Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[infomon]

This isn't super tied to the present conversation, but I just had a thought that really puts me off of the whole 'winner of game 1 lists 3/5/X stages, and the loser picks from them'

It certainly looks good on paper, but what it's actually doing is giving the winner a ludicrous amount of bans. It becomes especially apparent in a large stage list.

You have it backwards. The Loser picks the 3 stages, then the Winner picks which one of those. The Loser is saying: "ok you beat me game 1, but here are my counterpicks. Can you win on one of my stages". The winner picks the last one as the new alternative to stage-bans (which aren't really useful when there's a huge stage-list). It means the winner doesn't need to go to a stage that they personally hate or that has a glitch against their character or whatever; it's just a nice safety net against jank.

We can tweak the numbers later when we see how it plays out. Some people even say "Loser picks 5, then stage-strike from there", or: "Loser picks 3, winner bans 1, then loser picks the final stage". But I think those are both more complicated and less sensible when you think it through.

 

[Thinkaman]

All random, striking, and ban based procedures are not cloneproof, which means the legal list has to be pruned of identical stages. (Including agreeing on what counts as identical.)

Stage Morph and simple (banless) counterpicks are cloneproof, and unaffected by 13 Battlefields.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I support permanent hazards-off. Not because I think hazards = bad, but because I think diving into the menus to toggle the setting every time one of the (probably very few) stages preferred with hazards is chosen is a chore, generally annoying, and not conducive to spectator hype. Although if there's a simpler way to do it then I'm all ears.

Thinkaman I'm not sure how stage morphing is cloneproof? What's stopping a morph setup between Battlefield/Fountain of Dreams, for instance? Unless the implication is that stage morphing will only be used in situations where each player picks one of the stages? In which case if they both pick a variant of the same stage then there shouldn't be any grounds to object.

 

[dav3yb]

I support permanent hazards-off. Not because I think hazards = bad, but because I think diving into the menus to toggle the setting every time one of the (probably very few) stages preferred with hazards is chosen is a chore, generally annoying, and not conducive to spectator hype. Although if there's a simpler way to do it then I'm all ears.

Keep in mind, it could be as easy as backing out of the stage select screen and selecting a different ruleset to turn them on and off. We don't completely know all the options that the custom rulesets will allow, but it's completely possible flipping between will be very easy because of this.

 

[lordvaati]

There is no legit reason to turn hazards on for certain circumstances.
If you didn't wanna deal with that grief when people argued for Palutena's customs we don't need Johns for it to be suddenly OK now.
People begged for the feature, we go full in with the feature.

 

[Thinkaman]

If you didn't wanna deal with that grief when people argued for Palutena's customs we don't need Johns for it to be suddenly OK now.

Not sure who you are talking to; I'm willing to bet that a large majority of people in this discussion were vocal proponents of Palutena's legality.

 

[Untouch]

Not sure who you are talking to; I'm willing to bet that a large majority of people in this discussion were vocal proponents of Palutena's legality.

I was pretty vocally for customs in smash 4 at the start (because of ganondorf's custom divekick) but I think the problem was less related to having to turn on customs and more having to unlock them (along with many customs being busted).

Honestly the debates for the fastfall low landing lag equipment were way worse.

 

[lordvaati]

I was speaking to no one specifically, I just was referring to the general issue of even considering toggling hazards on when this exception has not been made with anything before.and yeah Customs in general were hurt by having to unlock them all, but Palutena was the only character along with the Miis who started with all her Customs, and was agreed to be immeasurably more viable with them. The only thing was that Customs had to be turned on in the menu for her which some were very cross with.

When they ultimately abandoned Customs with DLC though the idea was buried for good.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

Not sure who you are talking to; I'm willing to bet that a large majority of people in this discussion were vocal proponents of Palutena's legality.

I was 100% anti-custom from the start. Sakurai also clearly want Pro players to branch out more due to saying he was pretty disappointed they played on the same stages. Doing the exact same thing as Smash 4 would be pretty much rude to him considering he put the feature specifically for the competitive community. That said; I am not for 20+ stages. 11-15 sounds good with omega BF and FD being legal as well.

