Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[CatRaccoonBL]

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

2004 MBR Ruleset:

No Items

Advanced Slob Picks

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

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

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

One stage ban

All sets 2/3 except finals 3/5

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

While it is certainly interesting to look back at past stage lists, I don't think this is a fair comparison. Pretty much all of the non-random stages we would ban now unless hazardless somehow made them ok stages.

 

[Munomario777]

Comparing Ultimate to past Smash games has its limits just because of what the hazard toggle lets us do. It really is shaping up to be quite a different beast of a stage list, so comparisons to Melee's early stage list and etc aren't apt.

 

[Frihetsanka]

if you tihnk smash 4 has a great stage list its an opinion not a fact.

It's not even my opinion. I think Smash 4 has a better stage list compared to the other games, but it's still not great because of Lylat and Dream Land. Still, we cannot afford to remove Lylat because then we'd only have 4 actual stages, and that would mess up the stage striking process (having 3 starters is bad). Still, Melee's stage list and Brawl's are even worse. 64 only has one stage, which isn't ideal either.

the other thing isyou are stuck thinking in how the past decisions have been made instead of projecting forward what improvement could be. why limit yourself to 5 to 7 when 15 in thoery are available?

It's fairly unlikely that we'll have 15 good stages. Anyway, assuming we can get 9-10 good stages, I'd be okay with 9-10. I could even be okay with 12.

smash 4 community has earned the reputation it currently has. banning characters, restricting choices, loud complaints and advocates for additional restrictions, immaturity, sexual assault from a major player, the lack of interest in other games, i can go on and on.

I wasn't aware the Smash 4 community had such a bad reputation, and I have to say that it seems a bit unfair. Banning characters? Meta Knight was unbanned, Cloud in doubles hasn't been universally banned (yet) and is arguably way too strong anyway (didn't Street Fighter 2 ban Akuma?). I'm not really sure how "sexual assault from a major player" is much of a case against the Smash 4 community, seeing how the community banned him from competing and strongly took a stance against him. He's no longer a major player. By that logic, Tiger Woods should be used as a case against the golf community, which doesn't seem very reasonable, does it?

but the huge thing that happened recently is the sonicfoxx vs zero thing. people in smash community acted like sonicfoxx did something wrong.

I haven't really noticed that there being much outrage, but Twitter is Twitter, a place full of misunderstanding and drama.

i dont care how good a character is the level of abuse 've witnessed bahyonetta and cloud players experience in locals is inexcusable. players have been spit on, punched, dleelberatedly shown poor sportmanship, and worse. this community has to improve A LOT moving forward.

I think that's more of a "wherever you live" thing than a Smash thing. I agree that's pretty terrible, though. Some people don't behave well.

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

"Jank" does not mean random, at least not in Smash 4 context.

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

What are you talking about?

what do you mean aside from miis? that dismissal is what me and several others are talking about.

Okay, I'm not really going to argue with that since I think the "free mii"-side has some good points, and it's a much worthier cause than "free customs in general" or "Halberd and Delfino Plaza should be legal in Smash 4".

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

I imagine it depends on the stage. Duck Hunt was notorious for messing with several low and mid tiers, for instance.

But if you focus to heavily on the competitors and ignore spectators you'll actually just end up hurting the competitors instead.

I don't disagree with this, but I don't think stage pick plays much on a role whether people will watch a tournament or not in the long run.

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

Adding bad stages would negatively affect the players, so that's a reason to be cautious. If we had 20+ good stages to choose from I'd be less concerned, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm a bit worried some people will try to cram in bad stages in order to get more stages, and I don't think that's a good idea. I think there will likely be 7-15 good stages to choose from (though it's possible they'll add more good stages), so we'll have to test them, but we should be able to get a minimum of 7 good stages.

 

[Octorockandroll]

The thought occurs to me that an increase in legal stages may lead to more situations where stage choice becomes a deciding matchup factor. More stage variability means more likelyhood of certain stages being more advantageous for certain characters over others. I'm not really sure what the right course of action for picking stages might be in that scenario, assuming any changes would be needed in the first place that is.

 

[Frihetsanka]

The thought occurs to me that an increase in legal stages may lead to more situations where stage choice becomes a deciding matchup factor.

That is a potential issue, certainly. The solution, I believe, is to avoid stages that are too deciding for matchups (like Duck Hunt or Smash 4 Halberd). I don't think which stage one plays on should be a huge factor in how a matchup goes. I would prefer if character pick mattered less too, but there's not really much we can do about that other than hope the game is reasonably balanced. Ultimately, player skill should be the deciding factor, not stage pick or character pick.

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

The thought occurs to me that an increase in legal stages may lead to more situations where stage choice becomes a deciding matchup factor. More stage variability means more likelyhood of certain stages being more advantageous for certain characters over others. I'm not really sure what the right course of action for picking stages might be in that scenario, assuming any changes would be needed in the first place that is.

That already happens though. Think about Little Mac. He is at his best when on stages like FD and Smashville. However, with our current rules, those stages would always be unavailable to a person who picks little mac. So the only stages left are ones he would do pretty bad at.

Now think of the new system. Especially with stage selection happening first. In this scenario, there is more of a possibility of picking a stage Little Mac at least does pretty well in, or if you lost the last match, you could just counterpick one yourself. Even in a sytem with at least 1 or 2 bans you could still probably find a stage Little does good enough in unlike in the smash 4 system where he is doomed to never get a stage he wants.

 

[Jamisinon]

That already happens though. Think about Little Mac. He is at his best when on stages like FD and Smashville. However, with our current rules, those stages would always be unavailable to a person who picks little mac. So the only stages left are ones he would do pretty bad at.
How so? Both are starters. So assuming you wouldn't get either stage for game 1 BC your opponent would strike both you'd still get one of them for game 2 assuming you lost game 1.

