Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[dav3yb]

Pretty much agree with Amazing Ampharos. He expounded on some of my own concerns quite well.

Ultimately we'll just have to wait and see what the final stage list really looks like, and figure out how the hazard toggle affects each one. I'm still of the mindset that if you cannot turn off hazards for individual stages, then the list should be decided on either with, or without the hazards, without any switching back and fourth. Basically anything to cut down on the time it takes to pick a stage.

Obviously if a player picks a certain stage, you'll know what it is, but I'm still worried that Random stage selection will not allow you to see which stage was chosen.

I was very much for starting with a large list in Smash 4, and whittling it down if needed, and since we know some of those stages are going to return, we know what to expect, and can certainly get a good baseline of stages fairly quickly when the game comes out. Of course I'd want to at least have SOME testing done on every stage to see if it's old problems still persist.

Sadly I'm sure most places will just stick to a very small list, re-enforcing the notion that "smash is so good they have to ban 90% of it for competitive."

 

[blackghost]

A rotating stage list based on seasons...that does seem cool.
Alphas, omegas, PS, SV and Yoshi could probably be cores, with a cycling of the CP options every month by TOs in the backroom. Maybe even themed if we have Sagas to consider as well.

people barely trust backroom on tier lists. do not give them control of the meta and stagelist. we would open ourselves up to all kinds of accusations of collusion and favoritism. not to mention rotation doesnt fix this community's main issue: lazy players. This is a community that used the execuse "i dont want to learn the mus" customs being banned. forgive me if i dont have much faith in rotation benefitting the meta long term.
the starter and counterpick method has been rendered moot imo. It should be just a list of legal stages. round 1 random. round 2 bans from winner and on and on.

 

[Lozjam]

I think the ideal number is somewhere around what Project M does. Project M has a bunch of potentially legal stages, yet they still stick to 9-10 legal stages, and I think Smash Ultimate should do the same (for tournament play, for casual play you can play whatever). I suppose it might be a difficult process to determine which 9-10 stages should be legal, but I think it's doable.

I'm a bit worried the community will go overboard and cram in as many stages as possible because it's new and fresh and all that. Just because we can do that doesn't mean we should.

Now, keep in mind that I consider this a kind of long term goal. Perhaps it might be best to start with a stage list of 20 stages or so (or maybe even more) and then cut it down over time, until we reach the optimal amount of stages (which will likely be something like 9-10). We probably shouldn't test stages (or at least not spend much time testing) that we already know are bad, like Duck Hunt, or non-hazard Delfino Plaza, or Kongo Jungle.

More stages will equal better, more varied content for spectators. If we have a ton of competitively viable stages, we should use all of them, just like any other fighting game. More varied stage mechanics will keep more characters useful, and provide a greater amount of Match Ups as well.

Competitive Splatoon has to learn and deal with 22+ stages with each stage being different for each of the 5 different modes(plus extensive match ups for team layout). I’m pretty sure competitive smashers can learn more than 10 stages.

 

[Frihetsanka]

[1]More stages will equal better, more varied content for spectators. [2]If we have a ton of competitively viable stages, we should use all of them, just like any other fighting game. [3]More varied stage mechanics will keep more characters useful, and provide a greater amount of Match Ups as well.

[4]Competitive Splatoon has to learn and deal with 22+ stages with each stage being different for each of the 5 different modes(plus extensive match ups for team layout). [5]I’m pretty sure competitive smashers can learn more than 10 stages.

1. Yes, and one could make the case that janky stages could provide for some interesting content as well. It's also important to keep in mind that some stages are bad for spectators (like Duck Hunt in Smash 4), so more stage variety doesn't necessarily make it better for viewers. Also, 10 stages is plenty of variety anyway, and we shouldn't primarily choose a stage list based on what's fun for viewers.

2. Other fighting games generally have much less stage variety (most stages are basically Final Destination), where most stages are really, really similar. If we look at fighting games similar to Smash (like Rivals of Aether), those games are generally made with competitive 1v1 in mind, while Smash has a bunch of stages better suited for casual players. Chances are some stages will be less competitively viable than others, too. Take, for instance, Smash 4 Dream Land and Smash 4 Lylat: They are competitively viable enough, but given the chance to remove them I say we should. In Smash 4 that wasn't much of an option because of a lack of stages, but in Ultimate we might be able to remove those stages (or bring them back with stage hazards turned off, although I think we'll have plenty of more interesting options than hazardless Lylat or Dream Land, but we'll see). Anyway, some stages are likely worse than others, and I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of "variety".

3. Not necessarily. Several stages might render some characters much less useful because they struggle on those stages. In Brawl, many stages were banned because Meta Knight destroyed many characters on those stages, and we might see something similar for Ultimate.

4. Splatoon isn't even remotely similar to Smash.

5. Probably. Still, if having more stages is so good, why doesn't Project M run with 15-20 stages? They could, given that they have plenty of potentially legal stages, yet the current ruleset has 5 starters and 4 counter-picks. Project M is much closer to Smash Ultimate than, say, Splatoon 2 or Street Fighter V are. If we look at previous Smash games, we also see that the stage list tends to be small (although part of the reason was a lack of good stages).

People arguing for more legal stages isn't new. I've seen people argue for bad stages being legal in Smash 4, such as Delfino Plaza, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Castle Siege, and even Kongo Jungle 64 (for doubles). It's good that we're likely getting some new good stages and can finally retire Lylat Cruise and Dream Land, but let's not replace them with new, janky stages (for tournament play, anyway; for casual play it's perfectly fine to play on janky stages).

 

[Lozjam]

1. Yes, and one could make the case that janky stages could provide for some interesting content as well. It's also important to keep in mind that some stages are bad for spectators (like Duck Hunt in Smash 4), so more stage variety doesn't necessarily make it better for viewers. Also, 10 stages is plenty of variety anyway, and we shouldn't primarily choose a stage list based on what's fun for viewers.

2. Other fighting games generally have much less stage variety (most stages are basically Final Destination), where most stages are really, really similar. If we look at fighting games similar to Smash (like Rivals of Aether), those games are generally made with competitive 1v1 in mind, while Smash has a bunch of stages better suited for casual players. Chances are some stages will be less competitively viable than others, too. Take, for instance, Smash 4 Dream Land and Smash 4 Lylat: They are competitively viable enough, but given the chance to remove them I say we should. In Smash 4 that wasn't much of an option because of a lack of stages, but in Ultimate we might be able to remove those stages (or bring them back with stage hazards turned off, although I think we'll have plenty of more interesting options than hazardless Lylat or Dream Land, but we'll see). Anyway, some stages are likely worse than others, and I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of "variety".

3. Not necessarily. Several stages might render some characters much less useful because they struggle on those stages. In Brawl, many stages were banned because Meta Knight destroyed many characters on those stages, and we might see something similar for Ultimate.

4. Splatoon isn't even remotely similar to Smash.

5. Probably. Still, if having more stages is so good, why doesn't Project M run with 15-20 stages? They could, given that they have plenty of potentially legal stages, yet the current ruleset has 5 starters and 4 counter-picks. Project M is much closer to Smash Ultimate than, say, Splatoon 2 or Street Fighter V are. If we look at previous Smash games, we also see that the stage list tends to be small (although part of the reason was a lack of good stages).

People arguing for more legal stages isn't new. I've seen people argue for bad stages being legal in Smash 4, such as Delfino Plaza, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Castle Siege, and even Kongo Jungle 64 (for doubles). It's good that we're likely getting some new good stages and can finally retire Lylat Cruise and Dream Land, but let's not replace them with new, janky stages (for tournament play, anyway; for casual play it's perfectly fine to play on janky stages).

Your whole concept of what a “good” and “bad” stage is entirely subjective. Even at a competitive level, a stage having specialties does not necessarily make it bad, especially when these specialties are not random.

Your whole point about character match ups is also extremely mute. As it was said ad-nauseum, character MU’s in stages won’t ever really exist to be unfair considering that the stage is chosen before the character, changing the status quo.

And to what you are saying what’s been done before: That hardly means that it is optimal, nor good for competitive play. Amazing Ampharos arguments for this are clear, and I cannot state it better than he can.

 

[blackghost]

in the past we limited stages due to them not being options for competitive play . Now that is gone for a lot of them and we still want to limit??? Less options is not good for a meta game long term. i remember poeple at locals and on this website wondering what smash 4 meta could have been if they had been let it. especially once it became obvious at default smash 4 would revolve around bayo and cloud and diddy.

we dont need to repeat mistakes. a larger stage list helps the best player win. the most prepared player, the most knowledgable player, th eplayer that put time in, and the player with the best execution. not the player whose character is better on smashville.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Your whole concept of what a “good” and “bad” stage is entirely subjective.

No, it's not. Battlefield is a good stage for competitive play, Halberd is much worse for competitive play. I wouldn't call this "entirely subjective". Some stages are more suited for competitive play than others.

As it was said ad-nauseum, character MU’s in stages won’t ever really exist to be unfair considering that the stage is chosen before the character, changing the status quo.

This logic is flawed, considering that you already picked stages before characters after game 1 in previous Smash games as well. You're also assuming that people will play multiple characters, I think most people (who are serious about competing) will stick to one or maybe two characters, since spreading yourself thin usually hurts more than playing multiple characters benefits you. I'm also not convinced that it's for the best to pick stage 1 before picking characters, perhaps it would be better to first pick characters (for game 1) and then pick the stage, like we're used to doing. It's worth discussing what option we should choose, anyway. I think being able to strike based on your opponent's character pick is an important aspect of game 1 stage striking, so it might be good to ignore the in-game UI for game 1 and pick characters before stage (for game 1). We shouldn't change just because the game wants us to, we should only change if it actually makes the game better.

