Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[ParanoidDrone]

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.

Wait, hold on, Mushroom Kingdom? The one(s) with the walkoffs? Really?

But yeah, I had a discussion the other day with someone that was completely against Mushroom Kingdom U, not for its size, but for the grass.

 

[Munomario777]

TBF, grass is a dumb mechanic lol. not worth banning a stage over though

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Wait, hold on, Mushroom Kingdom? The one(s) with the walkoffs? Really?

Oops. I meant Peach's Castle.

 

[Untouch]

If the community for some unknown reason just cannot lump all the BF clones under 1 stage pick, FoD should replace BF.

 

[Frihetsanka]

If the community for some unknown reason just cannot lump all the BF clones under 1 stage pick, FoD should replace BF.

https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/...ord_made_up_of_pgr_players/e965s28/?context=3

Also, if FoD replaces BF we lose out on BF-versions of other stages. Just play the BF-version of FoD if you really like the visuals and/or music.

 

[ShneeOscar]

TBF, grass is a dumb mechanic lol. not worth banning a stage over though

Grass is still a thing? Goddammit. I at least hope there isn't any grass on Omega/BF versions. That could be a real problem.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Grass is still a thing? Goddammit. I at least hope there isn't any grass on Omega/BF versions. That could be a real problem.

We don't actually know if grass is still high-traction or not. It's supposition at this point.

 

[Iron Kraken]

If the community for some unknown reason just cannot lump all the BF clones under 1 stage pick, FoD should replace BF.

AT THE VERY LEAST all Battlefield-like-stages (including FoD, Dreamland, and BF versions of all non-BF-like stages) should be available as options when choosing Battlefield as a counterpick and all Omega stages should be available as an option for a player who counterpicks to FD.

BF / Omega versions of stages are all the same in this game. Eliminating all of these beautiful stages and music (which would please viewers greatly) from ever seeing the light of day in competitive play for essentially no reason would just be a travesty. I hate seeing top players and tournament organizers shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Frihetsanka]

AT THE VERY LEAST all Battlefield-like-stages (including FoD, Dreamland, and BF versions of all non-BF-like stages) should be available as options when choosing Battlefield as a counterpick and all Omega stages should be available as an option for a player who counterpicks to FD.

Regarding FoD, Dream Land, Yoshi's Island, and Midgar, see this: https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/...ord_made_up_of_pgr_players/e965s28/?context=3

Battlefield-versions and Omegas are probably fine, though.

 

[Iron Kraken]

Regarding FoD, Dream Land, Yoshi's Island, and Midgar, see this: https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/...ord_made_up_of_pgr_players/e965s28/?context=3

Battlefield-versions and Omegas are probably fine, though.

The only argument presented here against combining all the Battlefield "Echo Stages" into a single stage for counterpicking is that it gives the player who counterpicks to Battlefield "too much power."

Yes, theoretically, it gives the counterpicking player "more power." But how much power are they *really* getting? They can choose between *slightly* different blastzones, ledges, platform height/length. Clearly, nothing is all that different - otherwise these stages wouldn't be considered "Echoes" of one another in the first place. So yes, it gives one slightly "more power" but not to a significant degree.

And let's keep in mind - if a player counterpicks to Battlefield, they still have less power at any of the Battlefield echoes compared to the two stages that have already been struck. The "power" of counterpicking to Battlefield can't be particularly extreme.

There is no inherent reason why every counterpick stage option must be equally powerful. I would argue it is worth making this trade so that we may have a lot more stage variety in Smash Ultimate, including using stages that have been widely beloved.

 

[Frihetsanka]

So yes, acknowledging that Battlefield becomes a slightly more powerful pick - I would argue it is worth making this trade so that we may have a lot more stage variety in Smash Ultimate, including using stages that have been widely beloved.

I suppose this is somewhat opinionated, since I don't have any real data except from my own personal experiences, but: I don't think it worked all that well in Smash 4 with Dream Land 64, so I'm less than optimistic it'd work much better in Ultimate. We've tried the whole "If you ban Battlefield, you also ban Dream Land", it didn't work that well, let's not do it again.

If people really like Fountain of Dream's design, they could just play the Battlefield-version of it. As for Yoshi's Story, Randall is dead with hazards off anyway, so adding hazardless YS wouldn't really do much. How would adding these stages add "a lot more stage variety" really?

 

[Iron Kraken]

I suppose this is somewhat opinionated, since I don't have any real data except from my own personal experiences, but: I don't think it worked all that well in Smash 4 with Dream Land 64, so I'm less than optimistic it'd work much better in Ultimate. We've tried the whole "If you ban Battlefield, you also ban Dream Land", it didn't work that well, let's not do it again.

If people really like Fountain of Dream's design, they could just play the Battlefield-version of it. As for Yoshi's Story, Randall is dead with hazards off anyway, so adding hazardless YS wouldn't really do much. How would adding these stages add "a lot more stage variety" really?

Since we're talking about Hazards Always Off anyway (which I am not on board with if the hazard toggle is available on the stage select screen as it appears it might be but I'll ignore that for now), then how different are Battlefield and the Battlefield Echoes really? I would think they are more similar to one another than Battlefield and Dreamland are to one another in Smash (at the very least there isn't a tree that blows wind).

