Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Piford]

Big Battlefield is probably too big, but I'm never opposed to more testing.

Skyloft should've been legal from day 1. It's like the second best stage in the game.

 

[thehard]

Keitaro and NAKAT both expressing interest in Skyloft and Wuhu and playing on them on stream(s).

 

[Thinkaman]

Skyloft has always been the best traveling stage imo.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Moar Tweets:

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[T0MMY]

All these updates are great, but they would be better represented if we could compare the % of tournament competitors are voting for these things. It's of some interest to see what a general audience likes to play with at home, but that wouldn't be reflecting the preference of settings for competitions in regionals/nationals.

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

This may be an incredibly naive or stupid question, but with a 3 stock 8 minute setup it seems like it would be easy to have smash 4 and melee matches going at the same time since the clock is the same. Did anybody try doing this with brawl when they did 3 stock 8 minutes?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Pokemon Stadium 2:

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[thehard]

All these updates are great, but they would be better represented if we could compare the % of tournament competitors are voting for these things. It's of some interest to see what a general audience likes to play with at home, but that wouldn't be reflecting the preference of settings for competitions in regionals/nationals.

I'm just gonna copy what I wrote on reddit about this same sort of post

Sometimes actual tournament players need a little kick in the pants as far as ruleset changes go. This is especially prevalent in grassroots communities with no official, dev-sponsored ruleset. There is enough support and actual evidence (stage research) that Skyloft, Wuhu, and maybe others can work competitively. Not to mention, in certain areas they ARE legal and DO work. Yesterday Keitaro, False, and NAKAT expressed interest in them, if that helps.

If we only took into consideration preference, our stage list might look like Japan's. We should look at competitive viability, variety, and character balance as factors too.

 

[smashmachine]

hey @ LiteralGrill if you can separate out the data for tournament players, show that so you can shut up the "but we should ask the players themselves" crap

 

[LiteralGrill]

hey @ LiteralGrill if you can separate out the data for tournament players, show that so you can shut up the "but we should ask the players themselves" crap

I'm just showing the simple pie charts for now, people can sift through the whole data once it's available. I may even be cool and give it out before a full week if voting slows down.

 

[T0MMY]

I'm just gonna copy what I wrote on reddit about this same sort of post
Sometimes actual tournament players need a little kick in the pants as far as ruleset changes go.

Last time the competitive players got a "kick in the pants" that I remember was with Brawl regarding the MLG Stages and the EVO Items ON rules changes.
"Blowback" is the phrase that comes to mind. Brawl is known for its 3 stage starters and last I checked TO's keep Items OFF.

So, maybe this was a sad part of history? But you'll have to tell me why you think a kind of out-of-competitive-circle dictatorship pants-kicking is warranted before I can go much further with you on the discussion. So help me figure it out from there.

If we only took into consideration preference, our stage list might look like Japan's. We should look at competitive viability, variety, and character balance as factors too.

I disagree that rules should be changed based on balancing characters. That's not the players', TO's, or viewer's job to balance the characters nor is it practical to think it's going to happen with Stages, Items, or anything really since it's all based on an eternal subjective debate.

 

[LiteralGrill]

We discussed it and decided it would be okay to give out the full results now since the voting has slowed down a solid bit.

So please, go ahead and CHECK IT OUT and sift through the data as you please!

 

[thehard]

Last time the competitive players got a "kick in the pants" that I remember was with Brawl regarding the MLG Stages and the EVO Items ON rules changes.
"Blowback" is the phrase that comes to mind. Brawl is known for its 3 stage starters and last I checked TO's keep Items OFF.

So, maybe this was a sad part of history? But you'll have to tell me why you think a kind of out-of-competitive-circle dictatorship pants-kicking is warranted before I can go much further with you on the discussion. So help me figure it out from there.


I disagree that rules should be changed based on balancing characters. That's not the players', TO's, or viewer's job to balance the characters nor is it practical to think it's going to happen with Stages, Items, or anything really since it's all based on an eternal subjective debate.

Why would you compare testing a couple of stages out to items being on?

I can't really take you seriously when you bring up terms like "dictatorship". Please. As I said, there is support for Wuhu and Skyloft already amongst tournament-goers. I'm not asking for 75m here.

Were stages not banned because of Meta Knight in Brawl? Or Fox in Melee? I only think character balance should be a factor in drastic cases, and not overrule the competitive viability factor, of course.

