After the SDCC tournament yesterday... I'm having doubts Smash 4 will be a good competitive game.

[Amazing Ampharos]

I agree so hard about what you said about a single cohesive ruleset SP. I don't know if it was just that the BR was too slow in Brawl, but it did always feel like the BBR stage lists just meant we were banning stages in the Midwest since everywhere else had already banned them. I've dedicated a huge amount of thought (and stress) into thinking how things can be different on that front, and while I'm not sure a BR-only approach is enough (definitely needs significant transparency and outreach to the broader community), I could definitely get behind a faster moving BR as a starting point to get some real unity going.

I've actually been working on a kinda private side project for a draft preliminary smash 4 ruleset (obviously leaving the stage list blank for now!) that hopefully could be generally useful for early tournaments (so we just hash out the stage list real fast when the game hits and plug it into the more general rules). I was going to continue tweaking it and wait until the next big smash 4 reveal to post it. It's mostly standard fare with the caveats that it writes custom movesets into the procedure and tweaks stage selection procedure a bit in ways that I think will make the system work a bit better (not horribly different from the current system though). As of now, I'm sticking with that plan and am going to post it publicly at an appropriate time, but if we have other avenues getting rolling on this stuff, I can move that up. IMO rulesets are the most important BR topic by far. If the BR puts out a late and/or lousy tier list, it just makes people on the internet upset. If the rulesets are not handled well, it has a very significant practical downside for actual tournaments worldwide. For that reason, getting something good and commonly accepted going early on rulesets would be a BR priority #1 in my book, and I'll definitely do anything I can to help make that happen.

 

[Aninymouse]

I agree so hard about what you said about a single cohesive ruleset SP. I don't know if it was just that the BR was too slow in Brawl, but it did always feel like the BBR stage lists just meant we were banning stages in the Midwest since everywhere else had already banned them. I've dedicated a huge amount of thought (and stress) into thinking how things can be different on that front, and while I'm not sure a BR-only approach is enough (definitely needs significant transparency and outreach to the broader community), I could definitely get behind a faster moving BR as a starting point to get some real unity going.

I've actually been working on a kinda private side project for a draft preliminary smash 4 ruleset (obviously leaving the stage list blank for now!) that hopefully could be generally useful for early tournaments (so we just hash out the stage list real fast when the game hits and plug it into the more general rules). I was going to continue tweaking it and wait until the next big smash 4 reveal to post it. It's mostly standard fare with the caveats that it writes custom movesets into the procedure and tweaks stage selection procedure a bit in ways that I think will make the system work a bit better (not horribly different from the current system though). As of now, I'm sticking with that plan and am going to post it publicly at an appropriate time, but if we have other avenues getting rolling on this stuff, I can move that up. IMO rulesets are the most important BR topic by far. If the BR puts out a late and/or lousy tier list, it just makes people on the internet upset. If the rulesets are not handled well, it has a very significant practical downside for actual tournaments worldwide. For that reason, getting something good and commonly accepted going early on rulesets would be a BR priority #1 in my book, and I'll definitely do anything I can to help make that happen.

I hope you're able to fashion something that we can all enjoy. I 'm not sure we know enough just yet to make a definitive set of rules, but it doesn't hurt to try and get a jump on it.

 

[Tagxy]

Gonna be switching back to my first account here but this is Cassio.

All Im gonna say is trust in Shaya, hes definitely put a lot of thought into how things will go moving forward and has heard and addressed concerns most will think of. I wouldn't agree just to agree, and support the ideas hes tossed around. A lot of things that are happening have to do with changing and better understood realities, where the traditional idea of backrooms may have been something that worked in an older age. Well, I'm not too sure on the specifics myself + Im sure Shaya will go over things he wants to, basically Im saying based on what Ive heard I give my seal of approval.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I agree so hard about what you said about a single cohesive ruleset SP. I don't know if it was just that the BR was too slow in Brawl, but it did always feel like the BBR stage lists just meant we were banning stages in the Midwest since everywhere else had already banned them. I've dedicated a huge amount of thought (and stress) into thinking how things can be different on that front, and while I'm not sure a BR-only approach is enough (definitely needs significant transparency and outreach to the broader community), I could definitely get behind a faster moving BR as a starting point to get some real unity going.

I've actually been working on a kinda private side project for a draft preliminary smash 4 ruleset (obviously leaving the stage list blank for now!) that hopefully could be generally useful for early tournaments (so we just hash out the stage list real fast when the game hits and plug it into the more general rules). I was going to continue tweaking it and wait until the next big smash 4 reveal to post it. It's mostly standard fare with the caveats that it writes custom movesets into the procedure and tweaks stage selection procedure a bit in ways that I think will make the system work a bit better (not horribly different from the current system though). As of now, I'm sticking with that plan and am going to post it publicly at an appropriate time, but if we have other avenues getting rolling on this stuff, I can move that up. IMO rulesets are the most important BR topic by far. If the BR puts out a late and/or lousy tier list, it just makes people on the internet upset. If the rulesets are not handled well, it has a very significant practical downside for actual tournaments worldwide. For that reason, getting something good and commonly accepted going early on rulesets would be a BR priority #1 in my book, and I'll definitely do anything I can to help make that happen.

I think it is too early to draft a ruleset at the moment. There are too many variables to consider. This Smash iteration will add in the additional issue of custom movesets to the mix. We don't know if they are balanced, easily selectable, unlocked at the beginning (or easily unlocked through a sharing method like syncing a single 3DS to all the Wii Us), etc. Saying that we can utilize them at the get go is a bit idealistic but will be better confirmed when we have our hands on the 3DS version.

It is definitely NOT too early to start drafting our APPROACH to what we want out of the ruleset. For example, I think the Smash 4 ruleset should address issues that we have in competitive Smash in general, such as average game length. Our game simply lasts TOO LONG per set. Even Melee suffers from this. This hits us significantly in that tournaments are all-day endeavors for competitors, viewers, and TOs. I think this is an issue that could potentially be fixed.