Spoiler: More starters/counter-picks wouldn't necessarily fix the issue

If you are talking about just game 1, if you add more starters it's likely that instead of Mac's 2 best stages getting struck his opponent would strike his 3 or 4 best stages and could be worse off. Maybe Mac has 2 good stages out of 5. So he would never get a good stage. Maybe he has 4 good stages out of 9 so you'd get the same outcome. It's heavily dependent on how both characters match up with each other and how strong stages are for them in the MU.
If you are talking about giving more stages as counter-picks then yes Mac would obviously have a better chance of getting a good stage for games 2, 3 etc. But when you add more stages you are still adding in more extremes. More good stages, more ok stages, more bad stages.
Even if Mac only has 2 good stages out of 5 starters maybe he is okay on the 2 of the other starters and is ok on the one or two counter-picks. If you make 20 stages available to choose from in games 2, 3 etc. the chance of him getting a horrible stage increases greatly. Even if a character has better stages to choose from you also give his opponent better stages to use against him. This simply creates back and forth extremes where game 1 is unlikely to be greatly affected assuming players strike. But every subsequent game would have extreme counter-picks. This creates less chance for comebacks as games are now less likely to be won on counter-picks. A lot people think this is still better BC spectators would like it more or it would force more character switches or it would force players to learn how to use their character on more stages. But what it creates is a very game 1 focused environment. It will be harder for players to win 2 games in a row in a bo3, even harder for 2 games in a row in a best of 5 and even more difficult still for 3 game comebacks.
Sadly this doesn't even necessarily guarantee less variance that the better player would more often win the set. An accidental SD game 1 could change how the entire set plays out BC the counter-picks are now too strong. Whomever wins game 1 is now simply going to have a greater % chance of winning the entire set. While the winner of game 1 obviously always has the advantage you've only furthered that advantage I personally don't think that's better for competitors or spectators.

Now think of the new system. Especially with stage selection happening first. In this scenario, there is more of a possibility of picking a stage Little Mac at least does pretty well in, or if you lost the last match, you could just counterpick one yourself. Even in a sytem with at least 1 or 2 bans you could still probably find a stage Little does good enough in unlike in the smash 4 system where he is doomed to never get a stage he wants.

You do know that's already the rule, with the exception of game 1? The game showing stage select screen before character select screen doesn't change the rules BC we've already been selecting stages first. The only way this could change is if the community changed the rules so stage striking was done before characters were chosen for game 1. Which seems unlikely since no Smash game is currently doing this.

Spoiler: The Rules Melee/Brawl/PM/Sm4sh have been using

1. Player priority is agreed on (or determined).
2. Each team selects players' controller ports. In doubles, the teammate of the player that picks first must pick last (i.e. selection is in the order 1-2-2-1).
3. Each team selects a character. Any player may enforce a double-blind pick (where all players tell a third party their character choice or write their character choice down, and then select the character they said they would choose, where the third party then enforces the prior announced character choices).
4. The first stage is selected from the list of starter stages, either through mutual agreement, or by stage striking.*
5. The first game is played.
6. The loser of the game may opt to re-pick controller ports, starting with themselves.
7. The winner of the game may ban a stage if they have not already done so in the set.**
8. The loser of the game chooses a stage from the list of starter and counterpick stages. A stage cannot be chosen if the other side has banned it or the chooser has already won on the stage in this match.***
9. The winner selects their character.
10. The loser selects their character.
11. The next game is played.
12. Repeat from step 6 until the sufficient amount of games have been played to determine a winner.

*Stage striking either proceeds in a 1-2-1-2-etc. order, or a 1-2-2-1 order, with the players each getting one more initial strike for every 2 stage increase in the starter list.

**Tournaments will occasionally implement two stage bans, especially if a larger stage list is being used and/or Dave's Stupid Rule isn't being implemented.

***Known as Dave's Stupid Rule, a player cannot choose a stage they won on prior. While often used, sometimes an additional stage ban is used instead of enforcing Dave's Stupid Rule.

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

You do know that's already the rule, with the exception of game 1? The game showing stage select screen before character select screen doesn't change the rules BC we've already been selecting stages first. The only way this could change is if the community changed the rules so stage striking was done before characters were chosen for game 1. Which seems unlikely since no Smash game is currently doing this.

Spoiler: The Rules Melee/Brawl/PM/Sm4sh have been using

1. Player priority is agreed on (or determined).
2. Each team selects players' controller ports. In doubles, the teammate of the player that picks first must pick last (i.e. selection is in the order 1-2-2-1).
3. Each team selects a character. Any player may enforce a double-blind pick (where all players tell a third party their character choice or write their character choice down, and then select the character they said they would choose, where the third party then enforces the prior announced character choices).
4. The first stage is selected from the list of starter stages, either through mutual agreement, or by stage striking.*
5. The first game is played.
6. The loser of the game may opt to re-pick controller ports, starting with themselves.
7. The winner of the game may ban a stage if they have not already done so in the set.**
8. The loser of the game chooses a stage from the list of starter and counterpick stages. A stage cannot be chosen if the other side has banned it or the chooser has already won on the stage in this match.***
9. The winner selects their character.
10. The loser selects their character.
11. The next game is played.
12. Repeat from step 6 until the sufficient amount of games have been played to determine a winner.

*Stage striking either proceeds in a 1-2-1-2-etc. order, or a 1-2-2-1 order, with the players each getting one more initial strike for every 2 stage increase in the starter list.

**Tournaments will occasionally implement two stage bans, especially if a larger stage list is being used and/or Dave's Stupid Rule isn't being implemented.

***Known as Dave's Stupid Rule, a player cannot choose a stage they won on prior. While often used, sometimes an additional stage ban is used instead of enforcing Dave's Stupid Rule.

First off, you need to format your text better because that giant wall of red is super difficult to read.