I would also argue that combining Battlefield/Dreamland into one stage as a counterpick option in Smash 4 was better than simply banning Dreamland altogether.

Obviously, I respect the opinion of those who disagree, but I do think eliminating a great number of stages when it doesn't even do much of anything to make Smash Ultimate a better competitive game is a big mistake that will probably hurt viewership.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Since we're talking about Hazards Always Off anyway (which I am not on board with if the hazard toggle is available on the stage select screen as it appears it might be but I'll ignore that for now), then how different are Battlefield and the Battlefield Echoes really? I would think they are more similar to one another than Battlefield and Dreamland are to one another in Smash (at the very least there isn't a tree that blows wind).

Regarding hazard toggle, if we can access it easily then it shouldn't be Always Off, but from what we've seen that seems like a pipe-dream. One can certainly hope, though. Anyway, there are still good reasons to ban stages similar to Battlefield with hazards off, not only would having them available force players to make split-second decisions ("Am I playing on Battlefield Fountain of Dreams or hazardless Fountain of Dreams?"), it would also have the issues John Numbers mentioned in the Reddit post. The better option is to allow Omega/Battlefield versions for the sake of spectators.

I would also argue that combining Battlefield/Dreamland into one stage as a counterpick option in Smash 4 was better than simply banning Dreamland altogether.

I respectfully disagree, though YMMV. I do agree that it's better for spectators though, in Smash 4, since Kirby music. In Ultimate that's not a concern since people can just pick Omega/Battlefield versions of the stages. If you want Kirby music, pick Battlefield or Omega Dream Land or Fountain of Dreams (or any other Kirby stage).

 

[Iron Kraken]

Regarding hazard toggle, if we can access it easily then it shouldn't be Always Off, but from what we've seen that seems like a pipe-dream. One can certainly hope, though. Anyway, there are still good reasons to ban stages similar to Battlefield with hazards off, not only would having them available force players to make split-second decisions ("Am I playing on Battlefield Fountain of Dreams or hazardless Fountain of Dreams?"), it would also have the issues John Numbers mentioned in the Reddit post. The better option is to allow Omega/Battlefield versions for the sake of spectators.

I respectfully disagree, though YMMV. I do agree that it's better for spectators though, in Smash 4, since Kirby music. In Ultimate that's not a concern since people can just pick Omega/Battlefield versions of the stages. If you want Kirby music, pick Battlefield or Omega Dream Land or Fountain of Dreams (or any other Kirby stage).

The hope that we may be able to toggle hazards on/off from the stage select screen can be seen here:

Hopefully, that hazard icon at the top of the screen is actually a toggle. Even if it's not, at least it will be easy to see whether hazards are on or off while the stage is being selected.

You're really reaching and making this a lot more difficult than it sounds when you say players will have to make "split-second decisions" over stage selection.

There's a simple solution to the issue you just brought up - Don't allow the "Battlefield" version of the Battlefield echo stages to be used. Similarly, IF the Hazard toggle comes into play, then individual stages should be played exclusively with hazards on or hazards off. There doesn't need to be any situation where players must decide whether they want to play on normal Dreamland, Hazardless Dreamland, Battlefield Dreamland, or Hazardless Battlefield Dreamland. Only one of those options would be used. (Note: Omega Dreamland could still be available as an FD alternate, that's not an issue because it's perfectly clear that you're playing on Omega Dreamland from the moment the stage starts up).

 

[DeLux]

I am glad yall are having some educated discourse on stage here, because meanwhile on twitter: https://twitter.com/ChaseTheLux/status/1063146900897951744

 

[Frihetsanka]

The hope that we may be able to toggle hazards on/off from the stage select screen can be seen here:

I hope so too, and if we are able to do so, then we should run mixed hazards. If not, we should (probably) run hazards off.

There's a simple solution to the issue you just brought up - Don't allow the "Battlefield" version of the Battlefield echo stages to be used.

Yeah, that would help with that particular hurdle, at least. Still, do spectators really care that much if players play on hazardless Dream Land rather than the Battlefield version of Dream Land? I highly doubt it. From what I've heard the blastzones are similar on all the Battlefield echos, so not even that is much of an argument for allowing echos. The simplest and probably best solution seems to be to ban echos but allow Battlefield versions (to please spectators).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I am glad yall are having some educated discourse on stage here, because meanwhile on twitter: https://twitter.com/ChaseTheLux/status/1063146900897951744

I appreciate the chance to see a meme applied to a subject I'm familiar with, for once.

 

[Iron Kraken]

Still, do spectators really care that much if players play on hazardless Dream Land rather than the Battlefield version of Dream Land? I highly doubt it.

Spectators won't care if the game is being played on hazardless Dream Land or Battlefield Dreamland. However, if stages like Battlefield/Dreamland/etc are only available as Omega/BF alternates, then these stages will only rarely be used in tournaments along with a hundred other stages. Which... would be fine and all. But for all the reasons I've already mentioned, I think it's just as easy to use the Hazardless BF echo stages as alternates for BF in a counterpick.

