Clarifying Competing Ideas on Stage Legality

[cot(θ)]

There's obviously a lot of disagreement and discussion on which stages should be legal/banned, whether to use 3-starters or 5-starters or FLSS, etc., and also a whole lot of misunderstanding about why people think what they do about stages. I thought it might be constructive to clarify the different positions on stage rules, and create a common understanding from which to hold further discussions.

I've compiled this list of thoughts based on discussions I've seen on the forums and that I've had with fellow smashers in my region. This thread is not for discussing the validity of any of these points with respect to any ruleset argument, but to clarify general beliefs held by all parties. Please discuss beliefs or opinions you have about stage rules, and possible counterpoints to those I've written down, and I will update the OP with relevant information. I think it will be beneficial for everyone to take a step back and take a look at other points of view objectively.

Stage Legality

Stage Liberals

Stage Liberals favour a larger legal stage list, and oppose banning any stage without solid evidence that it is good for competitive play. Some beliefs/opinions widely held by Stage Liberals are the following:

• Simpler stages should not be considered a "default" or regarded as the standard for balanced play.
• All stages inevitably favour some characters, and no stage is most balanced for every matchup.
• Stage knowledge is a vital part of a player's skill.
• Learning stages is not an unreasonable expectation of competitive players.
• Dying to an "unexpected" stage hazard or transition is not evidence that a stage is uncompetitive if the hazard is can be predicted and avoided by someone with reasonable stage knowledge.
• If the best player - factoring in stage knowledge - will reliably win a match on a particular stage, that stage is suitable for competition.
• It's OK for players to have to pay attention to the stage to take advantage of transitions and unique stage features. Doing so is one of the things that makes competitive smash unique as a fighting game.

Extreme Stage Liberals

Extreme Stage Liberals take the stage list even further, permitting walkoffs and stages like Gamer. Extreme Stage Liberals have a very strict criteria for banning stages, and banned stages must very clearly promote degenerate, random or unfair gameplay. Extreme Stage Liberals hold the same opinions as non-extreme Stage Liberals, as well as the following:

• Managing risk is an important skill.
• If the skill of playing around a hazard or managing the risk associated with the hazard is more significant than the random element associated with the hazard, the hazard is suitable for competition.
• If a single stage makes a matchup unwinnable, it can be struck in that matchup.
• Walkoff camping isn't actually a very powerful strategy.
• Matches can be competitive even if both players need to pay considerable attention to the stage.

Stage Conservatives

Stage Conservatives believe that an Evo-style stage list is fine. Stage hazards and transformations beyond what we see on currently legal stages are obtructive and uncompetitive. Competitive matches should be played on even ground. Stage Conservatives believe the following:

• Extreme stage hazards and transitions detract from the fundamental gameplay of Smash.
• Simple, static stages tend to be most balanced and produce fewer upsets.
• A player should lose a match because of actions taken against him by his opponent, not by the stage.
• Stages should not have elements that alter the basic gameplay mechanics.
• Learning and adapting new stages wastes time that could be spent progressing the character vs. character metagame.
• Character vs. character metagame development is more important than stage-specific metagame development.
• Players should not have to pay much attention to the stage. Most attention should be paid to the other player.

Extreme Stage Conservatives

Extreme Stage Conservatives believe that the current stage list needs to be trimmed down. Any moving or transforming elements which aren't obvious or easy to predict are uncompetitive, and limiting unusual stage mechanics will best allow the character vs. character metagame to flourish. Extreme Stage Conservatives hold the same opinions as Stage Conservatives, as well as the following:

• All stage hazards and transitions detract from the fundamental gameplay of Smash to some extent.
• Stage features such as blastzones shrinking during some transitions is a little OP and leads to undeserved kills.
• The players should not need to pay attention to the stage. Attention should always be focused on the other player.

Starter List

There are varying reasons for wanting or not wanting a separate list of starters, so I'll just put each of them in a big list.

Pro-Starter/CP Distinction

• Certain stages are most balanced for the vast majority of matchups
• Having a small set of starters saves time and doesn't drastically affect the outcome of stage selection
• Most players just want to play on Smashville anyway
• There are far too many viable stages to use FLSS
• A starter list can be made that represents the full legal stage list, instead of favouring characters that prefer flat+plat.