 

[Twin Rhapsody]

I could not find my tag in the "final results." Was there a THIRD poll that I did not fill out/know about or something? Just looking for proof that my votes got tallied is all.
The results were nice to look at and see where people stand.

 

[T0MMY]

Were stages not banned because of Meta Knight in Brawl? Or Fox in Melee? I only think character balance should be a factor in drastic cases, and not overrule the competitive viability factor, of course.

Is your join date accurate in reflecting your experience with the Smash Community? Because you're not talking like you lived through these times like I did. There was an outrage over some rule changes of National tournaments and EVO/MLG are the perfect examples, I strongly suggest you go back and study your history books before essentially proposing the same follies. Having been a strong member of the community for about a decade now, I am not jumping at the chance to join you in your crusade.
So, let me hear some reasoning and rationality before I jump aboard, please.

To answer your question:
No, stages were NOT banned due to Meta Knight or Fox.
Just the opposite, the more casual players who jump on any topic of interest in the hopes of getting their opinionated rules to be accepted pushed such ideas whether it was Meta Knight causing Stage issues or Stage issues causing Meta Knight dilemma - didn't matter to them, as long as the ends met their desires, they'd risk it all.
Who could have guessed that grasping at straws and fallacy could have completely ended the Stage Maniac's crusade so early?

I took what I could from the experience and feel I am all the more educated due to it. Not sure what the stage maniacs did with their time though, I don't really see them around much except for one or two Pokemon Stadium 2 crusaders (who shall remain anonymous).

 

[LiteralGrill]

To answer your question:
No, stages were NOT banned due to Meta Knight or Fox.

Maybe not in your eyes, but in other peoples they obviously were. even Apex this year had special stage selecting procedures to allow certain stages being double banned in a Meta Knight was used, something many tournaments have done. Many of the old debates you can go read show tons of people talking about there being too many "auto win" stages for MK, and to this day when people discuss a MK ban the discussion turns to re-legalizing the stages banned because of MK.

Fox's shine infinites werepart of the reasons behind many stages being banned back in the day as well (though not always the ONLY reason). A better example may have been something like Mute City and Peach/Jigglypuff in Melee or some mention of Poke Floats.

Not sure what the stage maniacs did with their time though, I don't really see them around much except for one or two Pokemon Stadium 2 crusaders (who shall remain anonymous).

Really? Stage maniacs? No need to throw around insults. but while we're at it forget anonymous, @ Budget Player Cadet_ would probably be happy to talk about Pokemon Stadium 2.

Edit: While I'm at it, a nice reditor gave a quick look into seeing if people who didn't enter touirnaments messed with poll results. To quote them:

I checked the results by removing all of the people who didn't go to tournaments, then on top of that removed all of the people who went to less than 1 tournament per month, and the percentages barely changed, so I don't think they affected the results that much. The biggest difference I could find % wise was that if you removed people who went to less than 1 tourney per month, there was a 4% increase in wanting customs banned (from 25.7% in the main poll to ~30% in the filtered group).

I did this in like 10 minutes so the numbers aren't super specific and I couldn't be bothered to deal with some of the stupid/weirder responses, but really the spectators didn't affect the poll results much at all (at least for the parameters I checked, which were stock/time count and customs).

 

[thehard]

Is your join date accurate in reflecting your experience with the Smash Community? Because you're not talking like you lived through these times like I did. There was an outrage over some rule changes of National tournaments and EVO/MLG are the perfect examples, I strongly suggest you go back and study your history books before essentially proposing the same follies. Having been a strong member of the community for about a decade now, I am not jumping at the chance to join you in your crusade.
So, let me hear some reasoning and rationality before I jump aboard, please.

To answer your question:
No, stages were NOT banned due to Meta Knight or Fox.
Just the opposite, the more casual players who jump on any topic of interest in the hopes of getting their opinionated rules to be accepted pushed such ideas whether it was Meta Knight causing Stage issues or Stage issues causing Meta Knight dilemma - didn't matter to them, as long as the ends met their desires, they'd risk it all.
Who could have guessed that grasping at straws and fallacy could have completely ended the Stage Maniac's crusade so early?

I took what I could from the experience and feel I am all the more educated due to it. Not sure what the stage maniacs did with their time though, I don't really see them around much except for one or two Pokemon Stadium 2 crusaders (who shall remain anonymous).

I'm simply proposing more high-level testing of certain "borderline" stages. I don't think I'm alone in wanting this.