However first off, we wouldn't be adding more "starters". The idea of "starters and counterpicks" labels would be dead in our 20+ stage scenerio. The only thing similar would be that the first game is random with hazardless off. So you couldn't play on a non hazardless Town and city.

Stage striking would also be dead. Instead at most you would get like 2 bans probably. Meaning it would still only be Little Mac's 2 best stages, and his 3rd and 4th would still be fine.

The one insteresting point is the one about how the opponent can also counterpick to get Little Mac's 3rd and 4th worst stages. Little Mac is such a polarizing character that we will never get everything perfect for him. However the sceneario we present is still much better than the one we have now. Since it allows game 1 to potentially be on a stage he likes and if the little mac player loses it can also get him on a stage he likes.

 

[Jamisinon]

I just used red to differentiate between your post and my reply. But I'll make sure to put spaces between paragraphs for next time. I still feel random game 1 is a really bad idea. Just BC it literally adds "randomness" which takes away from competitiveness. Having that big stage list like I previously mentioned could still allow for super strong counter-picks thus making comebacks less likely. I think your proposed idea would have people complaining about getting screwed over by game 1 RNG and that alone wouldn't be worth whatever "benefits" it would bring about.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Those who argue that we should have 20+ stages, I'd like to see list of potential stages (no newcomers that haven't been announced yet). For the purpose of this, you may use stages from previous games that haven't been announced yet that have a decent shot of being in the game (like Fountain of Dreams).

 

[Munomario777]

* = assuming hazard toggle keeps these stages from "landing," which I think I remember someone saying somewhere?
** = acts too identically to another stage? (second list only)
*** = unconfirmed (second list only)

1. Battlefield
2. Final Destination
3. Yoshi's Island 64
4. Yoshi's Story
5. Yoshi's Island SSBB
6. Skyloft*
7. Norfair
8. Frigate Orpheon
9. Dream Land
10. Halberd*
11. Lylat
12. Pokémon Stadium 2
13. Unova
14. Prism Tower
15. Kalos
16. Castle Siege
17. WarioWare
18. Smashville
19. Town & City
20. Wuhu Island*

Additionally:

1. Mario Circuit U*
2. Great Plateau Tower (with hazards ON, or if the hazardless form is changed)
3. Pokémon Stadium 1 with hazards ON?
4. Port Town**
5. Arena Ferox**
6. Duck Hunt
7. Wily Castle**
8. Midgar**
9. Umbra**
10. Fountain of Dreams***
11. Kongo Jungle 64?***
12. Delfino Plaza*** *
13. Jungle Hijinx***
14. Gamer?***
15. Pyrosphere***

Spoiler: Handy reference

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

Those who argue that we should have 20+ stages, I'd like to see list of potential stages (no newcomers that haven't been announced yet). For the purpose of this, you may use stages from previous games that haven't been announced yet that have a decent shot of being in the game (like Fountain of Dreams).

I'll make a list of 21 that all have the best possibility of being accepted by the competive community (with assumption on how hazardless works).

1. Battlefield
2. Final Destination
3. Castle Siege (Hazardless)
4. Warioware (Hazardless)
5. Frigate Orpheon (Hazardless)
6. Dream Land 64
7. Yoshi's Story
8. Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
9. Smashville
10. Town & City
11. Lylat Cruise (Hazardless)/(Normal)
12. Wuhu Island (Hazardless)
13. Unova Pokemon League (Hazardless)
14. Kalos Pokemon League (Hazardless)
15. Prism Tower
16. Brinstar (Hazardless)
17. Halberd (Hazardless)
18. Delfino Plaza (Hazardless)
19. Pokemon Stadium 2 (Hazardless)
20. Reset Bomb Forest (Hazardless)
21. Yoshi Island 64 (Hazardless (hopefully))

And of course this doesn't exclude all the potential stages not yet revealed like Fountain of Dreams, or maybe even Metal Caverns if we are lucky.

I tried to make some compromises with this list. Even if I think something like Delfino plaza, Halberd, and Normal Lylat Cruise ashould be legal, I'll be willing to compromise just so we don't end up with the alternative of just 5 stages like a lot of Competitive players want.

Also there is potential for even more. Depending on what we want to do with stages like hazardless Wily's Castle for example.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I don't think you can both argue that we should have random stage selection and have some stages have hazards on. If you want random stage selection, then all stages will be hazards off, unless you want to do something like "If one of the following stages is randomly selected, you go back to stage select and turn hazards on and pick the stage again". Personally, I'm leaning towards just going "All hazards will be off" unless that significantly messes up Smashville (then maybe we should make an exception for Smashville).

I'll go more in depth later.

 

[Munomario777]

That's an inconvenience, yeah. Could always just have hazards off be a blanket rule – or if it ends up choosing one of those stages, then you just go into the menu / go back to the stage select and turn hazards on for that match.

The main thing to consider is that you can't really have Stage X (Hazards On) and Stage X (Hazards Off) as separate entries. Maybe you could enable a non-legal stage on the random select as a "dummy" entry to stand for the hazards-on version of a certain stage? Something like "if it chooses New Pork City, you go to Smashville with hazards on."

 

[Count Bleck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepuIYnutdY

M2K and ZeRo square off in an exhibition match, and found something pretty big and relevant to the discussion. While Kongo Falls has its Barrel removed, the Prism TOwer Stage is unchanged even with hazards off. Which means Travelling stages will work as normal.

Off the top of my head, this includes

• Delfino Plaza
• Skyloft
• Halberd
• Prism Tower (obviously)
• Wii Sports Resort

Now this is very interesting as it treats Traveling Stages different from Transitional Stages apparently. I wonder what are the defining rules between the 2. Paper Mario and Castle Siege are both stages with 3 different forms. will they just not change at all or go cycle through regardless? what makes Frigate Orpion and Town and City not transition but Prism Tower does?

