Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Veggi]

I organized all the stages in a SSBWorld tier list to make them more manageable to think about. This lists the most recognizable aspect of each stage as well as how likely I believe the stages are to be banned (shown by color).

Spoiler

 

[Untouch]

I don't really know where to talk about this, but this thread has always been kind of focused on rulesets as well so whatever.
Currently Squad Strike has been pushed aside, I don't see many people talking about it at all anymore, the community has decided it should be a side event. While I don't really agree, I can accept that. I can understand why people don't want to be forced to learn 3 different characters. This has always been the main argument against it.

On the other hand, I don't think people should jump to conclusions already. While it's unlikely, there's nothing that says that squad strike needs to be 3 different characters per team. If this is the case and we can just pick 3 of the same character, I don't see what would be wrong with adopting it as the main event with 1v1 instead of just standard smash. The only potential problem I could see is future rule changes, it works right now because most TOs want 3 stocks, but if we need to go to 2 stocks it won't work anymore.

Unfortunately there's been NO footage of this mode so I don't know how it works, but I've already been pushing for it to be more than just a small event, and I can't see any huge downsides if it does work with how I'm envisioning it.

 

[J0eyboi]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

John Numbers on stages, worth reading.

I disagree on T&C. One layout of the 3 being exploitable shouldn't be instaban territory. I'd definitely rather see it with hazards on, though.

 

[WritersBlah]

I organized all the stages in a SSBWorld tier list to make them more manageable to think about. This lists the most recognizable aspect of each stage as well as how likely I believe the stages are to be banned (shown by color).

Spoiler

View attachment 178305

The list you came up with is pretty comprehensive and well-reasoned, but I have a few criticisms.

• Arena Ferox: There's only a techable ceiling in hazards on. Otherwise, it just combines the largeness of Mushroom Kingdom U with the slanted platforms of Lylat Cruise.
• Gamer: We still don't know if hazards off's layout is randomized, and if it (always?) includes a techable surface.
• Positional Advantage Section: Both Kongo Falls and Super Happy Tree have been previously proven to have an overly powerful camping spot. Rainbow Cruise's wall has not been proven to have a positional advantage resembling the other two stages in this section.
• Spirit Train: Does not have functional permanent walkoffs since the track either damages or acts like Big Blue's danger zone road. The reasons for its suspect legality lie more with a camping spot on the front of the train.
• Big Blue: Not sure if it falls into this category? Never mind we don't even know what the hazards off version of this stage even looks like.
• Umbra Clock Tower, Midgar, and PictoChat: Falls under redundant design.
• Mario Circuit: Probably also falls under "some locations have problems," though it also suffers from techable ceilings.
• Find Mii: Falls under holes and techable ceilings.
• Luigi's Mansion: Falls under techable ceilings.

 

[GUIGUI]

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.

This is in no way a valid reason to ban stages that might look like battlefield. As a matter of fact saying "it is too much like Battlefield" might be the stupidest reason ever. People have wanted more legal stages, we have it now.

Anyway Hazard alays off is simply a no. I Just don't see the Smash community just being okay with that. TOs will have to adapt to the players's wish. The banning of Fountain of Dream will simply not happens. Even if there is hard attmept of enforcement, it will make a too frequent comeback through Gentlemen Rule. Would TOs go really as far as banning GR too ? Fountain of Dream is neutral anyway.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

John Numbers on stages, worth reading.

Sorry, but this explanation fail to explain why grouping all the Battlefield-like stages as a single pack when it come to counter-pick would not work. Player do not want the 3 plat configuration, they remove it. either he consider those stages are too much like BF, or he consider they aren't enough. He can not switch forma position to an other. Incidentally, is there a single player who feel disadvantaged when it come to playing on BF-like stage ?

 

[Frihetsanka]

This is in no way a valid reason to ban stages that might look like battlefield. As a matter of fact saying "it is too much like Battlefield" might be the stupidest reason ever. People have wanted more legal stages, we have it now.

People want more new stages, not redundant stages. We don't need 5 Battlefields. See this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqnj57

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

Anyway Hazard alays off is simply a no.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[GUIGUI]

It seems like most people are agreeing with me, when it comes to the Hazard Toggle. That little scenario is unlikely to happens. Especialy as after each fight, there is always a cool-off time and especially in tense game, people take their time to be sure to select the right stage. It's called Counterpick for areason. this scenario is as likely to happens as the player selectjing the wonrg stage on Counter Pick. If that' happens, it's on the player's fault. ALso, for the most tense fight, were this worry apply, it's usually for more important part of the tourney, with plenty of people watching. At least one person in the Audience will immediately see the Hazard toggle is put wrong.

And like I already said, the reasoning behind refusing to put all the BF echoes under a single (including BF) not working simply make no sense. You can't at the same time ban a BF-echoes because it look too much like BF than argue that you can't put them in a single pack because they might be too different. It's either one or the other.

Even in the case Hazard toggle is always off (which would go against the wish of the community), putting all the BF-echoes in a single pack is the go too solution and the only reason brought to not accept the PAck idea come directly in contradiction with the wish to put them in a single pack.

 

[Frihetsanka]

It seems like most people are agreeing with me, when it comes to the Hazard Toggle.