I sense a conflict of interest, @ T0MMY .

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Is your join date accurate in reflecting your experience with the Smash Community? Because you're not talking like you lived through these times like I did. There was an outrage over some rule changes of National tournaments and EVO/MLG are the perfect examples, I strongly suggest you go back and study your history books before essentially proposing the same follies. Having been a strong member of the community for about a decade now, I am not jumping at the chance to join you in your crusade.
So, let me hear some reasoning and rationality before I jump aboard, please.

To answer your question:
No, stages were NOT banned due to Meta Knight or Fox.

*Raises hand*

Uh, hi, guy who lived through Brawl here, that's just not true. Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise were banned pretty much exclusively because of how powerful Metaknight was there. In more conservative regions, so were Delfino and Frigate. In the more liberal regions, Norfair as well. That was literally the justification in my country - "We have to ban these to rein in Metaknight". And I saw that all over Smashboards as well back then.

Really? Stage maniacs? No need to throw around insults. but while we're at it forget anonymous, @ Budget Player Cadet_ would probably be happy to talk about Pokemon Stadium 2.

Good stage in Brawl, good stage in Smash 4, would recommend to any ruleset. People who want it banned have terrible reasoning.

 

[Overswarm]

To answer your question:
No, stages were NOT banned due to Meta Knight or Fox.

I was in the back room and personally made threads about stages, their status in official rulesets, and discussions for both Melee and Brawl during their more formative years.

Multiple stages were banned due solely to Meta Knight and Fox and their perceived dominance on said stages.

Not their results, mind you -- just people's perceptions. Despite people's insistence that MK or Fox were the only viable option on some stages, results actually showed otherwise.

Onett was basically a normal CP stage for Fox as far as results go; I'd imagine that'd change with the current tech skill and it'd be a "does this character fall down from shine?" stage, but when it was banned there was no results indicating Fox was overpowering there. It was banned shortly after MLG Chicago 2005 -- I was there, standing in the crowd and watched the match that brought the stage up for discussion. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzi7caNIe9E

That's what got Onett banned at the time.

MK was the main force behind banning most of the stages in Brawl. Luigi's Mansion, despite being a horrible stage for MK, was banned mostly due to MK and his tornado. People were unaware that they could use getup attack invincibility to beat constant torandoing and instead tried to tech away. Silly, I know, but that's how these things go. MK's best stages as far as winrate went were Delfino and Halberd. His weaker stages included, wait for it, Rainbow Cruise. While he had an average or above average win rate on the stage for most of the cast (and DESTROYED ICs there), many characters had a better win rate on this stage than others. This included Wario, G&W, Snake, and one other I forget.

The game that brought up Luigi's Mansion for discussion in my region (MW) was from an early tournament in Indiana ran by Dastrn, myself vs. a DK named Ripple. At the time even I thought that Luigi's Mansion was a good stage for MK! I know it was a good stage for DK but I always got free tornados! People hadn't "caught on" yet. It wasn't until right before we banned the stage what people discovered you could just mash A and it'd break the torando chain, or that the real strongest character on the stage was Olimar. People thought Olimar sucked at that time.

You can watch the video here. I'm in it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPOtY5JwiY


TL;DR

You are the opposite of correct

 

[Pazx]

edit: nvm lol disregard everything i just said

I played a 2 stock tournament today and the vast majority of people seemed to prefer 3 stock. It also only had 3 starters (SV/BF/T&C) which in my opinion removes a big part of the game. Striking stages is usually important but when there's only 3 stages it seems pointless to me, there's far less strategy involved and stage knowledge is rewarded to a lesser extent.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I was in the back room and personally made threads about stages, their status in official rulesets, and discussions for both Melee and Brawl during their more formative years.

Multiple stages were banned due solely to Meta Knight and Fox and their perceived dominance on said stages.

Not their results, mind you -- just people's perceptions. Despite people's insistence that MK or Fox were the only viable option on some stages, results actually showed otherwise.

Onett was basically a normal CP stage for Fox as far as results go; I'd imagine that'd change with the current tech skill and it'd be a "does this character fall down from shine?" stage, but when it was banned there was no results indicating Fox was overpowering there. It was banned shortly after MLG Chicago 2005 -- I was there, standing in the crowd and watched the match that brought the stage up for discussion. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzi7caNIe9E

That's what got Onett banned at the time.