 

[Munomario777]

Thinkaman I'm not sure how stage morphing is cloneproof? What's stopping a morph setup between Battlefield/Fountain of Dreams, for instance? Unless the implication is that stage morphing will only be used in situations where each player picks one of the stages? In which case if they both pick a variant of the same stage then there shouldn't be any grounds to object.

stage morphing would mainly be useful in game one, where each player picks one of the two stages (basically two simultaneous counterpicks). in subsequent games, you'd use a traditional counterpick system, such as the fantastic "loser picks 2 stages, winner picks 1" system or just letting the loser pick any stage

so in that way, if one player picks BF and the other picks FoD, then they just both wanted similar stages so there's no problem that the stage is constantly a triplat

 

[lordvaati]

I would also like to see Stage morphs experimented with former CPs that were scrapped due to one problematic element , such as Delfino, Halberd or Castle Siege.
Based on how the timing system on every 1:00 shifts. It may remove those questionable parts altogether.

 

[Untouch]

I noticed that the VIP forums are already trying to make stagelists.
Can we not? We don't know how all the stages work with hazards off. Super Happy Tree's only real large problem is the clouds. Based on the site's picture the clouds may not even spawn in hazardless mode.

Just comparing..

(picture on the smash bros wiki, don't know where this came from)

to

(picture on the site)


Based on some investigation it seems as if the clouds would be there normally, I can't really judge yet as I don't have access to the game. Neither does anyone.

 

[Routa]

I personally don't know what to think about morphing. On paper it is amazing, but what we saw from the trailer we could see some frame drops when the stage morphed. Add to that very bright lighting I think it is very unlikely that morphing will be a thing (at least in current state), but only time will tell.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Quoting you again because I have not the slightest idea how to tag your name with an American keyboard.

First paragraph in the doc makes a passing mention of stage morphing being a terrible idea but doesn't elaborate any further. This confuses me slightly, if only because my own view on it is basically "an interesting idea that may or may not work in practice but I'd like to see how it actually works before committing hard one way or another." So why is it apparently so horrible that it's being dismissed out of hand? Is it because it's buried in the menu and they're worried about having to set it on/off on a per-match basis? (Because I would actually agree with that, it's the same reason I'm in favor of permanent hazards-off.) Or is it some other reason? (Please don't let that reason be "jank.")

I don't remember exactly what words were used (but they made sense at the moment).
If I had to gather ideas from the top of my head to formulate an argument, it would be something about "polarisation" and "it is likely for some characters to have better capacities to camp during the opponent's stage choice (implying advantage for the opponent) until the stage changes for their own advantage". And also something about dropping SO MANY frames during transitions, which is a major offender.
Take that comment with a grain of salt, I don't remember the entire argument.

That's one of the many reasons we stated that discord is impractical for discussions; not only the public, but participants themselves get lost in the sea of comments, and even though we did get to an agreement, the arguments themselves might get lost.

 

[MaestroDavros]

I personally don't know what to think about morphing. On paper it is amazing, but what we saw from the trailer we could see some frame drops when the stage morphed. Add to that very bright lighting I think it is very unlikely that morphing will be a thing (at least in current state), but only time will tell.

Exactly. There was already controversy about the background transition flash on Smash 4's FD. The transition effect here is much the same, only longer, laggier and happening during a stage transition instead of merely in the background.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat feature they've added, I just don't see morphing working in a competitive setting because of that and other reasons. I want more legal stages and a better way to decide them, but I don't think stage morphing is the solution at all, even if used in just game 1. It needlessly complicates things when there are very likely other solutions not yet found that ease stage selecting that don't involve switching back and forth between 2 stages with 2 layouts within the same match. I consider myself fairly "liberal" when it comes to Smash ruleset suggestions, but here I must agree with the old adage that just because it's in the game, doesn't mean it must be used.

 

[Thinkaman]

Certainly, if there is major performance drops in the shipped game with any stage (or morphing), we will avoid it staunchly.

 

[NewGuy79]

I think the important thing to remember is that we still don't have the finished game in our hands, so making any sweeping judgments or sure statements are mute. until I have the game in my living room and I see the stage transitioning chugging my game, I will continue to consider the new tools that the smash team have made for us.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

If stage morphing ever gets okayed; it will most likely happen every 3 minutes or once a match. I can't see players enjoying having a stage constantly shift every minute. Stage morphing is still a disruptive element that needs to be minimal to be even viable.

