Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Frihetsanka]

From Reddit, credit to BarnardsLoop (who I thought was also here but I can't @ him so IDK)

It's Das Koopa.

 

[Munomario777]

re: mariou, gamer, etc being too big...

(OC donut steel)

 

[ExceptionalBeasts]

This thread, and the Smash Reddit, seem to create a kind of "echo chamber" with a disproportionate amount of people who want to try various ideas, ideas that most of the playerbase (and TOs) disagree with. Unfortunately, few of them seem interested in engaging in this thread (I can't say I blame them, it gets tiresome having to repeat the same arguments over and over again without much constructive actually being done).

When it comes down to it, the points I've been arguing? They're fairly mainstream. Perhaps I may be alone in this thread (@Jamisinon used to post here but he doesn't seem to be active anymore), but the larger competitive community shares similar ideas how a stage list should be created. If you look at polls, you'll see that most competitive Smash players do not seem to want 15+ legal stages for various reasons, and I bet if you made an unbiased Twitter-poll most people would prefer stage striking over random stages for game 1.

I think as far as progress goes, Discord seems more useful than Smashboards or Reddit right now. It's a shame, really, because Internet forums have several advantages over Discord, but that's how it is.

A good argument shouldn't start with "if you made an unbiased Twitter poll..." because what defined unbiased? And is Twitter that great of a polling platform? You mention looking at polls but I've only seen one from June 14th (which will have been have a year past by Ult's release date when we knew very little about the game) that says 53% of people prefer a 9-12 maximum stagelist...while the other 47% have their responses split between 13-15, 16-18, and "No upper limit". All we know is 801 people said that should be the max in June when the game was first announced. There were no options for any other engagement and it didn't list any arguments, and we didn't know the full breadth of the game's physics, hazard toggle, total stagelist, etc. I'm not denying there's a majority in that poll, but I'm reasonably sure there's more than 1,512 people in the Smash scene worldwide. Actually, I'm super sure, because there's over 200k people registered on Smashboards and 350k people subbed to r/Smashbros, and even if only a tenth of Smashboards plays competitively that's still 18.5k people whose opinions go unheard, plus this poll is clearly made by a guy with an agenda and 9-12 is the lowest option there- I'm sure a lot of players would instinctively vote for the lowest option because they've been trained to.

Most competitive Smash players want a small stagelist because all the competitive Smash players whose opinions I've heard are Smash 4 players save M2King. Not that Zero isn't a smart, likable guy, but in his video with M2K discussing possible legal stages we're treated to 15 seconds (I counted!) of discussion over Delfino Plaza, a formerly legal stage- M2K has the good sense to say we don't know the game's physics, but Zero's immediate reaction is that he doesn't like the stage, it's jank even with hazards off, and that's that. Banned. Hell, these players don't even know all the stages super well. The two of them say Brinstar is a maybe because of moving platforms (a feature which Brinstar doesn't have), that WarioWare is a counterpick (no further discussion) but if it's between Yoshi's and WW they're going with the Battlefield clone, and a ton of the stages they straight up don't recognize- while at the same time in the video they debate Skyworld knowing it has a cave of life! A lot of people making these decisions haven't experienced a lot of banned stages even in friendly matches (I've known people who thought Yoshi's Island was just called Yoshi's or Town and City was just Town). If they aren't familiar with the material beyond "I don't remember this being allowed before", they shouldn't be making a final decision on it, especially before the game's release. Pro insights aren't useless or without their place, but it's an instinctive appeal to authority to hear players from the game with the second-smallest legal stagelist (and maybe largest/newest viewerbase) declare stages banned for no reason, and people are gonna parrot that because that's what people do.

As for stage-striking vs. random vs. lists vs. vetos vs. whatever else has been suggested that I'm forgetting- it's the circular argument of "striking is best because it limits stage numbers which is best because it lets use strikes". Striking works great in our existing scenarios in past games. I'm not arguing that. But keeping striking as a stage limiter is dumb and so is the reverse of that. If striking is too complicated for people at a large number, the solution is to change the system to something simpler, not throw away stages that would otherwise be legal. Every stage is always going to favor a character and looking for the "most neutral" is going to be an exercise in futility and you're splitting hairs to turn it into a science (which competitions are not). I'm not saying there shouldn't be any player choice and we shouldn't minimize advantage if we can, but there's no legal stage+character combo that is unbeatable. Even if we did use randomly-picked stages (like they do in Tekken, the biggest fighting game in the world) and you lose to Rosa on BF, then that's not on the game for being unfair, that's on you for not learning the game. And if there is a combo that's that devastating, we'll bicker about it in huge threads like adults or ban the stage. Even with stage striking you're going to have to play against Sonic on FD at somepoint so you might as well get good at it. Play the damn game you wanna be professional at. Lots of ideas proposed in this thread really are not difficult to explain to people, and it's 2018 where we all have phones or at the very least printer access, we can double check if we have trouble remembering legal stages or whatever annoyances pop up in a new system!