 

[Munomario777]

Could be that Prism Tower's transitions, aside from the brief ground-level bit, all involve the same main platform, just like Town & City (which also keeps its town / city transitions with hazards disabled). Delfino, Skyloft, Halberd, Wuhu, and Mario Circuit U are different in that regard, since the flying platform sinks into the ground and the terrain changes entirely. Another example is Frigate Orpheon, which doesn't keep the same main platform throughout (so with hazards off, it stays on the starting platform).

I remember hearing somewhere that Wuhu's hazardless form stays on the starting platform iirc? So maybe this is the distinction. Or they're just deciding this on a case-by-case basis, which isn't unlikely.

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

I don't think you can both argue that we should have random stage selection and have some stages have hazards on. If you want random stage selection, then all stages will be hazards off, unless you want to do something like "If one of the following stages is randomly selected, you go back to stage select and turn hazards on and pick the stage again". Personally, I'm leaning towards just going "All hazards will be off" unless that significantly messes up Smashville (then maybe we should make an exception for Smashville).

I'll go more in depth later.

Random would only apply for the starting match. After that, the hazard switch will be on a case by case basis since the loser picks the stage. In theory, things like hazardless town and city should still be allowed.

 

[WritersBlah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepuIYnutdY

M2K and ZeRo square off in an exhibition match, and found something pretty big and relevant to the discussion. While Kongo Falls has its Barrel removed, the Prism TOwer Stage is unchanged even with hazards off. Which means Travelling stages will work as normal.

Off the top of my head, this includes

• Delfino Plaza
• Skyloft
• Halberd
• Prism Tower (obviously)
• Wii Sports Resort

Now this is very interesting as it treats Traveling Stages different from Transitional Stages apparently. I wonder what are the defining rules between the 2. Paper Mario and Castle Siege are both stages with 3 different forms. will they just not change at all or go cycle through regardless? what makes Frigate Orpion and Town and City not transition but Prism Tower does?

If this is the case, then we can pretty safely ban Delfino Plaza (for ceiling transitions) and Wuhu Island (for uncompetitive stage layout transitions) but it does make Skyloft and Halberd potentially viable. Prism Tower still seems to be sitting in a pretty safe place imo.

 

[IsmaR]

Delfino and Halberd will still be liable for the same reasons they were last time. We don't know if the blast zones will be exactly the same or if they'll get much smaller/bigger during stage transitions.

Prism Tower is much less of an issue in this regard but I can see where people would have their issues with it (starting on an immediate walk-off, platforms that carry you up high, etc.).

 

[Count Bleck]

Delfino and Halberd will still be liable for the same reasons they were last time. We don't know if the blast zones will be exactly the same or if they'll get much smaller/bigger during stage transitions.

Prism Tower is much less of an issue in this regard but I can see where people would have their issues with it (starting on an immediate walk-off, platforms that carry you up high, etc.).

The platforms won't carry you off the screen like other stages, but someone could take advantage of it all the same. That being said, We would probably need to see footage of the Pokemon Stages to see how they operate, naemely Kalos Pokemon League and the Pokemon Stadiums.

 

[ottobot]

Delfino and Halberd will still be liable for the same reasons they were last time. We don't know if the blast zones will be exactly the same or if they'll get much smaller/bigger during stage transitions.

Prism Tower is much less of an issue in this regard but I can see where people would have their issues with it (starting on an immediate walk-off, platforms that carry you up high, etc.).

Remember, with many more stages potentially viable, we can afford to be a little more picky with our stage selections. i could see transforming prism tower, tilting lylat cruse, hazardless, transforming halberd, and maybe even windy dream land all getting banned just because there are plenty of more fair stages out there. I could even see bans on stages that seem fair but just have weird layouts (hazardless kongo falls with its camping rock comes to mind, maybe even hazardless green greens). Heck, even hazardless mushroom kingdom U could get banned as its quite large and big battlefield got banned in 4.

 

[VodkaHaze]

When banning stages, I think we need to remember reasons why certain stages are either neutral, counterpick or banned. The SmashWiki has a fantastic article about stage legality here. A lot of the banning that will come for SSBU will have to be due to trial and error, because there are always going to be those stages which supposedly seem innocent enough, yet have a feature which can sway games.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Okay, time to talk about about the stages CatRaccoonBL and Munomario777 mentioned.

Stages that most likely will be legal:

1. Battlefield
2. Final Destination
3. Smashville
4. Town & City

These four stages will work well even with hazards off.

Stages that have a high likelihood of being legal with hazards off:

1. Yoshi's Island SSBB (If stage hazard switch, SHS, removes Blarggwich the Support Ghost, then it should most likely be legal)
2. Pokémon Stadium 1/2 (If SHS removed transformation)
3. WarioWare, Inc. (Assuming minigames are gone it's probably legal as a counter-pick)
4. Lylat Cruise (If people want it)

Stages that largly depend on how hazard switch works:

1. Castle Siege (Even if it doesn't transform it might not be legal, though)
2. Wuhu Island (Might be too similar to Yoshi's Island SSBB)
3. Unova Pokémon League (Might be too similar to hazardless Pokémon Stadium though)
4. Kalos Pokémon League (Seems like a good counter-pick if SHS removes transformations)
5. Skyloft (If it doesn't transform)
6. Delfino Plaza (If it doesn't transform)
7. Yoshi's Island 64 (If the clouds are gone)

Other potentially legal stages:

1. Frigate Orpheon (It has a somewhat weird layout but it could potentially be a counter-pick)
2. Mario Circuit U (Depends on how it wirks with SHS and whether sharking works, but even then it's kind of similar to some other stages)
3. Fountain of Dreams (If it comes back)
4. Jungle Hijinx (Maybe, assuming the barrels are removed)