MK was the main force behind banning most of the stages in Brawl. Luigi's Mansion, despite being a horrible stage for MK, was banned mostly due to MK and his tornado. People were unaware that they could use getup attack invincibility to beat constant torandoing and instead tried to tech away. Silly, I know, but that's how these things go. MK's best stages as far as winrate went were Delfino and Halberd. His weaker stages included, wait for it, Rainbow Cruise. While he had an average or above average win rate on the stage for most of the cast (and DESTROYED ICs there), many characters had a better win rate on this stage than others. This included Wario, G&W, Snake, and one other I forget.

The game that brought up Luigi's Mansion for discussion in my region (MW) was from an early tournament in Indiana ran by Dastrn, myself vs. a DK named Ripple. At the time even I thought that Luigi's Mansion was a good stage for MK! I know it was a good stage for DK but I always got free tornados! People hadn't "caught on" yet. It wasn't until right before we banned the stage what people discovered you could just mash A and it'd break the torando chain, or that the real strongest character on the stage was Olimar. People thought Olimar sucked at that time.

You can watch the video here. I'm in it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPOtY5JwiY


TL;DR

You are the opposite of correct

Rekt

Just one thing though - if MK had above average win rate on most of the cast on RC, that doesn't make it one of his weaker stages. Plus, giving him a hard counter against ICs, Olimar, and a really nasty pick against Falco and Diddy was far more relevant than a stage where he's only a little totally ridiculous against Wario and G&W.

 

[Overswarm]

MK had similar win rates on Rainbow Cruise against Diddy when compared to the starter stages.

People make the mistake of thinking "Stage X is bad for Character Y when against Character Z" is somehow solved by banning a stage, but it isn't. Olimar was bad on Rainbow Cruise because Olimar was a bad character. We made Olimar good by eliminating stages that allowed his weaknesses to be most conveniently exposed. The same thing happened with ICs. It's not a coincidence that both ICs and Olimar become much stronger characters as the game went on.

Character reduction is always the result of having fewer stages. Melee had virtually every CP banned due to Fox, but Fox isn't hurting any less and with the removal of Mute City and Brinstar, it hurt Jigglypuff and Peach for years. Even now there's what, maybe two of each character at a high level? They're fighting uphill battles.

In the end, characters that would otherwise excel on these unique stages lose their opportunity to do so because the characters that are "supposed" to win on the stages have their weaknesses exposed.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@DanceDash

3 Stock 8 Mins untill the top 8

2 Stock 6 Mins during the top 8

Battlefield, FD and Smashville for Starters

Town and City, Castle Siege, Delfino, Wuhu, Omegas, Lylat, Halbred, Windy Hill and Pilotwings as Counter Pick

Gamecube, Nunchuck and Pro Controllers are alowwed.

There's a lot of problematic stuff here.

Three starters is bad. Really, really bad. In fact, so is the entire separation between starters and counterpicks. You're basically saying, "It's okay to play on this stage in game 2 and 3, but not game 1", and I have yet to see any sort of reasonable justification for this. You really should use full list stage striking, or at least have like 5 or 9 starters.

Windy Hill Zone is not without its problems, but you know what? I'm not going to complain, you'll see for yourself whether the random spring gimps are problematic. What you might not figure out on your own is the problem with pilotwings, because while it is broken, the way to break it isn't immediately obvious. I even made a thread about it. It's really busted.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of great stages missing from the list. Duck Hunt, Kongo Jungle, Pokemon Stadium 2, and Skyloft all immediately spring to mind.

What interests me is the top 8 ruling. Less stocks and less time means that variance is higher - the more chances players have, the more the statistical randomness that is player interaction gets to average out, and the more consistent and accurate your results get. This becomes doubly important in top 8. Why would you run it that way?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@Oracle quick thing on survey design here... I kind of take issue with the "with problematic customs banned" option, because it's unclear what the question is. If there actually are customs which are a problem for competitive play, of course I think they should be banned. But given what people call "contentious" around here, I can't help but feel like I'm stuck with an impossible choice - either I'm voting for "customs on never ban anything ever regardless of how dumb it is", or I'm voting for "customs, but ban Kong Cyclone and Trip Sapling and Exploding Ballon Trip and Heavy Skull Bash and Dark Fists and and and...". Could you please clarify this point?