Whether you're playing hockey or Smash or Rivals or chess you're going to have to adapt to situations out of your control at some point, and people like that and seeing who comes out on top. A game's longevity increases, not decreases, by adding variables. P:M has 5 legal stages (when it could theoretically have so many more) and nobody watches it anymore. Melee is declining viewership too because watching 8 characters on 5 stages. Smash 4 is declining because of the new game and it's not gonna have the staying power of Melee for a number of reasons but being Smashville: The Game certainly doesn't help its case. Comp Smash players aren't popular. Casuals hate us because they see us as pissy tryhards who hate fun, and other competitive fighting game players hate us for being babies, and they're right if we ban 95 stages because there are too many. Do you think anyone will take us seriously if we ban Castle Siege because there's a 25 degree incline? Like I said before- nobody is gonna lose on that stage because of the slope, and nobody is gonna lose on Frigate because of the wall, and if you think that's why you lost then you aren't as good as you think you are. It's a lot easier to be a pro when you make the definition of pro "can beat these characters on these stages". I've seen arguments saying "why appeal to casuals or other FGC players if they aren't playing competitive?" and it's because the competitive scene is going to shrink, not grow. It can grow, but it won't if we do nothing to fight the image we have. We want new players, new blood, new champs, more fun matches to watch, more acceptance. A smaller ruleset will kill the game. Maybe not right away, but we'll suffocate it. Ultimate is going to explode in popularity for being a new game on a well-selling system with a lot of hype points, and all that hype is going to be lost quickly if the ruleset is too restrictive and people don't want to watch or want to play (and they won't if all we do is play on Smashville), and the competitive crowd that would be invested no matter what will keep it kind of afloat but turn out less and less every year until a sudden boost in popularity when Smash Bros. 7 is announced for Switch 2 and we'll have the same thing happen again.

 

[WritersBlah]

Whether you're playing hockey or Smash or Rivals or chess you're going to have to adapt to situations out of your control at some point, and people like that and seeing who comes out on top. A game's longevity increases, not decreases, by adding variables. P:M has 5 legal stages (when it could theoretically have so many more) and nobody watches it anymore. Melee is declining viewership too because watching 8 characters on 5 stages. Smash 4 is declining because of the new game and it's not gonna have the staying power of Melee for a number of reasons but being Smashville: The Game certainly doesn't help its case. Comp Smash players aren't popular. Casuals hate us because they see us as pissy tryhards who hate fun, and other competitive fighting game players hate us for being babies, and they're right if we ban 95 stages because there are too many. Do you think anyone will take us seriously if we ban Castle Siege because there's a 25 degree incline? Like I said before- nobody is gonna lose on that stage because of the slope, and nobody is gonna lose on Frigate because of the wall, and if you think that's why you lost then you aren't as good as you think you are. It's a lot easier to be a pro when you make the definition of pro "can beat these characters on these stages". I've seen arguments saying "why appeal to casuals or other FGC players if they aren't playing competitive?" and it's because the competitive scene is going to shrink, not grow. It can grow, but it won't if we do nothing to fight the image we have. We want new players, new blood, new champs, more fun matches to watch, more acceptance. A smaller ruleset will kill the game. Maybe not right away, but we'll suffocate it. Ultimate is going to explode in popularity for being a new game on a well-selling system with a lot of hype points, and all that hype is going to be lost quickly if the ruleset is too restrictive and people don't want to watch or want to play (and they won't if all we do is play on Smashville), and the competitive crowd that would be invested no matter what will keep it kind of afloat but turn out less and less every year until a sudden boost in popularity when Smash Bros. 7 is announced for Switch 2 and we'll have the same thing happen again.

I'm going to jump off of this point to address an argument proposed to me much earlier in the thread.

If a large stagelist jeopardizes the game [top players] enjoy playing, isn't that a really good reason to avoid having a large stagelist?

That really depends on whether you believe the game that top players are playing is a good one. To argue that a large stagelist shouldn't be considered because top players wouldn't like it is to inherently place top player opinions above your own, and I have to ask, why should anybody do that? Is it because they've played the game more than we have? Or because they're better at the game than we are? Because if a top player wanted to stop playing the game because they were forced into playing with a ruleset they didn't enjoy, how is that different from me not wanting to play the game because the current ruleset is one I don't enjoy? Is it a presupposition that a top player's opinion is equivalent to what is prime competitive gameplay, and is therefore superior to the layman's? Because if it is, then your opinions would suddenly make a lot of sense.

If what ExceptionalBeasts is saying is correct, and the playerbase and viewer count for Smash games is lowering alongside the staling of the meta, isn't that a bad thing? Or would you consider it a worthy payoff if it means being able to play the game as the meta currently exists? I realize that correlation does not equal causation and there may be other factors playing into the declining numbers, but suppose that this observation is true, for the sake of the argument.

 

[Zekersaurus]

Here's something I don't see anyone talking about:

The are 74 characters in the game and 5 more to be announced. WE ARE NOT going to get this right the first time. There are way too many characters. Each has there own advantages and disadvantages. We have to try things out.

Whether there are 6 legal stages or 20 legal stages there's a chance the selection will heavily favor some characters over others.