Although now that I think about it... I would be fine with a conservative stage selection list if players actually choose to play on a variety of Omega and BF stages instead of just using the default versions all the time. But based on what we've seen in the past, I don't have a lot of faith in top players to actually do this on their own.

Someone mentioned in this thread that perhaps players should not be allowed to choose the default versions of FD and BF. It sounds crazy but I actually think that would be a good idea, at least for a while. Get players in the habit of having to pick different backgrounds for their matches on FD and BF. Heck, they could even pick Omega Battlefield and BF Final Destination. But just do something to not always have them pick the default FD and BF, otherwise we're going to end up having just as narrow a selection of stages that actually see use as we had in Smash 4 despite the fact that Sakurai gave us soooo many options in Ultimate, which would be really unfortunate.

 

[J0eyboi]

Someone mentioned in this thread that perhaps players should not be allowed to choose the default versions of FD and BF. It sounds crazy but I actually think that would be a good idea, at least for a while. Get players in the habit of having to pick different backgrounds for their matches on FD and BF. Heck, they could even pick Omega Battlefield and BF Final Destination. But just do something to not always have them pick the default FD and BF, otherwise we're going to end up having just as narrow a selection of stages that actually see use as we had in Smash 4 despite the fact that Sakurai gave us soooo many options in Ultimate, which would be really unfortunate.

I'd be with you on this, except FD looks great and Lifelight is amazing.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Someone mentioned in this thread that perhaps players should not be allowed to choose the default versions of FD and BF. It sounds crazy but I actually think that would be a good idea, at least for a while.

I'm okay with this (assuming omegas/Battlefield versions are exactly the same as FD/BF, gameplay-wise).

 

[Iron Kraken]

I'm okay with this (assuming omegas/Battlefield versions are exactly the same as FD/BF, gameplay-wise).

In the E3 Direct, Sakurai said that Omega and Battlefield versions of stages would differ only in background and music. It's been confirmed that the blastzones and terrain are identical between all Omega and Battlefield versions of stages.

 

[WritersBlah]

Regarding FoD, Dream Land, Yoshi's Island, and Midgar, see this: https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/...ord_made_up_of_pgr_players/e965s28/?context=3

Battlefield-versions and Omegas are probably fine, though.

Hypothetically, if a counterpick chose to go to Battlefield, then instead of giving the counterpicker the power in which "Battlefield-echo" was chosen for the match, what if that power was instead given to the winner of the last match? Would that not solve the power disparity?

 

[Iron Kraken]

Hypothetically, if a counterpick chose to go to Battlefield, then instead of giving the counterpicker the power in which "Battlefield-echo" was chosen for the match, what if that power was instead given to the winner of the last match? Would that not solve the power disparity?

You could argue that this is the same issue in the other direction - that it makes counterpicking to Battlefield too weak (as opposed to too strong).

I think it's better to just have the counterpicking player choose which "Battlefield-echo" that he wants.

Again... the other player has the option to eliminate Battlefield and all of the "Battlefield-echoes" with a single strike.

 

[dav3yb]

All of the rule sets I made and used allowed the player picking the stage to choose any omega version they wanted if they chose to play there, or to choose Miiverse or Dreamland in place of battlefield. The only caveat I put in place was that the opponent could ask the player to alter their characters color, or choose a different stage in the case they had issues seeing the character on a particular stage (for instance if that player was color blind). I'm going to continue to use this for any event I'm apart of, and extend it to the BF stage mode as well.

 

[Munomario777]

In traditional game 2+ systems, the problem with echo stages is ambiguity when banning them as a group.

For example, let's say your character is great on Battlefield, because he benefits a lot from the high ceiling. Normally your character is weak to vertical KOs, but Battlefield increases survivability against vertical finishers. Dream Land, meanwhile, is a terrible stage for your main. His recovery easily gets pineappled, and many of his best combos are messed up by the wind. Unlike Battlefield, Dream Land's ceiling isn't especially high, so the main benefit of Battlefield is gone.

Let's go with a traditional game 2+ system, where the winner bans 1 stage and then the loser picks from the remaining stages. Additionally, we'll say that triplats are banned as a group, so banning Battlefield automatically bans Dream Land.

If you're the winner of the previous match, then there's a lot of ambiguity regarding that triplat slot. On the one hand, banning triplats means banning Dream Land, which is your worst stage. On the other hand, it also means banning Battlefield, which is your best stage. Leaving the stage unbanned is a gamble, while banning the stage forces you to give up your best stage in exchange for eliminating your worst because they happen to be grouped together. If your opponent knows that your character is good on Battlefield but bad on Dream Land, he'll always pick Dream Land instead of Battlefield, so you're basically forced to ban triplats (which includes banning your own best stage!).



In a traditional game 2+ system, grouping stages ignores the subtle differences between stages, to a fault. Here's the deal:
- If the stages act differently, then grouping them introduces problems. (see above)
- If the stages act identically, then why are they both here to begin with?
- There isn't any in-between; any variation will introduce the above-explained problems.