Most people want a hazard toggle, but from what we know it's simply not available, so people would have to change the rules every time they want to play with hazards. That's the main issue, really, if there were a safe way to choose hazardless versions (like with the Omega toggle) there wouldn't be much of an issue.

And Like I already said, the reasoning behind refusing to put all the BF echoes under a single (including BF) not working simply make no sense. You can't at the same time ban a BF-echoes because it look too much like BF than argue that you can't put them in a single pack because they might be too different. It's either one or the other.

Every stage should individually be legal, no more "If you ban X, you also ban Y". So either each Battlefield echo is individually legal, or they're banned. Which one would you prefer, a stagelist with 9 different stages, with 1 Battlefield stage, or a stagelist with 13 different stages, with 4 Battlefield stages (or 5 if you include Midgar)?

Even in the case Hazard toggle is always off (which would go against the wish of the community), putting all the BF-echoes in a single pack is the go too solution and the only reason brought to not accept the PAck idea come directly in contradiction with the wish to put them in a single pack.

John Numbers (and others, including me in this thread) have explained why this whole "pack" idea is a bad solution. Either the stages are good enough to be legal on their own, or we ban them. Choose one. I'm going with "banned for redundancy".

If stage hazards are on (if we end up with switching between on and off) I'd be willing to give Fountain of Dream a shot, Yoshi's Story and Dream Land should still be banned for redundancy though (and Midgar, though not many people seem to care about Midgar).

 

[GUIGUI]

Every stage should individually be legal, no more "If you ban X, you also ban Y".

Sorry, but this reasoning make no sense. You are trying here to enforce an arbitrry rule that has no reason to be. Either you acknowledge stage similarity as an issue and you put them in a single pack, or you don't and only then can you say each stage should only count as their own. Yes, Y should effectively be banned too if X was banned and is too much like Y. If you consider Y look too much like X to be banned, then you can't say at the same time they shouldn't be grouped together as a single pack.

You are trying to impose an arbitrary rule based on nothing else than "because I say so".

Either the stages are good enough to be legal on their own, or we ban them. Choose one.

They are all legal on their own. that's the point.

I'm going with "banned for redundancy".

That is not a valid reason. It does not justify being banned, quite on the contrary , if it is redundant with a legal stage, it is proof it is legal too. Redundency does justify to group them together as a single pack for coutnerpicking . That's a decision motivated by reason.

"They should be a single pack for Counter pick" is still not a valid reason for banning, though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Re: Midgar, it's in the unfortunate position of being insta-banned with hazards on (because summons) and completely redundant with hazards off (literally identical to BF in 4, down to the blast zones).

 

[GUIGUI]

Maybe I say that becuase it has a long history of being used that way, but I say Dreamland with Hazard on should remain legal (as it has always been) as a Counterpick.

 

[Veggi]

The list you came up with is pretty comprehensive and well-reasoned, but I have a few criticisms.

• Arena Ferox: There's only a techable ceiling in hazards on. Otherwise, it just combines the largeness of Mushroom Kingdom U with the slanted platforms of Lylat Cruise.
• Gamer: We still don't know if hazards off's layout is randomized, and if it (always?) includes a techable surface.
• Positional Advantage Section: Both Kongo Falls and Super Happy Tree have been previously proven to have an overly powerful camping spot. Rainbow Cruise's wall has not been proven to have a positional advantage resembling the other two stages in this section.
• Spirit Train: Does not have functional permanent walkoffs since the track either damages or acts like Big Blue's danger zone road. The reasons for its suspect legality lie more with a camping spot on the front of the train.
• Big Blue: Not sure if it falls into this category? Never mind we don't even know what the hazards off version of this stage even looks like.
• Umbra Clock Tower, Midgar, and PictoChat: Falls under redundant design.
• Mario Circuit: Probably also falls under "some locations have problems," though it also suffers from techable ceilings.
• Find Mii: Falls under holes and techable ceilings.
• Luigi's Mansion: Falls under techable ceilings.

You're right. I guess I just had a misunderstanding about what some of those stages were like with hazards off. I guess because I only started going to tournaments for Brawl and further, I haven't been able to see people exploit Happy Tree and Kongo Falls. It's sad because I like both of the stages a lot. Oh well.

 

[Frihetsanka]

That is not a valid reason. It does not justify being banned, quite on the contrary , if it is redundant with a legal stage, it is proof it is legal too. Redundency does justify to group them together as a single pack for coutnerpicking . That's a decision motivated by reason.

John Numbers has already shown why this is false.

The other reason against allowing "echo stages" is simply because it grants too much power to a player who wants to counterpick to stages that share the same layout.

This should already be obvious, but if we had a ruleset where Battlefield, YSMelee, FoD, DL64, and Midgar were all legal as separate stages, then a player who wants to counterpick a triplat layout is GUARANTEED to get it unless there are 5 bans written into the ruleset (6 if you want to cover Lylat, too). Compare this to Smashville, where one would only need to spend one ban in order to ensure it's been taken care of.