However, at most only 5 stages will be played on in any given set. That's why I think a bigger stage selection is more balanced, assuming all legal stages differ significantly from each other.

That's said, 79 characters equal 79 MUs that you need to learn for every one character that you play. In addition, the stage you're playing on can greatly alter the matchup... I mean, things don't exactly work linearly like that, but the point is, that's a lot for a player to learn or go without learning.

I can understand why people want to not go too crazy with the stage selection.

 

[Frihetsanka]

You mention looking at polls but I've only seen one from June 14th (which will have been have a year past by Ult's release date when we knew very little about the game) that says 53% of people prefer a 9-12 maximum stagelist

https://twitter.com/PracticalTAS/status/1060310001657487360

Not that Zero[...]

I never talked about ZeRo in this context. Some top players that have been part of the deeper stage discussion: John Numbers, NickRiddle, falln. Anyway, you are mistaken when it comes to the level of discussion being held, more than than 15 seconds per (potentially legal stage) is certainly spent, I can assure you of that.

If striking is too complicated for people at a large number, the solution is to change the system to something simpler, not throw away stages that would otherwise be legal.

Even if we get rid of stages, there's the issue that there simply aren't enough good stages to warrant a 15+ stage list. Chances are there are only really somewhere between 8-12 stages that are actually good.

Do you think anyone will take us seriously if we ban Castle Siege because there's a 25 degree incline? Like I said before- nobody is gonna lose on that stage because of the slope, and nobody is gonna lose on Frigate because of the wall, and if you think that's why you lost then you aren't as good as you think you are.

Side A: Makes reasoned arguments why a stage may not be good for competitive play. Side B: "lol learn to play".

Do you think anyone will take us seriously if we ban Castle Siege because there's a 25 degree incline?

If we have good reasons for banning it, then yes, they should take us seriously.

A smaller ruleset will kill the game. Maybe not right away, but we'll suffocate it. Ultimate is going to explode in popularity for being a new game on a well-selling system with a lot of hype points, and all that hype is going to be lost quickly if the ruleset is too restrictive and people don't want to watch or want to play (and they won't if all we do is play on Smashville), and the competitive crowd that would be invested no matter what will keep it kind of afloat but turn out less and less every year until a sudden boost in popularity when Smash Bros. 7 is announced for Switch 2 and we'll have the same thing happen again.

I don't think any of this is correct.

To argue that a large stagelist shouldn't be considered because top players wouldn't like it is to inherently place top player opinions above your own, and I have to ask, why should anybody do that?

Ultimately, I think competitive players (even those only attending locals) have more in common with top level competitive players than they do with casuals. I think the competitive ruleset should primarily cater to people who participate in tournaments, not spectators. We can make some adjustments for spectators (such as turning radar on and allowing Battlefield/Omega-versions of stages), but ultimately their concerns are less important than the concerns of the competitive players.

If what ExceptionalBeasts is saying is correct, and the playerbase and viewer count for Smash games is lowering alongside the staling of the meta, isn't that a bad thing?

I believe that the playerbase won't quit because of the ruleset, assuming the ruleset is good. As for spectators, I doubt stage variety is going to keep them interested (character variety is likely much more important, and there's not too much we can do about that other than hope top level players play a variety of characters). Personally, I've taken breaks from watching tournaments because there were characters I didn't feel like watching, but I've never stopped watching because of the stage (although I could see something like Duck Hunt or a sharking stage being legal could lead to viewers leaving the stream).

 

[DJ3DS]

I believe that the playerbase won't quit because of the ruleset, assuming the ruleset is good. As for spectators, I doubt stage variety is going to keep them interested (character variety is likely much more important, and there's not too much we can do about that other than hope top level players play a variety of characters). Personally, I've taken breaks from watching tournaments because there were characters I didn't feel like watching, but I've never stopped watching because of the stage (although I could see something like Duck Hunt or a sharking stage being legal could lead to viewers leaving the stream).

This may be the case for you but I've lost count of the number of times I turned off a set because it turned out to be Smashville for the 5th game in a row.

 

[Untouch]

https://i.imgur.com/qrbjMtv.png

An interesting look into stage sizes.
Wuhu is not nearly as large as people are suggesting that it is.

 

[Munomario777]

I just posted that above, I made it

But yeah, Wuhu, Mario U, and Gamer aren't as cripplingly big as people make 'em out to be.

 

[Frihetsanka]

This may be the case for you but I've lost count of the number of times I turned off a set because it turned out to be Smashville for the 5th game in a row.

If this is an issue, banning Gentlemanning to a DSR stage would solve this issue. At most, you'd see the same stage twice per set then.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Ban vanilla Battlefield. Require players to select one of the custom Battlefields.

 

[WritersBlah]

Ultimately, I think competitive players (even those only attending locals) have more in common with top level competitive players than they do with casuals. I think the competitive ruleset should primarily cater to people who participate in tournaments, not spectators. We can make some adjustments for spectators (such as turning radar on and allowing Battlefield/Omega-versions of stages), but ultimately their concerns are less important than the concerns of the competitive players.