With that said, another game 2+ system allows for much better echo stage grouping, namely the "loser picks 3 stages, winner chooses 1 of them" system and its variants (3-2-1, etc).

Under this system, the Echo Clause is that the list of nominated stages cannot include more than one stage from a given echo group. So the loser can nominate Dream Land + 2 others, or he can nominate Battlefield + 2 others, but he can not nominate both Battlefield and Dream Land at the same time.

This accomplishes the same goal as the system used in Smash 4, which is preventing triplat-exploiting characters from having an advantage by basically "cheating" the system. You can never limit your opponent's non-triplat options any more than you can limit their non-[anything] options.

At the same time, it sidesteps the issue described above. Going back to that example...
- If I'm the loser of the previous match, I get to choose which triplat I include in my nominations. I'll include Battlefield in my nominations, and that way there's no risk that my opponent will go to Dream Land instead. No unknowns, and my stage CPing power is still guaranteed but limited (ultimately a goal of game 2+ selection procedures).
- If the roles are reversed, I can react to my opponent's nomination list. If the list includes Battlefield, pick it. If it includes Dream Land, don't.

 

[Iron Kraken]

In traditional game 2+ systems, the problem with echo stages is ambiguity when banning them as a group.

For example, let's say your character is great on Battlefield, because he benefits a lot from the high ceiling. Normally your character is weak to vertical KOs, but Battlefield increases survivability against vertical finishers. Dream Land, meanwhile, is a terrible stage for your main. His recovery easily gets pineappled, and many of his best combos are messed up by the wind. Unlike Battlefield, Dream Land's ceiling isn't especially high, so the main benefit of Battlefield is gone.

Let's go with a traditional game 2+ system, where the winner bans 1 stage and then the loser picks from the remaining stages. Additionally, we'll say that triplats are banned as a group, so banning Battlefield automatically bans Dream Land.

If you're the winner of the previous match, then there's a lot of ambiguity regarding that triplat slot. On the one hand, banning triplats means banning Dream Land, which is your worst stage. On the other hand, it also means banning Battlefield, which is your best stage. Leaving the stage unbanned is a gamble, while banning the stage forces you to give up your best stage in exchange for eliminating your worst because they happen to be grouped together. If your opponent knows that your character is good on Battlefield but bad on Dream Land, he'll always pick Dream Land instead of Battlefield, so you're basically forced to ban triplats (which includes banning your own best stage!).



In a traditional game 2+ system, grouping stages ignores the subtle differences between stages, to a fault. Here's the deal:
- If the stages act differently, then grouping them introduces problems. (see above)
- If the stages act identically, then why are they both here to begin with?
- There isn't any in-between; any variation will introduce the above-explained problems.



With that said, another game 2+ system allows for much better echo stage grouping, namely the "loser picks 3 stages, winner chooses 1 of them" system and its variants (3-2-1, etc).

Under this system, the Echo Clause is that the list of nominated stages cannot include more than one stage from a given echo group. So the winner can nominate Dream Land + 2 others, or he can nominate Battlefield + 2 others, but he can not nominate both Battlefield and Dream Land at the same time.

This accomplishes the same goal as the system used in Smash 4, which is preventing triplat-exploiting characters from having an advantage by basically "cheating" the system. You can never limit your opponent's non-triplat options any more than you can limit their non-[anything] options.

At the same time, it sidesteps the issue described above. Going back to that example...
- If I'm the loser of the previous match, I get to choose which triplat I include in my nominations. I'll include Battlefield in my nominations, and that way there's no risk that my opponent will go to Dream Land instead. No unknowns, and my stage CPing power is still guaranteed but limited (ultimately a goal of game 2+ selection procedures).
- If the roles are reversed, I can react to my opponent's nomination list. If the list includes Battlefield, pick it. If it includes Dream Land, don't.

I don't see any downside to your proposal, it makes perfect sense. I would like to hear any tournament organizer make an argument against this that is not simply "It's not what we're used to / It's hard to get people to accept new things."

 

[GamerGuy09]

In traditional game 2+ systems, the problem with echo stages is ambiguity when banning them as a group.

For example, let's say your character is great on Battlefield, because he benefits a lot from the high ceiling. Normally your character is weak to vertical KOs, but Battlefield increases survivability against vertical finishers. Dream Land, meanwhile, is a terrible stage for your main. His recovery easily gets pineappled, and many of his best combos are messed up by the wind. Unlike Battlefield, Dream Land's ceiling isn't especially high, so the main benefit of Battlefield is gone.

Let's go with a traditional game 2+ system, where the winner bans 1 stage and then the loser picks from the remaining stages. Additionally, we'll say that triplats are banned as a group, so banning Battlefield automatically bans Dream Land.

If you're the winner of the previous match, then there's a lot of ambiguity regarding that triplat slot. On the one hand, banning triplats means banning Dream Land, which is your worst stage. On the other hand, it also means banning Battlefield, which is your best stage. Leaving the stage unbanned is a gamble, while banning the stage forces you to give up your best stage in exchange for eliminating your worst because they happen to be grouped together. If your opponent knows that your character is good on Battlefield but bad on Dream Land, he'll always pick Dream Land instead of Battlefield, so you're basically forced to ban triplats (which includes banning your own best stage!).