 

[Munomario777]

in a game one situation (which is where morphing would be useful), if the stage only swaps, like, 3 minutes in, that's a huge advantage to whoever gets their stage first. if I pick BF and you pick FD and my stage goes first with this setting active, I get like 3 minutes on BF while you get maybe a minute of FD (if the game isn't completely over by that point)

 

[Untouch]

If it does become legal I think just setting the stage swap to "half the legal time" would be a mistake, most games didn't go past 6 minutes in the footage I saw, I think 2 minutes would be more fair.

 

[NewGuy79]

If it does become legal I think just setting the stage swap to "half the legal time" would be a mistake, most games didn't go past 6 minutes in the footage I saw, I think 2 minutes would be more fair.

I would also suggest that the legal time be 8 min, with a 6min timer the player that gets to put in their stage first would essentially get 2 instances of their stage during the game. at least with 8 mins, the possibility exists for the last iteration to morph in.
either way, if your preferred stage isn't enough for you to close the game out by the 3 morph you may need to rethink your play.

 

[Crystanium]

In all honesty, the question of how are stage selection method should evolve to cater to Ultimate is a very tricky one, the ideal method itself must:

• have no random elements
• must be completely fair for both players
• must ensure an equal or fair starting ground for both players on game one
• must allow losing players to gain meaning full advantages in subsequent games
• must facilitate the use of a large stage list
• must not take up to much time between sets
• must not restrict the player's decisions
• must be quick to use
• must be easy to remember and implement

and the list probably goes on, are to say that the question is a complicated one to answer.

I find the second criterion to be unusual, since the point of a counter-pick is to ensure your win, not your opponent's. Of course, I'm all for banning Lylat Cruise, since it screws Ness and Lucas over. But, Ness has it worse, since he doesn't have a tether.

All random, striking, and ban based procedures are not cloneproof, which means the legal list has to be pruned of identical stages. (Including agreeing on what counts as identical.)

Stage Morph and simple (banless) counterpicks are cloneproof, and unaffected by 13 Battlefields.

The problem with "identical" is that no stage is identical. Being similar is not equal to being the same. Even with the assumption that Battlefield and Dream Land (64) being identical, they're clearly not. And that's not just about the blast zone. Whispy blows wind. Dream Land (64) has different properties than Battlefield.

"Only one tournament, Super Smash Con 2015, has banned Dream Land (64) entirely. Oddly, the stage acts as though the main platform is slanted slightly towards the centre of the stage, and this has the effect of causing moves that would ordinarily launch at an angle of 0 degrees to very briefly lift the opponent off the ground if launching them towards the centre. This also means that such moves cannot cause tripping if they knock opponents towards the centre." (Dream Land (SSB) - SmashWiki)

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't remember exactly what words were used (but they made sense at the moment).
If I had to gather ideas from the top of my head to formulate an argument, it would be something about "polarisation" and "it is likely for some characters to have better capacities to camp during the opponent's stage choice (implying advantage for the opponent) until the stage changes for their own advantage". And also something about dropping SO MANY frames during transitions, which is a major offender.
Take that comment with a grain of salt, I don't remember the entire argument.

That's one of the many reasons we stated that discord is impractical for discussions; not only the public, but participants themselves get lost in the sea of comments, and even though we did get to an agreement, the arguments themselves might get lost.

If player A is able to effectively avoid and camp out player B on B's own stage choice, that suggests to me that either A is the better player to a not-insignificant degree or B needs to pick better stages. (Or B's character is just flat out bad, that's also possible.)

Framerate drops during the morph would make the whole thing dead on arrival, I agree, but that's something we have no way of knowing for sure until the game actually releases. Until then, saying "it tanks performance, banned" is hilariously premature.

 

[GFD]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to post my own thoughts about stage legality somewhere on the internet for others to consider. This thread seems like an appropriate place. As a disclaimer, I do not actively participate in the competitive community at all, but perhaps that means I can offer unique perspective.
From what I can tell, competitive play always develops very conservative stage lists, which I support. So I looked at SSBU's stage list to see what stages could possibly be legal, and despite having very conservative criteria, I was surprised how large my list ended up being regardless. Here are my thoughts on the potential legality of several stages, partly based on my interpretation of how hazardless forms will work:

• Battlefield: Starter for 1v1 and 2v2. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size. If "Battlefield" stage forms have identical terrain / blast zones / gameplay, they can be used as well, but any player can veto omega stages with especially distracting visuals (eg. Umbra Clock Tower).
• Big Battlefield: Starter for 4v4. 3v3 could maybe have it as a counterpick or starter. Definitely banned for 1v1 and 2v2 for large size.
• Final Destination: Counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2, starter or counterpick for 3v3, and starter for 4v4. The same rules for "Battlefield" stage forms would also apply to omega forms here.
• Kongo Jungle: Banned. Even if the hazardless version removes the barrel cannon, it likely won't make the main platform fully solid.
• Super Happy Tree: In the very unlikely event that the hazardless version completely removes the cloud platforms and makes the blast zones more reasonable (akin to the 1P version in the original game), it's a candidate for starter or counterpick for 2v2 and 3v3, as it contributes a unique but reasonable platform layout. But it'd probably still be banned for 1v1 for large size and 4v4 for small size. Banned otherwise.
• Dream Land: Banned for extreme similarity to Battlefield, and also for the weird terrain properties, if they were maintained when porting from SSB4.
• Rainbow Cruise: If the hazardless version stays on the ship and doesn't move or transition to anything else, this is actually a possible counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2. It contributes a unique stacked two platform layout and terrain asymmetry. However, the wall on the right side could easily be grounds for a ban, if it proves to be too problematic with Ultimate's mechanics, and it'd be banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size. Banned otherwise.
• Brinstar: Banned. Even if the hazardless version removes the terrain hurtboxes, it likely won't make the main platform fully solid.
• Yoshi's Story: Counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2. Hazardless version will be used if it removes Shy Guys but not Randall. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Fountain of Dreams: Starter or counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2. Don't use hazardless if it has still platforms. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Pokémon Stadium / 2: One of these (probably PS2) will be a starter in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 1v1, 2v2, and possibly even 3v3. Banned for 4v4 for small size. Hazards versions are banned.
• WarioWare, Inc.: Starter or counterpick in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 1v1 and 2v2. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Norfair: Banned. Even if the hazardless form removes the lava, it still has an unusually small main platform, and soft platforms with ledges.
• Frigate Orpheon: Banned. Even though the hazardless form removes the transformations, it has an extremely unusual layout with a large wall and very significant movement, and a semisoft platform with a ledge. (Shame that the hazardless form doesn't use the second transformation without the side platforms, as it would be perfectly legal.)
• Yoshi's Island: Starter or counterpick in hazardless form for 1v1 and 2v2. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Halberd: The hazardless version will certainly remove the Combo Cannon's hazards, but all else depends on whether or not the stage still transforms. If it remains on the Halberd's deck the entire time, it's easily a starter for 1v1, 2v2, and maybe 3v3, but banned for 4v4 for small size I think. If the stage still transforms, it's a lot more contentious. The walkoffs layout in the hangar is obviously problematic, though thankfully it is only seen briefly at the start of the match. The transformations are disruptive when they occur, and the smaller layout has a semisoft platform that enables sharking. Testing would need to be done to determine whether it is a counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2 or banned, and the small size of the flying transformation ensures it would be banned for 3v3 and 4v4.
• Lylat Cruise: Starter or counterpick in hazardless form for 1v1, 2v2, and possibly 3v3. Banned for 4v4 for small size.
• Castle Siege: Starter or counterpick in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 1v1, and potentially a counterpick for 2v2 unless it proves to be too small. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Smashville: Starter for 1v1 and 2v2. Hazardless version preferred if it removes the balloon but does not freeze the platform. Banned for 3v3 and 4v4 for small size.
• Unova Pokémon League: Starter in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 1v1 and 2v2, and possibly 3v3 as well. Banned for 4v4 for small size.
• Prism Tower: Banned for walkoff transformation and semisolid main platform.
• Arena Ferox: Banned for solid ceilings.
• Reset Bomb Forest: Banned. Even if hazardless form does not transform, it does not have a single, unbroken main platform.
• Mushroom Kingdom U: Starter in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 3v3 and 4v4. Banned for 1v1 and 2v2 for large size.
• Kalos Pokémon League: Starter in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage) for 1v1, 2v2, and possibly 3v3. Banned for 4v4 for small size.
• Town and City: Starter or counterpick for 1v1, 2v2, and possibly 3v3. Hazards version preferred to keep the moving platforms. Banned for 4v4 for small size. Possibly bannable in general due to the platforms being able to drag fighters past blast lines.
• Duck Hunt: Banned. Even if the hazardless version removes the duck and dog mechanics, it should still be banned as it is in SSB4 for the unusual platform layout that promotes camping.
• Midgar: Starter or counterpick for 1v1 and 2v2, and starter for 3v3, in hazardless form (assuming completely static stage). Despite being yet another tri-plat layout, it does has actual unique merits (unlike Dream Land) due to its larger size. With more refined / whittled down stage lists, it could possibly have a place as the starter tri-plat for 2v2, instead of Battlefield.
• Dracula's Castle: Banned. Despite the hazardless version likely technically being unintrusive, its unorthodox and asymmetrical layout with two walls and a big ramp are undesirable. It also doesn't have enough unique merits to warrant inclusion, as there are several dual platform stages to choose from now.