Amazing Ampharos arguments for this are clear, and I cannot state it better than he can.

@Jamisinon made some good points as well.

in the past we limited stages due to them not being options for competitive play . Now that is gone for a lot of them and we still want to limit???

Ultimately, there is an optimal amount of legal stages. I'm not convinced the optimal amount is 20. I think somewhere between 5 and 13 is likely the optimal amount of stages. It's hard to say exactly where it is, but somewhere around 9-10 seems reasonable. It'll be easier to decide once the game is out, though. It might also be a good idea to have a more liberal amount of stages to begin with and then ban them over time (perhaps by using "Suspects tests" in a similar fashion how Smogon sometimes handle the Competitive Pokémon Meta).

Less options is not good for a meta game long term.

It is if the options are bad (like they were in previous Smash games). I'm not convinced even 15 stages will be good by Ultimate standards, many stages were legal in previous games because of lack of options. I would prefer to have a stage list entirely with good stages. If that's 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 doesn't matter too much to me, as long as every stage is a good stage.

we dont need to repeat mistakes.

I've seen many people argue that Smash 4 Lylat should have been banned. I think it should have been by its own merits, but it was legal because we really, really needed 5 starters. In Smash Ultimate we'll easily get 5 good starters, so that's less of an issue. Anything over 5 good starters is a bonus. I'm okay with having some counter-stick stages as long as they're good, but I don't want to play on bad stages in tournaments, and I don't think top level competitive players should have to play on bad stages in tournaments either.

a larger stage list helps the best player win. the most prepared player, the most knowledgable player, th eplayer that put time in, and the player with the best execution. not the player whose character is better on smashville.

In many cases, adding more janky stages makes the lesser player win. Low ceilings can lead to jank, stage mechanics (such as Randall, or Lylat tilting) can also lead to jank.

I really, really, really dislike the "pick a random stage" aspect. It works in other fighting games because the difference between various stages aren't as significant. It adds RNG and reduces the impact of skill and could give certain players an advantage. Whatever we do we should probably stick to 5 starters and X counter-pick stages (maybe we could do 7 or 9 starters although I'm currently inclined to think that 5 is ideal). Number of bans should be adapted to the number of stages (more stages, more bans), and Dave's Stupid Rule should probably be used.

 

[blackghost]

In many cases, adding more janky stages makes the lesser player win. Low ceilings can lead to jank, stage mechanics (such as Randall, or Lylat tilting) can also lead to jank.

I really, really, really dislike the "pick a random stage" aspect. It works in other fighting games because the difference between various stages aren't as significant. It adds RNG and reduces the impact of skill and could give certain players an advantage. Whatever we do we should probably stick to 5 starters and X counter-pick stages (maybe we could do 7 or 9 starters although I'm currently inclined to think that 5 is ideal). Number of bans should be adapted to the number of stages (more stages, more bans), and Dave's Stupid Rule should probably be used.

low ceilings doesnt equal jank. low ceiling provides a geniune counterpick on a character. if a character doesnt kill vertically but i do its not jank forme to take him there. the part of delfino that was not ok was the fact the ceiling shrunk down si low during transitions. the rest of it was fine imo.

im also considering logistics in majors we can easily put on clock on selection but in ultimate fr smaller events and locals srage selection could take a lot of time if bans remain as they currently are.
smash bros is a platform fighter we have aspects that as a scene we need to expect players to utilize instead of dismissing them as jank.we have characters that can randomly land an instant kill or pull a game winning item. these stages with Randle or other elements that flow in a pattern (yes even lyllat does this) are not jank. they are parts of a stage i expect prepared players to understand and utilize in their matches.
and in other fighters random first stage is used in a bunch of 3d fighters and it matters there too. ring outs, walls, corners, and transitions can favor one character over another doesnt stop them from doing it.
amphros has compeltely disecting the entire starter and nueetral stage idea already unless you can deabte him on it i dont see counterpoints beating his originals.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

https://i.imgur.com/6sQzZqf.png

Let's just say "I don't get people sometimes."

 

[Frihetsanka]

Here is a fun question that I wanna see where people stand.

What do you think the upper limit for legal stages in Smash Ultimate should be?

— TLTC (@ImTLTC) June 14, 2018

Interesting poll. A majority (53%) voted for 9-12, and if you add that to the 14% who voted for 13-15, you'll find a whopping 67% who voted for 15 max. Those in favor of more than 15 legal stages have a long way to go to change people's opinion.

It's also worth noting that VoiD and ZeRo thought that 9 was too much. I think that we might see quite a bit of lobbying from top level players to keep the number of stages at reasonable levels.

low ceilings doesnt equal jank. low ceiling provides a geniune counterpick on a character.

I think some levels of low ceiling are more reasonable than others. Town & City is fine as a counter-pick, Halberd is arguably too much (although the low ceiling was not the only issue with that stage).

the part of delfino that was not ok was the fact the ceiling shrunk down si low during transitions. the rest of it was fine imo.

Smash 4 Delfino was a pretty bad stage and I'm surprised it was legal to begin with.

amphros has compeltely disecting the entire starter and nueetral stage idea already unless you can deabte him on it i dont see counterpoints beating his originals.

Maybe I will, any points in particular that you find extra strong? He's posted quite a lot, after all.

https://i.imgur.com/6sQzZqf.png

Let's just say "I don't get people sometimes."

Most people said something like "If only we get one or two more stages I'll be happy". People wanted to get rid of Lylat mostly, not add a bunch of new janky stages. I'm optimistic that we'll find a good solution though, right now the majority seem to prefer something like 9-12 stages (perhaps opinion will change over time, though).

 

[blackghost]

hearing the fact zero wants less stages doesnt surprise me. he might have a hurt hand until there is a lower amount. even if we have a limit i dont understand why people would choose less options. Smash is the only compeitive community i've seen that wants the game to adapt to them and not the other way around. if there are truly 15 valid distinguishable legal stages they should all be open.
but we have NEVERin smash history gained stages after launch. the competitive scene has never worked like that thanks to too much influence from some of the wrong places. whatever we start with WILL get restricted. i can see it happening here with no valid reason outside players not wanting to learn.

 

[Munomario777]

4. Splatoon isn't even remotely similar to Smash.

You're entirely correct! A Splatoon stage is a complex, three dimensional map with a hundred or two floors and walls each, with tons of camping spots, choke points, key areas, elevation changes, and other intricacies in its terrain. Not to mention level-specific gimmicks like the ink rails, conveyor belts, sponges, and moving platforms, or bits of the stage which change drastically based on which mode you're playing.

Contrastingly, a legal Smash stage consists of just the solid stage itself, some floating platforms, and every once in a while a stage-specific gimmick. This goes without saying, but Smash stages are entirely two-dimensional, so everything is visible at a glance without having to memorize the stage layout.

For this reason, Smash Ultimate players should have a much easier time than Splatoon / Splatoon 2 players in terms of dealing with large stage rosters, even ignoring the fact that the latter group of players already handles it quite well!



Regarding the potential unfairness of random stage selection, that's mitigated if both players are already doing something which I suspect will be important in this game's meta either way, which is maining a handful of different characters. With a roster as big as this and many characters apparently having been buffed, it's in every player's best interest to main more than one character to cover any matchup difficulties.

If a player has a wider selection of mains and secondaries to choose from, then picking a character to suit the stage should be no problem at all, particularly because stage select comes before character select this time around. Sakurai actually noted this strategy as a reason for this change in the UI. Given this intent, it's a safe bet that random stage select will show what stage it chose.

One option is to allow each player one or two bans for the random stage select, where the bans are just removed from the random stage select in the options. So if you are the equivalent of a solo Little Mac main and are worried about the equivalent of Duck Hunt popping up, you can ban it from the random stage select. (This assumes, of course, that such an unfavorable character-stage combination will exist in the first place within our legal stage pool.)



Regarding the twitter poll, I'll say that what the community wants (or rather, believes it wants) =/= the actual best option. What can be taken from this poll is that Smash players aren't exempt from the common, general bias against change.

 

[Jedisupersonic]

I think taking a more careful look at all the stages is a good idea, although I do kinda fear the current top dogs of smash will dictate a much smaller stage list than we hope for.

The main stages I'd be advocating for would be Hazardless Frigate, Brinstar and Warioware (PM players would agree with Warioware in particular).

Frigate is a pretty uniquely laid out stage and ZeRo and Leo's fight on it was pretty fun to watch overall.

Brinstar just seems fine without all the hazards.

Warioware has a unique platform layout, and isn't campy despite that.

 

[Frihetsanka]

For this reason, Smash Ultimate players should have a much easier time than Splatoon / Splatoon 2 players in terms of dealing with large stage rosters, even ignoring the fact that the latter group of players already handles it quite well!

I don't think "It's too hard to handle" is a very compelling argument, no. It's more about "Even if they're better now, they're still not great stages" and the role diminishing return plays. Adding more stages, even if they're fairly good stages, will likely have some diminishing return. At some point, enough is enough. It's hard to say now what the best number is, but I suspect we'll end up with something like 9-12 legal stages, which is significantly more than Smash 4 (which basically had 5 stages if you consider Dream Land an Echo Stage of Battlefield).

Regarding the potential unfairness of random stage selection, that's mitigated if both players are already doing something which I suspect will be important in this game's meta either way, which is maining a handful of different characters. With a roster as big as this and many characters apparently having been buffed, it's in every player's best interest to main more than one character to cover any matchup difficulties.