In a traditional game 2+ system, grouping stages ignores the subtle differences between stages, to a fault. Here's the deal:
- If the stages act differently, then grouping them introduces problems. (see above)
- If the stages act identically, then why are they both here to begin with?
- There isn't any in-between; any variation will introduce the above-explained problems.



With that said, another game 2+ system allows for much better echo stage grouping, namely the "loser picks 3 stages, winner chooses 1 of them" system and its variants (3-2-1, etc).

Under this system, the Echo Clause is that the list of nominated stages cannot include more than one stage from a given echo group. So the winner can nominate Dream Land + 2 others, or he can nominate Battlefield + 2 others, but he can not nominate both Battlefield and Dream Land at the same time.

This accomplishes the same goal as the system used in Smash 4, which is preventing triplat-exploiting characters from having an advantage by basically "cheating" the system. You can never limit your opponent's non-triplat options any more than you can limit their non-[anything] options.

At the same time, it sidesteps the issue described above. Going back to that example...
- If I'm the loser of the previous match, I get to choose which triplat I include in my nominations. I'll include Battlefield in my nominations, and that way there's no risk that my opponent will go to Dream Land instead. No unknowns, and my stage CPing power is still guaranteed but limited (ultimately a goal of game 2+ selection procedures).
- If the roles are reversed, I can react to my opponent's nomination list. If the list includes Battlefield, pick it. If it includes Dream Land, don't.

What about my system mentioned back that splits everything into groups where each player bans categories?

If we take my Stage-Morph stage picking system and make it into a normal stage picking system, I think it would go like this:

Winner of the RPS bans one category, then the loser picks the next.

It will end up with a single category being chosen and the winner of the RPS picks any stage from that category. In essence this ban is incredibly fast and allows for the highest amount of stage choices.

 

[Munomario777]

GamerGuy09 I mean that pretty much takes the problems I outlined in my post and multiplies them by 10

If I, the loser of RPS, pick the 3 Platform category, I don't know which triplat my opponent will pick. If they pick Brinstar or Skyloft, the floor isn't solid, changing recovery. If they pick Yoshi's Story, there are walls. If they pick Lylat or Skyloft (or Brinstar?), then triplat-aided ladder combos aren't possible. These factors and more have a large impact when determining which stage to select, and the RPS loser lacks control over any of them.

In other words, number of platforms isn't the only determining factor in a stage's usefulness. If I, as the RPS loser, want to specifically play on a small stage, or a stage with walled undersides, or a stage with sharking, or a stage with a short vertical blast zone, or whatever else, I don't have any way of doing that.

(Not to mention that the stages in the "Unique" category are entirely different from each other even in terms of platform count.)

 

[Ryu_Ken]

Looking at this video now, it surprises me how some of the stuff is still relevant for Ultimate and how... Some of it isn't.

The more I look at the many stages in Ultimate and the different ways you can play on them (Hazards On/Off, Stage Morphing, Omega/Battlefield), it makes me wonder if starters/counterpicks should even be a thing. One big reason for changing how stages should be picked in competitive play is because of the number of "repeats." It seems dumb to me to ban something or cut it out of certain competitive tournaments because it's similar to another stage. Another big reason is due to the fact that rules and stages are now picked before character selection. More emphasis is put on picking a character suitable for the stage rather than the other way around, meaning you're really just counterpicking your character.
The meta is definitely going to be different from previous Smash games. Sorry about rambling, just wondering how much of this video do you guys think still holds up for Ultimate?

What about my system mentioned back that splits everything into groups where each player bans categories?

If we take my Stage-Morph stage picking system and make it into a normal stage picking system, I think it would go like this:

Winner of the RPS bans one category, then the loser picks the next.

It will end up with a single category being chosen and the winner of the RPS picks any stage from that category. In essence this ban is incredibly fast and allows for the highest amount of stage choices.

Eliminating the amount of arbitrariness in a category is important, and I don't think separating stages into "platforms" does it any justice considering the amount of nuances between them that's unaccounted for. Heck, I don't think grouping stages together is a good idea since, as Munomario777 said, it gives the stage striker way too much power.
And yeah, I'm on board with ditching the whole staters/counterpicks/categories thing and have all the stages under a streamlined list/ruling. I'm not entirely sure on the method, but I'll agree with whatever's the most reasonably fair and the simplest.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I politely disagree with you and Munomario777 on the downsides to my Pick-Ban system.

There's generally three goals for a Pick-Ban system:

1. Fast
2. Easy to Understand
3. Allows for the Highest Variety of Choice

I feel like my Pick-Ban system checks all these boxes while a lot of the other Pick-Ban system, including the current one used in Smash 4, does not even check two of the three. I find the Pick-Ban system in Smash 4 is not easy to understand (Trust me I run TOs at my College and I have to explain multiple times to people).