In addition, I think we should cater our rulsets to be closer to Sakurai's "definition" of competitive Smash because that lowers the barrier of entry for the competitive scene and makes our rules more intuitive for the general public to understand. For Glory mode removes items and there is simply little to no demand for items in competitive Smash, so even if they are magically balanced for this iteration I don't believe they merit an argument to keep in (item side tournaments are always possible if there is demand). For Glory mode also defaults to only FD (or so we know now). While that is too simple, I do think we can remove stages that are too far removed from the traditional Smash formula without worrying. Even if chaingrabs are removed, I would argue that walk-off stages should not be legal in competitive Smash because it breaks the formula that has proven to be what our community wants to achieve. On a personal level, it hurts to say that because I like the additional variety and options that are offered by walk-off stages, and the idea that it could potentially level out a higher and lower tier matchup.

Thats the kind of approach I think we can hash out in order to streamline the ruleset and make it speedy, cohesive, and relatively pain free when making a single competitive front on release.

 

[infomon]

Agreeing with @ SamuraiPanda . I frame it as follows:

Our immediate needs will be a common set of Criteria: What categories of argument are reasonable for considering x (stage | character | rule | etc.). This includes:

• Fine-tuning of parameters: How strong does the effect of x need to be to merit a (ban | counter-pick | etc.)
• Confidence: What amount of tournament results, theory-crafting amongst high-level players, frame-data, etc. are required to make a strong case for x?

SP already mentions a few types of argument we might use:

• Tournament feasibility (e.g. game duration control)
  
• Cater rules to standard "Sakurai" smash, where reasonable
• Minimize randomness, remove "overpowered" tactics (eg. chaingrabbable-walkoffs)

The benefit of enumerating the criteria like this is immediate. I take issue with the following:

Even if chaingrabs are removed, I would argue that walk-off stages should not be legal in competitive Smash because it breaks the formula that has proven to be what our community wants to achieve.

I don't consider this a proper argument. So I ask SP: please give a real explanation. What smash "formula" is "broken" by the presence of walk-offs? (We might not consider this answerable until smash4's release.. although experience with previous games gives us some pretty big hints!)

In the end I will probably agree about the walk-offs. My goal right now is just to get us all speaking the same language about what would make that argument. This will make it easy to communicate the reasons behind the decision, and have the general community on-board even while the decision (per stage) is made by a backroom.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Excellent points, @ infomon . While I was giving scenarios, you laid out the idea I was attempting to convey in an easy-to-understand formulaic approach. I think that sort of approach should be fleshed out into a complete system that will help us streamline our discussions for the initial ruleset.

The points you bring up countering my argument about walk-offs is exactly what I'd expect to be raised. I intentionally left it vague and undefined for certain key elements I rely on in my argument because expanding too deeply on this issue would take a lot of extraneous effort I would rather save for when it matters. But your points are dead on. I SHOULD have to substantiate my argument. I SHOULD flesh out my reasoning and why I think in certain ways. When we are on the same page about what constitutes a salient point and utilizing the same terminology, we will finally be moving forward on the right path.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I would agree that items are not really worth considering this go round unless there's something very big we don't know that changes things in their favor (seems very unlikely).

My philosophy on custom movesets is basically this. We don't know the details of how they're going to work out, but the system really only has two possible outcomes (it's workable, it's not workable). Assuming "it's workable" for a preliminary ruleset draft seems best to me since if we end up in the other world it's just removing a few lines, and I see a lot of confusion over how they would fit into counterpicking and such even though I don't think it's actually that complex which suggests to me that can be hashed out now. It's kinda hard for me to imagine the kinds of things we could discover about the game that would really mess with the fundamentals of most of the other non-stage ruleset stuff. Things like "here's the procedure for how stage striking works" seem really good to hash out now instead of later when we have lots of particulars to grind through. I do agree even here we're still somewhat premature though; that's why I wasn't planning to post anything until the next big smash 4 info dump (probably the point we know "essentially everything" but don't actually have the game yet).

As per stages and the qualities we should be looking for, I mostly agree that we can go for a tamer, more "basic" style of stage gameplay (that is probably going to be unkind to walk-offs, though yeah Onett was the greatest stage no one ever loved), but I would stop short of just going to stages that don't do anything and have no hazards. We seem to have a lot of traveling stages this time of generally high quality (Skyloft, Town and City, and Pilotwings on Wii U, Rainbow Road and Prism Tower on 3DS), and some very good stages seem to have mild hazards (Mushroom Kingdom U stands out here, and we know Halberd is back). I think we can probably pretty easily get a number of good legal stages in the low double digits (just going off the ratio of good looking stages now versus how many will probably be in the game, precise figures are obviously not knowable now), that is a stage list somewhat but not drastically more inclusive than what we had with Brawl, and it would make for an overall more diverse and better game without forcing anyone to make sacrifices of significance. I also pretty strongly feel an important part to making things work long run is having every legal stage be legal for game one for a variety of reasons, mostly revolving around the fact that from a player's perspective mastering counterpick only stages is a waste of time and therefore these stages are almost inevitable future bans, and I think stage rules that change with time are fundamentally pretty unfair so we should be looking for an approach that will maximize our ability to have a static ruleset. There's really so much more I could say about the topic of stages, but as long as we're in the same vague ballpark on what we think makes a good stage, I think stage procedure is probably the actual best starting point since we know almost everything relevant to that whereas we still don't know about half of the Wii U stages which is a pretty big deal.

As per time of tournaments, I dunno that's kinda tough. I kinda feel like 2 and 1 stock games are just too short to offer the same kind of skill test that 3 stock games do (developing reads over time, risks of stock-magnitude not being instant game loss when they go wrong), and odds are if we go below 7 minutes we're going to start seeing some significant time-outs. One big improvement is to get rid of the idea of 3/5 finals sets since those don't really improve events much but add a ton of time, but beyond that, it seems pretty hard. Do you have particular ideas on that?

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I would agree that items are not really worth considering this go round unless there's something very big we don't know that changes things in their favor (seems very unlikely).