@ LiteralGrill it turns out I was completely right about this. Today I heard the first person in the German community argue that we should simply ignore the "yes, but with problematic customs banned" people because they might be talking about anything and only focus on the customs on and customs off people. This was really bad study design, because at the end of the day, what we're talking about is a binary decision, customs on or customs off. Banning specific, problematic customs is an entirely different question.

 

[Ulevo]

Yeah. You need to be careful about how you word your questions when conducting a questionnaire. This is precisely why all of my stage discussions have a simple "Yes" and "No". If you need details on the "why" you can sort it out later.

 

[kackamee]

Agreed. NC is trying to use a poll to ban customs and there's only a Yes/No option. The "problematic custom banned" option leaves too much open for interpretation.

 

[Ulevo]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm9ffd

Anyhow. I think that the whole 2 stock versus 3 stock debate really comes down to tournament time. I do not believe anyone really wants 2 stock in a tournament realm outside of the concern that it can stall out matches, as was seen at APEX, and this compounding over an entire tournament can cost valuable time.

Would it not be easier to just have tournaments run 2 stocks until say, top 8? Then switch to 3 stock? The argument for 3 stock is that it allows for player adaptation, allows for comebacks and is a better representation of player skill. I think the concerns against 3 stock are legitimate, but I do not see an issue with allowing 3 stocks when the bulk of the tournament has been finished and the most skilled players are left to bout.

 

[Overswarm]

OR

or


You could just run 3 stock, seeing as how there's no tournament time issues with 3 stock.


People keep seeing poorly run tournaments and their reaction is to cut off the game at the knees instead of boycotting that TO. Melee tournaments ran over all the time when it was Melee-only tournaments. This was when Melee was the "new" smash game and was thriving in every regional scene rather than the scattered nationals -- that meant tournaments with like 70 people. They still ran over.

If a tournament runs over, 99% of the time it is the TOs fault, not the game. I can run a 99 stock event and not run over as long as I know what I'm doing.

I'm sure it's hype to say "400 Melee entrants! 400 Smash 4 entrants! Smash 64! Brawl! PM! Street Fighter, Tekken, Marvel vs. Capcom and Power Rangers Ultimate Fighter side events!", but sooner or later people have to realize that there are consequences to doing so.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If a tournament runs over, 99% of the time it is the TOs fault, not the game. I can run a 99 stock event and not run over as long as I know what I'm doing.

I don't even want to think about how much time you'd have to allocate for that.

 

[Overswarm]

I don't even want to think about how much time you'd have to allocate for that.

Same time as a normal tournament, do singles only and cap entrants at 8, one game per set. Each round in the event would have a pre-determined stage (R1 Smashville, R2 Delfino, R3 Omega Gaur Plains, R4 Battlefield or something like that).

Run randomized Swiss bracket until there is a final winner. End of first round you have 4 1-0s and 4 0-1s, end of second round you have 2 2-0s, end of last round you have one 3-0. Loser matches would play simultaneously. Pay top 3 only, run tie breakers for top 3 only.

At hour&half to 2 hours per round you'd end the final round within a normal timeframe.

 

[Earthboundy]

How would you guys feel about 1 or 2 customs per character?

 

[Overswarm]

How would you guys feel about 1 or 2 customs per character?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORJeaAYn31E

 

[DunnoBro]

It isn't totally arbitrary though, it solves a lot of issues actually:

1: Every perceivable set under this restriction is possible to be provided within the confines of the game via presets. (Well, 1 custom per character anyway)
2: Most perceived problematic customs characters such as Pikachu's infinite/hsb setups, Villager's stalling, and Mii Brawler are mostly so due to a combination of customs. (In the case of mii brawler, it makes him far more susceptible to being gimped rather than making the move directly worse)
3: It would be a much easier transition from default to customs, making things more benign/agreeable overall. Almost all characters have at least 1 custom they want to use SOMETIMES. This means characters change less radically in a customs environment, while still being allotted more options.

That said, it doesn't come without issues.

1 custom and Full Custom Sets have logistical incompatibilities, due to the need for sets.

Many characters actually have very healthy combinations of customs, or customs that are only really worth using when combined with another. (Zigzag Can + Mega Gunmen comes to mind. Without the long-lasting stage control of Mega gunmen, duck hunt's neutral suffers a lot from the lack of default can. I definitely would not use duck hunt or ganon in this format. I'm already dropping DHD in default as soon as I get comfortable enough with Yoshi)

Also, honestly I feel like anti-customs people will whine about anything. Kong cyclone I could understand, but now I see players like Ally claiming hammer spindash is "unpunishable" and broken. Others whine about crap like plant barrier and shooting egg lay.