I'm sorry, do you mean to imply here that the people arguing in this thread don't play competitively and don't play at their locals? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you meant that the people in this thread only make up a small portion of their own respective local scene. Because I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but I have attended a pretty large number of locals in my scene, and for a very good portion of the time Smash 4 was played, I have strongly desired a larger stagelist. Perhaps unlike with Ultimate, I only felt like we were missing fivish good stages compared to potentially dozens, but it was still a sentiment. I shut up about it after a few tournaments because I knew that constantly complaining about it would be annoying, but for the record, it was the widespread attempt to ban Lylat that made me feel like I had had enough. It didn't have to do with my skill, because I was substantially improving from my continued tournament attendance, but all to do with the culture being engendered by the Smash community to dislike stages that are even remotely dynamic.

I never talked about ZeRo in this context. Some top players that have been part of the deeper stage discussion: John Numbers, NickRiddle, falln. Anyway, you are mistaken when it comes to the level of discussion being held, more than than 15 seconds per (potentially legal stage) is certainly spent, I can assure you of that.

Just for the record, I don't think as many competitive players agree with upholding a 9-12 stagelist as you think there are. Perhaps consider that some may be tempering their own desires to not immediately be ousted by the rest of the competitive community? Because that's what we need, right? High-level players purposefully being more conservative for fear of not being taken seriously?

Side A: Makes reasoned arguments why a stage may not be good for competitive play. Side B: "lol learn to play".

I'm going to ignore the fact that you're pulling out a strawman and attempt to address your actual concern. In his post ExceptionalBeasts uses the 25 degree incline on Castle Siege to purposefully present something he views as a ridiculous reason for banning. That doesn't need much clarification, but I'll point it out for the sake of argument. To which you respond (more generally) that if the community has a legitimate reason for banning it, then they should be taken seriously. This begs two questions: one, by whose standards are your reasons/criticisms more legitimate than your opposer's, and two, even if there is some merit to your criticisms, why does that immediately owe respect? Political parties have been at each other's throats for generations, with both sides technically having "well-reasoned opinions and arguments," but oftentimes, the last thing any member of a given party is willing to give is respect to the opposing side. The split often exists for a reason that fully encompasses the political spectrum in general.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you should disrespect people with opposing opinions from you. That's childish and is behavior that shouldn't be encouraged. But that said, to demand full respect from someone who inherently disagrees with you is a difficult expectation to maintain. It isn't anything personal, but it is an unfortunate societal norm that has yet to fall out of favor.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Ban vanilla Battlefield. Require players to select one of the custom Battlefields.

I wouldn't mind this, personally (assuming that all Battlefield-versions are exactly the same as original Battlefield). Omegas instead of FD as well?

I'm sorry, do you mean to imply here that the people arguing in this thread don't play competitively and don't play at their locals?

No, I'm not really sure why you thought that I might. I wasn't really talking about people in this thread specifically, more in general. I'm also not saying that people who want a large stage list necessarily are non-competitive players, some are very skilled.

Just for the record, I don't think as many competitive players agree with upholding a 9-12 stagelist as you think there are. Perhaps consider that some may be tempering their own desires to not immediately be ousted by the rest of the competitive community?

My experience on Discord indicates that, yes, people do expect to end up with 12 stages or less in the end. Is it possible that some believe otherwise and can't be bothered to argue their case? Sure. I don't find it very likely that they make up as large of a portion as you seem to think.

We also need to remember that there's a difference between wanting 13+ stages ideally and wanting 13+ stages given the current stage list. If DLC turns out to be great and we'd get 5 new good stages, I'd be more open to a large stage list. Given the current stages we see available, I highly doubt we're going to end up with more than 12 stages (probably less) once the testing phase is over.

At least it does seem like people are willing to test stages early on, which is a good thing.

 

[dav3yb]

Side A: Makes reasoned arguments why a stage may not be good for competitive play. Side B: "lol learn to play".

The opposite could be said as well: Side A: Makes reasoned arguments why a stage should be legal. Side B: "I don't want to have to learn so many stages, there's something about the stage that's unique and I don't like it, etc..."

 

[Frihetsanka]

The opposite could be said as well: Side A: Makes reasoned arguments why a stage should be legal. Side B: "I don't want to have to learn so many stages, there's something about the stage that's unique and I don't like it, etc..."

I don't think I've ever seen this happen.

 

[DaUsername]

Ban vanilla Battlefield. Require players to select one of the custom Battlefields.

But Battlefield has good music!

 

[TheYungLink]

I'm a casual so dont listen to me, but instead of playing Battlefield, play the Battlefield form of Final Destination

 

[nebulark]

I have another Idea for stage selection, that may work well with a larger list.
Here is an example for a best of 3. Exact numbers need to be tested.

0. RPS to decide who is player 1 and who is player 2

1. Player 1 offers 3 stage choices. Player 2 selects one of those. This is the first stage.
2. Player 2 offers 3 stage choices, that were not already offered. Player 1 selects one of those. This is the second stage.
3. Play game 1 on first stage and game 2 on second stage.