My philosophy on custom movesets is basically this. We don't know the details of how they're going to work out, but the system really only has two possible outcomes (it's workable, it's not workable). Assuming "it's workable" for a preliminary ruleset draft seems best to me since if we end up in the other world it's just removing a few lines, and I see a lot of confusion over how they would fit into counterpicking and such even though I don't think it's actually that complex which suggests to me that can be hashed out now. It's kinda hard for me to imagine the kinds of things we could discover about the game that would really mess with the fundamentals of most of the other non-stage ruleset stuff. Things like "here's the procedure for how stage striking works" seem really good to hash out now instead of later when we have lots of particulars to grind through. I do agree even here we're still somewhat premature though; that's why I wasn't planning to post anything until the next big smash 4 info dump (probably the point we know "essentially everything" but don't actually have the game yet).

As per stages and the qualities we should be looking for, I mostly agree that we can go for a tamer, more "basic" style of stage gameplay (that is probably going to be unkind to walk-offs, though yeah Onett was the greatest stage no one ever loved), but I would stop short of just going to stages that don't do anything and have no hazards. We seem to have a lot of traveling stages this time of generally high quality (Skyloft, Town and City, and Pilotwings on Wii U, Rainbow Road and Prism Tower on 3DS), and some very good stages seem to have mild hazards (Mushroom Kingdom U stands out here, and we know Halberd is back). I think we can probably pretty easily get a number of good legal stages in the low double digits (just going off the ratio of good looking stages now versus how many will probably be in the game, precise figures are obviously not knowable now), that is a stage list somewhat but not drastically more inclusive than what we had with Brawl, and it would make for an overall more diverse and better game without forcing anyone to make sacrifices of significance. I also pretty strongly feel an important part to making things work long run is having every legal stage be legal for game one for a variety of reasons, mostly revolving around the fact that from a player's perspective mastering counterpick only stages is a waste of time and therefore these stages are almost inevitable future bans, and I think stage rules that change with time are fundamentally pretty unfair so we should be looking for an approach that will maximize our ability to have a static ruleset. There's really so much more I could say about the topic of stages, but as long as we're in the same vague ballpark on what we think makes a good stage, I think stage procedure is probably the actual best starting point since we know almost everything relevant to that whereas we still don't know about half of the Wii U stages which is a pretty big deal.

As per time of tournaments, I dunno that's kinda tough. I kinda feel like 2 and 1 stock games are just too short to offer the same kind of skill test that 3 stock games do (developing reads over time, risks of stock-magnitude not being instant game loss when they go wrong), and odds are if we go below 7 minutes we're going to start seeing some significant time-outs. One big improvement is to get rid of the idea of 3/5 finals sets since those don't really improve events much but add a ton of time, but beyond that, it seems pretty hard. Do you have particular ideas on that?

While I'd love to start picking apart and hashing out some finer points of our approach to stages for this iteration, I think we can hold off for the correct venue on that.

I really wish I had ideas on how to speed up Smash tournaments and matches other than 2 stock. I agree with you that 2 stock does eliminate a lot of what we've come to love in Smash with the ebb and flow of the game. Someone can be 2 stocks down but still end up making a come back. Being 1 stock down and making a come back doesn't really compare. But outside of those outlier matches, I don't think we necessarily NEED 3 stocks. But honestly the decision should really be made later in the game's lifespan as we have a better idea of the speed on high level Smash 4 play. I think starting at 3 stocks and adding/subtracting 1 stock depending on speed 3-4 months down the line (or so) would be a fine approach. I do believe that if we ended up making Brawl 2 stocks instead of 3 then the game would have been more interesting to watch and the tournaments would have been more manageable.

I will have to disagree about 3/5 grand finals. I do believe that improves events, adds hype (except in the event of a one-sided grand finals where the loser destroys the winner and has to win 6 games total to win the whole thing), and is the standard for all one-on-one style competitive games/fighters. I think though with Smash tournaments lasting as long as they do that bracket resets can get arduous to watch. I think if grand finals were best 3/5 and if reset (i.e. loser side player winning the first 3/5) then it becomes a best 2/3, that could be better.

 

[Tagxy]

Wasnt intending to post this here but since were on the subject...Unfortunately there is already a secret group of prominent TO's attempting to push a ruleset. Can't say Im a big fan of closed-door, hidden-member, TO only (from what Ive gathered) committees like this; I was pretty against the URC at the time and his seems like a repeat but worse since its hidden-member and no area for comment whatsoever. Im not against a stanrdard ruleset, but Im gonna be speaking against this one in my region unless it happens to be perfect.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/300411396795174/
(group description for those who cant read it)
"Pre-Smash 4 Ruleset Discussion
This group is for TO's willing to cooperate during the early phases of Smash 4 to ensure and agree upon a finalized community ruleset. A standard ruleset is essential to the life of almost any competitive game. With Smash being an Esport we want the same opportunities as other competitive games. To do this we need to use this group to discuss what should be legal and things around that matter so regions across America will be practicing and playing under a unified ruleset. I put the most important and open minded TO's in here. Let's make the most of this. Everyone has a voice! If done right this will push our community in the right direction!"

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Wasnt intending to post this here but since were on the subject...Unfortunately there is already a secret group of prominent TO's attempting to push a ruleset. Can't say Im a big fan of closed-door, hidden-member, TO only (from what Ive gathered) committees like this; I was pretty against the URC at the time and his seems like a repeat but worse since its hidden-member and no area for comment whatsoever. Im not against a stanrdard ruleset, but Im gonna be speaking against this one in my region unless it happens to be perfect.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/300411396795174/
(read the group description)

Ugh, I can't even view the group description, but I suppose that's not the important point. I hope that they're just intending to brainstorm and not to actually try to make decisions in this way; one of the main lessons we have to have learned from how things went down in Brawl is that the more you try to lock down decision making the less popular the result will be. People feel disenfranchised by this type of thing, and when people feel disenfranchised, they're not willing to compromise anything at all... hence your position that you'll only support their result if you absolutely 100% agree with it. I imagine that most people will feel the same way, and in fact you've articulated that this is exactly how regional divisions in rulesets happen.