Pro-FLSS

• No stage or small subset of stages is most balanced for the majority of matchups
• The so-called "neutral" stages tend to most benefit characters who are (coincidentally?) top-tiers
• The most balanced stage for any matchup will be the one mutually agreed on by the players out of the largest possible list of stages

Personally, as an Extreme Stage Liberal, I find it very hard to accurately convey the thoughts of Stage Conservatives. Please post with some general principles that you use to guide your thinking on stage rulings, and I will do my best to keep the OP updated with what people are really thinking. Remember - no matter how much you may disagree with someone, they probably aren't insane or stupid for thinking what they do.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

• Extreme stage hazards and transitions detract from the fundamental gameplay of Smash.
• Stages should not have elements that alter the basic gameplay mechanics.Learning and adapting new stages wastes time that could be spent progressing the character vs. character metagame.
• All stage hazards and transitions detract from the fundamental gameplay of Smash to some extent.
• Stage features such as blastzones shrinking during some transitions is a little OP and leads to undeserved kills.

Every single statement in this sublist really boils down to "Smash is not the game we want to play and we feel that it should be changed via arbitrary rules to accommodate our preference". You might as well say "Fireballs detract from the fundamental gameplay of Street Fighter" - no, they are part of the fundamental gameplay. You can no more remove stages, transformations, and hazards than you can remove the second player, it is part of the core gameplay. In fact, it's a huge part of what makes Smash so different from any other fighting game. If you don't like stage hazards or transitions, you are playing the wrong game. This is why I don't understand stage conservatives - on a fundamental level, the game they want to be playing simply is not the game we actually are playing.

 

[webbedspace]

While I am sympathetic to your argument in this particular context, I think arguments appealing to "fundamental gameplay" are too airy-fairy to use as a convincing appeal to liberalism. One can argue that items are just as fundamental. (Some do, and have devised a limited items-on ruleset.) I personally feel that off-stage play, ledge-play, etc. is "fundamental", and that, philosophically, permanent walk-off stages shouldn't ever be used even if they didn't cause back-throws and blast-zone camping to be OP. (Temporary walk-offs (barring Woolly World) feature the ledge present for the majority of the time, and so have more ledge-game than not.)

 

[Thundering TNT]

I personally fit into the liberal category, but I can understand most of the other positions. The one I can't completely grasp is the extreme conservatives, but i can kinda see where they're coming from.

 

[Tinkerer]

Every single statement in this sublist really boils down to "Smash is not the game we want to play and we feel that it should be changed via arbitrary rules to accommodate our preference". You might as well say "Fireballs detract from the fundamental gameplay of Street Fighter" - no, they are part of the fundamental gameplay. You can no more remove stages, transformations, and hazards than you can remove the second player, it is part of the core gameplay. In fact, it's a huge part of what makes Smash so different from any other fighting game. If you don't like stage hazards or transitions, you are playing the wrong game. This is why I don't understand stage conservatives - on a fundamental level, the game they want to be playing simply is not the game we actually are playing.

To be fair, you could make the same argument for items or equipment. They get turned off for their randomness and degenerative gameplay - but what the latter actually means is kind of left in the middle. We're taking out stages anyway, so why is Wii Fit Studio, say, less legal? Because people deemed it too un-Smashlike to be playing with walkoffs. Why? They've been part of the fundamental core gameplay like anything else. Why did we ban Icicle Mountain? It seems obvious, but it isn't. It's incredibly subjective and absolutely worth talking about.

The argument here isn't what's part and what isn't of Smash Bros., but what we feel levels the playing field best in a way that player skill always triumphs over anything else. What stages best facilitate that is up for debate, but I don't think you can make the argument that it's core gameplay. If we had core gameplay tournaments per that definition, we'd have all stages available.

That said - I think the initial list of stages for Smash 4 has been way too conservative, just playing on what's safe and what we know from Brawl, while the game (the Wii U version at least) potentially has a huge amount of great tournament-ready stages available, much more than any other game in the series.

 

[Raijinken]

I'm on the borderline of extreme liberal and regular liberal. Between the two, I'd love to play in a competition with an extreme liberal stagelist, but organizing my own, I tend to go with just liberal.

My stage criteria below:
[collapse=Criteria]
Across both versions of Smash4, there is are exactly three "hazards" I think are innately and undefendably unreasonable for competition. Those are the Dark Emperor, and Wario Ware's microgame rewards, conveniently both on the 3DS version. Wario Ware is random, and does not reward the players equally for their contribution/performance (if it did, I would call Wario Ware 100% legal, but since it's entirely random who gets 7% healing and who gets invincibility, it is not). The Dark Emperor is similar - his random bonuses may affect both players, or neither, and aside from the bonus for killing him, you have no way to influence the bonus distribution.