Probably banned (some of these could be used as alternatives to other, I suppose):
1. Great Plateau Tower (Cave of life)
2. Pokémon Stadium 1 with hazards on (It's not really a good stage in previous games, so why push it for this game?)
3. Port Town Aero Drive (It's basically FD?)
4. Duck Hunt (The tree is still an issue)
5. Midgar (It's basically Battlefield? Maybe as an alternative)
6. Dream Land 64 (Again, basically Battlefield)
7. Wily Castle (Basically FD)
8. Umbra Clock Tower (Either it's basically FD that makes people motionsick, or it's still banned because of the same reasons as in Smash 4)
9. Yoshi's Story (Maybe, it's very similar to Battlefield but the blast zones might be significantly different, so maybe legal as a counter-pick?)
10. Norfair (Easy to plank and camp for certain characters, and grounded options are severely limited. Poor Little Mac)
11. Halberd (If it doesn't transform at all, then it has walkoffs. Anyway, it's been banned before, it has several issues)
12. Arena Ferox (Some of the transformations are highly problematic)
13. Kongo Jungle 64 (Unless the blast zones are fixed it's still banned)
14. Gamer (Unless it chooses a good basic layout this is still banned)
15. Pyrosphere (It's far too big)
16. Reset Bomb Forest (The gap kills it, too easy to camp on, some characters would struggle too much to approach)
17. Prism Tower (Unless they change it, it has been confirmed to still have transformations, including a walk-off)

So, we have a minimum of 4 good stages, then we have a potential of up to 11 good stages dependingon how Stage Hazard Switch works, and potentially 4 more even. That gives us a maximum of 19 or so, although I think it's fairly likely many of these "maybe" will be "no" in practice.

 

[blackghost]

Remember, with many more stages potentially viable, we can afford to be a little more picky with our stage selections. i could see transforming prism tower, tilting lylat cruse, hazardless, transforming halberd, and maybe even windy dream land all getting banned just because there are plenty of more fair stages out there. I could even see bans on stages that seem fair but just have weird layouts (hazardless kongo falls with its camping rock comes to mind, maybe even hazardless green greens). Heck, even hazardless mushroom kingdom U could get banned as its quite large and big battlefield got banned in 4.

can we avoid using "weird layout" as a justified reason without play testing?
also with mehcanics changes to universal 3 frame jump squats camping above someone is not nearly as viable an option as it has been in 4.
we need confirmation on these traveling stages. if blastzones reamain at reasonable sizes then theres no reason to ban them.
halbred issue was its ceiling not its walk-off.
the lack of abiltiy to play umbran clocktower still hurts but i get why people can't make it legal.
prism tower has a walkoff for 10-15 seconds which isnt enough to warrant a ban. having transformations alone also doesnt warrant a ban. stage awareness is a skill we had a legal stage that could kill someone. (tc)

 

[Munomario777]

I reckon traveling stages like Delfino are gonna stay on their main platforms, given precedent from stages like Orpheon (as well as what I remember hearing about Wuhu somewhere). The pattern seems to be whether or not the stage's main platform disappears during the transitions. For example, Town & City's main platform is consistent, while Orpheon's isn't (it flips to a new platform). With that in mind...

Stages which do change platforms:
- Frigate Orpheon (static hazardless)
- Delfino
- Skyloft
- Mario Circuit U
- Mushroom Kingdom U
- Port Town
- Reset Bomb Forest
- WarioWare
- Castle Siege
- Pilotwings
- Halberd

Stages which don't:
- Town & City (non-static)
- Prism Tower (non-static) (five-second walkoffs are the exception; for the rest of the stage, the main platform persists)



I think Castle Siege and Frigate Orpheon's layouts are fine. Or at the very least, they're very worth giving a decent shot. Same for Prism Tower; a very brief walk-off isn't a reason to ban a perfectly fine stage from the offset. It's commonly legal in 3DS. Duck Hunt is iffy, but it might be a decent idea to include it early on for experimentation. Smash 4's precedent isn't kind to it, but basing decisions just off precedent from previous games is also dangerous given the mechanical differences in Ultimate.

On the subject of stage layouts, Wuhu, Unova, Mario Circuit U, Dream Land, and Yoshi's Story are distinct enough stages due to having different proportions. The latter two along with Battlefield are all legal in Melee, as a precedent. Wily and Midgar are too similar though, I reckon. If Arena Ferox acts like Wily does in the E3 build, it's also too similar, but we can't say for sure right now.

Pyrosphere's size is no reason to disregard it. There's not really been a comparable stage in a previous game from what I remember (a stage that's this large but has no hazards). So it's definitely worth a shot. Same goes for stuff like Reset Bomb and Find Mii.

Port Town is one stage I'd say get rid of, just because iirc the main platform has no grabbable ledges. PS1 with hazards is also one I'm not vouching for, but it's worth including for completeness.

Umbra and Gamer are wildcards. The main case in which they'd be legal is if the hazardless forms were to get rid of the bad transformations on Umbra and give Gamer a single, good layout.



My bad here – I meant to write Brinstar instead of Norfair, rip.

I assume Jungle Hijinx will have the barrels and other gimmicks removed, particularly since (IIRC) they can damage fighters in the way. Yoshi's Island 64 I'm not super sure about it, but since there's not much else the hazard switch could do there, it's possible. The hazard switch does also disable the side walk-off platforms on Orpheon, so there is precedent.

For stages where blast zones are a concern, that's hardly set in stone; stuff like that is known to change from game to game for returning stages. Dream Land lost its super-large blast zones from Melee to 4, and in SSBU itself, Yoshi's Story has become less cramped size-wise.

Finally, Great Plateau Tower with hazards ON is a contender for a legal stage. The top structure can actually break if fighters are launched into it – NOT just from taking hits directly – so the cave of life effects are short-lived. (example) For this reason, it's definitely worth looking at; the cave of life won't lead to pseudo-Sudden Death situations if you can only use it as a safety net so many times. On top of the ability to destroy it manually with attacks, there should be plenty of counterplay against center campers, which could actually be pretty interesting!