I do agree that the arbitrariness of the stage categories is a problem (I was debating putting Mushroom Kingdom U in the 3 Platform category, but due to the two left platforms stacking like Wario Ware I decided it was more unique), but besides Platforms there's no other categorization that is easy to understand from a glance that also gives the players a decent amount of choice.

There's also the significant problem of Echo Stages, which ruins the stage striking system or completely limits the player's choice of a stage that is very-well viable but is unable to be played due to arbitrary "Echo" rules. By putting the stages into categories like I described players can dismiss stages they "broadly" dislike and opt for a stage that both can agree on.

The winner of the RPS has the advantage of picking the stage from the final category, but the loser of the RPS has the massive advantage of choosing the final category.

With this breath of stages available I just think stage-striking becomes obsolete and forces TOs to ban perfectly playable stages if they want to keep the same system as Smash 4.

 

[Mister M]

By putting the stages into categories like I described players can dismiss stages they "broadly" dislike and opt for a stage that both can agree on

What if I don't "broadly" dislike any category. Any character whose stage decisions are guided by something other than platform count will have to apply mind games to arrive at the stage they desire.

You've optimised for ease and variety at the expense of player choice. I may only be able too ban my worst stage and fall prey to my second worst everytime, rather than meet my opponent in the middle

 

[GamerGuy09]

What if I don't "broadly" dislike any category. Any character whose stage decisions are guided by something other than platform count will have to apply mind games to arrive at the stage they desire.

You've optimised for ease and variety at the expense of player choice. I may only be able too ban my worst stage and fall prey to my second worst everytime, rather than meet my opponent in the middle

I legitimately can't understand the scenario you suggested. Could you please explain the situation that would end up as you said?

Here's my take. I hypothetically main Meta Knight, a character notoriously good for stage sharking. I want a stage that allows the opponent to stay above me so I can Up-Air them to death. My opponent knows this too.

We play RPS and I'm the victor.

I ban Flat Stages because I want a stage with platforms at least.

My opponent bans 1 Platform because it has two sharking states in Halberd and Wuhu Island that I would like.

I ban 2 Platform because those stages are flat enough that it's difficult to carry someone to the ceiling with Up Airs.

My opponent bans 3 Platforms to try and get me not to pick Skyloft. Last category is Unique.

I pick Prism Tower because I can shark, but its flat for the majority of the match.

It seems like I ended up with a stage that isn't optimal, but it's fair for both sides.

To me personally this scenario gave both players a ton of agency and adds a decent layer of strategy in reading what kind of stage your opponent is looking for.

 

[Munomario777]

I legitimately can't understand the scenario you suggested. Could you please explain the situation that would end up as you said?

Here's my take. I hypothetically main Meta Knight, a character notoriously good for stage sharking. I want a stage that allows the opponent to stay above me so I can Up-Air them to death. My opponent knows this too.

We play RPS and I'm the victor.

I ban Flat Stages because I want a stage with platforms at least.

My opponent bans 1 Platform because it has two sharking states in Halberd and Wuhu Island that I would like.

I ban 2 Platform because those stages are flat enough that it's difficult to carry someone to the ceiling with Up Airs.

My opponent bans 3 Platforms to try and get me not to pick Skyloft. Last category is Unique.

I pick Prism Tower because I can shark, but its flat for the majority of the match.

It seems like I ended up with a stage that isn't optimal, but it's fair for both sides.

To me personally this scenario gave both players a ton of agency and adds a decent layer of strategy in reading what kind of stage your opponent is looking for.

Problem: these decisions to ban a category won't always be so black-and-white.

When P2 bans one-platform stages in your example, he does so for the purpose of getting rid of sharking stages – but what if he would want to go to Smashville or Yoshi's Island? If these stages were separate rather than lumped into a category, he would ban Wuhu and Halberd while keeping Smashville and Yoshi's Island on the table, which is more accurate to his actual preferences. Instead, he's forced to sacrifice his preferred stage in order to ban the ones that happen to be lumped in with it.

This significantly hinders the accuracy of your stage selection system when it comes to measuring player preferences and finding the most neutral stage based on those preferences. Smashville could have been the ideal, most neutral stage for this MU, but since it's lumped in with a polarizing one, it's thrown out entirely.

Similarly, when P2 bans triplats for the purpose of avoiding Skyloft, he inadvertently is forced to ban six other, unrelated stages! What if he would have preferred to go to one of those? If P2 wants to go to Yoshi's Story but would lose the MU devastatingly if Skyloft were to be selected, he's plain outta luck if he's lost RPS. This is the same issue I amplified in my post regarding Battlefield and Dream Land, but amplified to include seven stages instead of just two.

Speaking of which, the other glaring flaw is the huge amount of control the RPS winner has. In this scenario, where the two players struck to the "Miscellaneous" category, P1 has an insane amount of choice with no input from P2. P1 has eight stages at his disposal, all of which are very distinct from one another – in other words, he gets to singlehandedly decide which type of stage the match is played on. Which is uh, kinda bad for determining a fair stage for game one.