Of course, those are just the hazards I think shouldn't be considered in the slightest, as they are more or less entirely random, and directly favor one character over another. All other hazards are minor in comparison. Even Ridley, due to the extreme predictability of his movement and attacks, and due to the player interaction required to recruit him (same for the Flying Man on the 3DS), is better than those other two hazards.

Past those two hazards, I find the next polarizing issue to be indefinite circle-camping. While obviously that's doable even on as simple a stage as Battlefield in the right matchup (see E3), it's clear to me that stages like Temple, Wrecking Crew, Palutena's Temple, 75M, Great Cave, and the U version of Gaur Plains aren't reasonable in that regard, either (not an exhaustive list, but sufficient).

Following circle camping, permanent walkoffs are the next issue for me. I used to be a firm believer in walkoffs being fine in Smash4, until Overswarm explained it: They give the leader a maintainable 50-50 trade opportunity that can be used until the lead is lost. Especially in this despicable 2-stock meta, that's far too strong of a position - win the first stock, and you've got a chance to read for a win at best, and at worst resetting to 1v1. As the stock count increases I feel it's less of an issue, but as-is I think it's too strong a prospect, especially for projectile users such as Diddy, Sheik, Rosalina, and Fox. Temporary walkoffs, including Wooly World, are completely fine for me. Consequently, Flat Zone X, Coliseum, Eldin, PacLand, Wii Fit Studio, Boxing Ring, Mario Galaxy, Yoshi's Island, and Mario Circuit Brawl are out. Similarly, uncontestably campable spots are out for similar reasons, which solely removes PIlotwings, and I'm on the fence about Duck Hunt's tree.

Next, lethal hazards. I consider a hazard "lethal" if it can (and probably will) kill most characters from below 100% (basically if it kills before most characters). This disqualifies Port Town without question (as much as I like it otherwise), Mushroom Kingdom U (Nabbit), and Windy Hill Zone (I have yet to see any character survive the spring shooting them downward), Pyrosphere, and if my information is correct, Gamer. Borderline cases are the giant enemy crab in Garden of Hope, and Yellow Devil.

After lethal hazards are Caves of Life. I'm extremely tolerant of caves of life, be they permanent or temporary. 70% of my play in Melee was in the most famous cave of life, and there I learned teching for days. This has to be handled on more of a case-by-case basis. Mario Circuit 8's ceiling, Wooly World's rocket, Luigi's Mansion's floors, the Gamer (randomly generated) solids, Skyloft, etc, are all fine by my standards, from a cave perspective. Onett pushes it a bit, but fails due to walkoff. Skyworld is the most iffy, because while the platforms are all destructible, they result in missing ledges, platforms that can be spiked through, and the respawning of the platforms isn't told (though I have no reason to think it's unpredictable).

If a stage can pass all of these tests, I see zero reason to exclude it. On the U version, the full list of stages I accept as legal is as follows:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Mario Circuit 8
Delfino Plaza
Wooly World
Kongo Jungle 64
Skyloft
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Kalos Pokemon League
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Town and City
Smashville
Wuhu Island

Borderline cases (Either I don't have enough information to disqualify them by the above standards, but feel they may warrant a ban)
Wily Castle (yellow devil lethality and the power of hiding behind it are the two main concerns)
Garden of Hope (size is the main concern, followed by glitchiness around the rebuilt structures)
Orbital Gate Assault (all reasoning and data says the hazards are fairly telegraphed, predictable, and low-lethality, but for some reason I can't bring myself to think it fair)
Gamer (predictability of Mom, combined with the random terrain generation, are the main factors)
Duck Hunt (I really haven't seen anyone succeed in holding that tree forever, but that doesn't mean it's impossible)
Norfair (lava lethality and predictability with camera angles are my main concerns)

That leaves me 15 stages that I consider legal.[/collapse]

Quite honestly, I understand super conservative stagelists the least. If randomness isn't fair, Smashville is banned for the balloon (so is T&C). If Duck Hunt isn't fair because ducks eat projectiles, again, see Smashville. It doesn't make sense to me that conservative rulesets would allow anything other than Battlefield and Final Destination, if they even allowed both. It shows the same sort of mental struggle of "where do you draw the line" that most stage liberals (myself included) have a pretty hard time deciding and explaining.

