Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
... you're going to address my main points, give your thoughts on them, and back your statements up with examples? You'd best be careful or we might have an actual discussion on our hands.
Wait, really? That's awful. This news makes me a very sad pop-tart. Wily's Castle is arguably the stage I was most excited for when I first heard "hazard toggle". This needs to be fixed.
You're not the only one. My two most used phrases at Smash 4 tournaments are "I ban Animal Crossing" and "Gentelman's Rule to Gamer?".
I think step 1 (with this current pre-release discussion being step 0 or perhaps even step -1) should be a good faith effort to document exactly how each stage behaves with hazards turned off. It's what I'll be doing, at any rate. Although I have no doubt that most of the stages will have to be unlocked.
I feel like a lot of this could also depend on stage hazard toggle being an all or nothing thing, or if it will be on a per-stage basis. If it's a per-stage thing, then it can be decided on a individual basis on how the stage acts. But if it's an all or nothing thing, I feel like the list should either be determined with the toggle ON, or OFF, and have no flipping between, as it could extend sets that are already on the long side compared to other games. Of course the length of sets will probably be faster than current smash 4 sets, but I think there's been some discussion about possibly pushing it to 3 stock instead of 2 if stocks are that much faster this time around.
Thank you for bringing this up about the random stage select. I thought this entire thread brought up many interesting points I hadn't considered yet, yours being one of them.
I agree that this would be a problem, especially if one player saw the stage that was selected and the other did not. Previous games gave you all the information on the stage select screen which, from an interface design perspective, helps to give the player all pertinent information required for the match. Using the screenshot you provided above, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to add a banner at the top (next to "Solo Battle") that listed the stage name.
Well i know any events i ran for smash4 would allow a player to select any omega stage instead of FD if they wanted, so I think still keeping them grouped would still work, since it's more just a "flat and featureless" distinction. I would say if a stage is close enough, then just group them to help keep the numbers down, and increase stage variety a bit.
On top of that, they said and showed that unlike Smash 4, all omegas are completely identical this time around, with the same undersides. That probably includes FD itself, so they should be interchangeable gameplay-wise. The only other differences omegas had in 4 were flatness (e.g. Flat Zone) and grassy omegas having higher traction... hopefully those also get changed this time around?
You want stages to have variety, but not be too oppressive or advantageous for certain characters. It's why stages like duckhunt were banned. Although it's really basic with no real hazards, the large tree on the side means fast nimble characters can very easily just hit and run the entire game with little risk, and the slow characters with shorter jumps simply cannot keep up, and there is very little option for reads or outplaying in that regard.
The non-omega, non-Battlefield forms of stages change up the gameplay, so it's good to include the ones that aren't unfair. For example, Smashville's moving platform (which neither its omega nor Battlefield form will have) allows for different strategies that use the platform. So you want to be as inclusive as possible to these different layouts, while also making sure to exclude any imbalanced stages.
Certainly not a terrible idea, but then you would need some group to decide which stages are used every 6 months. So many different regions already will use different lists as well, so there would also need to be some incentive to using the list. One of the reasons it works well for blizzard is that they tie those seasons to player rankings, and while there are things to keep up with that for smash, they aren't automatic, which means it's far less likely to be utilized by most players. And even then, you would probably want a way to ensure they're following the rules for that season and using the appropriate list. It would probably be fine if major tournaments would use it, but I just see too many little logistical things for it to be something enforceable widespread.
In the past we've always been limited by how fair and neutral the stages we have are. Things like Stadium transformations and Lylat tilting are still topics of contention. With the seemingly plethora of viable stages we will have I think we can eliminate a lot of the shenanigans. With that said I still believe having 5 starters and then other counter-pick stages is the way to go. Hear me out. What we strive to aim for in game 1 of a match is the most neutral stage between two characters making for the most fairness possible. In the past we reserve counter-picks for our janky stages BC not every stage is as neutral and jank-free as Battlefield or Smashville have shown to be. But we still have stages like FD or Dreamland that while void of massive stage hazards can still be very favorable in certain match-ups. I think the best course of action would be to try to keep with that theme of taking the 5 "best" stages and making them starters. Likely FD, BF, Smashville and two others.