The strategy for P2, then, is to always ban the "Misc" and "Tri-plat" categories, since they offer the highest amount of choice to P1 should they be struck to. Of course, this is a great way to ensure that these two categories rarely get used.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Larry Lurr posted a suggested ruleset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF0mOMdBnOg&ab_channel=LarryLurr

Overall, it looks pretty good to me, although I think starting with only 9 stages would be a mistake (even if we might end up with 9 stages after testing). I think it would be better to start with 13-16 stages or so to get some real testing.

 

[Veggi]

So to alleviate some of the problems people have with GamerGuy09 's idea, I edited it to work better in a complete strike system.

This uses the 1-2-2-1 strike system in Brawl's meta to pick a category. Then the stage is already decided for "No Platforms" and "1 Platform". For "Unique" each player does 1-2-1. For every other category, players each ban 1 stage. For counterpick, the winning player can ban two categories. The losing player can also switch out FD or Battlefield for any Omega or Battlefield version, respectively.

Some stages have been removed from the original stage list I'm copying for either being extremely close in structure to another stage or for being (in my opinion) the two most problematic unique stages. I would prefer to have kept them all, but adapting the stage list to a strike system took precedence.

This system only takes slightly longer than Brawl's and will result in having 19 stages to choose from rather than Brawl's 7 stages. This is WAY worth the price of admission.

 

[GamerGuy09]

View attachment 178159

So to alleviate some of the problems people have with GamerGuy09 's idea, I edited it to work better in a complete strike system.

This uses the 1-2-2-1 strike system in Brawl's meta to pick a category. Then the stage is already decided for "No Platforms" and "1 Platform". For "Unique" each player does 1-2-1. For every other category, players each ban 1 stage. For counterpick, the winning player can ban two categories. The losing player can also switch out FD or Battlefield for any Omega or Battlefield version, respectively.

Some stages have been removed from the original stage list I'm copying for either being extremely close in structure to another stage or for being (in my opinion) the two most problematic unique stages. I would prefer to have kept them all, but adapting the stage list to a strike system took precedence.

This system only takes slightly longer than Brawl's and will result in having 19 stages to choose from rather than Brawl's 7 stages. This is WAY worth the price of admission.

I really like your interpretation, but I have a few problems.

Firstly I don't like "Hazards On" as a category since it is just hodgepodge three fairly standard stages that would fit into other categories.

Here's my idea with the stages redistributed, of course with Hazards Off:

The ban system for categories would be the same as before, 1-2-2-1 with the winner of the RPS picking first.

Then when a category is chosen, the loser will always ban enough stages so that the winner will have a choice of only two stages.

So if the category is Flat or 1 Platform, there are no bans. If it's 2/3 Platform or Stacked, there is one ban. If it's Thin or Unique, loser gets two bans.

For the Stage-Morph variant I'm making it would be a category ban system of 1-1-1-1 then it is free-reign for the players to choose what they want.

 

[Veggi]

I really like your interpretation, but I have a few problems.

Firstly I don't like "Hazards On" as a category since it is just hodgepodge three fairly standard stages that would fit into other categories.

Here's my idea with the stages redistributed, of course with Hazards Off:

The ban system for categories would be the same as before, 1-2-2-1 with the winner of the RPS picking first.

Then when a category is chosen, the loser will always ban enough stages so that the winner will have a choice of only two stages.

So if the category is Flat or 1 Platform, there are no bans. If it's 2/3 Platform or Stacked, there is one ban. If it's Thin or Unique, loser gets two bans.

For the Stage-Morph variant I'm making it would be a category ban system of 1-1-1-1 then it is free-reign for the players to choose what they want.

I like yours as well. The reason I included "Hazards On" as a category is to specify that those stages in particular are the only ones that are allowed to be played with Hazards On. Because this is being adapted for pure stage striking rather than stage morph, having to toggle stage hazards is much less of an obstacle. There is also a very large demand for those three stages to be playable with hazards on. Alternatively, the section could be called "Moving Platform" but I feel specifying hazards can be turned on is more important.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I took a final pass on my stage list and this is what I've come up with. I feel like this is wholly understandable and super interesting from a banning perspective.

Also, I know I will be given a ton of flak for some of these "liberal" stage choices, but since it's experimental I want to have fun with it.

Green Greens in particular seems super cool to me, because I there's an interesting space to be had for a stage with holes in it. It allows for more interesting recovery options and promotes aerial battles. With hazards off the stage does not have the blocks, bombs, nor wind.

Also I looked at the Hazards Off version of Town & City and I think it fits more naturally in 3 Platform because it is kind of like an inverted triangle of Battlefield which is very unique even if Hazards are off.

 

[UltiMario]

Personally wanted to throw my own potential stagelist in here. I've seen a lot of stagelists, and some that justify what's banned, but never people that actually discuss why they chose each stage, or the goals of the ruleset. I feel like this might be because people are just picking "whatever looks the best" so I'd wanted to counter with something that's more comprehensive.

Spoiler: Stagelist Infographic

CAVEATS:
• This stagelist assumes stage sizes are identical to their smash 4 counterparts, and is also based on what we've seen from Demos.
• This also assumes medium-sized stages are the most neutral, and overall most ideal for play.

