely. Competitive play is about putting players in the spotlight.

This is EXACTLY why dota and LoL stick to one stage for competitive play - because the stage is not the attraction, its the players.

Very true, the game is about the players and how they react to each other and various elements in the game. I am actually very glad your brought up League. I love that game and I'm in the midst of writing a post comparing league of legends (a game with a far more powerful esports presence) to smash's esport scene and what we can learn from their game design choices.

League uses "stage hazzards" in the form of neutral monsters. They basically mini bosses that offer rewards for defeating them (Kind of like the yellow devil) depending mostly on how powerful they are. This creates a game within the game. Riot uses these guys to force conflict; especially at baron and dragon; because who ever gets the last hit gains a very big, game changing reward these mini bosses and the conflict around them actually makes for a more exciting and engaging period of play. Elements out of a players control don't necessarily subtract from skill and CLEARLY don't reduce viewership or player attendance in games like league. (kept it short because I'm pretty sure @ Conda is gonna skil this one too)

 

[Conda]

Very true, the game is about the players and how they react to each other and various elements in the game. I am actually very glad your brought up League. I love that game and I'm in the midst of writing a post comparing league of legends (a game with a far more powerful esports presence) to smash's esport scene and what we can learn from their game design choices.

League uses "stage hazzards" in the form of neutral monsters. They basically mini bosses that offer rewards for defeating them (Kind of like the yellow devil) depending mostly on how powerful they are. This creates a game within the game. Riot uses these guys to force conflict; especially at baron and dragon; because who ever gets the last hit gains a very big, game changing reward these mini bosses and the conflict around them actually makes for a more exciting and engaging period of play. Elements out of a players control don't necessarily subtract from skill and CLEARLY don't reduce viewership or player attendance in games like league. (kept it short because I'm pretty sure @ Conda is gonna skil this one too)

Haha
And very interesting point, however the 'hazard' mini-bosses in LoL and DOTA maps are player-encountered. In fact, they are not hazards in the same way Smash stage hazards are 'hazards', and shouldn't really be described as hazards to begin with.

They run on a spawn timer, only aggro when the players choose to begin fighting them, and are not there to destroy or negatively affect players without their say. They are a more meaty version of a staple DOTA-clone mechanic - jungle mob buffs. Minibosses are just larger and are utilized later on in matches.

They are buffs hidden behind a boss-fight 'minigame' wall that requires a certain amount of player growth, team coordination, map control, and equipment acquisition throughout the match. Those mechanics are all around LoL and DOTA (jungle buffs) and are not at all similar in any real way to stage hazards in FPS games, Starcraft, or Smash.

 

[<π]

they are similar because they force conflict in all of those titles.

If half of the stage catches on fire (or Ice) you are forced into conflict.
If a Yellow Devil falls from the sky you are forced into conflict over that last hit.
If a platform shifts you are forced into conflict.
If flying man spawns you are forced into conflict!
FD and BF there is no outside force creating conflict and that is great too in it's own way, but conflict is exciting and fun to watch!

And that makes the match interesting whether or not it is "optional" (because at top level play dragon and Barron are not optional)

 

[Boss N]

Haha
And very interesting point, however the 'hazard' mini-bosses in LoL and DOTA maps are player-encountered. In fact, they are not hazards in the same way Smash stage hazards are 'hazards', and shouldn't really be described as hazards to begin with.

They run on a spawn timer, only aggro when the players choose to begin fighting them, and are not there to destroy or negatively affect players without their say. They are a more meaty version of a staple DOTA-clone mechanic - jungle mob buffs. Minibosses are just larger and are utilized later on in matches.

They are buffs hidden behind a boss-fight 'minigame' wall that requires a certain amount of player growth, team coordination, map control, and equipment acquisition throughout the match. Those mechanics are all around LoL and DOTA (jungle buffs) and are not at all similar in any real way to stage hazards in FPS games, Starcraft, or Smash.

I understand what your trying to say, if there are extra elements in the game they should be determined by player agency, instead of the extra elements forcing the player to abide by it's rules.

Now an element that isn't in the players direct control can still be utilized if it's telegraphed early enough and is fair enough that it's not an instant game changer but can still create an exciting turn of events That is the point of this thread, to determine which stages have that balance.