One could also argue that the stages should be combined together into a single stage choice, like how Battlefield and DL64 were combined in Sm4sh. However, while this fixes the immediate problem stated above, it still has way too much counterpick power during the counterpick phase. Again, using BF as the example, for a player who likes the triplat layout, if they get to CP BF, then they have the pick of the lot between five slightly different Battlefield layouts, which can provide differing advantages to the player depending on character choice, etc. Meanwhile, the player who wants to CP SV only gets SV to work with.

You could say to just spend your ban on the BF+echoes grouping, but the fact of the matter is, this selection will naturally draw in a larger amount of bans. If there's even one inconvenient layout within the BF+echoes grouping, then you're forced to spend your ban on the entire lot. The grouping solution causes much too high of an imbalance between the stages during the CP phase.

Main point: Considering all of the imbalances added to the including them, the best solution to approaching "echo stages" is to ban them completely (or, failing that, legalize them exclusively under the Gentleman's Agreement).

(Also, if you have some emotional attachment to YSMelee, FoD, or DL64, do not forget you can just select their standardized Battlefield form and enjoy the stage aesthetics that way. There really is no difference there.)

If this is not enough, he also wrote this:

Dreamland, Fountain of Dreams, Yoshi's Story, Midgar (Legality: No)
With Hazards Off, these stages assume a form similar to Battlefield, but with differences from Battlefield, in terms of shape, size, platform arrangement, or blastzone. I need to explain why it would not be a good thing to have these stages legal for competition.

As I just mentioned, we have the option to change every single stage into a Battlefield or Omega variant of itself. And as I said, these are cool, standardized, and absolutely should be legal. However, something very important happened with the creation of these stages. When these stages were made, it was made so the shape, size, platform layout, and blastzones were exactly the same between each stage. Because of this, we have been given a standard for what we should consider to be "Battlefield" (and "Final Destination"). For the Hazards Off versions of the stages in this topic, all of them become Battlefield "echo stages" in that they are similar in a lot of respects, but differ in some ways, even if it's just by a bit. I would argue that we should not deviate from this very deliberate design choice, but here are some more compelling points...

The main reason against allowing echo stages like these is simply because it grants too much power to a player who wants to counterpick to a triplat stage. This should already be obvious, but if we had a ruleset where Battlefield, YS, FoD, DL, and Midgar were all legal as separate stages, then a player who wants to counterpick a triplat layout is GUARANTEED to get it unless there are 5 bans written into the ruleset (6 if you wanted to cover Lylat, too).

Obviously, one could argue that the echo stages should be combined together into a single stage choice, like how Battlefield and DL were combined in Sm4sh. However, while this fixes the immediate problem stated above, it still causes the Battlefield combo pack to have way too much counterpick power during the counterpick phase. Using Battlefield as the example; for a player who likes the triplat layout, if they get to counterpick to it, then they get the pick of the lot between five slightly different Battlefield layouts, which can provide differing advantages to the player depending on character choice, etc. If we compare this to someone who wants to counterpick, for example, SV, Lylat, or WarioWare, that player only gains access to the sole layout of that one stage, with no deviations available to them. It causes stages to have a lopsided amount of power from each other during the counterpick phase overall.

Of course, you could just say to spend your ban on the BF combo pack, but the fact of the matter is, this selection is natrually more polarizing, and will naturally draw in a larger amount of bans. If there's even one inconvenient layout within the grouping, then you would forced to spend your ban on the entire lot. In fact, we've already seen this issue with BF and DL being combined into a single stage pick in Sm4sh, and that was only combining two stages together. This grouping solution ultimately ends up causing way too much of an imbalance between the stages during the CP phase.

So here's my main point. Considering all of the imbalances and problems caused by including echo stages, the best solution to approaching them is to just ban them completely (or, failing that, legalize them exclusively under the Gentleman's Agreement).

(Also, if you have some emotional attachment to YS, FoD, DL64, or Midgar, OR if you want to have more visual variety within tournament play do not forget you can just select their standardized Battlefield form and enjoy the stage aesthetics that way. There is literally no difference.)

 

[GUIGUI]

John Numbers has already shown why this is false.

And like I said, his reasonning simply doenst hold. the issue he expose is simply resolved by packing all the BF-like stage together for counterpicking. it completely solve the problem. His argument for the grouping not working simply doesn't hold. He says it would cause issue, but fail to demonstrate it.

Case in point Let's say that for Counter-pick, there is 3 ban allowed. Battlefield is banned, all of its echoes get banned with it automatically, the player pick among the other stages remaining. there is zero issue in that scenario. John completely fail to demonstrate how that would not work. He is wrong, there is not too much power granted, there.

his argument agaisnt grouping require to negate the origin of the issue in the first place. Either the BF are too much alike, in this case, it need grouping, or grouping doesn't work because they aren't alike enough and there are difference to exploit. it's either one or the other. you can't use a reason to forbid something, then use the opposite of that reason to deny a proposed solution.

And like I said, I think first we should need to clearly establish, if the echoes of BF really provide an advantage for a character to an other.

 

[Frihetsanka]

And like I said, his reasonning simply doenst hold. the issue he expose is simply resolved by packing all the BF-like stage together for counterpicking.