I'm willing to compromise, but not until we get some big ass tournaments out of the way first. Slippery slopes aren't just a fallacy, so I won't give an inch until I have to.

If this could be implemented without hindering full custom tournaments, I'd be much more okay with the idea though.

 

[Ulevo]

It isn't totally arbitrary though, it solves a lot of issues actually:

1: Every perceivable set under this restriction is possible to be provided within the confines of the game via presets. (Well, 1 custom per character anyway)
2: Most perceived problematic customs characters such as Pikachu's infinite/hsb setups, Villager's stalling, and Mii Brawler are mostly so due to a combination of customs. (In the case of mii brawler, it makes him far more susceptible to being gimped rather than making the move directly worse)
3: It would be a much easier transition from default to customs, making things more benign/agreeable overall. Almost all characters have at least 1 custom they want to use SOMETIMES. This means characters change less radically in a customs environment, while still being allotted more options.

That said, it doesn't come without issues.

1 custom and Full Custom Sets have logistical incompatibilities, due to the need for sets.

Many characters actually have very healthy combinations of customs, or customs that are only really worth using when combined with another. (Zigzag Can + Mega Gunmen comes to mind. Without the long-lasting stage control of Mega gunmen, duck hunt's neutral suffers a lot from the lack of default can. I definitely would not use duck hunt or ganon in this format. I'm already dropping DHD in default as soon as I get comfortable enough with Yoshi)

Also, honestly I feel like anti-customs people will whine about anything. Kong cyclone I could understand, but now I see players like Ally claiming hammer spindash is "unpunishable" and broken. Others whine about crap like plant barrier and shooting egg lay.

I'm willing to compromise, but not until we get some big *** tournaments out of the way first. Slippery slopes are a real issue, so I won't give an inch until I have to.

Just because it serves as a potential solution does not mean it is not arbitrary in nature. How do we discern whether or not 1 custom is ideal, or 2? What about 3? Certain characters might be 'healthier' with different restrictions. And to say it solves a lot of issues is to imply that there are issues that need solving. What makes this solution the better solution? Why not just ban customs?

Keep in mind that I am playing devils advocate here. I do not want to engage in the debate those questions present, I am just pointing out that there is no definitive black and white line.

 

[DunnoBro]

Just because it serves as a potential solution does not mean it is not arbitrary in nature. How do we discern whether or not 1 custom is ideal, or 2? What about 3? Certain characters might be 'healthier' with different restrictions. And to say it solves a lot of issues is to imply that there are issues that need solving. What makes this solution the better solution? Why not just ban customs?

Keep in mind that I am playing devils advocate here. I do not want to engage in the debate those questions present, I am just pointing out that there is no definitive black and white line.

I'm operating under the assumption 1 custom is more objective since it's the by far most efficient amount.

2 or 3 would require tons of discussion every few months or so to determine which sets get in, 1 doesn't need any of that. That's why I don't consider it completely arbitrary, though I won't deny it has some arbitrary factors to it.

 

[kackamee]

Should customs be banned if DLC characters never get them?

 

[Ulevo]

Should customs be banned if DLC characters never get them?

No. Mewtwo not having access to custom moves is no different than a character like Meta Knight having no custom moves worth using.

Although, if DLC characters will in fact not receive them, it gives us some sort of insight in to how Sakurai and the development team are prioritizing for balance patches in the future, and whether or not we will see custom moves balanced accordingly.

 

[webbedspace]

Some kind of furor on Twitter about how many stage bans there should be during EVO counterpicks.

I have no personal dog in this race, but I feel like people emotionally overestimate how powerful opponents' counterpicks can be (which may partly explain why stage lists skew conservative so much) and needing to only play on your opponent's third-best stage (out of just 9) is a bit much - perhaps reflecting a feeling that players need to be able to reliably ban a stage like Lylat or Duck Hunt for personal taste reasons more than concrete matchup relevance. But, again, I'm just a grumbly spitballer.

 

[Christian Anderson]

Has anyone tried lowering the launch rate to X0.8? it increases the number of combos in the game dramatically.

 

[Thinkaman]

Has anyone tried lowering the launch rate to X0.8? it increases the number of combos in the game dramatically.

U-tilts: The Game.