Incidentally, this has been quite an interesting evening. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one thinking about how things are going to be going down early in smash 4, and in fact, it seems like a lot of people have had some similar thoughts to me on some things which is actually pretty re-assuring. I'm definitely looking forward to us getting serious on this stuff; doing things right from day one could definitely be an important step one to making this game bigger than Brawl ever was.

 

[Shaya]

Hey guys, going to request this specific topic is kinda killed for the moment (it's not relating to the thread much anymore).

I'll be looking at bringing together something soon (i.e. a new thread)

 

[Tagxy]

sorry requested topic kill. If you want to see the group description I edited it in above since only I could see it.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

sorry requested topic kill. If you want to see the group description I edited it in above since only I could see it.

Go to sleep Andres, lol.

Spoiler

It's Zenas

 

[Padô]

I agree so hard about what you said about a single cohesive ruleset SP. I don't know if it was just that the BR was too slow in Brawl, but it did always feel like the BBR stage lists just meant we were banning stages in the Midwest since everywhere else had already banned them. I've dedicated a huge amount of thought (and stress) into thinking how things can be different on that front, and while I'm not sure a BR-only approach is enough (definitely needs significant transparency and outreach to the broader community), I could definitely get behind a faster moving BR as a starting point to get some real unity going.

I could agree with you here in terms of a faster BR, but this is not true. I remember when I was part of it, once we released the Tier List 5.0 (can't remember exactly what was the version), we were already debating how the next one could be broader and better, and overall, more transparent. We went collecting info from top players OUTSIDE the backroom and even outside Smashboards, we also stated what we did when the 6.0 got released.

About the stages and rulesets, I didn't got into ant discussions about the rulesets during my time there, we also talked about many and many possibilities but never reched a consensus and because of the MK controversia it actually got really hard to change the ruleset and stage lists. Anyways any type of different actions would be bashed by the community, that's just what happens.

 

[Johnknight1]

No. You're hated because the way you behave. SRK got ****ing tired of Smashboards trying to say "Oh, we are a fighting game, love us." and then going "It's all Brawl's fault. Everything is it's fault. But Melee is good."

You're a fool if you think it's just because the FGC has some secret jealousy or something. Yes, there are some people who try to argue that Smash isn't a fighting game (and why does it matter). But a big part is how the community behaves. The Smash community acts childish.

Oh look, lies and over-generalizations by the most childish person on the boards.

EDIT: Warning infractions means someones feelings got hurt. Smashboards has gone to ****.

*waves*

Hi, I'm Johnknight1.

And no, I reported you because you speak lies and seek to insult the smash competitive community that aren't remotely true. I won't stand for lies and slander based on lies to go unpunished. I won't let you or any other person bully any part of the community without retribution.

You aren't even close to accurate with your statements. The big haters of SRK back in the day were the Brawl players after they tried to impose tournaments with item which no one wanted. That's why EVO 2008 bombed, and why SRK got bombed. Quite frankly, the Brawl competitive players were in the right. The OP of this thread (Samurai Panda), myself, and others stood firmly against what they were doing, which is why the Brawl scene divorced them.

Most of those people doing it at SRK are now gone and out of power. They treated everyone, mostly us, as less than them. Eventually, they got burned, specifically during that SFxT Capcom produced show controversy. SRK and the fighting game community as a whole had a new set of big name leaders after that, and we are all a lot better for that. Games and scenes stop being bullied by sites like SRK, and yes, that includes Smash, which yes, includes Brawl.

Now, with the truth straightened out, here's a demand, not a plea.

Turn from hating on the competitive community needlessly, or we, the competitive community, will burn you with this "report" button until you don't have a voice anymore.

We, the competitive players of Smash, no, we the players of Smash, will not let ANY PART OF OUR COMMUNITY get bullied by you and your pathetic like-minded liars anymore without retribution. The era of hating competitive players or quite frankly any sort of Smash players based on how they play on these Smash 4 boards is over.

You can evolve past your hate or go extinct like countless other hate mongers before you.

 

[Big-Cat]

In the name of the moon, we shall punish you!

It's all in the past. Chu, I suggest packing your bags.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I plan to promote the use of a lot of stages by initially hosting my own Smash4 tournaments as soon as the game comes out, and allowing a liberal rule set of stages. That we we can at least see what these stages offer and what they do before banning them forever. As they say, if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself.

The initial 1 year of the game it will be so popular you can throw out any rule set you want and so many people come all the good players will see the pot money and come regardless of ruleset. That's why its important to experiment early.

 

[Overswarm]

Plus I'd really not have another MK issue where a characters is really good on flat+plat stages but turns out to have some really bad stages (see: Jungle Japes, Pipes, Luigi's Mansion) and everyone says "you should ban those, they're lame" and then MK makes everyone stop coming to tournaments. -_-;;

 

[Senario]

Plus I'd really not have another MK issue where a characters is really good on flat+plat stages but turns out to have some really bad stages (see: Jungle Japes, Pipes, Luigi's Mansion) and everyone says "you should ban those, they're lame" and then MK makes everyone stop coming to tournaments. -_-;;

Well those stages are banned for reasons other than MK. Water physics on Japes with crocodiles(banned in previous game), don't have an explaination on the other stages since I don't really play brawl anymore (has been a long time) but I'm sure there is a good reason. Most stage bans are banned for a good reason.

 

[Hong]

I plan to promote the use of a lot of stages by initially hosting my own Smash4 tournaments as soon as the game comes out, and allowing a liberal rule set of stages. That we we can at least see what these stages offer and what they do before banning them forever. As they say, if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself.

The initial 1 year of the game it will be so popular you can throw out any rule set you want and so many people come all the good players will see the pot money and come regardless of ruleset. That's why its important to experiment early.

Indeed.