Also, I fully support the notion that any stage good enough for round 2 is good enough for round 1.

 

[Tinkerer]

I like the write-up there, and having a solid bunch of criteria to judge it by and then going through the stagelist (rather than going through the stagelist and making up reasons afterwards) is the way to go, but why would Kalos and Woolly World (hazards and possible circle-camping) be legal while Norfair and Duck Hunt are not? In the case of Woolly World especially it has proven time and again that it doesn't really work, while Duck Hunt is being ran in tourneys without much issue.

As for Orbital Gate: it can be disqualified if you adjust the "hazard" criterium. This is the same reason Poke Floats was in the end banned in Melee (though it's not random). The stage can prevent you from recovering due to movement of the available standing area. This is essentially a lethal hazard, though not literally one that knocks you out or damages you at all, and can kill at very low percentages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I like the write-up there, and having a solid bunch of criteria to judge it by and then going through the stagelist (rather than going through the stagelist and making up reasons afterwards) is the way to go, but why would Kalos and Woolly World (hazards and possible circle-camping) be legal while Norfair and Duck Hunt are not? In the case of Woolly World especially it has proven time and again that it doesn't really work, while Duck Hunt is being ran in tourneys without much issue.

As for Orbital Gate: it can be disqualified if you adjust the "hazard" criterium. This is the same reason Poke Floats was in the end banned in Melee (though it's not random). The stage can prevent you from recovering due to movement of the available standing area. This is essentially a lethal hazard, though not literally one that knocks you out or damages you at all, and can kill at very low percentages.

I think the bigger issue with Pokefloats is that the stage lacked any grabbable ledges.

On a different note, now that sharing replays is a thing, would it be feasible for people to do some...I guess "exhibition matches" would be the closest term, in order to demonstrate exactly why some stages are banned? My personal opinions and biases aside, I'm willing to follow the majority in saying that Woolly World, for instance, enables a certain type of undesirable gameplay, but what does that undesirable gameplay look like? How can we easily communicate this when the question is inevitably asked yet again?

A hypothetical scenario:

Little Johnny is the unquestioned king of his little group of friends in Smash Bros. They collectively love, say, Temple and play there all the time. Johnny learns of the Smash scene and wants in on that action but finds to his dismay that Temple is banned. When he asks why, the responses are along the lines of "it's too big" and "circle camping" but Johnny is confused because why would stage size matter when you want to be fighting the opponent? So he gets shown a video of a Fox getting a quick % or even stock lead on Link and successfully running away for the rest of the match instead of having to parse and understand the (sometimes quite dense) lingo we bandy about here.

 

[Tinkerer]

Yes, that's a good idea. Just look at the next thread over talking about Wrecking Crew: it could sorely need a video of a Sonic or something running circles around a Ganondorf.

 

[FooltheFlames]

I dont wanna go and give myself a label, and then fall into some preconceived category but I guess out of those 4 I would consider my self a "Stage Liberal".
I believe we can risk legalizing a few more stages, the "neutral" stages we have now... well they arent neutral-
hazardless stages promote camping and cause characters like Rosy & Villager to place higher on the tier lists with these advantages.
It's always going to be more risky and less rewarding to make the decision to approach first, these hazardless. flat omega stages favor spammy and defensive play more.

If we allow a few stages with minor hazards that force movement sometimes in order to avoid them, well have both more aggro style matches and have larger and more interested spectator audiences-
which will be great for Smash 4's growth as a competitive gaming community.
I cant tell you how many times I tried showing newbies some high caliber matches, only for them to complain why they're always on the same 2 or 3 stages, and that those stages let people camp to much. Overly defensive play is just plain boooorring to watch.

 

[Retro X]

I thought it might be constructive to clarify the different positions on stage rules, and create a common understanding from which to hold further discussions.

Now that you've outlined four possible positions, perhaps it would also be beneficial to make a pole to gather data showing where the community (or at least people who read this thread) stands on the issue, to show which of the 4 positions is the most popular.

I'd be interested in looking at simple data like that, reading long drawn out "liberal" arguments on this thread and others in competitive discussion is exhausting.

 

[energyman2289]

Most definitely conservative.