Time will tell, I suppose. Many people believed that Smash 4 would also be full of people playing multiple characters, but in the end people ended up maining one character and occasionally using one secondary and sometimes a pocket. I think that will be the case with Ultimate as well, but we'll see. It might be easier this time to play multiple characters because of universal jumpsquats and dash dancing/foxtrotting apparently being very similar between multiple characters.

One option is to allow each player one or two bans for the random stage select, where the bans are just removed from the random stage select in the options.

This would certainly make random stage select more appealing. Still, wouldn't it be better to have regular stage striking and then regular counter-picking? Adding even more RNG to the game seems like a step backwards. It would also make it harder to host online tournaments (assuming random pick works like in Smash 4) since one player could choose a stage while claiming to pick random (ie they could cheat).

Regarding the twitter poll, I'll say that what the community wants (or rather, believes it wants) =/= the actual best option. What can be taken from this poll is that Smash players aren't exempt from the common, general bias against change.

I agree that we shouldn't base our decisions solely on majority voting (since the majority could use faulty logic to support their conclusion), but it's still important to keep in mind. A decision to use, say, 20 stages might receive heavy backlash from the community, for instance. I don't think we can draw the conclusion that Smash player have or don't have a bias against change, though: It's possible that people just don't want too many stages.

 

[Munomario777]

There are diminishing returns in the sense that adding one stage to a 5-stage list means a heck of a lot more than adding one stage to a 20-stage list. But that also doesn't mean that the latter is a bad thing / isn't a good thing. Diminishing returns or no, there are still returns, and I don't see a good reason not to have a lot of legal stages.

The asterisk there, of course, is that the stage is actually a good legal stage, which SSBU seems to have in abundance.



It's hard to say right now, but a good amount of factors hint at a multi-main meta. Things like universalized jumpsquats and dashdance timings definitely help, as you said. I also think that as the balance improves, which is likely at this point, that more characters will rise up as threats whose matchups need to be covered in a player's character pool.

Whether or not the rest of the game leads to most players having multiple mains, there's nothing wrong with introducing that as a consequence of the stage list – particularly not anything bad enough to turn down the best legal stage list in series history.



Random stage select for game one, and then a more traditional system for subsequent matches, is optimal for a large stage list. It's quick even when there are lots of legal stages, and also forces players to adapt to a lot of different stages. With a traditional striking system, there is a great risk of overcentralization around a handful of stages ("bans or Smashville?"), which defeats the point of a large stage list.

Compared to these large advantages, the main potential concern is unfairness. Not only does character select coming after stage select help mitigate this, but if needed, bans could be introduced into game one (removing stages from random select) to help preserve solo mains. Solo main Little Mac? You can ban Duck Hunt. One potential downside is a touch more centralization, where some stages could see as little use as Lylat did in Smash 4; it's certainly a tradeoff.



I'd say that the opinions of Smashers right now is much less important, since we've only ever seen one of these systems in action (the traditional one). It'd be more helpful to try out the new system for a period of time, let people get the hang of it, and THEN ask which system is preferred. Otherwise polls aren't helpful, since we've only seen and used one of the options in action.

I'm not saying that bias against change is exclusive to Smashers; I'm saying that it's not exclusive to non-Smashers, or that the general human bias against change isn't something to be disregarded in the case of this poll. It's like how when you have to move to a new town, you'll probably have a lot of worries, even if you'll end up being better off. Or how some people might not want to switch computers even if the new one is more capable, because they're used to the old one.

 

[Frihetsanka]

There are diminishing returns in the sense that adding one stage to a 5-stage list means a heck of a lot more than adding one stage to a 20-stage list. But that also doesn't mean that the latter is a bad thing / isn't a good thing. Diminishing returns or no, there are still returns, and I don't see a good reason not to have a lot of legal stages.

We need to keep in mind that adding a stage always has some negative returns as well. Look at Smash 4, for instance. Imagine if we had the current number of stages + 1 good stage. In that case, Lylat Cruise would do more harm than good and we would benefit from removing it (many people actually wanted a 3 stage starter list just to remove Lylat Cruise, but the harm of a 3 stage starter list is too great, so there was a great deal of community backlash against that idea). Let's say that we have 10 stages in Smash Ultimate, and we consider whether we should add an 11th (Lylat Cruise). In that case, the answer is "no" (although I'm open to testing hazardless Lylat Cruise). That's my point with diminishing returns: At some point, adding more stages will likely do more harm than good. We should stop before that happens.

The asterisk there, of course, is that the stage is actually a good legal stage, which SSBU seems to have in abundance.

I hope you're right. I think this is one of the major points where we differ: I don't think there'll be all that many good stages. Many stages were legal in previous games because we lacked alternatives, so we allowed bad and mediocre stages to be legal in order to fill the stage list. I'd much rather have 10 good stages than 10 good stages and 5 mediocre stages, or 10 good stages, 5 mediocre stages, and 5 kind of bad stages.

Whether or not the rest of the game leads to most players having multiple mains, there's nothing wrong with introducing that as a consequence of the stage list – particularly not anything bad enough to turn down the best legal stage list in series history.

I haven't seen anyone who doesn't want at least some changes in the stage list. We're not going to run the exact same stage list as Smash 4 (hazardless Pokémon Stadium 1/2 is superior to non-hazardless Lylat Cruise or Dream Land 64, for instance). At the minimum I'd expect a stage list of 7 characters, although I'd say 9-12 is fairly likely. We'll see. I imagine early on we'll have a pretty liberal list and as time goes on we'll trim it down until we reach as close to an optimal list as we can.

Random stage select for game one, and then a more traditional system for subsequent matches, is optimal for a large stage list. It's quick even when there are lots of legal stages, and also forces players to adapt to a lot of different stages. With a traditional striking system, there is a great risk of overcentralization around a handful of stages ("bans or Smashville?"), which defeats the point of a large stage list.

I still think having 5 (or maybe 7) starters is ideal. Once you've done starters you'll have a larger pool to pick a counter-pick stage from. Random is not a good idea since it adds more RNG to the game and some stages are not really good as starters anyway (probably, I don't know what the final stage list will look like yet).

I'd say that the opinions of Smashers right now is much less important, since we've only ever seen one of these systems in action (the traditional one). It'd be more helpful to try out the new system for a period of time, let people get the hang of it, and THEN ask which system is preferred.

True. I suppose I am speculating what I think might be ideal in the long run, but in the beginning we should probably be more open to try new things. I still don't think random is a good option, although I'd be willing to try something like 7 starters and 10 counter-picks (17 stages in total) or something like that, even if I think that number of stages won't be ideal in the long run.

I'm not saying that bias against change is exclusive to Smashers; I'm saying that it's not exclusive to non-Smashers, or that the general human bias against change isn't something to be disregarded in the case of this poll.

Okay, that's fair enough.

 

[Munomario777]

If a lot of the stages in Smash Ultimate are like Lylat, adding them won't be beneficial. I'm saying that if there ends up being a large amount of really solid, competitively viable stages in this game, we should do X, Y, and Z. If the selection of viable stages were to be a similar size to those of past games, then a traditional system would be a more solid idea than it would be with a larger stage list.

Spoiler: A side note

As an aside, I do think there's quite a good chance of a larger stage roster this time around. I found this visual list of every confirmed stage (except Green Hill and Shadow Moses), and I'll use it to make a list of what might be viable.

Legal from past games (15!):
- Battlefield
- Final Destination
- Yoshi's Story*
- Yoshi's Island (SSBB)*
- Frigate Orpheon*
- Dream Land*
- Halberd*
- Lylat Cruise*
- Pokémon Stadium 1*
- Prism Tower*
- Castle Siege*
- Arena Ferox*
- Smashville
- Town & City
- Duck Hunt*

*These stages, thanks to how they will presumably be affected by the hazard toggle, can now be used without certain divisive elements.

Could be legal in Ultimate (23!!!):
- Luigi's Mansion? (main issue is the ceilings, even if the pillars are removed)
- Mushroom Kingdom U (transitions and hazards are likely gone, main concern is size)
- Yoshi's Island (64) (if hazard toggle removes the clouds)
- Kongo Falls (rock may still be an issue)
- Jungle Japes? (if water and enemies are gone, only concern is unusual structure)
- Great Plateau Tower (could be workable with hazards ON due to temporary nature of cave of life, or hazardless form could be changed to the single platform after feedback)
- Brinstar (destructible elements removed / made permanent)
- Green Greens (how are blocks handled? will the holes be an issue?)
- Pokémon Stadium 2 (redundant with PS1 existing? maybe PS1 could be hazards-on and PS2 hazards-off?)
- Unova Pokémon League (if stage is static)
- Kalos Pokémon League (good layout hazards aside)
- Big Blue? (if cars on bottom are gone)
- Reset Bomb Forest (bottomless pit, and does it transition?)
- WarioWare, Inc. (no microgames)
- Garden of Hope? (if stick, pot, and seesaw platforms are gone, could be viable)
- PictoChat? (might be an FD clone, or might have a simple drawing on it)
- Tomodachi Life (nothing's changed, but could be worth a shot again)
- Wrecking Crew? (what platform layout does it have hazardless?)
- Wuhu Island (if it stays on the starting platform)
- Moray Towers? (is the vertical layout too much?)
- Wily Castle? (at E3, it was an FD clone, but they could change the hazardless form to include the platforms)
- Midgar (Battlefield clone, but still)
- Umbra Clock Tower? (does it remove the campier platform layouts?)