I plan to take a similar approach as a TO. At least for the first year, I think people will find enough incentive just to have somewhere to play the game and compete. I want to push to have both a lax stage selection, as well as custom special moves. I rather have a big huge mess that is slowly cleaned up and refined over time, then to go into this new game with an overly strict construct that is likely to be not suitable for a new product.

If we want a game with lots of life, we only owe it to ourselves to take some time to explore.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Plus I'd really not have another MK issue where a characters is really good on flat+plat stages but turns out to have some really bad stages (see: Jungle Japes, Pipes, Luigi's Mansion) and everyone says "you should ban those, they're lame" and then MK makes everyone stop coming to tournaments. -_-;;

If there is one benefit, is that due to the mechanic changes we won't get a 1:1 Meta Knight situation by default. For example, the whole ledge exploit in Brawl is neutered to be far more risky for these next games, meaning Meta Knight's infamous ledge game is going to be nerfed by default. To an extent, if gliding is universally removed, Meta Knight's recovery is going to be by default worse.

Though to actually fix Meta Knight, actual adjustments to his moveset will be needed. Like making his recovery overall more risky and making his gimping and killing capabilities more limited.

 

[Overswarm]

Well those stages are banned for reasons other than MK. Water physics on Japes with crocodiles(banned in previous game), don't have an explaination on the other stages since I don't really play brawl anymore (has been a long time) but I'm sure there is a good reason. Most stage bans are banned for a good reason.

Except Japes wasn't banned in Melee for years and worked fine; I played it in tournament shortly before Brawl's release. It wasn't until after the playerbase dwindled to nothing but "Melee 4 lyfe" people that Japes was banned everywhere. That croc was on a timer. >:|

Japes had some issues (wario water stalling) but they didn't realy come to fruition; the reason it was banned in most areas was "I don't like it".

That's the reason most stages are banned. "I don't like it". People have no idea how the stages in Smash 4 work and they're already saying "banned" to a multitude of them!

If there is one benefit, is that due to the mechanic changes we won't get a 1:1 Meta Knight situation by default. For example, the whole ledge exploit in Brawl is neutered to be far more risky for these next games, meaning Meta Knight's infamous ledge game is going to be nerfed by default. To an extent, if gliding is universally removed, Meta Knight's recovery is going to be by default worse.

Though to actually fix Meta Knight, actual adjustments to his moveset will be needed. Like making his recovery overall more risky and making his gimping and killing capabilities more limited.

MK was dominant before his ledge play became an issue. The biggest boost MK got was when the stagelist shrank to only stages he was good on; it became impossible to effectively counterpick him while most other characters could still be CPed.

 

[Plain Yogurt]

Plus I'd really not have another MK issue where a characters is really good on flat+plat stages but turns out to have some really bad stages (see: Jungle Japes, Pipes, Luigi's Mansion) and everyone says "you should ban those, they're lame" and then MK makes everyone stop coming to tournaments. -_-;;

Just read through the Brawl stagelist twice. What's pipes?

Also on the topic of stage banning, if chain throws aren't a thing in this game, will we see some legal walk-offs? Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio, though a tad big-looking, seem pretty neutral outside of that.

 

[Senario]

Except Japes wasn't banned in Melee for years and worked fine; I played it in tournament shortly before Brawl's release. It wasn't until after the playerbase dwindled to nothing but "Melee 4 lyfe" people that Japes was banned everywhere. That croc was on a timer. >:|

Japes had some issues (wario water stalling) but they didn't realy come to fruition; the reason it was banned in most areas was "I don't like it".

That's the reason most stages are banned. "I don't like it". People have no idea how the stages in Smash 4 work and they're already saying "banned" to a multitude of them!



MK was dominant before his ledge play became an issue. The biggest boost MK got was when the stagelist shrank to only stages he was good on; it became impossible to effectively counterpick him while most other characters could still be CPed.

Well neither was the F-zero stage. We learned over time obviously. There are reasons to ban certain stages. It isn't simply "I don't like it"

Walk offs are banned due to overcentralization (so if a stage has a place where you can walk off and die it is banned). Chain grabs or no you can see it in the SDCC 3DS tourney. There was one match with two bowsers near the end where both bowsers stayed around the edge of the map waiting for the other person to come along so they could throw or hit them into the blast zone easily. This makes the game ALL ABOUT THAT and it is uninteresting and very campy. It also favors characters who have better horizontal games rather than vertical games (Like say a character had a spike as one of it's main kill moves, now that character is not very good at that type of stage).
Stage hazards make a stage banned because it makes you fight the stage and not your opponent. (Usually damaging ones)
Stage bosses are like hazards, and thus will get the ban hammer.
I believe some stages in brawl were banned due to walls due to infinites that brawl notably had a problem with. I can't say 100% sure but that is a good reason to ban them.
And in general things that affect players and their gameplay toward one another too much. Dream land wind is fine, Yoshi's cloud is also fine but those are small annoyances. The wind allowed for some interesting ways to DI out/or get some combos going without actually damaging any player and Yoshi's cloud is essentially another platform.

All I'm saying is, they have a good reason to be banned. It isn't "I don't like them". Otherwise we wouldn't get consensus. For example, I love Pokefloats but it is banned for a good reason.

 

[infomon]

Senario provides a testing ground for ruleset validity criteria discussion!!

Walk offs are banned due to overcentralization

I consider this a valid reason for a ban. But we need to define:

1. How dominating the effect must be to merit a ban.
2. How much real-world tournament experience vs. theorycrafting is appropriate to prove that the problem exists and cannot be solved.
3. For any particular stage, does it actually exhibit the effect (e.g. temporary or disadvantaged walkoffs may not be a problem).

Now let's analyze Senario's specific arguments:

Chain grabs or no you can see it in the SDCC 3DS tourney. There was one match with two bowsers near the end where both bowsers stayed around the edge of the map waiting for the other person to come along so they could throw or hit them into the blast zone easily. This makes the game ALL ABOUT THAT and it is uninteresting and very campy.