 

[clydeaker]

*COUGH* Wii Fit Studio should NOT be banned *COUGH*

What? I didn't say anything.
Please don't hate me.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Would it be worth discussing different stage ban rules in this thread or is that outside of the topic? I noticed in the rules thread that there were disagreements on whether stage bans should be reset after each game of a set or not.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense for a stage ban to carry over to all the remaining games of a set, as you might play multiple characters who benefit from wildly different stage archetypes, and having your ban carry over may unintentionally handicap your pocket character in a later game.

----------------------------------------

Regarding the points of discussion in the OP, I've come to the opinion that "extreme stage liberal" and "FLSS proponent" are kind of incompatible with each other. The longer the legal stage list becomes, the more cumbersome and tedious FLSS becomes as well. I find that while I prefer a wider umbrella of legal stage archetypes than what is typically allowed in a tournament, striking down so many stages for each match is often more trouble than it's worth.

 

[cot(θ)]

I think I've realized a fundamental axis of disagreement between stage liberals and stage conservatives. It's how much attention the players should be expected to pay to the stage. I think this explains a lot of the differing attitudes I see.

Stage conservatives dislike any kind of randomness, even though playing around and respecting randomness is a skill that widens the skill gap between players. However, the players need to pay attention to the stage to take advantage of this randomness in their game, so it is disliked. (And of course if you assume that players will not be paying that level of attention to the stage, then the skill gap is obviously narrowed.)

Stage conservatives also dislike stuff like early kills off the top on Delfino, or a footstool onto a retreating platform on T&C. Even though the shrinking blastzones and retreating platforms are totally predictable, and the player can in theory respect them, it requires the players to pay more attention to the stage to know when things are happening.

Smashville, on the other hand, requires almost no more attention than a static stage, making it well-liked by stage conservatives.

Would it be worth discussing different stage ban rules in this thread or is that outside of the topic? I noticed in the rules thread that there were disagreements on whether stage bans should be reset after each game of a set or not.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense for a stage ban to carry over to all the remaining games of a set, as you might play multiple characters who benefit from wildly different stage archetypes, and having your ban carry over may unintentionally handicap your pocket character in a later game.

Not really relevant to this thread, but FWIW, my ruleset has bans reset between games.

Regarding the points of discussion in the OP, I've come to the opinion that "extreme stage liberal" and "FLSS proponent" are kind of incompatible with each other. The longer the legal stage list becomes, the more cumbersome and tedious FLSS becomes as well. I find that while I prefer a wider umbrella of legal stage archetypes than what is typically allowed in a tournament, striking down so many stages for each match is often more trouble than it's worth.

Agreed. I use a set of 5 starters in my ruleset that better represent the whole stagelist.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I think I've realized a fundamental axis of disagreement between stage liberals and stage conservatives. It's how much attention the players should be expected to pay to the stage. I think this explains a lot of the differing attitudes I see.

Stage conservatives dislike any kind of randomness, even though playing around and respecting randomness is a skill that widens the skill gap between players. However, the players need to pay attention to the stage to take advantage of this randomness in their game, so it is disliked. (And of course if you assume that players will not be paying that level of attention to the stage, then the skill gap is obviously narrowed.)

Stage conservatives also dislike stuff like early kills off the top on Delfino, or a footstool onto a retreating platform on T&C. Even though the shrinking blastzones and retreating platforms are totally predictable, and the player can in theory respect them, it requires the players to pay more attention to the stage to know when things are happening.

Smashville, on the other hand, requires almost no more attention than a static stage, making it well-liked by stage conservatives.

I'm inclined to agree. I've said a few times before (not here though) that the line between an "acceptable" and "not acceptable" stage is how much mental energy one is willing to expend on keeping track of the stage itself, and the threshold of course varies on a per-person basis.

I've also said that if one spends even an hour doing nothing but messing around on a stage, whether it's in training mode or beating up the CPU or actual matches, as long as it's a cumulative hour or so of stage time, odds are the sheer familiarity will lessen the mental load.

(Fun fact: Each stage took me about 1-2 hours to study and analyze in order to make my threads, with a few exceptions that required unusually little/large amounts of observation.)

 

[erico9001]

So with this full stage list thing, it is possible for somebody to focus on banning all of the traditional competitive stages for the purpose of bringing a better player to a stage with more hazards (ie. more chance for the worse player to win)?