Taking into account only those stages which have been legal in the past, we have a minimum lineup of 15 candidates for our stage list. If we assume as a rough guess that half of the stages in the latter category pan out (the smaller half, to be conservative), that's 26 stages total, plus any legal stages that we don't even know about yet! Either way, we're going a good distance into the double digits.

Even that fifteen-stage list is larger than any other Smash game's legal stage list, and all fifteen are, presumably, very neutral stages which could be compared to the starter stages of past games. For example, Brawl had ten stages which could be considered legal (listed as Tier 0 and Tier 1 on the wiki), but many of them had hazards or other mechanics which made them contentious. Among these fifteen stages, none are on the same level as some (most?) of Brawl's legal stages.

As an aside within an aside, two of those stages (Dream Land and Battlefield) are very similar to each other, and Prism Tower is a wildcard among the returning legal stages (it was legal in 3DS!). But a fourteen- or thirteen-stage list is still larger than any other Smash game's – again, without even taking anything new into account.

RNG isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's implemented in a way that's fair. Even the traditional stage striking system begins with a game of rock paper scissors to determine striking order. In the case of random stage select, the following measures would be taken to ensure its fairness to both players, and that both players can easily account for the selected stage:

- Both players can see the stage they're playing on
- Both players are playing on the same stage
- Both players can select a character of their choice after seeing the stage
- Only stages without unfair elements are included in the stage list
- If necessary: each player can ban one or two stages from the random stage select

Random stage select would be unfair if it were applied after character selection was locked in, since players wouldn't be able to account for it, and so it could favor one player over the other. But with a stage select screen that comes before character select, each player has the same characters available to account for the same situation. In this way, it's fair to both players.

The selected stage may favor certain characters, but each player has the same pool of characters available – in the same way that some characters counter others. A successful player is likely to have a few mains and secondaries to cover a variety of matchups, and the same will go for stages. If I'm a Little Mac main and Duck Hunt is selected as the stage, I have the option to play another character. If I don't know how to play as another character, then that's my mistake as a player for not accounting for that glaring flaw in my main's moveset. Just like running into a Pacman as a Mac main in Smash 4.



I definitely think that having a lot of stages at the beginning is a good idea, which is something we seem to agree on. For the purposes of experimentation, wouldn't it be better to use a random stage select and force players to try these new things, rather than having some stages always go unused? If the goal is to see which stages work and which ones don't, it's a good idea to ensure that each stage sees a lot of use. The best way to do that is eliminating player bias for / against certain stages, and the best way to do that is to have the game decide in an unbiased, fair way.

 

[Frihetsanka]

If a lot of the stages in Smash Ultimate are like Lylat, adding them won't be beneficial.

Seems we have agreed on this point, then.

Spoiler: Comments on 'A side note'

I looked at your list of stages and here are my thoughts on them:

Legal from past games (15!):
- Battlefield (Starter)
- Final Destination (Probably starter, potentially counter-pick)
- Yoshi's Story* (If Randall is off I'm not sure if there's much of a point of this stage, since it's likely very similar to Battlefield. If the blastzones are different enough I suppose it could be a counter-pick.)
- Yoshi's Island (SSBB)* (Starter or counter-pick)
- Frigate Orpheon* (Potentially a counter-pick)
- Dream Land* (Seems redundant, I personally think it should be banned, if it's legal it's a counter-pick)
- Halberd* (With stage hazards off it could potentially be a counter-pick, depending on how low the ceiling is and how it's down. There's also potentially the risk of sharking, like with Donkey Kong, so maybe it should still be banned)
- Lylat Cruise* (Could be a counter-pick or even a starter without the tilting.)
- Pokémon Stadium 1* (Either this or 2 should be legal, probably starter)
- Prism Tower* (Depends on how it is without stage hazards, might be too similar to FD, might be banned)
- Castle Siege* (It's currently banned in Project M. It's kind of a weird stage but maybe it could be a counter-pick. In either case I think we should give it a try.)
- Arena Ferox* (Probably banned, depends a bit how the stage-hazard toggle affects it)
- Smashville (I think we should try every stage with stage hazards off for consistency's sake. If it breaks Smashville then we might have to make an exception for Smashville. Anyway, starter.)
- Town & City (Legal, starter or counter-pick depending on other stages)
- Duck Hunt* (Banned. It was banned in Smash 4 because of the tree, so it'll still be banned in Ultimate.)

*These stages, thanks to how they will presumably be affected by the hazard toggle, can now be used without certain divisive elements.

Could be legal in Ultimate (23!!!):
- Luigi's Mansion? (Likely banned, stage hazards off will likely make it unbreakable, like with Skyworld.)
- Mushroom Kingdom U (Banned in singles, too big. Maybe legal in doubles.)
- Yoshi's Island (64) (If the clouds are removed it could potentially be legal.)
- Kongo Falls (Banned, the rock breaks it.)
- Jungle Japes? (Banned, way too easy to gimp, can't really recover low at all, and camping could be a problem.)
- Great Plateau Tower (Banned, cave of life, unless they change the hazardless version.)
- Brinstar (Potentially legal as a counter-pick.)
- Green Greens (Banned, terrible stage for competitive play, have fun recovering as Ness.)
- Pokémon Stadium 2 (This or Pokémon Stadium 1 should be legal)
- Unova Pokémon League (Potentially legal.)
- Kalos Pokémon League (Potentially legal.)
- Big Blue? (BANNED)
- Reset Bomb Forest (Banned, this stage would be terrible for so many characters.)
- WarioWare, Inc. (Potentially legal.)
- Garden of Hope? (Banned, way too big.)
- PictoChat? (Probably banned, people would probably prefer Wily Castle over this as an FD alternative.)
- Tomodachi Life (Banned, bad layout for competitive play.)
- Wrecking Crew? (Banned, terrible layout.)
- Wuhu Island (Potentially legal depending on the layout.)
- Moray Towers? (Banned, cave of life and terrible layout.)
- Wily Castle? (Potentially legal as an FD alternative.)
- Midgar (Probably too similar to BF.)
- Umbra Clock Tower? (Probably banned. Motion sickness issues would likely still be an issue for some people and it's not like we're desperate for stages to play on. It's not like it's a very interesting stage anyway.)

Let's see, I count 7 stages that are almost certainly good: Battlefield, Final Destination, Town & City, Yoshi's Island Brawl, Smashville, Pokémon Stadium 1/2. and Lylat Cruise. I count around 9 or so stages that have some real potential, though some of those might not actually be good stages. Some other stages are potentially viable as well. So we're getting somewhere around 7-16 good stages, depending a bit on things like how the stage hazard toggle works and blastzones and such.

I'm willing to test all of those stages that I didn't list as outright banned. I'm fairly certain about those I listed as "banned", though perhaps they might have some saving graces (probably not).

Stages that I think could potentially have some potential (aside as FD/Battlefield alternatives), aside from the 7 I already listed: Frigate Orpheon, Yoshi's Story, Castle Siege, Yoshi's Island (64), Brinstar, Unova Pokémon League, Kalos Pokémon League, WarioWare, Inc., Wuhu Island.

I assume stage hazards are off on every stage (except, perhaps, Smashville and Town & City). I also admit that it's possible that more stages will be revealed that could be legal. Still, I don't really believe that we'll see 20+ tournament viable stages for Smash Ultimate. 9-12 still seems like a good number to me (though if it turns out that most or all of those that "potentially" have some potential are bad, then I suppose we could consider just running 7 or 8 stages).

RNG isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's implemented in a way that's fair.

While fairness is important, it is not the only problem with RNG. Another issue with RNG is that it flies in the face of competitive gaming. What if Grand Finals were decided by a toss of a coin? You could argue that if both people get equal odds then that's fair, but it is hardly fitting for a competitive environment (then again, you could also argue that it's unfair for the more skilled player to reduce it to a coin toss). Random stage order isn't only bad because it's potentially unfair, but also because it takes agency away from the players and makes it slightly more luck-based. Sure, to some extent RPS also does this (I'm not a super fan of RPS in general), although that is, perhaps, a necessary evil for a fairly small advantage (getting to strike first). Getting to strike first isn't nearly as significant as randomly getting a really good stage, anyway. Adding bans would make it better but would also make it closer to standard striking, especially since you might want to RPS to see who bans first.

The selected stage may favor certain characters, but each player has the same pool of characters available – in the same way that some characters counter others.

I think it is worth noting that in many cases, lower tier characters have more bad stages than higher tier characters, so this system could, potentially, harm lower tier characters more than higher tier characters. Probably not by all that much, though (might suck for someone like Little Mac with multiple bad stages).

I definitely think that having a lot of stages at the beginning is a good idea, which is something we seem to agree on. For the purposes of experimentation, wouldn't it be better to use a random stage select and force players to try these new things, rather than having some stages always go unused? If the goal is to see which stages work and which ones don't, it's a good idea to ensure that each stage sees a lot of use. The best way to do that is eliminating player bias for / against certain stages, and the best way to do that is to have the game decide in an unbiased, fair way.

I agree that in the beginning we should use a more liberal ruleset, in order to give different stages a chance. A random stage select could be useful for the first few months of tournaments in order to get a good amount of data on various stages. This would also encourage people to give those stages a chance in friendlies. I think that we eventually should move away from random into a more traditional 5/7 starters and X counter-picks though. Still, having a large stagelist in the beginning could be very reasonable.