 

[WritersBlah]

stuff

I appreciate your input and willingness to engage in discussion. I have qualms with six of the stages you considered worth banning, so if you'll allow me to argue.

2. Pokémon Stadium 1 with hazards on (It's not really a good stage in previous games, so why push it for this game?)
12. Arena Ferox (Some of the transformations are highly problematic)

I take some issue with banning these two transforming stages because unlike Kalos and PS2, their stage transformations allow for dynamic layout play that will emphasize specific types of interactions that, while different from the neutral setup, don't support degeneracy (with the exceptions of PS1's rock and fire transformations, but they usually end pretty quickly anyway.) This is a different enough type of interaction where I feel banning these two stages would be robbing the stagelist of legitimate competitive depth for the sake of promoting static stages.

11. Halberd (If it doesn't transform at all, then it has walkoffs. Anyway, it's been banned before, it has several issues)
17. Prism Tower (Unless they change it, it has been confirmed to still have transformations, including a walk-off)

I find your complaints here to be particularly egregious, especially with your complaint regarding the walk-off transformations, considering the fact that both stages only include one walk-off layout at the start of the match (where camping near the blastzone isn't nearly as powerful, you want to attain some sort of advantage first, which is nearly impossible to get at the start of a match, and even if it does happen, the stage has already begun transforming already) as well as the complaint that "confirmed to have transformations" is somehow a negative. Transformations on their own have literally never been a reason to ban a stage. It's always been the context of those transformations. Your sharking complaint is a little more valid, but remember that Ultimate both has slightly higher gravity than 4/Brawl, and the new airdodge mechanics will make sharking somewhat riskier, so I think testing to see how powerful sharking would be on these stages is important. Prism Tower especially never really suffered from this issue.

15. Pyrosphere (It's far too big)

I'd agree with banning this stage for its size if its platform layout also allowed for circle camping like KJ64 or Big Battlefield, but I don't see how it does. If stages were banned for their size relative to other stages, I'm pretty sure Dreamland 64 would be a banned stage in Melee, but it isn't.

16. Reset Bomb Forest (The gap kills it, too easy to camp on, some characters would struggle too much to approach)

I'm not going to lie, this is probably the stage I have the least amount of outright defense for, but to be fair, I don't think this stage was ever able to be fairly judged due to the much worse problems it had in Smash 3DS. I'd like to see it at least get a trial run to see whether the issues you listed would really have that huge an effect on matches. While I'm at it, I'd like to make the same argument for hazardless Find Mii, though I see that one as more likely to get banned due to not knowing how the Mii cage works.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I think Castle Siege and Frigate Orpheon's layouts are fine. Or at the very least, they're very worth giving a decent shot.

Assuming Castle Siege stays on the first form and doesn't transform, I agree that it's worth giving a shot. Frigate Orpheon should also be given a shot. Both of these are in my "Possible" lost, anyway.

Same for Prism Tower; a very brief walk-off isn't a reason to ban a perfectly fine stage from the offset. It's commonly legal in 3DS.

Prism Tower seems like a borderline case to me, it seems like it could fall under the "mediocre but not terrible" stage. But, assuming we have a good stage list, why should we accept any mediocre stages? We can afford to be picky this time (they couldn't in the 3DS days).

Duck Hunt is iffy, but it might be a decent idea to include it early on for experimentation. Smash 4's precedent isn't kind to it, but basing decisions just off precedent from previous games is also dangerous given the mechanical differences in Ultimate.

Duck Hunt with stage hazards off might actually be worse for some characters. Little Mac could kill a duck and wait for the dog to appear in order to more easily jump up to the tree, with stage hazards off that likely wouldn't be an option. Anyway, we know that the stage is bad and unless things change in Smash Ultimate I see little reason to allow it.

On the subject of stage layouts, Wuhu, Unova, Mario Circuit U, Dream Land, and Yoshi's Story are distinct enough stages due to having different proportions. The latter two along with Battlefield are all legal in Melee, as a precedent.

It should be noted that Melee Dream Land had drastically different blastzones compared to Melee Battlefield, while in Smash 4 they are really similar (I personally think Dream Land should have been banned in Smash 4, but it wasn't). Anyway, Melee had a lack of stages, so they couldn't exactly be picky. This time around, we likely can be picky. Anyway, I suppose those stages could be tested for Ultimate, some of them could potentially be legal.

Pyrosphere's size is no reason to disregard it.

I think there'll be some major issues (like it being really hard to kill vertically from mid stage), but it could be tested, I suppose. There's a fairly high chance the stage won't be in the game anyway, since Ridley is a playable character.

Same goes for stuff like Reset Bomb and Find Mii.

Reset Bomb Forest seems like it could be trouble because of the hole in the middle of the stage (it would be really bad for Ness, for instance), Find Mii without hazards would just be a bigger Final Destination? Similar issues as Pyrosphere, I suppose.

My bad here – I meant to write Brinstar instead of Norfair, rip.

Brinstar could maybe be legal, depending on how it works with stage hazards off.

For stages where blast zones are a concern, that's hardly set in stone; stuff like that is known to change from game to game for returning stages. Dream Land lost its super-large blast zones from Melee to 4, and in SSBU itself, Yoshi's Story has become less cramped size-wise.

Yes, this is very true. We'll have to deal with that when the game appears.

Finally, Great Plateau Tower with hazards ON is a contender for a legal stage.

I remain skeptical, but if people want to grind some of the borderline cases (like this) once the game is released, then feel free to do so. I think many of the stages will be easy enough to prove while they are ban-worhy, though others may be harder.