And now that the game lets you pick your character after already seeing what stage you'll be playing on, the burden to make the match fair rests on the players and their choice of character.
I don't think it's unreasonable, as long as stages that change the fundamental gameplay aren't included in the stage list – which is a reason that stages get banned. If you have a grasp on how the game works, how drop through platforms work, how to gain stage control, etc, then a different stage layout using those exact same elements oughta be simple enough to get your head around.
I still imagine game 1 in tournies will have both players blind pick their character 1st even if the game doesn't show it. The stage getting picked before the character I think is just an attempt to make games 2 and beyond smoother. That way you get less backing out of stage select screen to change character and go back to stage select.
If TOs decide to just use what we already use for other games, this will indeed happen. I'm of the opinion that that's not ideal for this game.
It's not too bad an idea for stage selection. One thing I would add is depending on the number of stages which are tournament legal, we may need to change how many each player bans before a match i.e. if we do end up with 40 legal stages, then letting both players ban two stages to begin with, then letting winners ban two stages and losers ban four stages isn't bad because it means that we're left with 12 random stages if it goes to a fifth match.
I agree that this is possibly the best set up we currently have for Ultimate, and the one issue with stage selection and being favorable that you bring up is true, but I think you are forgetting the fact that stages are chosen before you chose your fighter.
Well I didn't know that that rule was a thing, so that is rather interesting.
Why do you think that process would be better over the random stage selection + ban method that I laid out?
Amazing Ampharos
.
Two reasons. Firstly whenever you add an element of randomness you take something away from its competitiveness. The more you add any RNG into something you take a little bit of the pure skill aspect out of something. It's similar to how people don't like random weapon drops in shooters. The random stage selection idea you propose isn't inherently bad, in fact playing the game casually I'd remove all the awful stages turn hazards off and play random with my friends, I think it's a great way to play, but I just don't think it is the best for competitive.
Most of these arguments aren't really as relevant as you think they might be. Sure there will have to be some form of governing body to decide things, but that's always been the case. How long did the debate of 2 stock vs 3 stock go on for Smash 4? The legality of customs? And of course TOs and pros had far more say in those things than the average player, but that's to be expected.
Smash does not have a governing body, and it has never really made decisions in an organized manner. TOs just kinda make their own independent decisions, and over time smaller events tend to mimic larger events and eventually things end up looking pretty similar. The back room is real (I've been in it), but it's not really a decision making place so much as an idea chamber. Some big ideas either from there or from elsewhere have worked their way into actual tournament play over the years; stage striking may be the single biggest one (an invention of early Brawl), and customs were actually pretty close to being there until some power plays decided to shut the whole thing down. The point is that it's not some simple clean governing body. It's a messy, undefined process usually defined by loud internet arguments, powerful figures, and all kinds of backdoor discussions involving all kinds of personal connections (top players have so much influence because they tend to be personal friends of the most powerful TOs). We probably can't escape this completely (we're not going to elect Smash Congress anytime soon, and we do have to make decisions so how else could it be?), but why would we ever want to multiply by several times the amount of this nonsense we have to deal with? It's just hurt feelings, constant drama, constant politics, people getting fed up and quitting, and TOs who aren't happy with how things turn out disregarding it all and doing what they think is better which would make the most probable outcome of even trying to do seasons that it wouldn't ever actually happen when too many TOs just declined to go along anyway. Best to just avoid this trainwreck altogether.
My initial impression is that since Gentleman's always involves the two players agreeing to the same stage, it's just a shortcut through whatever process would ultimately lead to the same result.
We don’t have to worry about character match ups at all considering that you choose the stage before choosing the character. Character Matchups that are unfavorable will not exist, to players that play it smart. It will not happen. Also, this will give versatility to a greater amount of characters, and allow more of the roster to shine as well.