 

[Munomario777]

A lot of issues with how X character is wrecked by Y stage can be fixed by allowing 1-2 bans per player from the random stage select (such as Ness recovering on Green Greens). Relatedly, we should try a lot of new things at least in the early days, e.g. stages with pits in the middle (etc), since that isn't something we've had a real opportunity to try before due to hazards ruining those stages. (I forgot to list this one, but the Find Mii stage is another example.)

With large stages like Mario U or a flat Garden of Hope, there's a good chance that the new mobility mechanics will mitigate camping on these stages. For example, the instant fullhops and 3-frame jumpsquats will make it easier to chase players who try to jump around the stage in circles. And like other unorthodox stage types we're now being presented with, we've never had a similarly-sized stage which didn't also have crippling issues preventing its viability. Slower characters would struggle on these stages, but that's an issue that introducing bans into the system would help a ton with.



Choosing a stage at random =/= deciding the outcome of a match with a coin toss. lmao

I outlined a handful of points that eliminate the unfairness of the RNG in my previous post, do feel free to tackle them if you feel like it. Otherwise I don't have much to respond to here.



I reckon someone like Mac is gonna struggle no matter the stage list, as long as a decent amount of stages have platforms. For other characters, it seems like not many will have that kind of issue, given the all-around mobility buffs.

 

[blackghost]

what are people's thoughts on stages with pits in the middle? its a topic we havent really ever had to discuss.

 

[MaestroDavros]

what are people's thoughts on stages with pits in the middle? its a topic we havent really ever had to discuss.

The potential problems I can see are competitors stalling because the stage is split in 2, as well as easy SD'ing if one isn't careful (or forced into the position by one's opponent.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Relatedly, we should try a lot of new things at least in the early days, e.g. stages with pits in the middle (etc), since that isn't something we've had a real opportunity to try before due to hazards ruining those stages. (I forgot to list this one, but the Find Mii stage is another example.)

Some things can probably be tested in a few hours (like Green Greens, which I'm still convinced is a terrible stage for tournaments), so those should probably be used in tournaments. Other stages may need more testing before we should determine their legality. I'm fairly certain that both Green Greens and Find Mii should be banned.

Slower characters would struggle on these stages, but that's an issue that introducing bans into the system would help a ton with.

Are you thinking like 5 bans per character or what? If not, then some characters will struggle on an overtly liberal map pool, at least if you include stages like Duck Hunt or Green Greens.

Choosing a stage at random =/= deciding the outcome of a match with a coin toss. lmao

No one has said that. Less RNG is better for competitive play, though.

I outlined a handful of points that eliminate the unfairness of the RNG in my previous post, do feel free to tackle them if you feel like it. Otherwise I don't have much to respond to here.

One issue I have with the argument that both players can pick a character that's good on the stage is that it basically boils down to "It's not unfair, you, too, could've picked a top tier", which is technically correct but not really good for character diversity. I value character diversity much higher than stage diversity, I'd rather see 20 different characters on 3 stages than 3 different characters on 20 different stages. Other people might differ, I suppose. In any case, my biggest issue with RNG isn't the "fairness" aspect (although it certainly is part of it, losing a set because of bad luck sucks), but rather the random factor. I don't think RNG fits Smash all that much. Anyway, if we stick to 15 stages (and given the current stage list I find it highly unlikely that we'll find more than 15 good stages, we might not even find 10 good stages, depending on how the stage hazard switch works and a number of other factors) random won't really be needed in the long run.

 

[lordvaati]

what are people's thoughts on stages with pits in the middle? its a topic we havent really ever had to discuss.

I mean it's occasionally popped up due to Brinstar. You mean stuff like Bridge of Eldin or the F-Zero 3DS stage?

 

[blackghost]

i mean green green without the blocks. no one knows if brinstar will break or not as of now. but id guess the conservative players will win the argument like normal and they wont be allowed.

 

[PoptartLord]

I haven't posted in a while; there's so much to respond to. This post is going to be a mess. Ah well, let's get to it:

Spoiler: On community trends

but I feel pretty strongly that the consistent error the smash community has made in stage policy in the past has been being just too closed to anything outside of the smallest of comfort zones

this community's main issue: lazy players. This is a community that used the execuse "i dont want to learn the mus" customs being banned

It's also worth noting that VoiD and ZeRo thought that 9 was too much. I think that we might see quite a bit of lobbying from top level players to keep the number of stages at reasonable levels.

Surely people don't just blindly follow whatever the top players say, even when it goes against what they think ...

I've had a slight change of heart. M2K said that ...

Turns out they do. And quite often (statement also backed up by conversations with people during tournaments)

Extreme narrow-mindedness. This is what I hate about many so-called "community agreed upon" standard rules. There's too much restriction without good reason. One big difference between platform fighters (or whatever else you call the category that Smash created / falls under) is the wide range of movement. Smash characters typically have two jumps and an upward-moving recovery move. Compare that to most traditional fighters where all stages are a flat plane with a wall on either end. Stage variety should be embraced as one of the core facets of the sub-genre. There's so much being left on the table it's disgusting. Smash 4's list looked something like FD, worse FD (Smashville), Battlefield, Battlefield where my up-tilts couldn't sweep the platform (Dreamland), Town and City, and The Stage Nobody Ever Picked But Me So Why Bother Listing It (Lylat), and that's it.

Spoiler: The reasons I've heard for exclusion

People arguing for more legal stages isn't new. I've seen people argue for bad stages being legal in Smash 4, such as Delfino Plaza, Halberd, Duck Hunt, Castle Siege, and even Kongo Jungle 64 (for doubles). It's good that we're likely getting some new good stages and can finally retire Lylat Cruise and Dream Land, but let's not replace them with new, janky stages (for tournament play, anyway; for casual play it's perfectly fine to play on janky stages).

I've seen many people argue that Smash 4 Lylat should have been banned. I think it should have been by its own merits, but it was legal because we really, really needed 5 starters. ... In many cases, adding more janky stages makes the lesser player win. Low ceilings can lead to jank, stage mechanics (such as Randall, or Lylat tilting) can also lead to jank.

However,

smash bros is a platform fighter we have aspects that as a scene we need to expect players to utilize instead of dismissing them as jank.we have characters that can randomly land an instant kill or pull a game winning item. these stages with Randle or other elements that flow in a pattern (yes even lyllat does this) are not jank. they are parts of a stage i expect prepared players to understand and utilize in their matches.

I hate the word 'jank' so very much. It's real definition is something along the lines of "This mechanic/interaction shouldn't have happened the way it did because it defies standard/internal game logic". Then there's how it's used today, "Anything I don't like or don't care to learn". I'll back this up with the most well known, and most frequently mentioned, example: Lylat. I assert that it is one of the more advanced stages in the game and not "janky". Let's start with the tilting. As previously mentioned it is not, in any way, random. Just passively notice the background to see if the ship/stage is about to fly into a giant rock and move to avoid it. What does this do? It punishes tunnel-vision. Next let's address how the bottom isn't straight but angles down at the edges. This leads to some interesting projectile play, especially when ballistic arcs are taken into consideration. Finally we get to the ledge. I've heard so many complaints about how it "messes up" people's recoveries so they hit the underside of the stage and fall to their deaths. This isn't like Battlefield where you can just mindlessly point your up-B into the stage and slide across it to the ledge snap. You actually have to properly aim at the ledge to recover. This punishes LAZY RECOVERY HABITS; if you miss it's all on you.
This ties back in to my first point. There are legitimate reasons such as permanent walk-offs and boss monsters. Then there's laziness disguised by the 'jank' umbrella term. Am I the only one who believes that knowing these nuances should be expected when being competitive? Also,

... jank-free as Battlefield or Smashville ...

pick one. Smashville's platform gets closer to the edge of the stage than anything not an outright walkoff. Do you know how many times I've killed opponents at 30% with Robin's backthrow off that platform?

Spoiler: Stage Count

An overabundance of stages would also make it harder for players. More stages to practice, less familiarity with certain character setups etc. It would just be another thing making it harder for newcomers to enter the competitive scene

More stages will equal better, more varied content for spectators. If we have a ton of competitively viable stages, we should use all of them, just like any other fighting game. More varied stage mechanics will keep more characters useful, and provide a greater amount of Match Ups as well.

There are diminishing returns in the sense that adding one stage to a 5-stage list means a heck of a lot more than adding one stage to a 20-stage list. But that also doesn't mean that the latter is a bad thing / isn't a good thing. Diminishing returns or no, there are still returns, and I don't see a good reason not to have a lot of legal stages. ... The asterisk there, of course, is that the stage is actually a good legal stage, which SSBU seems to have in abundance.

In that case, Lylat Cruise would do more harm than good and we would benefit from removing it

I strongly prefer inclusion over restriction here. Start with a list of all stages then give a good reason to remove from it. Example: Boxing Ring. Has permanent walk-offs. Removed. Cutting down to a certain magic number is not a goal, it's a fallacy.
To respond to some of the above quotes, I disagree that a large stage count will be exceptionally hard on new players. The bigger skill gap will be from not being familiar with Smash 4 (a lot will carry over). Practicing on FD and Battlefield will give them a grasp on what can/not be done when platforms are un/available. A lot of the rest comes from extrapolation, then finally experience.
It was explained in detail previously by AA so I'll just reiterate that stage layouts and mechanics has an impact on matchups. Drawing from personal experience I dislike playing Marth on stages without platforms so I'll either use bans to stay away from that or even change characters [sometimes] if forced to go there.
See the Lylat hate?! Advanced stage, game is better for it, etc.