I take some issue with banning these two transforming stages because unlike Kalos and PS2, their stage transformations allow for dynamic layout play that will emphasize specific types of interactions that, while different from the neutral setup, don't support degeneracy (with the exceptions of PS1's rock and fire transformations, but they usually end pretty quickly anyway.) This is a different enough type of interaction where I feel banning these two stages would be robbing the stagelist of legitimate competitive depth for the sake of promoting static stages.

I can respect that opinion, and I imagine that people feel differently about such stages. However, some issues remain with Pokémon Stadium 1 (assuming they haven't changed it): RNG in transformation, as well as some transformations being problematic. Also, in Brawl, the Water transformation with the windmill had hard platforms instead of soft platforms, which could be an issue (depending on what they are in Ultimate).

I find your complaints here to be particularly egregious, especially with your complaint regarding the walk-off transformations, considering the fact that both stages only include one walk-off layout at the start of the match (where camping near the blastzone isn't nearly as powerful, you want to attain some sort of advantage first, which is nearly impossible to get at the start of a match, and even if it does happen, the stage has already begun transforming already) as well as the complaint that "confirmed to have transformations" is somehow a negative. Transformations on their own have literally never been a reason to ban a stage. It's always been the context of those transformations. Your sharking complaint is a little more valid, but remember that Ultimate both has slightly higher gravity than 4/Brawl, and the new airdodge mechanics will make sharking somewhat riskier, so I think testing to see how powerful sharking would be on these stages is important. Prism Tower especially never really suffered from this issue.

I think you misunderstood me on Halberd. What I meant was, if stage hazards off makes it so it never transforms, then that stage will permanently have walk-offs. I'm not bothered by a few seconds of walk-offs at the beginning of the game, but permanent walk-offs are not acceptable in competitive play. Prism Tower returns to the beginning form after a while, which means more opportunities for walk-offs. That's not good.

I'm not going to lie, this is probably the stage I have the least amount of outright defense for, but to be fair, I don't think this stage was ever able to be fairly judged due to the much worse problems it had in Smash 3DS. I'd like to see it at least get a trial run to see whether the issues you listed would really have that huge an effect on matches. While I'm at it, I'd like to make the same argument for hazardless Find Mii, though I see that one as more likely to get banned due to not knowing how the Mii cage works.

I won't object if people want to give it a short trial run (though perhaps at smaller tournaments and not PGR tournaments). Some stages we can rule out without any testing whatsoever (like Temple, or Skyworld, or Great Bay), while others might benefit from some testing.

 

[Munomario777]

A correction: Dream Land and Battlefield had quite different blast zones in Smash 4. In Melee, Battlefield had smaller blast zones, while Dream Land's were huge. In Smash 4, the opposite is true: Dream Land has "normal" blast zones (matching FD, Smashville, etc), while Battlefield is the only legal stage with an extra-high ceiling.

If Pyrosphere has normal blast zones, killing vertically from the center shouldn't be an issue. As a precedent, Dream Land also had a normal ceiling height, despite having high-up platforms. I don't think Ridley as a character makes it super unlikely; they could just remove him from the stage and there'd still be the little alien dudes and the GUN beetles when hazards are enabled.

Duck Hunt is the main case where I'd be okay with banning a potential stage from the start, since we've basically seen all it has to offer. I'd also be okay with including it early on.

I think Reset Bomb could work. For that stage in particular, there's a platform right above the pit iirc, so it's more unlikely for someone like Ness to fall in accidentally / get spiked down into it. For Find Mii, the main draw to that stage would be the pit toward the right side.

As far as being "picky" with our stages, I think we should start considering that once we already know which stages do and don't work in practice. At the beginning, it's ideal to allow a lot of stages, test them out, and see if anything needs to go / can afford to be left behind.

Regarding PS1, I don't think the RNG itself is a big problem, since it telegraphs which transformation is next. The main issues are some of the layouts and the collision glitches, though the glitches might be fixed in Ultimate. I'd probably vote toward a ban on this stage, but also wouldn't mind it being part of the early, experimental lists.

Prism Tower's walkoffs last a few seconds at most, I don't think it's a problem. With walkoffs, I always saw the main problems being chaingrabs / infinites / etc, and camping near the edge. The former presumably isn't in Ultimate, and the latter isn't viable if the walkoff lasts only ten seconds.

On Halberd, I doubt it'd be a permanent walk-off; I reckon it'd just either be the same but without the ship's weapons, or without visiting the ship period. We have no way of knowing until release, though, even for stages like Prism Tower since this was just the E3 build.

 

[Frihetsanka]

A correction: Dream Land and Battlefield had quite different blast zones in Smash 4.

Not really, Battlefield had slightly higher ceiling compared to Dream Land, though that mostly mattered for certain kill confirms from grabs (such as ding dong) and janky rage kills (like Luma up-air or ZSS up-B). Overall the stages are really similar, though there are some differences.

If Pyrosphere has normal blast zones, killing vertically from the center shouldn't be an issue.

Killing horizontally might be an issue, though. Anyway, I think this is a bit too speculative for now, so I suppose we'll see (it might not even return).

As far as being "picky" with our stages, I think we should start considering that once we already know which stages do and don't work in practice. At the beginning, it's ideal to allow a lot of stages, test them out, and see if anything needs to go / can afford to be left behind.

Sure, we can start out with a bigger list and then trim it down over time.