The main goals of this stagelist are:
• Have a small and big stage available as starters.
• Always be able to play on a small or big stage at least once per set, even with a double ban.
• Be able to play a Bo5 on all medium stages, even if each player double bans medium stages.
• Balance the representation of stage types (platform arrangements) between the possible picks. This includes cutting redundant stages.

HAZARDS OFF:
• Hazards off is logistically better for tournaments unless a better way to toggle this is patched in later.
• Only Battlefield-esque tri-plats and Pokémon Stadium 1 (with 2 Hazards Off) are likely added to the list of viable stages that could fit in this ruleset.
• Of these, Fountain of Dreams is the only one that's both neutral enough and different enough to make the cut (over Skyloft), but isn't much of a loss .
• Smashville is also made worse by having a frozen platform.
• Generally speaking, these are small loses compared to the time lost from switching hazard toggle, as well as TOs having to step in when games start with on hazards on accidentally.

STARTERS:
• 1 one-platform stage, 2 two-platform stages, and 2 tri-platform stages.
• Battlefield, Smashville, and Pokémon Stadium are basically the trifecta of neutral stages. They're also all medium sized, which fills our medium slots for starters.
• Lylat Cruise is easily the most neutral small stage in the game. Without the tilt and with some apparent ledge fixes, Lylat is shaping up to be a solid triplat stage, which is thankfully unique compared to Battlefield.
• Kalos League as the large stage "replaces" Final Destination as a neutral compared to most rulesets. Its platforms being out on the edge makes it unique from stadium, and allows a large, flat stage in neutrals, while not enabling characters that usually have heavy matchup advantages on FD.

COUNTERPICKS:
• 6 medium stages (1 zero-platform, 1 one-platform, 2 three-platform, and 2 stages with dynamic platforms)
• 2 small stages (1 two-platform, 1-four platform)
• 2 large stages (1 one-platform, 1 three-platform)

(Medium Stages)
• Yoshi's Island is the next most neutral single platform stage, but isn't as neutral as the other medium-sized stages due to its strange shape.
• Town & City, as a transforming stage, is obviously less neutral than the static stages. However, it's still obviously a fair counterpick.
• Final Destination, as implied before, has been moved to counterpick, as generally the stage is heavily biased towards one character, so it's very likely to be struck out as a neutral. It's better to increase stage variety in neutrals, so this is pushed to counterpick.
• Brinstar has a strong history in Smash even with its original hazards, probably totaling about 8 years of legality between Melee and Brawl's competitive rulesets. While its a bit of a strange stage compared to the really strong list of Smash Ultimate stages, it'll likely prove once again to be a strongly competitive stage.
• Skyloft is a semi-standard triplat, with the twists of sharking and tilted plats. The stage doesn't have a lot going for or against it, but it doesn't really have anything going on that's bad to the point of banning, unless sharking proves to be a significant problem in Smash Ultimate.
• Frigate Orpheon is a wholly unique, and very interesting stage. It doesn't have a lot going against it other than a temporary wall and asymmetry. It's enough to push it out of neutral, but otherwise it might be one of the most interesting stage picks in ultimate.
• Rainbow Cruise has a strange shape, a very real lip, some bizarre collision, and a very problematic permanent wall. It's okay, but not better than what's available here.
• Duck Hunt's tree is campy and degenerate, not worth including.
• Halberd is a significantly worse Smashville that occasionally becomes a Final Destination. It's a rather dramatic change (much bigger than T&C, which is the most dynamic stage on this list), so it's volatility got it cut.
• Prism Tower, by that extension, is even worse.
• And just to cover the bases: Unova League is too similar to Pokemon Stadium.

(Small Stages)
• WarioWare is a Project M staple for good reason, and with slightly bigger blastzones, this is a much improved version of that. The top platforms are very high though, so it'd be problematic and likely to always get struck out if it was neutral, but makes a great counterpick. It also provides us an additional stage type, as our only four-platform stage.
• Castle Siege provides a two-platform small stage to the ruleset. If it wasn't for the slope, this might've been able to be the neutral over Lylat.
• The rest of the small stages in ultimate are fairly terrible, so there isn't really anything else to consider here.

(Large Stages)
• Arena Ferox comes in as the most unique triplat in the game, have a strange asymmetrical shape vaguely reminiscent of Planet Zebes on Smash 64. This is definitely this games "Dreamland" where heavies and floaties want to go to to make tons of space. Definitely a staple counterpick option.
• Wuhu Island, unlike Halberd, is a pretty solid deviation from Smashville due to its size and ledges, while still being static.
• Gamer could be a viable replacement for Wuhu Island, but we haven't seen enough of the stage to tell for sure. If it's just the one arrangement that we have seen, this is better than Wuhu for sure.
• Mushroom Kingdom U is another potential replacement, but if reports that Grass still has its effect are true, it's unviable.
• While not often discussed, Kongo Jungle 64 and Kongo Jungle Melee, while not absolutely abysmal stages outright, generally promote camping way harder than other large stages do, and aren't strong picks.



A bit of a big write-up, I know, but I'd love input.

 

[Frihetsanka]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

John Numbers on stages, worth reading.