Now for some individual responses:

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

That depends on the individual implementations and doesn't work as a brushstroke statement. So about having round 1 stage selection be random, this is fine since all outcomes could have been player chosen. There's literally no difference between the random button choosing Peach's Castle 64 and me winning a coin toss and deciding to go to Peach's Castle 64.

I've seen seasons floated a lot of times, including by some very strong players. It sounds appealing at first which is why I think it keeps getting suggested, but if you think about it more and really play through how everything will go if we do this, it's a terrible, terrible idea

That's because seasons are a terrible, terrible idea. Unlike Blizzard games the creators are not a centralizing force that dictate everything tournament related. It will be a logistic and political nightmare. Also, good luck with getting new stages added in season 2. Once people don't have to learn a stage there will be extreme pushback against having to learn it in the future. Statement backed up by all of Smash history [sadly]

Other fighting games generally have much less stage variety (most stages are basically Final Destination), where most stages are really, really similar. If we look at fighting games similar to Smash (like Rivals of Aether), those games are generally made with competitive 1v1 in mind, while Smash has a bunch of stages better suited for casual players. Chances are some stages will be less competitively viable than others, too. Take, for instance, Smash 4 Dream Land and Smash 4 Lylat: They are competitively viable enough, but given the chance to remove them I say we should. In Smash 4 that wasn't much of an option because of a lack of stages, but in Ultimate we might be able to remove those stages (or bring them back with stage hazards turned off, although I think we'll have plenty of more interesting options than hazardless Lylat or Dream Land, but we'll see). Anyway, some stages are likely worse than others, and I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of "variety".

...what? "a bunch of stages better suited for casual players" is an extremely loaded statement. "I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of 'variety'" yet in the same paragraph you specifically call Lylat 'less interesting' and want to remove it. Lylat has a unique three low platform layout and demanding ledges. Just say "I don't want to bother learning this so ban it" and be done with it

One issue I have with the argument that both players can pick a character that's good on the stage is that it basically boils down to "It's not unfair, you, too, could've picked a top tier", which is technically correct but not really good for character diversity. I value character diversity much higher than stage diversity, I'd rather see 20 different characters on 3 stages than 3 different characters on 20 different stages

Context: this quote was in response to random game 1 stage selection. ...um what? This statement contradicts itself. If there's only three stages then that skews the matchups to the point where you will only ever see characters that excel on those stages. In Smash 4 if I ban FD and Smashville against a Little Mac then the only remaining stages all have platforms, which puts me at an advantage. This leads to only seeing characters that prefer the stage layouts of those three stages. Conversely, if there's twenty different stages then I can't nullify the scenario of fighting Little Mac without platform protection which leads to more Little Macs and me using a second character to better deal with him. Meaning more character variety

what are people's thoughts on stages with pits in the middle? its a topic we havent really ever had to discuss.

It depends on the layout. If it's like Bridge of Eldin, that's bad. The gap is so large that it takes too many resources to cross it (multiple jumps and/or recovery move) so the attacker will be putting themselves at a disadvantage, leading to a lack of interaction most of the time. The gaps on that one transition in Delfino are better. They could be cleared with one jump, and the longer-reach characters could poke opponents standing at the ledge. There has been much more interaction in this case. Since you mentioned Green Greens, I'll guess that those trying to return to the center will have an easier time due to the platforms, but reaching the outer edges will be more difficult. It could be a good stage for projectile users that can pressure the side sections



TL;DR

we dont need to repeat mistakes. a larger stage list helps the best player win. the most prepared player, the most knowledgable player, th eplayer that put time in, and the player with the best execution. not the player whose character is better on smashville.

THIS is the correct COMPETITIVE attitude. This game is huge. Want to compete? Learn it. All of it. The energy put into making excuses and lobbying to cut large swathes of the game is better spent on gaining familiarity with more facets of this very multifaceted game.

 

[MaestroDavros]

I haven't posted in a while; there's so much to respond to. This post is going to be a mess. Ah well, let's get to it:

Spoiler: On community trends

Surely people don't just blindly follow whatever the top players say, even when it goes against what they think ...

Turns out they do. And quite often (statement also backed up by conversations with people during tournaments)

Extreme narrow-mindedness. This is what I hate about many so-called "community agreed upon" standard rules. There's too much restriction without good reason. One big difference between platform fighters (or whatever else you call the category that Smash created / falls under) is the wide range of movement. Smash characters typically have two jumps and an upward-moving recovery move. Compare that to most traditional fighters where all stages are a flat plane with a wall on either end. Stage variety should be embraced as one of the core facets of the sub-genre. There's so much being left on the table it's disgusting. Smash 4's list looked something like FD, worse FD (Smashville), Battlefield, Battlefield where my up-tilts couldn't sweep the platform (Dreamland), Town and City, and The Stage Nobody Ever Picked But Me So Why Bother Listing It (Lylat), and that's it.

Spoiler: The reasons I've heard for exclusion

However,

I hate the word 'jank' so very much. It's real definition is something along the lines of "This mechanic/interaction shouldn't have happened the way it did because it defies standard/internal game logic". Then there's how it's used today, "Anything I don't like or don't care to learn". I'll back this up with the most well known, and most frequently mentioned, example: Lylat. I assert that it is one of the more advanced stages in the game and not "janky". Let's start with the tilting. As previously mentioned it is not, in any way, random. Just passively notice the background to see if the ship/stage is about to fly into a giant rock and move to avoid it. What does this do? It punishes tunnel-vision. Next let's address how the bottom isn't straight but angles down at the edges. This leads to some interesting projectile play, especially when ballistic arcs are taken into consideration. Finally we get to the ledge. I've heard so many complaints about how it "messes up" people's recoveries so they hit the underside of the stage and fall to their deaths. This isn't like Battlefield where you can just mindlessly point your up-B into the stage and slide across it to the ledge snap. You actually have to properly aim at the ledge to recover. This punishes LAZY RECOVERY HABITS; if you miss it's all on you.
This ties back in to my first point. There are legitimate reasons such as permanent walk-offs and boss monsters. Then there's laziness disguised by the 'jank' umbrella term. Am I the only one who believes that knowing these nuances should be expected when being competitive? Also,

pick one. Smashville's platform gets closer to the edge of the stage than anything not an outright walkoff. Do you know how many times I've killed opponents at 30% with Robin's backthrow off that platform?

I strongly prefer inclusion over restriction here. Start with a list of all stages then give a good reason to remove from it. Example: Boxing Ring. Has permanent walk-offs. Removed. Cutting down to a certain magic number is not a goal, it's a fallacy.
To respond to some of the above quotes, I disagree that a large stage count will be exceptionally hard on new players. The bigger skill gap will be from not being familiar with Smash 4 (a lot will carry over). Practicing on FD and Battlefield will give them a grasp on what can/not be done when platforms are un/available. A lot of the rest comes from extrapolation, then finally experience.
It was explained in detail previously by AA so I'll just reiterate that stage layouts and mechanics has an impact on matchups. Drawing from personal experience I dislike playing Marth on stages without platforms so I'll either use bans to stay away from that or even change characters [sometimes] if forced to go there.
See the Lylat hate?! Advanced stage, game is better for it, etc.

Now for some individual responses:

That depends on the individual implementations and doesn't work as a brushstroke statement. So about having round 1 stage selection be random, this is fine since all outcomes could have been player chosen. There's literally no difference between the random button choosing Peach's Castle 64 and me winning a coin toss and deciding to go to Peach's Castle 64.


That's because seasons are a terrible, terrible idea. Unlike Blizzard games the creators are not a centralizing force that dictate everything tournament related. It will be a logistic and political nightmare. Also, good luck with getting new stages added in season 2. Once people don't have to learn a stage there will be extreme pushback against having to learn it in the future. Statement backed up by all of Smash history [sadly]


...what? "a bunch of stages better suited for casual players" is an extremely loaded statement. "I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of 'variety'" yet in the same paragraph you specifically call Lylat 'less interesting' and want to remove it. Lylat has a unique three low platform layout and demanding ledges. Just say "I don't want to bother learning this so ban it" and be done with it


Context: this quote was in response to random game 1 stage selection. ...um what? This statement contradicts itself. If there's only three stages then that skews the matchups to the point where you will only ever see characters that excel on those stages. In Smash 4 if I ban FD and Smashville against a Little Mac then the only remaining stages all have platforms, which puts me at an advantage. This leads to only seeing characters that prefer the stage layouts of those three stages. Conversely, if there's twenty different stages then I can't nullify the scenario of fighting Little Mac without platform protection which leads to more Little Macs and me using a second character to better deal with him. Meaning more character variety


It depends on the layout. If it's like Bridge of Eldin, that's bad. The gap is so large that it takes too many resources to cross it (multiple jumps and/or recovery move) so the attacker will be putting themselves at a disadvantage, leading to a lack of interaction most of the time. The gaps on that one transition in Delfino are better. They could be cleared with one jump, and the longer-reach characters could poke opponents standing at the ledge. There has been much more interaction in this case. Since you mentioned Green Greens, I'll guess that those trying to return to the center will have an easier time due to the platforms, but reaching the outer edges will be more difficult. It could be a good stage for projectile users that can pressure the side sections



TL;DR

THIS is the correct COMPETITIVE attitude. This game is huge. Want to compete? Learn it. All of it. The energy put into making excuses and lobbying to cut large swathes of the game is better spent on gaining familiarity with more facets of this very multifaceted game.