4. If tied play the final game. The final game will use a stage that was not previously offered as a choice. This removes 6 Stages from the list. Chose the final game with either:

• Stage Striking. RPS loser decides who goes first. With less stages and a uneven number this might now be a reasonable option.
• Random Select. Booth players remove 2 stages each from the list, before the random select happens.
• Stage Morph. Booth players remove 2 stages each from the list, then each of them double blind picks a stage. RPS Loser decides which stages comes first.
• Your Selection Process of choice, on a smaller list.

This was the example case for a best of 3. For best of 5 or more follow these rules.

• If at least 2 more game are to be played, each selects a stage using the "offer 3 opponent choses 1 rule". Then play those 2 games.
• If there might be only one more game, then the loser offers 3 stages and the opponent choses 1 of them to play the next game on. After this game the other player gets to make the offer, evening out the advantage.
• If its the final game use the final game procedure 4

All numbers might need to be adjusted depending on stage list size and whether it's a bo3 or bo5. E.g. "offer 2 choose 1", only selected stages are removed from the final game's stage list, etc.

For me the main advantages are:

• There are no counterpick stages. The already offered stages serve as a similar purpose in their stead.
• The selection for the final / neutral game might not happen, which is also the most difficult selection to do.
• If the final game does happen, we have fewer stages to select from.
• No stage is played twice. More Stage variety without the need of DSR needed.
• Stages are picked with nearly identical information. Player 2 only knows Player 1's stages choices and nothing more.

The main disadvantages are:

• The big one: We need to remember which stages, can't be offered as choice / can't appear in the final game. Hopefully we have something to keep track of this (Random Stage Select Screen hopefully?). Remembering 6 or more stages Stages might be too difficult to do reliably in a stressful tournament situation.
• We need to remember the stage for game 2. Not That much of a problem, as we used DSR before which also required us to memorize stages.
• Player 2 still has a slight advantage. This is hopefully offset by giving Player 1 a decision for the final game (strike order, ban order, morph order)
  

Edit: Bo5+ rules: if the player behind gets a stage advantage, the other player gets the stage advantage in the next game.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Not going to lie. When I talked to locals, it sounded more like they wanted like 60 legal stages and wanted to try basically everything with hazards on they could. I'm pretty sure they will revolt at the idea of single digit legal stages. Of course those were the old school players I was hanging out at here in Midwest-West. Different people think differently, and your conservative stage rule echo chambers are just as much echo chambers as this thread is probably a liberal stage rule echo chamber (I don't deny that it kinda is). I do think it's very clear looking at all the evidence we have that most of the community wants a lot more variety (not just a little), and you're going to see a lot of anger when inevitably some elements try to force super conservative rules. We've already seen huge backlash to two really conservative proposals, and I don't expect that to change. Since the community is so disconnected too, I only expect more strife on this point in the future.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Xanadu posted their (initial?) Smash Ultimate ruleset:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18uTTte3eGEvxp4lFlzkcbpZa7S6e5UhB1MBZeZm4QdU/preview

Reddit thread for anyone who cares about that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/9wika4/xanadu_smash_ultimate_ruleset_2018/

A cursory skim tells me people are only really upset at no Fountain of Dreams, which is...honestly kind of weirdly specific in terms of how often it's repeated and the comparative lack of literally any other complaints.

 

[lmntolp]

I have another Idea for stage selection, that may work well with a larger list.

This looks promising. I think I have a way to reduce the Player 2 bias. RPS to see who is player 1. Have the players pick stages in 1-2-2-1 order. Then each player chooses a stage to play on, and games 1 and 2 will be on those stages. And yea I think random stage select is good enough for banning those 6 stages from game 3.

EDIT: after the 6 stages are picked, each player can only choose from one of the 3 that the enemy picked. Player 2 has to choose the stage for game 1, THEN player 1 chooses the stage for game 2.

 

[Untouch]

Why is Brinstar missing?
All the excuses make no sense to me, the only real problem with it is the high ceiling which doesn't really encourage degenerate play, just different strategies.

 

[nebulark]

This looks promising. I think I have a way to reduce the Player 2 bias. RPS to see who is player 1. Have the players pick stages in 1-2-2-1 order. Then each player chooses a stage to play on, and games 1 and 2 will be on those stages. And yea I think random stage select is good enough for banning those 6 stages from game 3.

EDIT: after the 6 stages are picked, each player can only choose from one of the 3 that the enemy picked. Player 2 has to choose the stage for game 1, THEN player 1 chooses the stage for game 2.

Hmm this might be a good idea. We would probably have to find out in pratice if this version would be worth the extra complexity though. This is tough.

I am also currently thinking about the stage selection mindgames a litte bit. In my proposal the worst thing a player could do is pick a stage the opponent likes. This is easier to avoid the more you know (e.g. opponents favorite plattform layout / blastzones). But if you somehow recognize that you have already offered one the opponent likes, you'd want to only pick such stages to effectively remove them from other games. This could be somewhat problematic. I would really like to avoid such mindgames, as they test a non-gameplay related skill and increases decision time by players.