Any stages not already mentioned would be banned for what I feel are very obvious reasons. Stage morphing is banned for being disruptive and causing lag. My rough assumptions for bans based on size could change if the game uses a reasonable stage scaling system for battles with different player counts, or if stage sizes have been significantly changed in their transition to this game.
Here's a sort of summary of what stages I think could possibly be considered for mainstream conservative stagelists. These are the "most lenient" possibilities for each stage, and the ones marked with question marks depend heavily on how the hazards toggle functions.

I really don't feel that any stages outside of this list are worth considering at all, unless there are some radical changes to how the hazardless toggle functions in the final game. Many stages here are labelled as debatably starter or counterpick, while very few are labelled as definitely counterpick, since I do support larger starter lists. Certainly, not all of these potential options would be included in final stage lists, and deliberation and testing would be needed to determine stage lists with balanced selections of stage and blast zone sizes and terrain layouts. (There's no way all three Pokémon dual platform stages would be necessary, for example, nor all the tri-plats.) But it is nonetheless encouraging to see 16 and 17 potential options for 1v1 and 2v2 respectively.
Sadly, 4v4 is hugely lacking in neutral stages that can accomodate this many players (and it certainly doesn't help that Pyrosphere, the best 8 player stage in SSB4, has been lost to Ridley), unless I'm overestimating how much space 4v4 matches need. On the other hand, there are many more stages here that might be big enough for 3v3, which gives a glimmer of hope that it could actually take off with this game somewhat.
The only stages in here that might need hazards on are Yoshi's Story, Fountain of Dreams, Smashville, and Town and City. The ease of simply keeping stage hazards off for everything kind of hinges on how it affects the former three stages, as I wouldn't lose sleep over Town and City having still platforms or being banned. Yoshi's Story and Fountain of Dreams are both just generic tri-plats if they don't have their platform movements, but if a refined stage list would not include them anyway, then there is no issue here. If Smashville's platform is frozen in the centre of the stage with hazards off, that might be more of an issue, as the moving platform is a relatively critical part of that stage's design. However, a single centre platform would provide a unique and solid stage layout, and I never did like how far Smashville's moving platform went out past the main platform's ledges.

 

[dav3yb]

I really don't feel that any stages outside of this list are worth considering at all,

Assuming Green Greens turns off the falling blocks, wind, and fruit that appear, what's wrong with it?

 

[Untouch]

Assuming Green Greens turns off the falling blocks, wind, and fruit that appear, what's wrong with it?

Really low ceiling.
Don't know if that's been fixed though, I believe it was still a problem in smash 4 though.

Anyways from what we've seen NDC should be way more suitable than Prism Tower, which was legal in Smash 4.
Also Brinstar was CP in brawl and legal for a short period of time in melee, the problem was the lava.

 

[dav3yb]

Really low ceiling.

If this is a reason for banning stuff they need to get yoshi's out of melee quick.

 

[infomon]

Opinions on Rainbow Cruise for Ultimate?

• Not random
• Buffs the puff
• Reasons for bans in previous games might not be issues anymore e.g. ungrabbable ledges (Frigate ledges were changed so RC's might be too), Brawl-MK dominance is not a problem anymore
• Probably invalidates some characters/matchups (Little Mac? lol) but that's your fault for picking that character on that stage

My question is under what circumstances should RC be considered vs. banned. Is there any possible Rainbow Cruise that should be legal?

 

[Untouch]

Moving stages make players fight the stage rather than the enemy in my opinion. On the off chance that hazardless stops it from moving it is a bit small still.