THANK YOU! These are exactly my thoughts as well. Competitive Smash needs to be shaken up. Players need to get out of their comfort zone. The best players should be those who are able to adapt to varied situations and have full knowledge of the mechanics, not ones who simply use Smash as a mathematical problem with a limited number of known variable allowed to facilitate this (or in layman's terms, people not wanting to learn new stages because "it takes too long" or "my main isn't good there" or "I actually have to know how to adapt to a new situation".

Sadly though I have realized that it's going to be an uphill battle to make a more varied competative Smash stage wise come to reality. Unfortunately, I suspect that nothing will change, and a whole host of reasons why a perfectly decent stage will be banned will be invented. And there is an incredible amount of support it seems for seasons. I genuinely believe that if they are put in place it could potentially break the competitive scene apart because of all the disagreement and salt that will ensue.

Forgive me for not being optimistic about the competitive future of SSBU. I really want it to succeed, and see more variety in the scene, but unless the community is willing to try something different than what has been used for the past 10 years (SSBU is a new entry after all) then we might as well keep playing Smash 4, or heck Brawl for that matter. New game should mean new rules.

 

[Austria]

temple will be banned because caves of life.

great cave offensive will be banned because it’s too big, camping, and hazards.

green hill zone will be banned because camping, the floor falling down, and…

fourside is SADLY banned; that ufo is pretty cool and it has to be in every melee tournament!

any others?

 

[Gearkeeper-8a]

smash characters arent so complex that you need to only investment in one to do very good, hell MkLeo used like 4 character in CEO, that isnt a good argument.
Respecting about the stages itselfs, well all these so called problematic stages that would kill competitive smash 4 never happened, in fact people are more sick of Smashville and Town and City because how stale is to watch ever single game on them in a top 8, now that i think about it, what will the worst thing to happen if we allow +20 stages??? smash ultimate is already a faster game and more viewer friendly that smash 4, you think realistic that it will die if we added a varied stage list?? is not like people is wanting to add pac-land or hyrule temple, this fear that some player have is unfounden smash ultimate is not smash 4 stop with that mentality.

 

[Frihetsanka]

This is what I hate about many so-called "community agreed upon" standard rules. There's too much restriction without good reason.

Most of them have good reason, though. You might not agree with it but it's there.

Then there's laziness disguised by the 'jank' umbrella term.

This is false. People don't like jank because it's janky, not because they're lazy.

Also, pick one. Smashville's platform gets closer to the edge of the stage than anything not an outright walkoff. Do you know how many times I've killed opponents at 30% with Robin's backthrow off that platform?

Yeah, Smashville is not as free of jank as some people seem to believe. Still, the (fairly low) amount of jank Smashville has is probably not enough to justify banning it. It is, overall, one of the least janky stages, after all.

There's literally no difference between the random button choosing Peach's Castle 64 and me winning a coin toss and deciding to go to Peach's Castle 64.

Actually, there is. I don't think anyone here argues that we should let the winner of RPS choose stage, instead we should implement striking in order to get the first stage (and in subsequent games the loser picks and the winner bans two or more stages).

...what? "a bunch of stages better suited for casual players" is an extremely loaded statement. "I don't want to play on mediocre stages just because of 'variety'" yet in the same paragraph you specifically call Lylat 'less interesting' and want to remove it. Lylat has a unique three low platform layout and demanding ledges. Just say "I don't want to bother learning this so ban it" and be done with it

Nothing wrong with being a casual player. I'd be happy to play on, say, Pirate Ship for FFAs, but I don't think that stage should be legal in competitive play. Some stages are suited for competitive play, some are less suited, and some are not very suited at all. It's a spectrum.

This statement contradicts itself. If there's only three stages then that skews the matchups to the point where you will only ever see characters that excel on those stages. In Smash 4 if I ban FD and Smashville against a Little Mac then the only remaining stages all have platforms, which puts me at an advantage. This leads to only seeing characters that prefer the stage layouts of those three stages. Conversely, if there's twenty different stages then I can't nullify the scenario of fighting Little Mac without platform protection which leads to more Little Macs and me using a second character to better deal with him. Meaning more character variety

If you look at the stage list proposed, you'll see that adding some of the stages would hurt character variety more than it would help. Perhaps 10 stages would be good enough to reach the sweet spot, but adding 20 stages likely means adding some stages which certain characters (likely top tiers) can abuse.

THIS is the correct COMPETITIVE attitude. This game is huge. Want to compete? Learn it. All of it.

Cutting stages has always been a part of competitive Smash, even games like Project M. There are good reasons to limit stage selection, at least when many of the stages are pretty mediocre (for competitive play). Unless they add more good stages I don't see how we could reach 20+ good stages, the current stage list isn't nearly as good as people make it out to be.

 

[Jamisinon]

I don't like how people got their pitchforks out and some are now claiming that anyone in favor of fewer stages is lazy/pleb/scrub who just doesn't want to learn more stages. Literally not 1 person has said 'I personally don't want to have to learn more stages.'
Statements like

The energy put into making excuses and lobbying to cut large swathes of the game is better spent on gaining familiarity with more facets of this very multifaceted game.

feel very unnecessary. It's hard enough keeping the smash community united across multiple games. A topic for discussion doesn't need to be used to split the community further.
I hope this sentiment is that of the minority and that most advocates of a larger stage list simply want to explore the option BC we are going to have more seemingly viable stages than ever before.
Every smash game has used stages at one point that are no longer used. I just hope that if the community as a whole decides to use a larger stage list that it doesn't end up being as disastrous as custom moves were when so many wanted them used in tournaments.

 

[blackghost]

I don't like how people got their pitchforks out and some are now claiming that anyone in favor of fewer stages is lazy/pleb/scrub who just doesn't want to learn more stages. Literally not 1 person has said 'I personally don't want to have to learn more stages.'
Statements like
feel very unnecessary. It's hard enough keeping the smash community united across multiple games. A topic for discussion doesn't need to be used to split the community further.
I hope this sentiment is that of the minority and that most advocates of a larger stage list simply want to explore the option BC we are going to have more seemingly viable stages than ever before.
Every smash game has used stages at one point that are no longer used. I just hope that if the community as a whole decides to use a larger stage list that it doesn't end up being as disastrous as custom moves were when so many wanted them used in tournaments.

its funny you'd mention custom moves because i remember going to locals and seeing on this very board how people had regrets on how they were sidelined and abandoned. How good was custom palutena? was ganon an actual threat? were there new applications in mu and strategies? we never will know because we choose what was easy. "Splitting the community" is not a valid argument smash is bigger than its ever been with no signs of slowing. People left smash 4 many times because the community decided to restrict them. mii players? gone. custom players gone. advocates of larger stages list? feeling threatened. The only thing splitting the community is the inability to expand beyond its comfort zones. And its convenient that every time a new mechanic or option comes forward in smash it is dismissed as "unnecessary." i dont see such a thing in any other community. if its in the game andit a viable option we should be using it.

smash wants to be a better spectator sport. NINTENDO wants smash to be a better spectator sport there are more HUD changes in this game than the entire series (versus character selection screen, stock count, slow motion on kills, and hazard toggle.) variety makes for a better spectator sport.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Every smash game has used stages at one point that are no longer used. I just hope that if the community as a whole decides to use a larger stage list that it doesn't end up being as disastrous as custom moves were when so many wanted them used in tournaments.

I'm not too worried on a global level, since those making the global recommended rulesets usually end up banning bad stages (with the exception of Dream Land 64*, for some reason). Smaller regions might be a different question.

*It's not a terrible stage in Smash 4 but it's kind of redundant since Battlefield is available, and the stage does have some issues for certain characters (like Wario and Pikachu) due to a bug. The wind is also a bit janky at times and the layout leads to some early KOs with rage, like Zero Suit Samus or Rosalina & Luma).

its funny you'd mention custom moves because i remember going to locals and seeing on this very board how people had regrets on how they were sidelined and abandoned.

I think more people should have occasional "for fun" tournaments, like with items on, on janky stages, and/or with customs and/or Miis legal. Still, customs were not worth it and banning them was the right choice. As for Miis, that can be discussed, and likely will be assuming Ultimate Miis have customs available. XXXX Guest Miis would not have broken the game, though (not nearly as bad as customs would have).

People left smash 4 many times because the community decided to restrict them. mii players? gone. custom players gone. advocates of larger stages list? feeling threatened.

My guess is that very few people left because of a lack of customs or a lack of stages. Mii players leaving because of ruleset against Miis is a different story, however. Perhaps Ultimate will allow for Mii players to shine.

And its convenient that every time a new mechanic or option comes forward in smash it is dismissed as "unnecessary."

Keep in mind that one of the issues with customs is that they can be a hassle to unlock, and by default they're off, anyway. As for stages, can you really make a claim that we banned too many stages in any game prior to Ultimate? If so, then I'd like to hear which stages you think should have been legal.

f its in the game andit a viable option we should be using it.

Could you give some examples of what you mean (aside from Miis)?

[...]variety makes for a better spectator sport.

I don't care too much about variety in stages, personally (I don't know how much the overall viewerbase think about this, I've seen people complain about Smashville so I suspect some people care about it a bit more than I do). Variety in characters is another thing. An overly large stage list might harm low and mid tiers significantly, which could reduce the amount of variety.

 

[Jamisinon]

"Splitting the community" is not a valid argument smash is bigger than its ever been with no signs of slowing.