To stage 'liberals': Have you ever been true combo'd by the stage? You know, an opponent sends you off the stage on Gamer, and that happens to be the exact moment when Mom decides to spontaneously jump out the door? No chance to air dodge or anything, you just basically are killed by the stage? This has happened to me.

To stage 'conservatives': Have you ever been true combo'd by the stage? You know, an opponent sends you off the stage on Halberd, and that happens to be the exact moment when the claw comes from the back of the stage at you? No chance to air dodge or anything, you just are basically killed by the stage? This has happened to me.

Both sides seem to be losing sight of one important goal of stage selection: increasing the amount of control we, the players, can have over the match. Why do we ban Wily Castle? Well, because the Yellow Devil is controlling a lot of it, not the players. Ideally, both players will have the same, high level of control over the match. Therefore, we banned Kongo Jungle 64, because it gives certain types of characters too much more control over the match than the other. Most stages fit into this somehow:

Walk-offs - The stage dictates a strategy where players camp near the edges, often the most viable of thing to do, competitively.
Orbital Gate Assault - Tons of hazards, movement, and opportunities where the stage can cause you to fall to your death.
Norfair - Lava controls where you can be and what you can do
Pilot Wings - The stage allows players with good recovery to camp in areas others cannot get to. This is the most viable strategy in many cases, so the player should do so in a competitive environment.
Moving/scrolling stages - you must be moving all the time. Disliked.
Skyloft - there is the possibility that a part of the stage will happen to block your ability to get a kill, or will actually kill you at some points

Stages that transform are somewhat unique in this philosophy. They do somewhat control what you can do in the way that you should make sure to get back on the moving part when the stage is changing, but that's a very small sacrifice to player control. As long as the different forms do not individually sacrifice much control, people are fine with them. A case where too much control is sacrificed are Kalos Pokemon League during the registeel portion, where players on the ground are buried and players in the air can be hurt by the giant spinning swords. Things which had been previously unwelcome are suddenly welcome on transforming stages, because the effects do not last forever. Example: Walk offs. However, taking extra damage from the stage is something which lasts.

I think this is probably the best model for what stages should be legal. It's not necessarily liberal or conservative. Liberally, Halberd is a contender for being gotten rid of. Conservatively, Skyloft is a contender for staying banned. Although, certainly, the degrees to which the stages remove control can be nitpicked, and it's subjective in the matter of how much lack of control is okay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So with this full stage list thing, it is possible for somebody to focus on banning all of the traditional competitive stages for the purpose of bringing a better player to a stage with more hazards (ie. more chance for the worse player to win)?

Typically, all such stages are banned. Any stage where the worse player has a good chance of winning is already removed from the list from the outset. What's more, if someone could strike all of your "traditional competitive stages" then your thinking is muddled. Even with 13 legal stages, you mean to tell me that more than half of these stages are not on the same level as whatever subset you're holding up as "traditionally competitive"?

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Duck Hunt
Kongo Jungle
Halberd
Pokemon Stadium 2
Skyloft
Wuhu Island

Because at best, I count two that stand out at all from the pack in a negative way. Everything else just blends together.

To stage 'liberals': Have you ever been true combo'd by the stage? You know, an opponent sends you off the stage on Gamer, and that happens to be the exact moment when Mom decides to spontaneously jump out the door? No chance to air dodge or anything, you just basically are killed by the stage? This has happened to me.

Why do you think so few people are advocating the legality of Gamer? Because the hazards are extremely potent to the point where risk-reward becomes insane and being in the right place at the right time overshadows everything else.

To stage 'conservatives': Have you ever been true combo'd by the stage? You know, an opponent sends you off the stage on Halberd, and that happens to be the exact moment when the claw comes from the back of the stage at you? No chance to air dodge or anything, you just are basically killed by the stage? This has happened to me.

You have something like 5 seconds of the claw waving menacingly around (and targeting whoever it's going to shoot at). This should not be hard to deal with.

Both sides seem to be losing sight of one important goal of stage selection: increasing the amount of control we, the players, can have over the match.

Why is this important? I don't think it is, unless it feeds into the underlying goal: making the best competitive game possible. Things like Wiley's Castle matter not because it's focusing on PvE over PvP, but because doing so trivializes the question of "who is better at this game?" - the question we're trying to answer here.

Ideally, both players will have the same, high level of control over the match. Therefore, we banned Kongo Jungle 64, because it gives certain types of characters too much more control over the match than the other.