On the other hand, you should really be picking stages you like, so even if your opponent likes them also you still get a good stage. You have also seen their choice, so you have also some information on which stage to pick from their offer.

Might just work out / is not too bad if the rest of the system works well enough. Probably needs testing.

 

[lmntolp]

I am also currently thinking about the stage selection mindgames a litte bit.

I might have an wacky idea for that too, but haven't worked out all the consequences. After each player suggests some stages to be added to the list, the opponent can decide immediately that they would like to pick one of their offered stages. Then you can't spam bans.

So let's say P1 suggests 1 stage first. P2 may or may not decide immediately that game 1 will be played on P1's suggested stage. If P2 chooses to play on that stage, P1 cannot offer any more stages, but P2 will still offer 2 stages first, so that P1 could decide to play on one of those. If P1 doesn't like those stages, P2 will offer a third stage and then P1 picks from those.

The weird thing is you might have a different number of stages banned by game 2, but with this change it should push people to not purposefully ban stages with their picks. Another weird thing then is, you don't know whether it's better to offer up your favorite stage first, or your 3rd favorite stage first.

 

[DJ3DS]

I have another Idea for stage selection, that may work well with a larger list.
Here is an example for a best of 3. Exact numbers need to be tested.

0. RPS to decide who is player 1 and who is player 2

1. Player 1 offers 3 stage choices. Player 2 selects one of those. This is the first stage.
2. Player 2 offers 3 stage choices, that were not already offered. Player 1 selects one of those. This is the second stage.
3. Play game 1 on first stage and game 2 on second stage.

4. If tied play the final game. The final game will use a stage that was not previously offered as a choice. This removes 6 Stages from the list. Chose the final game with either:

• Stage Striking. RPS loser decides who goes first. With less stages and a uneven number this might now be a reasonable option.
• Random Select. Booth players remove 2 stages each from the list, before the random select happens.
• Stage Morph. Booth players remove 2 stages each from the list, then each of them double blind picks a stage. RPS Loser decides which stages comes first.
• Your Selection Process of choice, on a smaller list.

This was the example case for a best of 3. For best of 5 or more follow these rules.

• If at least 2 more game are to be played, each selects a stage using the "offer 3 opponent choses 1 rule". Then play those 2 games.
• If there might be only one more game, then the loser offers 3 stages and the opponent choses 1 of them to play the next game on.
• If its the final game use the final game procedure 4

All numbers might need to be adjusted depending on stage list size and whether it's a bo3 or bo5. E.g. "offer 2 choose 1", only selected stages are removed from the final game's stage list, etc.

For me the main advantages are:

• There are no counterpick stages. The already offered stages serve as a similar purpose in their stead.
• The selection for the final / neutral game might not happen, which is also the most difficult selection to do.
• If the final game does happen, we have fewer stages to select from.
• No stage is played twice. More Stage variety without the need of DSR needed.
• Stages are picked with nearly identical information. Player 2 only knows Player 1's stages choices and nothing more.

The main disadvantages are:

• The big one: We need to remember which stages, can't be offered as choice / can't appear in the final game. Hopefully we have something to keep track of this (Random Stage Select Screen hopefully?). Remembering 6 or more stages Stages might be too difficult to do reliably in a stressful tournament situation.
• We need to remember the stage for game 2. Not That much of a problem, as we used DSR before which also required us to memorize stages.
• Player 2 still has a slight advantage. This is hopefully offset by giving Player 1 a decision for the final game (strike order, ban order, morph order)

This is an interesting idea to me that merits discussion.

If there is an inherent bias towards Player 2, can you not fix the stage striking final game to account for this? For example, if Player 1 is at a disadvantage, why not allow him the advantageous position in the game 5 stage striking? There is plenty of potential here.

- - - - - - -

OK, I'm back with an edit after some discussion. One question that was collectively raised was the issue of character counterpicks and how that affected Game 3/5. Do you have a solution to character CPs with the neutral game moved to the final game? How do you make this as inherently fair as possible with the added character knowledge of the first two games?

 

[J0eyboi]

SSBWorld made an ssbu stage tier list creator, if anyone cares.

 

[nebulark]

I just noticed that I missed something in my proposal: When there might be only one more game to play and the score was not tied, the player behind offers 3 stages. If the match is not over after that game, the other player may offer 3 stages, evening out the advantage.

If there is an inherent bias towards Player 2, can you not fix the stage striking final game to account for this? For example, if Player 1 is at a disadvantage, why not allow him the advantageous position in the game 5 stage striking? There is plenty of potential here.

I kind of considered it in my Final Game Selection (RPS loser decides x) However, one weird thing is that this advantage might not be relevant for some matches (0-2), so I don't know if I would really help. The import question is, if that advantage is too strong. If it were, then the final game, which would offset this advantage, might never happen. So if its a real problem I guess this could only be really fixed by adjusting the procedure for the case of "tied score and at least 2 more games to play".