Did you read his full post? Here are the relevant parts:

One could also argue that the stages should be combined together into a single stage choice, like how Battlefield and DL64 were combined in Sm4sh. However, while this fixes the immediate problem stated above, it still has way too much counterpick power during the counterpick phase. Again, using BF as the example, for a player who likes the triplat layout, if they get to CP BF, then they have the pick of the lot between five slightly different Battlefield layouts, which can provide differing advantages to the player depending on character choice, etc. Meanwhile, the player who wants to CP SV only gets SV to work with.

You could say to just spend your ban on the BF+echoes grouping, but the fact of the matter is, this selection will naturally draw in a larger amount of bans. If there's even one inconvenient layout within the BF+echoes grouping, then you're forced to spend your ban on the entire lot. The grouping solution causes much too high of an imbalance between the stages during the CP phase.

Obviously, one could argue that the echo stages should be combined together into a single stage choice, like how Battlefield and DL were combined in Sm4sh. However, while this fixes the immediate problem stated above, it still causes the Battlefield combo pack to have way too much counterpick power during the counterpick phase. Using Battlefield as the example; for a player who likes the triplat layout, if they get to counterpick to it, then they get the pick of the lot between five slightly different Battlefield layouts, which can provide differing advantages to the player depending on character choice, etc. If we compare this to someone who wants to counterpick, for example, SV, Lylat, or WarioWare, that player only gains access to the sole layout of that one stage, with no deviations available to them. It causes stages to have a lopsided amount of power from each other during the counterpick phase overall.

Of course, you could just say to spend your ban on the BF combo pack, but the fact of the matter is, this selection is natrually more polarizing, and will naturally draw in a larger amount of bans. If there's even one inconvenient layout within the grouping, then you would forced to spend your ban on the entire lot. In fact, we've already seen this issue with BF and DL being combined into a single stage pick in Sm4sh, and that was only combining two stages together. This grouping solution ultimately ends up causing way too much of an imbalance between the stages during the CP phase.

 

[Galgatha]

Did you read his full post? Here are the relevant parts:

I read his post, I'm not entirely sure who this person is and I don't aprticularly care to look him up at the moment. But I wanted to mention that that specific portion of his post is very closed minded because he is continuing to think in the closed off "Starter/Counterpick" mentality when it comes to stages and stage selection.

By grouping the stages together under 1 umbrella, and changing up the stage selection process, this wouldn't be an issue.

I completely agree that most players want NEW stages that are interesting and not close repeats of stages/clones, but there is nothing wrong with having them there (Smash 4 Battlefield/Dreamland). But to make it not such a nightmare, a change or revamp in the process would need to be had.

That is where I think his argument falls short. Also, the argument that because we have omega form and battlefield form as options for every stage, that "these are clearly the forms we should take when compettive because that is how Nintendo designed it" is just off to me. Nintendo created omega form and battlefield form to throw a bone to the competitive players because we were such whiners in Brawl not having alot of good competitive stages. That doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes to the clone stages, we should just throw them out and use omega form/battlefield form instead.

Anyway, on this particular argument I don't have that much of a stage, keeping the clones in or not doesn't bother me to much considering we still have tons of new potental legal stages (upwards of 20+).

 

[Frihetsanka]

I read his post

Did you understand it? He already addressed some of your concerns and you didn't really respond to his main arguments.

but there is nothing wrong with having them there (Smash 4 Battlefield/Dreamland).

Actually, John Numbers showed that, yes, there is indeed something wrong with having them there. You ignored that part.

That doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes to the clone stages, we should just throw them out and use omega form/battlefield form instead.

That's not the argument he made though.

Anyway, on this particular argument I don't have that much of a stage, keeping the clones in or not doesn't bother me to much considering we still have tons of new potental legal stages (upwards of 20+).

Yeah, seems early stage list are starting fairly large (13-14 stages). Many of those will likely end up banned but we'll still likely have a larger stage list than in Smash 4, or Brawl, or Melee, so that's nice (and a larger list than if hazards off weren't an option).

 

[dav3yb]

I read his post, I'm not entirely sure who this person is and I don't aprticularly care to look him up at the moment.

He's good at Mario Maker. (He won the first [new] Nintendo World Championship thingy they did).

 

[Frihetsanka]

I read his post, I'm not entirely sure who this person is and I don't aprticularly care to look him up at the moment.

Probably the best Wii Fit Trainer in the world and one of the best players in New York City (he might be inactive since he didn't make top 10 the last 2 PRs, but before then he made #3 twice in a row). Based on what he's written on Discord and Reddit, he seems quite knowledgeable about the game too.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

With regards to the controversy surrounding mixed hazards, the big issue (or how I perceive it at least) is that TOs are defaulting to the option that is the most convenient for them at the expense of what the community clearly wants without even trialing hazards first. It makes them appear lazy, dictatorial, and is a really bad look for them all around. The only justifiable approach is to trial hazards first. If it does turn out to be a mess, then by all means stick to uniform hazards off. But until that is established, the burden of proof is squarely on those who claim that mixed hazards should be disallowed.