If this is a reason for banning stuff they need to get yoshi's out of melee quick.

Yeah, I think the blocks are more of a problem but this is the main reason it's banned. Shame because it's going to be axed right away because of what happened at E3 (even though it was something else that caused that bayo ladder combo.)

 

[dav3yb]

Yeah, I think the blocks are more of a problem but this is the main reason it's banned. Shame because it's going to be axed right away because of what happened at E3 (even though it was something else that caused that bayo ladder combo.)

We still don't know how the final build will work with relation to bayonetta. Sakurai even said himself he saw some problems that he'll address before release, and i'd be willing to bet he was referring to bayonetta, so a LOT can change before December 7.

 

[GFD]

Assuming Green Greens turns off the falling blocks, wind, and fruit that appear, what's wrong with it?

It would not have a single, unbroken main platform, as there would be two big gaps where the blocks were.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It would not have a single, unbroken main platform, as there would be two big gaps where the blocks were.

And that's inherently a problem...why, exactly? Saying "it has gaps" is meaningless by itself, it's what those gaps do for the gameplay that's important. So how do the gaps negatively affect the match?

 

[Untouch]

Gaps are really only a problem with walls, as they hurt ness/lucas but really help characters that can walljump. Green Greens doesn't work that way so I don't think it'd be too bad.

It's symmetrical so if they've fixed the really low ceiling, or it isnt as big as a deal, I don't see why it can't be at least counterpick, maybe starter.

 

[dav3yb]

I don't see why it can't be at least counterpick, maybe starter.

I honestly wish people would get out of the starter/counterpick mindset. If a stage is good enough for tournaments, it should be good enough for any game in the set. We need to stop applying all these if-then statements to tournaments.

/rant

 

[Untouch]

So what exactly is the problem with the "loser picks 3 stages, winner picks one of those to play on" rule, besides "we don't do that now so we can't do it ever"? It just feels like we're trying to limit stages to make the striking system work out of """tradition""".

 

[Frihetsanka]

So what exactly is the problem with the "loser picks 3 stages, winner picks one of those to play on" rule, besides "we don't do that now so we can't do it ever"? It just feels like we're trying to limit stages to make the striking system work out of """tradition""".

This would only work if there aren't any "duplicates", or else something like this might happen: "I pick Battlefield, Dream Land 64, and Midgar". If the stage list is limited enough to prevent this then it could work.

 

[infomon]

We're probably going to have to group stages that are FD-style and BF-style. So even if they have slightly different geometry, you can only have one of the FD-like stages in your counterpick list, and same for BF-alikes. This is just like what we did with stage-bans for BF/Dreamland/(Miiverse) in Smash4.

Dreamland is so borderline to me, because of Wispy Wind and also the ground having different properties (e.g. for Pika quick-attack cancels). I really think of it as a totally different stage from BF. But the actual game mechanics seemed to show that for most matchups, these differences were small relative to the general impact of it being a tri-plat.

For Ultimate, I think we'll need to really get a feel for the game / meta in order to make a good call. But the FD-like and BF-like groupings are probably the most sensible.

Of course, now that Omega and BF forms have standard geometry, whenever one of those is picked we can play on a random one (or the loser's choice if it's the counterpick).

 

[Untouch]

This would only work if there aren't any "duplicates", or else something like this might happen: "I pick Battlefield, Dream Land 64, and Midgar". If the stage list is limited enough to prevent this then it could work.

I think this would be odd if it doesn't end up being the case, miiverse was always "banned" in smash 4.

 

[Thinkaman]

So what exactly is the problem with the "loser picks 3 stages, winner picks one of those to play on" rule, besides "we don't do that now so we can't do it ever"? It just feels like we're trying to limit stages to make the striking system work out of """tradition""".

You are conflating two different matters.

How do we agree on a stage for game 1?

How do we pick a stage for games after 1? If loser picks, what are the restrictions?

Question 1 is a matter of finding the fairest compromise. Striking, random, neutrality debates, and stage morph are relevant concepts to this question, but have nothing to do with the second.

Question 2 is a matter of individual rights--the right to play your stage, just as you have a right to play your character.

 

[infomon]

I don't think s/he was conflating the things. Just asking if there were any actual problems with that proposed method for choosing the counterpicks (your Question 2). Question 1 is still open.