For character selection I think its best to always select the character after the stage, and not locking characters in as we would do with stages. I think it would be a bit unpleasant to be forced to play the same character you just lost with, or have to switch of the one you just won with.

I am currently thinking about the following options for character picking:

1. Always Double Blind: Very consistent and maybe fairest solution. The downside is that double blind takes a bit more effort than counterpicking. I don't really care for loss of direkt counterpicking, but some might see that differently. However, even if double blind there is still some counterpicking as you can react to games you saw.
2. Coupled Counterpicking: Counterpicking happens in sync with stage advantage. If 2 Stages are selected at once, Player 1, who had to make his 3 offers first, get the counterpick advantage first (Player 1 picks after Player 2). This way Player 1 also gets some of and advantage as Player 2 might not even know which character Player 1 plays. For the second game counterpicks are switched. If it's the last game both players double blind, otherwise one might have gotten counterpick adavantage more often. For the "maybe only one more game" scenario, the player making the stage offer is allowed to counterpick. The following game the their opponent is allowed to counterpick.
3. Decoupled Counterpicking: Completely decouple it from stage picking and do it as always. Game one double blind, the other games the loser gets to counterpick. Might feel a bit weird / asymmetrical though, as counterpick advantage doesn't match up with the stage advantage. But I see no reason why it has to.

I would go for option 1 or 3.
Option 2 hands out the biggest advantages, just for the sake of beeing symmetrical with stage picking. It is also the most complicated version.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

2GG tweeted their preliminary ruleset here: https://twitter.com/2GGaming/status/1062777496792293381

Of note is the followup tweet emphasizing that they'll be testing other stages, stage morph, hazard toggle, striking, and bans at various events, so this isn't a set in stone ruleset. Which, as long as they follow through and take it seriously and aren't just paying lip service to the idea, is pretty much the most progressive statement I've seen in this regard from an org I recognize.

 

[DJ3DS]

2GG tweeted their preliminary ruleset here: https://twitter.com/2GGaming/status/1062777496792293381

Of note is the followup tweet emphasizing that they'll be testing other stages, stage morph, hazard toggle, striking, and bans at various events, so this isn't a set in stone ruleset. Which, as long as they follow through and take it seriously and aren't just paying lip service to the idea, is pretty much the most progressive statement I've seen in this regard from an org I recognize.

Yeah, this is a stage list I am not disappointed with, even if I might make some different decisions. For example, we have both Stadium 1 / Kalos and YI/SV starters so I'd be tempted to put in an additional battlefield. There are still some other stages I believe are fine but this is definitely more promising than the rest!

 

[J0eyboi]

Yeah, this is a stage list I am not disappointed with, even if I might make some different decisions. For example, we have both Stadium 1 / Kalos and YI/SV starters so I'd be tempted to put in an additional battlefield. There are still some other stages I believe are fine but this is definitely more promising than the rest!

Kalos and PS are not clone stages. The platform placement on Kalos makes it very different. Also the different platform size and walls of YI arguably make it different enough from SV for both to be starters.

 

[DJ3DS]

Kalos and PS are not clone stages. The platform placement on Kalos makes it very different. Also the different platform size and walls of YI arguably make it different enough from SV for both to be starters.

I'm not suggesting Kalos and PS are, you've misunderstood me. I am simply saying I view them as similar and if they aren't an issue I would personally like to see one of the other triplats in as well.

I don't think having them there is a problem (indeed, if they are going for starter choices I am a fan of both), just making an observation I don't think having a second distinct triplat (esp. a walled one like Yoshi's or FoD) is too big an issue.

 

[Frihetsanka]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10z_41HayKPUV3qzMLJerMN47PDKD4C9d1Zh2OxL43Yk/edit

I hope some scenes will give Mushroom Kingdom U a try at some point. Still, that's almost 19 stages potentially being tested, so seems like lots of stages will be tested!

 

[WritersBlah]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10z_41HayKPUV3qzMLJerMN47PDKD4C9d1Zh2OxL43Yk/edit

I hope some scenes will give Mushroom Kingdom U a try at some point. Still, that's almost 19 stages potentially being tested, so seems like lots of stages will be tested!

I find the choice to go with Gamer and Duck Hunt over Prism Tower and Brinstar interesting, but I'm glad more stages are being given a chance, at least.

 

[Untouch]

With the changes to the ledge, will sharking be a huge problem? You need to return to the stage after 4 tries.
Brinstar alone does not feel very sharkable to me anyways, the ground is pretty deep.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

With the changes to the ledge, will sharking be a huge problem? You need to return to the stage after 4 tries.
Brinstar alone does not feel very sharkable to me anyways, the ground is pretty deep.

AFAIK sharking hasn't been a real problem ever since 4 removed invincibility on ledge regrab. Maybe Bayonetta could have exploited it, but, well...Bayonetta. And she's getting beat with the nerf stick in Ultimate anyway.

 

[Munomario777]

Here's another small finding regarding blast zones.

To recap, Battlefield and Mushroom Kingdom U share horizontal blast zone data: the left and right blast zones are 250 units away from the center, so the bounding box is 500 units wide.