As someone who has KJ64 legal at his tournaments, this is rather confusing to me.

Most stages fit into this somehow:

Orbital Gate Assault - Tons of hazards, movement, and opportunities where the stage can cause you to fall to your death.

See, here's where things get interesting - you can totally have a competitive game of super smash bros on Orbital Gate Assault. It's completely non-random, none of the hazards are particularly hard to avoid, and while the gameplay is unconventional, it's still very much about the players. The PvE doesn't marginalize the PvP, and it also doesn't trivialize competition, it deepens it. It's the difference between playing chess, and playing chess while both players need are balancing on a tightrope. Neither is competitively invalid, one just has slightly more going on.

 

[erico9001]

Typically, all such stages are banned. Any stage where the worse player has a good chance of winning is already removed from the list from the outset.

So the name full stage list is really misleading. Thank-you for clarifying. I guess it turns out I voted against something I was really for.

What's more, if someone could strike all of your "traditional competitive stages" then your thinking is muddled. Even with 13 legal stages, you mean to tell me that more than half of these stages are not on the same level as whatever subset you're holding up as "traditionally competitive"?

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Duck Hunt
Kongo Jungle
Halberd
Pokemon Stadium 2
Skyloft
Wuhu Island

Because at best, I count two that stand out at all from the pack in a negative way. Everything else just blends together.

K, so you've now assumed I wasn't actually asking about what is full stage list striking, and that I already knew.

Also, you keep quoting "traditionally competitive;" what is that about? All traditional means here is what people have been using.

Why do you think so few people are advocating the legality of Gamer? Because the hazards are extremely potent to the point where risk-reward becomes insane and being in the right place at the right time overshadows everything else

Well, I'm glad we agree.

You have something like 5 seconds of the claw waving menacingly around (and targeting whoever it's going to shoot at). This should not be hard to deal with

"True combo"

Why is this important? I don't think it is, unless it feeds into the underlying goal: making the best competitive game possible. Things like Wiley's Castle matter not because it's focusing on PvE over PvP, but because doing so trivializes the question of "who is better at this game?" - the question we're trying to answer here.

Yep, that's where it connects.

As someone who has KJ64 legal at his tournaments, this is rather confusing to me

It's circle camping. Using the high platforms and barrel under the stage (which refreshes jumps) to continually stall less mobile characters. This is why people are often against it.

See, here's where things get interesting - you can totally have a competitive game of super smash bros on Orbital Gate Assault. It's completely non-random, none of the hazards are particularly hard to avoid, and while the gameplay is unconventional, it's still very much about the players. The PvE doesn't marginalize the PvP, and it also doesn't trivialize competition, it deepens it. It's the difference between playing chess, and playing chess while both players need are balancing on a tightrope. Neither is competitively invalid, one just has slightly more going on.

The reason people are against it is because it takes away control. They have to run around the stage to avoid dying, or being hit, just like on Gamer.

 

[MajorMajora]

Yeah, I'd definitely say I'm a liberal. I always thought interactions with the stage are really interesting.

I understand testing is required, but I really hope OGS and Kalos become legal. Maybe some day...

 

[Divemissile]

I'm definitely a conservative, I think we don't need to add stages just to have more stages.

 

[Ulevo]

I am not fond of the direction this discussion perpetuates itself in because it assumes that by being either liberal or conservative that you fall under a subset of preconceptions about how stages should and should not be handled. This leaves little room for true expansive thought or interpretation on how individual cases and policy should be handled. It is like trying to categorize people as abstract or rational thinkers. It is a flawed methodology.

I have used the term conservative and liberal loosely in my comments before for the sake of generalized ease of communication, but it is important to recognize that just because someone sees the benefits of say a three starter list and promotes that, it does not necessarily mean they are going to want to ban Mario Circuit without proper investigation, or that if you believe that a match win should come as a result of player skill and not the whim of a stage hazard that you think Halberd is unacceptable.

 

[Staticky]

I would consider myself more conservative, but it's DEFINITELY not because of the reasons just in the OP. I find that playing on most "liberal" stages would be boring to play, and boring to watch. Watching people play chess on a tightrope would be cool for about 5 minutes, then you would discover that the player's chess game is lacking because some of their focus is on balancing. Instead of seeing awesome stuff happening in the chess match, you have uninteresting sh*t getting in the way of the players' skill.