I'm writing with bigger fonts not because I'm angry, but because it's the only eye catching way to really get the point across.

This is NOT a place to DEBATE stage legality, if you came here trying to change our minds, Or discuss the issue of having such stages at all, this is the thread to discuss such topics-
http://smashboards.com/threads/stage-analysis-discussion-thread.367708/page-6#post-17610217

If you don't agree with us, that's fine, I'm not asking you too. This thread is simply for determining if those claims are legitimate.

@ Conda , what if we could prove to you that a stage like Magicant (just as an example) can be proven, WITHOUT OF DOUBT, showing you video and data proving that it is in fact tournament viable, would you accept it?

Back on subject,

HOW WOULD YOU GUYS DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE STAGE LEGALITY? (even detractors can contribute on this, it's best that we hear as many view points as possible)

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Im amazed that people feel anyone is arguing for Omega FD only. We are not. Brawl had a good legal list (including halberd and delfino). Are thise not excitig enough? Do you want players to travel miles and spend money to play on brinstar? Good luck developing a community of dedicated professional-level career focused players around that.

Also, the brawl scene shrank not due to a change in stage legality, but because people got bored and the game had too much uncontrollable randomness in it (tripping). Adding MORE is not a benefit to anybody who plays the game at a professional level.

Brinstar was MLG legal in Mele for many years; I think experience shows it's one of the easier hazardous stages to deal with, and even a fair number of people who dislike most stages seem willing to give Brinstar a chance. Was that just a poorly chosen example?

You claim your location as "northeast", a place that always seems to be advocating for the most narrow, limited game and seemed bizarrely happy as far as I could tell playing on 3-5 stages and having half the players use MK. The game was just... different in the midwest. We had tournaments with 9 starters and over 20 total legal stages. People picked almost every character and saw success (only low tiers I never saw picked were Mario and Bowser); if you went into our events and didn't know your Link, Jigglypuff, and Yoshi match-ups, you just weren't going to go far. As time went on, our rulesets (which were actually congruent with the BBR rulesets!) grew to be incredibly different from the rest of the nation and we gradually gave in and banned stuff. I can't speak for the rest of the players, but I did see the character diversity shrink and as a G&W main definitely felt like my ability to win went down with every tournament that had a smaller stage list. G&W actually has a winning match-up with Meta Knight on Green Greens; that gets banned and I can no longer threaten to truly counterpick him. Ice Climbers, a super rare character earlier on, got super prevalent when you could no longer just Brinstar/Norfair them on your counterpick. The starter list shrinking was really worse. Game one I no longer had Halberd and Delfino, my two best stages that were ever on the starter list. They might have still been legal in a way, but not having them game one was just horrible since my opponents always struck them before unless it was like MK but I loved playing MK on those stages so bring it on. I still had to face Mr. Game & Watch's two worst stages in the game: Final Destination and Smashville (I still always had to strike). There were now more ICs mains too; at the most stage banning events, a match-up that I used to consider even felt like a 2-8! For that and many other reasons, I pretty well dropped out of the scene for years.

When I re-entered in anticipation for smash 4, I went to some locals run by DeLux. His rules were generally too conservative for my liking, but he did a good job showing a good framework for a reasonable compromise ruleset. His events had 9 legal stages, but every last one was a starter and players had two stage bans. This meant I never had to actually play on SV or FD in tournament, and I also had at least some diversity of stages to work with (striking SV and FD still left me with two strikes). He didn't have Halberd legal for reasons I really disagreed with, but he did have Delfino and Rainbow Cruise so I was able to make do. G&W felt so much more viable under his rules than under the 5 starter not very many counterpick rules that had grown popular when I dropped out of Brawl, and the game was plain more fun. I think we can do a bit better than 9, but that general idea of having lots of starters and just taking a step back from banning everything is the most important thing. I think it's because both sides pursue conflicting good things (diversity versus predictability) that lead to opposite goals (many stages legal versus many stages banned) that both have diminishing returns. Going from 25 to 30 legal stages barely helps the liberal cause but severely hurts the conservative one as whatever 5 stages you add are going to be just horrible from their perspective. Going from 10 legal stages to 5 isn't even that big of a gain for the conservatives since all of the truly 'bad" stages were already gone, but it just destroys what the liberals were going for since you begin to run out of what's left in the game. When I look at that, I see a number of legal stages in the low teens that are all fully legal (including game one) isn't a case of both sides getting half of what they want; both sides get about 3/4 of what they want due to how the diminishing returns work to create a sweet spot in the middle ground where both of us are mostly winners.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