Here is the match, for those who don't know it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75k4eXbtbtk&t=54m08s

Although it's not the best example, it helps to showcase the power of walk-offs. It allows a simple strategy to reduce the battle for a stock, to a battle for a single grab near the edge. This means that a 3-stock match with a walk-off would give us substantially less insight about which player is better, than a 3-stock with no walk-off. If I was playing against a great opponent, I might stay toward the side because I have a better chance of getting a lucky grab than fighting out the whole stock.

That being said, I would still have had to get a %-lead in order for the opponent to be forced to approach. Also, if the opponent has a strong projectile game then the tactic becomes less viable.

Question: What do we need to know about the mechanics of smash4, or any particular stage, for a walk-off to be tolerable vs. ban-worthy? If a walk-off is only sometimes (e.g. Castle Siege in Brawl), how much of the time can it be there for it to be OK? Do we need to see the tactic used to actually win tournaments before we can consider it over-centralizing?

It also favors characters who have better horizontal games rather than vertical games (Like say a character had a spike as one of it's main kill moves, now that character is not very good at that type of stage).

I don't consider this a valid reason. We don't pick and choose stages to balance the characters, certainly not around some arbitrary idea that "horizontal and vertical attacks should be of relatively equal strength".

Stage hazards make a stage banned because it makes you fight the stage and not your opponent. (Usually damaging ones)

There might be a compelling argument in here, but I don't see it -- yet. The better player is the one who is able to best manoeuvre the stage, avoid the hazards, and beat the opponent. If you can't handle the stages then you are lacking skill at smash. "Fighting the stage" is not a valid argument toward a ban in my view.

Stage bosses are like hazards, and thus will get the ban hammer.

Ditto to the above. Certainly it depends on the strength, frequency, and other properties of the hazards!!

I believe some stages in brawl were banned due to walls due to infinites that brawl notably had a problem with. I can't say 100% sure but that is a good reason to ban them.

Over-centralization around a single tactic. We should decide on some criteria about how many characters would need to be affected, and how dominating the existence of the 0-death (and/or stalling) would need to be, to merit a ban. That's something we can debate before the game comes out!

 

[Overswarm]

Just read through the Brawl stagelist twice. What's pipes?

Also on the topic of stage banning, if chain throws aren't a thing in this game, will we see some legal walk-offs? Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio, though a tad big-looking, seem pretty neutral outside of that.

Pipes was the Yoshi's Island with the spinny blocks; it had a hill walk-off (right side) and short ceiling.

Well neither was the F-zero stage. We learned over time obviously. There are reasons to ban certain stages. It isn't simply "I don't like it"

I was in the BR when Mute City was first brought up for banning. It's reasoning was "Peach and Jigglypuff are too good on this stage", no joke. The best Jiggs at the time was KillaOR!

When Mute City eventually WAS banned, it was because, wait for it, "Peach and Jigglypuff are too good on this stage. Also cars."

There wasn't ever any evidence of this, but what people disliked is it being used as a double-whammy. Characters like ICs had trouble with Mute City (Nana died easily) and one of the most notable examples was Chu Dat being taken to Mute City by PC Chris and PC Chris counter-picking as a green-colored Peach. Chu Dat typically went Young Link or Pichu on these stages.

You can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c66VtiyZuKc

Watch it, especially around 3:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6r5szYB6rk

That's the next game in the set, if you want a comparison to a 'traditional' CP.

(PS: Chu eliminated PC Chris in that tournament, if I recall correctly)

It was an example of a good counterpick stage, but people didn't like it. Fox still beat Peach and Jiggs handily on Mute City during this time period, but they were still viewed as "too good". They especially disliked that there was no ledge to grab during the take-off portions, and by they i mean falcon mains, but that wasn't really brought up until after the fact.


It's very very important to keep in mind that most people don't know what they are talking about. Most people say they know a reason but they don't. They decide "I don't like this" and then find a reason to ban it, rather than finding reasons to ban things and banning or keeping it legal regardless.

For a good example, keep in mind PS1 is still legal despite it having the highest propensity of timeouts and a guaranteed "timeout" portion during the transformations. Other stages have been banned for less, but it stays simply because... people like it!

Walk offs are banned due to overcentralization (so if a stage has a place where you can walk off and die it is banned). Chain grabs or no you can see it in the SDCC 3DS tourney. There was one match with two bowsers near the end where both bowsers stayed around the edge of the map waiting for the other person to come along so they could throw or hit them into the blast zone easily. This makes the game ALL ABOUT THAT and it is uninteresting and very campy. It also favors characters who have better horizontal games rather than vertical games (Like say a character had a spike as one of it's main kill moves, now that character is not very good at that type of stage).

Stage hazards make a stage banned because it makes you fight the stage and not your opponent. (Usually damaging ones)

Stage hazards have been a part of competitive smash longer then they haven't; they add a lot of depth to the game and most are celebrated.

In Melee right now they have Battlefield's edges dealing more damage than any hazard, but it stays legal. PS1's transformations have walls that set up for infinites, yet, legal. Dreamland's wind hazard changes matches but is still legal. Yoshi's cloud Randall changes matches by a HUGE degree yet is still legal. Fountain of Dreams platforms change frequently and mess up technical play on game by game basis!

By the "ban all hazards" criteria the only stage left would be Final Destination!


No one "bans hazards" by default. That's a new mentality that came about only after Melee died and there was only a select few left. The majority of Melee's lifespan was played on a vast stagelist and knowing hazards and how to play on them was integral to competing.

Stage bosses are like hazards, and thus will get the ban hammer.

Maybe. But you have no way of knowing the actual impact of all stage bosses. What if there is a "stage boss" who simply flips the stage like Frigate Orpheon? What if there is one who simply creates a wall of an energy on either the left or right side of the stage, thus forcing you to take damage but not be KO'd on that side?

You have no idea on how they function.

I believe some stages in brawl were banned due to walls due to infinites that brawl notably had a problem with. I can't say 100% sure but that is a good reason to ban them.

Why? ICs get to have an infinite on every stage and every character, but Dedede can't have an infinite on a few stages on 1/3rd of the cast?