 

[dav3yb]

With regards to the controversy surrounding mixed hazards, the big issue (or how I perceive it at least) is that TOs are defaulting to the option that is the most convenient for them at the expense of what the community clearly wants without even trialing hazards first. It makes them appear lazy, dictatorial, and is a really bad look for them all around. The only justifiable approach is to trial hazards first. If it does turn out to be a mess, then by all means stick to uniform hazards off. But until that is established, the burden of proof is squarely on those who claim that mixed hazards should be disallowed.

The only thing I can really say to this is that most TO's are trying to make sure everything runs as smoothly as possible. There's already enough to worry about without needing to jump in and mediate issues that might come up due to someone forgetting to switch to a different rule set. I'll be trying things out at our locals for sure, but it really depends on how many stages are going to be deemed better with hazards on. So far people are only really giving 3 examples, Smashville, Fountain, and Town&City, and not completely convinced Town&City is going to be "better" with hazards on anyways, which leaves only 2 stages, one of which most people are sick of seeing.

Also, given that there will probably be a pretty huge influx of new players, I certainly wouldn't want to overwhelm a new player with a lot of logistical nonsense that requires a 5 page pamphlet on how to select the stage you're going to be playing on.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

The only thing I can really say to this is that most TO's are trying to make sure everything runs as smoothly as possible. There's already enough to worry about without needing to jump in and mediate issues that might come up due to someone forgetting to switch to a different rule set. I'll be trying things out at our locals for sure, but it really depends on how many stages are going to be deemed better with hazards on. So far people are only really giving 3 examples, Smashville, Fountain, and Town&City, and not completely convinced Town&City is going to be "better" with hazards on anyways, which leaves only 2 stages, one of which most people are sick of seeing.

Also, given that there will probably be a pretty huge influx of new players, I certainly wouldn't want to overwhelm a new player with a lot of logistical nonsense that requires a 5 page pamphlet on how to select the stage you're going to be playing on.

Except it's not really that hard. Create two custom rule presets for hazards on and hazards off, pick appropriately. There's an indicator on the stage select screen that shows whether hazards are on or off, so there's no reason people will accidentally pick the wrong one. In the end, it is asinine to prevent popular stages from being legal (FoD, Yoshi's Story) and make legal ones even more stale (Smashville, Town and City) simply because choosing one of two options in a menu is too difficult.

Like I said, mixed hazards need to be tried first. The overwhelming majority of the community wants it. There is absolutely no excuse to not at least give it a trial run.

 

[ぱみゅ]

John12346 has been in the community for a while, he probably knows what he's talking about.
And yes, he is the current Nintendo World Champion.

I didn't read his entire twitlonger, but I will respond to few of the points that are being discussed right now:
-If several stages share a general layout, they all need to be grouped. If you don't then it heavily skews the entire stage selection process.
-Some are for not only grouping them but entirely banning similar entries. falln made a deeper analysis about that in a video, but it's basically so you don't have to get an extra layer of awareness to keep track of which stage you are in. Kinda makes sense, kinda not, it's not my place to judge, I'm only presenting the bullet points on the matter.
-Despite this I still believe players should be able to pick whatever stage in certain group they agree to, just defaulting to one in case said agreement can't be reached (i.e. if players just can't agree which triplat stage to play on, the rules make it so it defaults to Battlefield).
-Mixed hazards has potential to become a huge problem, particularly in big/regional/national events. There is a lot more to gain by removing the possibility of something going wrong.
-The burden of proof is in the people who want to test mixed hazards. Mistakes will happen regardless, but how often and how much impact they make needs to be proven.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

-The burden of proof is in the people who want to test mixed hazards. Mistakes will happen regardless, but how often and how much impact they make needs to be proven.

See, that's the part I have an issue with. It's incredibly presumptuous to tell the majority of the community that they can't handle selecting a single option and default to not even testing it before deciding that it's just too hard. Forcing static hazards off both shrinks the potential stage pool and renders existing stages much more stale. It is in the interest of the meta to at least try it first. I absolutely refuse to accept that the people asserting that it is too difficult to manage do not shoulder the burden of proof, even more so with how unpopular their view is with everyone who isn't a TO.

Edit: To follow that up, another thought: TOs need to think about who they run tournaments for. Is it the players? The audience? Players don't like stale stages, and the general Smash audience has been almost universally opposed to fixed hazards. The decision to default to hazards off without testing first doesn't serve anyone other than the TOs.

 

[NotLiquid]

-The burden of proof is in the people who want to test mixed hazards. Mistakes will happen regardless, but how often and how much impact they make needs to be proven.

I don't agree. The community has historically always had more trouble adding things than it has removing things, and by immediately ruling out the option to switch hazards we're basically wholesale admitting that this community is way too lazy and entrapped by conventional Smash thinking. Allowing for a hybrid hazards on/off ruleset in the early stages of the game's meta isn't going to harm anyone in the next 5 or so years that Ultimate will be played because regardless of whether we standardize hazards, the first couple of months in Ultimate are bound to be rocky for reasons that don't have anything to do with stage hazards. If it turns out to be an inconvenience then that can be hashed out as things go along.

The fact that there seems to be presets for rules should make this even smoother to adopt. Legal Hazards On stages should be something that goes into effect for counterpicks, and since you select stages first this should be much more painless than if it were the opposite.