Info I haven't discussed yet: Battlefield has a ceiling 192 units above its center, and a bottom blast zone 138 units below its center.

Gamer is interesting. Its side blast zones are 240 units from the center, so the box is 480 units wide. Its ceiling is 192 units above the center, while its bottom blast zone is 118 units below.



In other words, Gamer has slightly smaller blast zones than Battlefield horizontally, despite increased size. Additionally, its ceiling is the exact same height, while its bottom blast zone is slightly tighter. For this stage, along with Mushroom Kingdom U as previously shown, blast zones aren't a concern at this moment.

[disclaimer that this is smash 4 data and has a chance of changing for ultimate]

 

[GamerGuy09]

I want to talk about Stage Morph as a semi-competitive stage selection possibility. I know that it will likely not go through, but it will definitely be something I'm going to experiment with because there's so much potential there.

Rule-set:

• Stage-Morph: On
• Occurrence: (There's Two Possibilities Depending How Fast Matches Are)
  • Occurs Twice, at 1/3rd and 2/3rd marks through the match. (If 6 Minutes Match, morph occurs at 2 and 4 minutes)
  • Occurs Once, at the half-way mark. (If 6 Minutes Match, morph occurs at 3 minutes).
• Hazards: Off (Is Needed because I think Stage Morph is all-or-nothing with Hazards. So you can't have one stage be hazardless while the other has hazards)
• Stage Picking System:

Stages are separated into categories shown here:

Each player bans a category, with the loser of the RPS at the start banning first.
From the remaining three categories the players have free-reign to choose stages as they please.
The winner of the RPS picks the initial stage while loser of the RPS picks the secondary stage.

DISCLAIMER: I KNOW stage morph is likely not competitive, but I think it has potential to be very fun when used in this style. Also I like this system because it allows the duplicate tri-plats and duo-plats to be used without any real problem.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

You know what's really weird? Watching the Smash Bros. documentary and seeing Mute City, Mushroom Kingdom, etc. in MLG sets. The commentators talk about each player's stage strike and how that strike can still pop up in the random selection. Freakin' Corneria is a legal stage. No one talks about the stage selection being outrageous or being the reason they lost. (Meanwhile, there's a whole segment dedicated to how stupid items were and how bad they are for competitive play.)

I'm not necessarily suggesting we return to that era. I'm certainly not a fan of being run over by F-Zero cars, and I prefer the emphasis being on player control over stage shenanigans. What stands out to me is how sensitive we've become. The stage does anything remotely out of the ordinary, and we call for it to be nuked from orbit.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

Eh, might as well post an updated stage-list that might be possible:


$ = Starter
¢ = Counterpick Only
(ON) = Hazards On
(OFF) = Hazards Off
(E) = Either Or

1. Nil-Plats
$ - FD (E)
$ - All Omegas (E)
$ - Wily Castle (OFF)

2. Solo-Plats
$ - SV (E)
¢ - Wuhu (OFF)
¢ - Yoshi's Brawl (E)

3. Duo-Plats
$ - Pokemon 2 (OFF)
$ - Unova (OFF)
$ - Kalos (OFF)
¢ - Pokemon 1 (ON)

4. Tri-Plats
$ - BF (E)
$ - All BF (E)
$ - Midgar (OFF)
$ - Fountain (E)
¢ - Dream Land (ON)
¢ - Yoshi's Melee (ON)
¢ - Skyloft (OFF)

5. Quad-Plats
¢ - WarioWare (OFF)

6. $ - Lylat (OFF)

7. ¢ - Castle Siege (OFF)

8. ¢ - Town (OFF)

9. ¢ - Arena Ferox (OFF)

10. ¢ - Frigate Orpheon (OFF)

Ten stages legal.

Tell what you think. (Like how wrong and bad my list is )

 

[Veggi]

I want to talk about Stage Morph as a semi-competitive stage selection possibility. I know that it will likely not go through, but it will definitely be something I'm going to experiment with because there's so much potential there.

Rule-set:

• Stage-Morph: On
• Occurrence: (There's Two Possibilities Depending How Fast Matches Are)
  • Occurs Twice, at 1/3rd and 2/3rd marks through the match. (If 6 Minutes Match, morph occurs at 2 and 4 minutes)
  • Occurs Once, at the half-way mark. (If 6 Minutes Match, morph occurs at 3 minutes).
• Hazards: Off (Is Needed because I think Stage Morph is all-or-nothing with Hazards. So you can't have one stage be hazardless while the other has hazards)
• Stage Picking System:

Stages are separated into categories shown here:

Each player bans a category, with the loser of the RPS at the start banning first.
From the remaining three categories the players have free-reign to choose stages as they please.
The winner of the RPS picks the initial stage while loser of the RPS picks the secondary stage.

DISCLAIMER: I KNOW stage morph is likely not competitive, but I think it has potential to be very fun when used in this style. Also I like this system because it allows the duplicate tri-plats and duo-plats to be used without any real problem.

Tbh I think this is how non-stage morph should be done as well.