Why are tilt locks removed in this manner, but 0-death chaingrabs on Fox not removed?

And in general things that affect players and their gameplay toward one another too much. Dream land wind is fine, Yoshi's cloud is also fine but those are small annoyances. The wind allowed for some interesting ways to DI out/or get some combos going without actually damaging any player and Yoshi's cloud is essentially another platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAq8l3MCIF4

That doesn't seem to be too minor to me. It looks like players are surviving pretty much at random when they otherwise would have died. They didn't see it coming and plan for it, it just happened.

You can watch the Pak E. Derm in the background for the first 2 minutes or so to get an idea of where the cloud will be, but I'd imagine most of those clips are just people getting lucky.


How can you be logically consistent in banning Japes for a klap trap hazard (occupied two areas at two specific times below the stage, can be seen coming in advance) but not ban Yoshi's for a cloud hazard (occupied two areas at two specific times below the stage, can be seen coming in advance)?

It's more complicated than you think, trust me.

All I'm saying is, they have a good reason to be banned. It isn't "I don't like them". Otherwise we wouldn't get consensus. For example, I love Pokefloats but it is banned for a good reason.

What reason is that?

Because I know why it was banned, I was there when we voted to ban it. Believe it or not, I personally wrote the wording for the majority of rulesets used on smashboards! I even created the threads voting on which stages should stay and which should go.

Trust me, there isn't and hasn't ever been consensus on the majority of stages.

 

[Veggi]

I was probably the most annoyed person in the whole world when Japes stopped being legal at tournaments because that was the stage that allowed Donkey Kong to be able to win matchups against MK, Ice Climbers, and Dedede. It also improved all of his other matchups dramatically. Even Falco. I have a lot of experience playing on this stage, so here's why DK could have been a more viable character with Japes legal:

-The stage has a huge ceiling, which makes it so DK has a longer time to finish bair and start his up b so that his momentum is canceled.

-DK can land in the water after using his up b brake to avoid being punished.

-DK can avoid being juggled with up b and land in the water so that he's not punished.

-DK's up b cancels the water's momentum so he can survive even if he drops off the ledge on the very left side of the stage and then kill himself off the right side of the stage without touching the ground if he wanted to.

-He can cargo down throw people into the klap trap.

-He can stage spike people while still on the stage by doing cargo down throw to hit the opponent against the bottom of the left platform.

-DK can do the extended super armor glitch from many platforms and then land on a lower one safely.

-DK's down b covers a lot of the main platform and he can shark the pass through platform easily.

-Other character's recoveries on this stage are much worse than his.

-DK can survive Klap Trap at very low percents.

-Left and right platforms make DK's aerials much more convenient and safe.

-DK can use grounded up b and then cancel it to an edge anywhere on the stage.

-Most of the good characters in this game are bad at this stage.

If Japes was legal, I think that Donkey Kong could have been a much more viable character with far less horrible matchups.

 

[Overswarm]

If Japes was legal, I think that Donkey Kong could have been a much more viable character with far less horrible matchups.

And this here is the big issue with banning stages.

Now, Japes may have been banned on its own. It's entirely possible! Wario could stall in the water indefinitely (move to right side with double jump, jump out of water to the right, camp in the water). We didn't find that out until later, but it would have shown up. There were dangerous hazards (klap trap) that, despite being obvious and on a timer, could eventually been a focal point of the stage. There was the disadvantage that the matches, legitimate matches, could go to time.

Imagine playing Jungle Japes for 5 years -- what if it got to the point where the game play was "grab release to klap trap" on Jungle Japes? What if that was the only way anyone won?


There's lots of possibilities that could have banned Jungle Japes in the long run.

But we didn't observe those yet and in doing so inadvertently increased the viability of characters like Falco, ICs, and MK while decreasing those of Donkey Kong and the like.

You can see a more extreme example of this in Falco and Olimar being top tier characters in Brawl. Falco and Olimar are bad.... unless you put them on a flat/plat stage.

This is why the stage-banning decisions need to be non-arbitrary and not related to a specific character. It's not fair to leave Japes legal because it "helps DK" any more than it is to ban Shadow Moses because it "hurts ROB".

You have to look at the stage in a vacuum and compare it to the goals that are set for the game and then let the metagame develop separate from that.

 

[Veggi]

And this here is the big issue with banning stages.

Now, Japes may have been banned on its own. It's entirely possible! Wario could stall in the water indefinitely (move to right side with double jump, jump out of water to the right, camp in the water). We didn't find that out until later, but it would have shown up. There were dangerous hazards (klap trap) that, despite being obvious and on a timer, could eventually been a focal point of the stage. There was the disadvantage that the matches, legitimate matches, could go to time.

Imagine playing Jungle Japes for 5 years -- what if it got to the point where the game play was "grab release to klap trap" on Jungle Japes? What if that was the only way anyone won?


There's lots of possibilities that could have banned Jungle Japes in the long run.

But we didn't observe those yet and in doing so inadvertently increased the viability of characters like Falco, ICs, and MK while decreasing those of Donkey Kong and the like.

You can see a more extreme example of this in Falco and Olimar being top tier characters in Brawl. Falco and Olimar are bad.... unless you put them on a flat/plat stage.

This is why the stage-banning decisions need to be non-arbitrary and not related to a specific character. It's not fair to leave Japes legal because it "helps DK" any more than it is to ban Shadow Moses because it "hurts ROB".

You have to look at the stage in a vacuum and compare it to the goals that are set for the game and then let the metagame develop separate from that.

I agree with the idea that stages shouldn't be micromanaged based on increasing character viability. However, I don't see how the side-effects that you listed were negative effects that would come from doing it. Having all stages be plain has caused the game to be skewed because without variety, characters that are best within the strict style of stage we left would rise to the top. I feel as though it would be the same if we decided that only aerials were legal. Obviously one is much different than the other, but they both would decrease character variety by decreasing the amount of options in the game. It's partly my fault for not explaining my intention better. I was implying that that stages shouldn't be banned without thorough reasoning because of the horrible effects of limiting the stage selection, not that stages should be left legal just it would increase a character's viability.