 

[Frihetsanka]

-Despite this I still believe players should be able to pick whatever stage in certain group they agree to, just defaulting to one in case said agreement can't be reached (i.e. if players just can't agree which triplat stage to play on, the rules make it so it defaults to Battlefield).

I'm fine with this. If both players want to play on hazardless Wily Castle, or hazardless Yoshi's Story (or, if we end up switching between on and off, Yoshi's Story with hazards on), that's fine to me. If one player doesn't want to, then they'll just play on the vanilla stage (Battlefield or Final Destination).

There is absolutely no excuse to not at least give it a trial run.

Some tournaments will try it, at least.

Forcing static hazards off both shrinks the potential stage pool and renders existing stages much more stale.

Let's be real, it doesn't really shrink the stage list much, only three stages are likely to be affected: Smashville (which would likely be legal with hazards off anyway), Town & City (which is a borderline case), and Fountain of Dreams. Of those three, hazards on Smashville isn't uncontroversial, and Fountain of Dreams still risks being really similar to Battlefield overall (though I suspect it would end up legal still). Town & City is pretty much a straight win though, and the main benefit of toggling between hazards on and off.

The fact that there seems to be presets for rules should make this even smoother to adopt.

We don't actually know yet whether those rulesets can be named to indicate hazards on/off, or if it's even possible to include hazards on/off in the preset ruleset.

 

[GUIGUI]

Did you read his full post? Here are the relevant parts:

I read it and, like I have already said, he is wrong and doesn't back his logic. Either the BF-like stage are too close or they aren't. His reasonning for refusing the grouping contradict his reasoning for wanting to ban it in the first place. IT's either one or the other. So, no he is worng , grouping does not grant advantage for the counterPick. "Because I say so" is not a valid reason.

Actually, John Numbers showed that, yes, there is indeed something wrong with having them there

No, he didn't. He showed why they should be grouped, not why they should be banned. If the other player consider BF-echoes provide too much of an advantage, he simply ban BF and all of them get removed from the pick. If he consider it is not an issue, that means that he consider that even the BF-echo that would grant his opponent the most advantage is still to be allowed. In the end, it is his choice. John Number's explanations simply doesn't hold.

-Mixed hazards has potential to become a huge problem, particularly in big/regional/national events. There is a lot more to gain by removing the possibility of something going wrong.

In big events, it is much more likely that people in the audience will see when Hazard is not toggled right. At least one of them will always catch it on.

 

[Frihetsanka]

If the other player consider BF-echoes provide too much of an advantage, he simply ban BF and all of them get removed from the pick.

The winner might be fine with BF, fine with Midgar, fine with Dream Land, fine with Fountain of Dreams, but not fine with Yoshi's Story. Or fine with some other combination of 4 stages but not the 5th. As such, the winner would be forced to ban all stages because of grouping, which grants too much power to the counter-pick player. This grants too much power to the loser of the previous game, and it also unbalances it in favor of people who prefer Battlefield-like stages (and Final Destination-like stages), since these stages have several alternatives while other stages have no alternatives.

With that being said, I'm fine with the alternative that "If both players agree on an alternative stage, they may play that stage, if not default to the basic version (Battlefield, Final Destination, or Pokémon Stadium 2)".

 

[GUIGUI]

The winner might be fine with BF, fine with Midgar, fine with Dream Land, fine with Fountain of Dreams, but not fine with Yoshi's Story. Or fine with some other combination of 4 stages but not the 5th.

Then he remove the BF echoes. It's that simple.

As such, the winner would be forced to ban all stages because of grouping,

Yes, indeed, and ? Banning them all from the beginning isn't what I would call an improvement on the situation. Quite the opposite, actually.

But my main grip is that all of this is based on the supposition that somehow it would actually make a difference ? Have we actually got players who consider that some BF-echoes are more favorable to them than other BF-echoes. Because, before we start trying to solve a problem, we migh maybe make sure it exist in the first place.

which grants too much power to the counter-pick player.

Except it doesn't. All it means is that all the BF-echoes are banned, it doesn't mean the loser of the previous game. No more than if those were all banned from the start. I mean, group banning them during a counterpick, or group banning them from the very beginning, it basically end with the same result. So, no, it doesn't grant any power to the loser.

and it also unbalances it in favor of people who prefer Battlefield-like stages

No, it doesn't. If they are grouped, it doesn't grant them any advantages.

 

[Frihetsanka]

No, it doesn't. If they are grouped, it doesn't grant them any advantages.

False. See John Numbers:

Using Battlefield as the example; for a player who likes the triplat layout, if they get to counterpick to it, then they get the pick of the lot between five slightly different Battlefield layouts, which can provide differing advantages to the player depending on character choice, etc. If we compare this to someone who wants to counterpick, for example, SV, Lylat, or WarioWare, that player only gains access to the sole layout of that one stage, with no deviations available to them. It causes stages to have a lopsided amount of power from each other during the counterpick phase overall.

Of course, you could just say to spend your ban on the BF combo pack, but the fact of the matter is, this selection is natrually more polarizing, and will naturally draw in a larger amount of bans. If there's even one inconvenient layout within the grouping, then you would forced to spend your ban on the entire lot. In fact, we've already seen this issue with BF and DL being combined into a single stage pick in Sm4sh, and that was only combining two stages together.

