Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
2 stages don't mean anything. Gerudo Valley>Skyloft Pac-Maze>Pac Land Golden Plains>New Super Mario Bros U.
I actually really agree with you on this! Although I don't think all the Wii U stages are bad, I feel that they have way to much going on in them; ex: Wily's Castle (Great stage, but that yellow devil is too much!) Although I think it is a cool concept that Wii U stages get there of FD form! I do really like some stages on Wii U, but overall I feel 3DS has some great ones and, like you said, especially got the better Pac-man Land!
My thoughts exactly.
Why would they be better? comparing gerudo with skyloft is like comparing eldin with delfino plaza.
I'm comparing them because they're from the same franchise.Why would they be better? comparing gerudo with skyloft is like comparing eldin with delfino plaza.
Those 2 stages changes completelly the way you play though, unlike pac-maze and golden plains that use pretty much the same gimmick in different ways
Sigh...
I know what sakurai said even without the featured it would still be a cool stage for the wii u.
Yeah i know what you are doing, you also said is your opinion
Thus proving my point that the stage choices of the two versions are intended for the fandom's two different markets.
The problem with that idea is that most Wii U stages will be banned anyway. Coliseum, Gateway Galaxy, Wily Castle, they're all going to be banned.
That's hardly "most". We don't even know half.
Same with the 3DS version. But of what we've seen, and what you're basing your idea on, most stages are banned or borderline. A Smashville on 3DS would balance out the two, basically sinking your theory.
Wily's Castle is definitely bannable if there isn't a way to turn off the boss, but depending on how the game shapes up, walk-offs could become counterpick candidates. We can't rule out anything yet. (Except scrolling stages. And Boxing Ring)
Why not? Walk off camping actually puts the person camping the edge at a disadvantage. Seriously, the whole idea of them causing crazy issues are NOT what people think them to be. Characters with set throw knockback and some other things can work wonders on them, but it's not impossible for one to be legal if it was set up right.
The reason we don't have legal walkoffs is because it can quickly make a few decisions mean alot more then usual, like sudden death, and they remove certain aspects of play. A few moves at the edge can quickly turn things around for either player. It's basically a high risk, high reward version of rock-paper-scissors. I don't want to put up with it, and I'm not alone in this line of thinking.
They remove some aspects from play, and add others as well. What are these decisions that mean more then usual you are mentioning? If you meant walk off camping I can easily explain why doing that isn't actually really beneficial to the person camping. A few moves off stage can change things around quickly for players too.
Walkoff camping isn't necessarily in the camper's favor, but it can force the other player to play a risky move. It's still overcentralizing. What little walkoffs give is counteracted by all that it removes. Onett is a special case, since it has cars coming every ten seconds that make the camper have to perform a punishable action, usually resulting in death because of it. I'll accept a walkoff stage where camping on the edge is outright a stupid move, but nothing less.