I also believe that many of the issues with Japes are non-issues that wouldn't be present (or at least polarizing) in top level play from my experience with the stage, but that would be arguing over something that would be best found out through the top level players using the stage. I also believe that a larger sample size of matches with Wario on Japes would have to be considered before we labeled the tactic as unbeatable or close to it. However, I don't know a whole lot about that specific tactic,

 

[Overswarm]

I also believe that many of the issues with Japes are non-issues that wouldn't be present (or at least polarizing) in top level play from my experience with the stage, but that would be arguing over something that would be best found out through the top level players using the stage.

We played on it. There were no major issues with the hazards on the stage, although Alpha Zealot hit me directly into the klap trap twice on purpose because he's pretty slick like that.

I also believe that a larger sample size of matches with Wario on Japes would have to be considered before we labeled the tactic as unbeatable or close to it. However, I don't know a whole lot about that specific tactic,

It was near unbeatable. That said, so was flying under the stage on Smashville with MK and we didn't ban Smashville, so...

 

[D-idara]

We played on it. There were no major issues with the hazards on the stage, although Alpha Zealot hit me directly into the klap trap twice on purpose because he's pretty slick like that.

The point being that you getting killed wasn't the stage's fault, but your opponent's?

 

[josh bones]

How can you say character viability had nothing to do with it when we stopped people from taking to saffron?

 

[ChikoLad]

I rather have a big huge mess that is slowly cleaned up and refined over time, then to go into this new game with an overly strict construct that is likely to be not suitable for a new product.

This is the absolute most perfect description of how Smash 4 tournaments should be handled for a while. That's why I've been suggesting experimentation with custom moves and equipment.

 

[Clavaat]

Indeed.

I plan to take a similar approach as a TO. At least for the first year, I think people will find enough incentive just to have somewhere to play the game and compete. I want to push to have both a lax stage selection, as well as custom special moves. I rather have a big huge mess that is slowly cleaned up and refined over time, then to go into this new game with an overly strict construct that is likely to be not suitable for a new product.

If we want a game with lots of life, we only owe it to ourselves to take some time to explore.

I'll play Devil's Advocate.

If you are too lax, you run the risk of people joining, not liking the rules, and never coming back to the game. They'll hear "Oh but it's not bad now," and shrug it off. I've seen this happen to quite a few games.

In general, I agree with you, and would join in said tournaments. However, participants as a whole may be turned off if certain options are left open. On the flip side, if you are too strict in the beginning, and flesh it out over time, people may feel too restricted and react the same way as the previous scenario. It's a matter of striking the right balance

 

[infomon]

How can you say character viability had nothing to do with it when we stopped people from taking to saffron?

The real question is, why the smash can't Ness wall-jump?? he's always needed it the most :[

 

[Overswarm]

The point being that you getting killed wasn't the stage's fault, but your opponent's?

Many players (not me) believe that hazards that interact with the gameplay are bad, even if controlled by the player. I see no difference between the platform on Yoshi's Island in Melee allowing for Marth to get a guaranteed tipper f-smash or the platforms on Battlefield allowing Link to get a 0-98% chaingrab on Fox.

Others do and feel that hitting someone into a klap trap is different. Some feel it because of the severity, some because it "isn't the player", some because they feel that the game shouldn't test the skill of "moving your opponent into the klap trap".

 

[JesteRace]

The problem with Brawl isn't the defensive play entirely. It's also the lack of any good offensive options ever and an even grosser character imbalance than Melee. If Sm4sh can manage to fix this, it will definitely be a good competitive game.

 

[Xiaphas]

My problem with Brawl is the physics don't feel fluid. I forget if it was earlier in this thread or another, but someone posted a video of DK vs. Wolf in Brawl and all of the movement looked so jerky and unnatural compared to melee (and so far the new game) where characters moved naturally around the stages. This is hard to put into words without busting out a calculator, but brawl has bigger problems than being too "defensive."

 

[D-idara]

Many players (not me) believe that hazards that interact with the gameplay are bad, even if controlled by the player. I see no difference between the platform on Yoshi's Island in Melee allowing for Marth to get a guaranteed tipper f-smash or the platforms on Battlefield allowing Link to get a 0-98% chaingrab on Fox.

Others do and feel that hitting someone into a klap trap is different. Some feel it because of the severity, some because it "isn't the player", some because they feel that the game shouldn't test the skill of "moving your opponent into the klap trap".

That's a little ridiculous, what would strategy games be without variable terrain, or Pokemon without the luck-risk factor some moves have? Do these people hate anything that falls outside of 'conventional fighting'? I just don't get how you can be OK with someone surviving certain death due to the cloud on Yoshi's Island, but get angry at someone knocking you againist Klaptrap so you die, if that player was that good, then they wouldn't have let themselves get knocked into Klaptrap. Also, as long as the hazard doesn't overcentralize the match, there's no problem, Klaptrap comes once in a while, and most people take stocks when Klaptrap's not around, it's just another tool at your disposal to KO your opponent :/

I think most people who complain about being killed by the other player through hazards are just Johning.

 

[Veggi]

The problem with Brawl isn't the defensive play entirely. It's also the lack of any good offensive options ever and an even grosser character imbalance than Melee. If Sm4sh can manage to fix this, it will definitely be a good competitive game.

Even though I believe that Melee's top level play features more characters than Brawl's, it still bothers me to read because I feel like if Metaknight didn't exist Brawl would beat Melee in character diversity easily. Especially considering that the better Brawl characters are more diverse in weight, speed, and play style than Melee's better characters. Play style is a little more opinionated, but I feel like how Snake, Olimar, Ice Climbers, Wario, Falco, Marth, Pikachu, Zero Suit Samus, Diddy Kong, and to a lesser extent Dedede play offers something for everyone. The closest thing to not being represented is a direct offensive play style, but I believe Diddy Kong and Wario can be successful played on the offensive.