If the stages are different, then this is obviously true (and they are, indeed, at least slightly different). Grouping BF and DL didn't work well in Smash 4, so we have good reason to think it won't work well in Ultimate either.

 

[Veggi]

I paid attention to some of the criticism and debate among people in this thread. This is the new stage list and rule set that I think will please the highest amount of people:

Spoiler: Sorted Stages

Ruleset:

P1: Strikes 1 Green Category
P2: Strikes 1 Green Category
*remaining category is selected*
P1: Strikes 1 stage from that category.
P2: Strikes 2 stages from that category.
P1: Strikes 1 stage from that category.
*one stage remains*

Additional Rules:

-Winner gets to ban two categories.

-"Counterpick Stages" becomes a category in the counterpick phase. This phase includes all stages listed in yellow.

-Gambit Clause: If "Counterpick Stages" are not banned and a counterpick stage is played on, the player can not prevent their opponent from choosing a counterpick stage in the next round.

-Dave's Stupid Rule: Any stage that was previously won on can not be selected again.

-In any round but the first, Omega and Battlefield versions of stages can be selected in place of FD and Battlefield, respectively.

Here's an explanation for this ruleset:

1.) I agree that the concept behind counterpick stages is stupid HOWEVER I do think it's useful if the amount of stages legal in first round becomes unmanageable. I currently have 15 legal first round and I believe that in order to cater to conservative players and liberal players, this is the best I can do. It is only as difficult as picking a starter in Brawl and has TWICE as many available stages as Brawl did.

2.) The Gambit Clause means if two players are eager to play on stages in the CP category, they can. This also means that a conservative player will never have to play on them.

3.) People are fighting like mad to keep certain stages legal with hazards on. This simplifies the logistical issues that would come with that greatly.

This system gives a lot of control over the players to decide what is a balanced stage and what isn't. Statistically, having a ruleset with lots of stages and lots of bans is the ideal for providing the most balanced stage. Imagine 15 lines randomly placed between two points. The left side benefits P1, the right side benefits P2, and with the middle of the two points being the most fair. Each player has the option to remove 7 points. They are more likely to be closer to the center than if they started with 7 lines and both had the option to remove 3. This is why the belief that having fewer more simple stages being more fair is fallacious. It's also extremely boring and I'm sick of it after playing Smash 4's meta.

Imagine Donkey Kong vs Ice Climbers in Brawl. The stage being more simple does not make it more fair. Another example is how FD is the most simple stage in the game, but it is also always one of the least fair stages that are legal. Simplicity and reduced options does not equal fairness.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Hazards-on Lylat Cruise? I can't see that going over well. Most people hate the tilting.

Re: Hazard toggle rules, testing is always fine but in this particular case I pessimistically believe that we'll eventually settle on permanent hazards off. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

On a related note, hazards-on Umbra Clock Tower: Y/N? For reference, an image album of its forms from 4: https://imgur.com/a/yZ10e

I think forms 3, 5, 6, and 7 are the ones that raise eyebrows to varying degrees with the extra caveat that the solid object in 7 moves across the screen (it's not stationary) but they're also all temporary and go away after 25-30 seconds. Motion sickness issues stemming from the background aside, it always struck me as a bit odd that it was banned without fanfare.

 

[Veggi]

Hazards-on Lylat Cruise? I can't see that going over well. Most people hate the tilting.

It's reduced in this game. Also, players who don't like it only have to use one strike to remove it if they end up in the category at all. Regardless, would you suggest I swap it out for Yoshi's or Dreamland? I'm still up for suggestions. It just qualified as a neutral stage before and provides a unique gameplay element that can easily be eliminated with the strike system.

Edit: tbh Clock Tower looks fine enough. There's some things wrong with it but they're temporary.

 

[GUIGUI]

False. See John Numbers:

And like I have said several time, this argument simply doesn't hold. Not only does his reasoning contradict his previous statement, but the solution proposed doesn't make a difference to the situation. If the winner agrees for the Loser to pick a BF-echoes, then he agrees for the best configuration.for the loser. If he doesn't agree, then he simply remove the group. John has failed to provide a valid argument against grouping. Either deviation are small enough that it require grouping, or they are big enough that they shouldn't be grouped with BF anymore. You can't dance from a position to an other when suggesting a ban.

Stop saying he has provided a reason when he hasn't. His argument against grouping boil down to because I say so.

Grouping BF and DL didn't work well in Smash 4,

The thing is, BF and DL in sm4sh shouldn't be grouped in the first place, because the stage Hazard of DL make it too different in Sm4sh fo them to be considered similar stages, even if they have the same layout. It's that one has Whispy Wood that made people against the grouping in the first place. that's why it was an issue to group them.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Hazards-on Lylat Cruise? I can't see that going over well. Most people hate the tilting.

Yeah, let's go with hazards off for Lylat.

Re: Hazard toggle rules, testing is always fine but in this particular case I pessimistically believe that we'll eventually settle on permanent hazards off. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Who knows, maybe we'll get the ability to toggle hazards with the L-button or something, that'd be good.