Ehh . . . *internally debates whether to bring up sm4sh viewership numbers knowing whatever he says will get quoted in a reply that gets a bunch of likes just BC it is contrary to his point that's he's using statistics to back up, thinks about saying something about the problems in a divided community* . . . uhh just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlQPqC_bX6s

advocates of larger stages list? feeling threatened.

in fact people are more sick of Smashville and Town and City because how stale is to watch ever single game on them in a top 8,

I don't see a good reason not to have a lot of legal stages.

If given the option would you add Duck Hunt, Delfino, Castle Siege, Halberd, Skyloft, and Wuhu back into competitive play? It would be better for viewers to have more stages. There would be less Smashville over and over.
Anyone else feel free to answer.

 

[Gearkeeper-8a]

Ehh . . . *internally debates whether to bring up sm4sh viewership numbers knowing whatever he says will get quoted in a reply that gets a bunch of likes just BC it is contrary to his point that's he's using statistics to back up, thinks about saying something about the problems in a divided community* . . . uhh just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlQPqC_bX6s

smash 4 viewership has decreased because is a old game on a console that sold like trash, with an inmature community, smash ultimate will have more viewers because is a newer game on a good selling console with better gameplay that smash 4, ultimate isn going to die if we allow a expansive stage list, this is the better time to experiment, this comunity need to stop having so much fear.

 

[Frihetsanka]

[...]ultimate isn going to die if we allow a expansive stage list, this is the better time to experiment, this comunity need to stop having so much fear.

Smash 64 has 1 legal stage, Melee has 6 legal stages, Brawl has 7 legal stages, Smash Wii U has 6 (5 if you count Dream Land as an Echo Stage of Battlefield). I personally think Smash 4 has the best overall stage list out of the non-PM games, and even then, wouldn't 9 or 10 stages be fairly expansive in comparison to previous games?

 

[Zerp]

I'm not saying this out of opposition to any particular stage, but I think using viewership as a argument for what stages should be legal and what-not is a little dangerous, if we think of spectators first and do what is best for spectators before considering what is best for the competitors, then we risk creating a situation where many players will stop wanting to play the game, and that's a lot worse than having low viewership. I feel that the main goals should be to make the stagelist reasonably fair for competition and entertaining to the people playing the game, not to appease spectators.

 

[blackghost]

Smash 64 has 1 legal stage, Melee has 6 legal stages, Brawl has 7 legal stages, Smash Wii U has 6 (5 if you count Dream Land as an Echo Stage of Battlefield). I personally think Smash 4 has the best overall stage list out of the non-PM games, and even then, wouldn't 9 or 10 stages be fairly expansive in comparison to previous games?

if you tihnk smash 4 has a great stage list its an opinion not a fact. the other thing isyou are stuck thinking in how the past decisions have been made instead of projecting forward what improvement could be. why limit yourself to 5 to 7 when 15 in thoery are available? you wouldnt do that with characters so why stages?

Ehh . . . *internally debates whether to bring up sm4sh viewership numbers knowing whatever he says will get quoted in a reply that gets a bunch of likes just BC it is contrary to his point that's he's using statistics to back up, thinks about saying something about the problems in a divided community* . . . uhh just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlQPqC_bX6s

smash 4 community has earned the reputation it currently has. banning characters, restricting choices, loud complaints and advocates for additional restrictions, immaturity, sexual assault from a major player, the lack of interest in other games, i can go on and on. but the huge thing that happened recently is the sonicfoxx vs zero thing. people in smash community acted like sonicfoxx did something wrong. the rest of the fgc was talking "did the best player in smash just get that petty over something that he challenged fox to a set over an unintentional misunderstanding from 3 years ago? thats petty." it also doesnt help when smahs 4 community complaints about a character being OP and broken that doesnt have the results to back it up. as someone that played marvel 3, marvel 2, and brawl its really sad to see the level of toxicity where a youtber will out a smash 4 set in a bayonetta section instead o fa smash section in order to not get smash downvoted when people start acting like immature kids. i dont care how good a character is the level of abuse 've witnessed bahyonetta and cloud players experience in locals is inexcusable. players have been spit on, punched, dleelberatedly shown poor sportmanship, and worse. this community has to improve A LOT moving forward.

I

The wind is also a bit janky at times and the layout leads to some early KOs with rage, like Zero Suit Samus or Rosalina & Luma).
of ruleset against Miis is a different story, however. Perhaps Ultimate will allow for Mii players to shine.

Keep in mind that one of the issues with customs is that they can be a hassle to unlock, and by default they're off, anyway. As for stages, can you really make a claim that we banned too many stages in any game prior to Ultimate? If so, then I'd like to hear which stages you think should have been legal.

Could you give some examples of what you mean (aside from Miis)?

I don't care too much about variety in stages, personally (I don't know how much the overall viewerbase think about this, I've seen people complain about Smashville so I suspect some people care about it a bit more than I do). Variety in characters is another thing. An overly large stage list might harm low and mid tiers significantly, which could reduce the amount of variety.

There's that word again: jank. there are several visual and audio cues to the wind it is not random and happens in a set pattern. it is not jank.

you cannot make an argument for a ruleset based on default settings in a smash game. otherwise we play time with items on any stage.
prior to ultimate we NEVER had a choice. prior to ultimate we would hear players say things like "its a shame sakurai ruined so many stages for competitive play."or "if they would just give us a toggle." if you never heard that said you werent paying attention. so no im not buying that either.

what do you mean aside from miis? that dismissal is what me and several others are talking about. miis were basically deleted from the scene. when stage restrictions ar emad ein other communities they are based on actual problems not ease and not comfort. In marvle 3 the east coast started to defaut to 2 stages due to frame rate concerns and lighting in some stages. the west coast didnt follow these soft rules, but when the two communitires met in events it was never a big deal. (framerate was but that was taken care of by quality TOs.)

now for the actual meat to talk about. Having more options in stages helps the mid and low tier characters. when you have a stage that is basic and simple in layut, blastzone, and nothing else to keep track of the character whose base kit is better is always at an advantage. bayo isnt messing up her recovery on battlefield or fd. lylat you can potentially edgegaurd her becuase you know where she is going. this is just one example. when there are more stages to choose form you can get to a stage with landing options instead of being stuck above Rosalina. you can go somewhere to restrict sonic runaway. you have to utlize your options and think like a good player.

you are facing an uphill battle if you think choice is somehow a bad thing for lower tiers.

 

[MaestroDavros]

I'm not saying this out of opposition to any particular stage, but I think using viewership as a argument for what stages should be legal and what-not is a little dangerous, if we think of spectators first and do what is best for spectators before considering what is best for the competitors, then we risk creating a situation where many players will stop wanting to play the game, and that's a lot worse than having low viewership. I feel that the main goals should be to make the stagelist reasonably fair for competition and entertaining to the people playing the game, not to appease spectators.

I understand and partly do share your concern. My thoughts are that sports as a general rule are as much about the spectacle as they are the competitors themselves. Variety (more than 1 or 2 stages all the time) is the spice of life, and this is true for both competition and viewership. However, I agree that we need to find a fair balance between the extremes of what suits competitors best (safe stages) and what suits viewers interests (visual variety).

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

I'm not saying this out of opposition to any particular stage, but I think using viewership as a argument for what stages should be legal and what-not is a little dangerous, if we think of spectators first and do what is best for spectators before considering what is best for the competitors, then we risk creating a situation where many players will stop wanting to play the game, and that's a lot worse than having low viewership. I feel that the main goals should be to make the stagelist reasonably fair for competition and entertaining to the people playing the game, not to appease spectators.

But if you focus to heavily on the competitors and ignore spectators you'll actually just end up hurting the competitors instead. Think of it this way, the less spectators, the less interest and excitement there is for the game. If there is less interest and excitement for the game, that means less interest there is to play the game. If there is less interest to play the game, that means competition will get stale and the prize pools will shrink.

Not to mention a higher viewer count means more potential for any person who refuses to play a high stage count tournament to be replaced. Heck, maybe they could even come back if torunaments end up doing fantastically.

But most importantly, we have no idea what the actual effects of having a high stage list are until we actually try it. So how are we suppose to know if it would actually negatively affect the players.

 

[Jamisinon]

But most importantly, we have no idea what the actual effects of having a high stage list are until we actually try it. So how are we suppose to know if it would actually negatively affect the players.

Here are the rules that Melee used back in the day.

2004 MBR Ruleset:

No Items

Advanced Slob Picks

Random: Battlefield, Yoshi's Story, Dreamland 64, Final Destination, Fountain of Dreams, Pokemon Stadium

Non-Random: Peach's Castle, DK Rap, Brinstar, Corneria, Mute City, Onett, Mushroom Kingdrom, DK 64, Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes, Yoshi's Island, Green Greens, Pokefloats, Big Blue, MK2

Banned: Hyrule Temple, Yoshi 64, Venom, Flatzone, Brinstar Depths, Icicle Mountain, Fourside, Termina

One stage ban

All sets 2/3 except finals 3/5

^ we have used 20+ stages before. One stage ban, and a ton of stages. What could you possibly ban that would make any difference? Game one was selected at random. While the starter stages are considered nowadays as the best stages the game has they still very clearly offer MU advantages (i.e. you wouldn't wanna be Fox vs a Marth and randomly get FD game 1). It's been a long time, but we've done the tons of stages thing in the past. There's a reason Melee only uses 6 stages currently. Also reasons we don't do random which had been proposed by an earlier comment. The fairest stages overall still offer significant MU advantages bc of character differences.

You could argue that sma5h stages are likely to have better blast zones, platforms, less jank, whatever but fewer extremes doesn't mean the similar problems wouldn't persist of having a massive stage list.

"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g&feature=youtu.be&t=45s