@ Boss N

If a fair and objective way to determine stage legality existed, don't you think it would have been implemented by now? Stage legality is a line drawn in the sand. I draw my line differently from anyone else. You can play on anything. It is still a test of skill. It tests different skills, but is a test of skill.

I ask you to stop your pursuit of quantifying a subjective subject. If you want to get a more liberal stage list to spread, you need one of two things: charisma or power. You have to have the ability to convince others that your idea of stage legality is what they want, or you need the power to run what you want PR to force others to run what you want by withholding your attendance. The latter is harder to get than the former.

 

[Piford]

I posted this in the other thread but it probably belongs here.
I believe that more stages in the meta game actually allows for the meta to develop better and for it to be more balanced. To show this I'm going to use a simple model where there are only three stages (Final Destination, Battlefield, and Tomodachi Life) and 3 characters (Marth, Bowser, and Meta Knight). Now these stats are all theoretical, but lets say after the first couple tournies with smash 4 the win ratios are these:

FD
Bowser 60/40 Meta knight
Bowser 50/50 Marth
Marth 50/50 Meta Knight

BF
Bowser 50/50 Meta Knight
Bowser 60/40 Marth
Marth 50/50 Meta Knight

TL
Bowser 30/70 Meta Knight
Bowser 40/60 Marth
Meta Knight 50/50 Marth

So the Community sees all three characters winning tournaments, but it seems bowser is significantly hindered by TL. The community's knee jerk reaction is to ban TL. Now with that stage gone the meta develops now with bowser winning more and more. As bowser sees more usage, people better learn how to play bowser and there he wins even more. Now after a couple years the ratios are these:

FD
Bowser 90/10 Meta knight
Bowser 75/25 Marth
Marth 55/45 Meta Knight

BF
Bowser 75/25 Meta Knight
Bowser 90/10 Marth
Marth 45/55 Meta Knight

The community now accepts that bowser is just by far the best character. Some tournaments try to bring back TL, but bowser still wins the majority of the time anyways. The community decides that there's no reason to use Marth and Meta Knight, so Bowser is essentially the only character. This is what happens when you ban stages too soon.

Now lets imagine we didn't ban TL and the meta game develops with that stage in mind. We still see bowser being played because of his slight advantage on the other two stages, but now all 3 characters are being used and mastered. Now after a couple of years that stats are these

FD
Bowser 60/40 Meta knight
Bowser 50/50 Marth
Marth 55/45 Meta Knight

BF
Bowser 50/50 Meta Knight
Bowser 60/40 Marth
Marth 45/55Meta Knight

TL
Bowser 40/50 Meta Knight
Bowser 45/55 Marth
Meta Knight 50/50 Marth

See, now the meta game has developed to a balanced state. All characters and stages are viable. Now its about who's the better player, not who's Bowser. Of coarse now we come to real Smash 4 where there are 49 Characters and 34 stages, and this model doesn't fit exactly. Of course the roster isn't perfectly balanced, and of course there are stages that aren't fair. We can ban some stages, and decide some characters are better; it's inevitable. However, we should be aiming to have as many stages as possible to keep the game balanced and let the meta game develop as best it can.

Stages that aren't completely random or intrusive should be allowed. Stages like Wario Ware clearly can't be legal; however, stages Reset Bomb Forrest should be legal because you can utilize the stage hazards, as it is completely predictable. I think the method of having two players fight on FD and finding the W/L ratio, then comparing it to the W/L ratio on other stages is a great strategy for at least seeing what stages might cause a problem. If the ratio is off, then a more in debt analysis should take place.

 

[Cactusblah]

I'd rather just play on the omega stages. They're more fun for me.

 

[dskank]

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.)