On a related note, hazards-on Umbra Clock Tower: Y/N?

It wasn't even that close to being legal in Smash 4, I don't see why it would be in Ultimate when we have so many better stages anyway.

John has failed to provide a valid argument against grouping.

You keep saying that's it not valid, but why isn't it valid? If every stage had 4 alternative variations, then it'd be a different story, but that's not the case, so by allowing it we make certain stage layouts more prominent than others.

His argument against grouping boil down to because I say so.

It really doesn't.

Premise 1: Grouping stages would give certain players and characters an advantage.
Premise 2: Giving certain players and characters an advantage for no good reasons is really bad.
Premise 3: Things that are really bad should be banned.
Conclusion: Grouping stages should be banned.

If people want to gentleman to a Battlefield or FD echo, that's fine. Ultimately, these stages are not really in play though, and that makes the competitive game more fair and balanced.

The thing is, BF and DL in sm4sh shouldn't be grouped in the first place[...]

I agree, Dream Land should have been banned in Smash 4.

 

[GUIGUI]

You keep saying that's it not valid, but why isn't it valid? If every stage had 4 alternative variations, then it'd be a different story,

Because he is already working on the assumption that Grouping stage might be an issue when no one has complained about it yet. tHat other stage have alternative or not as nothing to do wit that.

Premise 1: Grouping stages would give certain players and characters an advantage.

See, this is that very premise he failed to prove. This is what John fail to explain and only back with "Because I say so".

The one issue he bring, that the winner allowing the loser to pick a BF-echoes provide too much of an advantage to the loser is immediately cancelled by the fact that the winner allowed it in the first place. If he do not want it, he can simply remove the whole group. Case solved.

That the winner would be fine with some BF-echoes, but not some other (which, again, requires to demonstrate that it does actually make a difference in the first place) isn't solved by perma-banning them all from the very beginning. It simply means the winner will never get to fight on the BF-echoes he wanted no matter what because either
-grouping was allowed, but there is a specific BF-echoes he didn't want the loser to pick so he removed the whole group from the loser's pick (with a single ban), so the winner can't get to play on the BF-echoes he would have preferred,
or
-the TO banned all the BF-echoes (except BF) form the very beginning, meaning the winner still can't have the loser to pick the BF-echoes he would have preferred.

In other words, that perma ban failed to make things better or fairer.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Because he is already working on the assumption that Grouping stage might be an issue when no one has complained about it yet.

Um, most TOs I've talked to seem to think grouping should be banned for redundancy. Have you not been following the various ruleset suggestions?

If he do not want it, he can simply remove the whole group.

That's the issue: Imagine there are 1000 echo stages. Perhaps you are fine on 999 on them, but the 1000th is bad for you. Now you're forced to ban Battlefield. This would, obviously, lead to the Battlefield group being stronger than it otherwise would have been, and characters strong on other stages would be at a disadvantage.

-the TO banned all the BF-echoes (except BF) form the very beginning, meaning the winner still can't have the loser to pick the BF-echoes he would have preffered.

Assuming the winner knows the MUs, why would the loser pick an echo favorable to the winner?

 

[Veggi]

Alright, I changed the stage list to make Lylat with hazards off.

 

[SmashChu]

Just want to add that as Smash Ultimate starts, we should be more liberal with stages and cut down later. I feel too often the community will find any little reason to strike a stage and will only try to make the list as small as possible despite some stages working. At a minimum, all stages that were allowed in previous Smash Bros should be allowed on at the start. This includes Halberd, Pokemon Stadium and Delfino Island. I know some stages were turned off later like Delfino Island due to the small ceiling, but we don't know if that will be an issue this game. For the 3DS stages and the new stages, it depends. I think Arena Ferox should be looked at as it transforms, so the platform layout changes. Great Plateau Tower may also be fine as the ceiling is breakable. Also, Wuhu Island should be discussed as it was originally banned due to a glitch with the boat which was later fixed but the stage stayed banned.

I think the argument about Battlefield style stages is fair in part. To say they all should be off is this weird mentality of Smash players having to ban something. Not allowing some is fine but removing all of them is absurd. Dreamland for instance should be fine since it's bigger and has the wind.

I think the biggest thing is people should be willing to try out the stages before saying they should be removed. Smash will have about 6-7 months before the first major tournaments like CEO and EVO. That leaves plenty of time to test out rules and whatnot. Moreover, there is no hard in having a larger list of potentials and letting TOs whittle it down to what they feel works for their tournament. At a minimum, if there are 30 legal stages (neutral and counter-pick), then I'd say that's perfect. Let there be a standard list and let TOs do as they please.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Just want to add that as Smash Ultimate starts, we should be more liberal with stages and cut down later.

That's how most top players and TO seem to feel, so that's likely what will happen. What people consider to be "liberal" varies though, seems 13-14 is the most common number right now.

To say they all should be off is this weird mentality of Smash players having to ban something. Not allowing some is fine but removing all of them is absurd. Dreamland for instance should be fine since it's bigger and has the wind.

"I ban Battlefield!" "Okay, let's play on DL!". That's the issue (and grouping is bad, either keep them legal or ban them, no grouping).