 

[Gearkeeper-8a]

Prism tower walk off last 10 seconds, repeats like once per 3 or 4 stages, you cant really camp in that time, not to mention the moving platforms cant kill you unlike smashville.
Another thing, remember that the hazard off toggle isn't the same for every stage, so dont be lazy and say that the effects are the same on the same type of stage, now you can say that we can be picky about choosing our stages, but being picky doesnt mean eviting testing stages with rare layouts, remember that stages are banned because of uncompetitive traits like RNG, camping, or damage of hazards, not because of redundancing or exotic layouts unless they give unfair advantage to some characters, but the degree unfairness needs to be tested, because the game engine is different or the characters, like now little mac has better recovery or faster jumps, so now Mac plays different on these unfair stages, so maybe he cant be camped anymore, we need to test these possibilities

 

[Jamisinon]

I have thoughts I would like to convey:

Spoiler: Dreamland

In Melee Dreamland wasn't a large stage, it was a medium stage with large blast zones (the blast zones were shrunk down a fair amount for sm4sh). The platform height differences also made a lot of differences for characters in Melee. While they are still slightly different in sm4sh they are definitely far more similar than they were in Melee. Dreamland typically gave an advantage to floaty characters with good recover i.e. puff, peach samus, so the stage was always more about the blast zones than the platforms.

Spoiler: Pyroshere

Pyroshere's stage width I think is just too much. I will say it should still be slightly tested (I mean play tested not used in tournaments) for its viability but even if it plays okay that wide of a platform would likely lead to increased game times. This was notably an issue with Duck Hunt in sm4sh. Obviously the tree camping was broken in a couple MU's but Duck Hunt significantly increased set times it was used in. So I think that's also something to consider and why Pyroshere likely wouldn't work in competitive. Tournaments running behind schedule has at times been a significant issue with sm4sh which hopefully could be avoided by not using stages conducive to longer times. If there are any 3v3 or 4v4 tournaments though I think it would be an ideal stage for that.

Spoiler: Halberd

Halberd's walk-off and low ceiling are both issues. It doesn't matter if one is a bigger issue, they are both things we want to avoid. I don't think this stage is the worst but the issues are likely to persist.

Spoiler: Green Greens

Green Greens ceiling could be too low for fair competitive use. Although the sides are also close to the horizontal blast zones the platform layout would likely make it easy for a character to stay in the middle or for a character with a lead to abuse the lower sides which can only be approached through the air. I could see either scenario potentially being bad enough to warrant it not being used competitively.

Spoiler: Pokemon Stadium 1

PS1 rock and fire transformations while often just waited out still have a massive "cave of life" aspect them to and pit fights can be awful as getting trapped leaves you vulnerable to jab locks, down smashes you can't DI away from etc. While I think there's a good chance they won't be as bad in sma5h they can be a problem in Melee which make me wary of using them. Hopefully we'll just get a good PS3 and we can use that instead. I do personally love transformations that are fair bc they do add variety to a stage without messing with it's blast zones. But I think we will have enough "better" stages that in the end PS1 likely won't be as viable.

Spoiler: Reset Bomb Forest

I'd actually like to see this one. In sm4sh I built custom Reset Bomb Forest and also a custom Midgar where there was a hole in the middle. I played them both a decent amount and think they in theory would work fine. Especially with directional air dodging it shouldn't be devastating to a Ness/Lucas recovery. I think a platform above a hole in the middle of the stage does help alleviate any potential problems but I also think a hole in the middle of the stage could be a really nice change. It's something we haven't had before I'd be willing to really try out. Characters like Mega Man or Mario could potential get spikes off in the middle of the stage instead of off stage. This changes the dynamic of center stage being the strong point in the stage. So as long as players could safely get to one side of the hole to another and the stage wouldn't lend itself to just camping on opposite sides (think Bridge of Eldin when the middle is blown out) I think this could be a really neat way to mix things up and try something we haven't had the opportunity to really try out.

Spoiler: Great Plateau Tower

I think we will likely find ourselves competitively playing with HAZARDS OFF on all stages. No switching back and forth. I think with hazards off the stage would be absolutely fine, similar to Yoshi's Island (Brawl) but with the stage higher up. My issue with the stage with HAZARDS ON is 1) turning hazards on and off just takes up time. It also wouldn't be viable if the "random stage select" idea was put into play. 2) There's a very obvious "cave of life" in the middle of the stage. It feels like fighting on the far right of Hyrule Castle 64.

Spoiler: 3DS Stages

Disclaimer, I never played the 3DS version so I'm only going off screenshots. I'm not familiar enough with Find Mii or Arena Ferox to voice a legitimate opinion. But from screenshots I'm seeing I think they might work. But the statues on Arena Ferox are a bit concerning as they remind me of the 2nd transformation in Castle Siege. Prism Tower with the walk-offs doesn't look too good.

Spoiler: Wily Castle

Wily Castle could be really good so long as the platforms are still there and the platforms aren't constant enough to allow a player to not return back to the main stage for large amounts of time. I am hopeful for this stage but if the platforms aren't around enough it's just another FD and if they are around too much characters could use them to not engage. So there's definitely hope for the stage but it'll have to be tested.

Port Town having no grabbable ledge is a HUGE issue.
Brinstar and Norfair I think are maybes pending on play testing. Norfair did have issues with not enough ground gameplay (again Little Mac seems to be the reason a lot of sm4sh stages didn't work).
I think I covered enough stages for today. A few opinions I'd like to point out are that I'm not against transformations but a lot of stages the transformations affect the blast zones which is a big problem. Walk-offs are never good but if a stage only had one for say 15 seconds I could see it being a small enough issue to potentially overlook but something like 45 seconds would be too long for sure. But any walk-off at any point could still be argument enough to ban a stage. That's kind of up to what people want to put up with.

I also wanna say I don't think we should throw all these stages into competitive to test them out. One idea I'd like to propose is testing stages during Amateur Brackets. In a double elim bracket if there are no byes 1/4th of people go 0-2, 1-2, and 2-2. So half your attendees play 3 games or fewer. I think a great way to test new maps would be using people who have been eliminated from the main bracket. I think it would also genuinely be fun and be a good way to get a decent sample size for potential maps. You could use only test maps, a mix of tournament and test maps, even random stage select test maps only. Obviously people will be trying out stages casually and streamers will find problems with a stage and so on. But I think this idea would get a lot of people testing out stages we are on the fence about.

 

[dav3yb]

Disclaimer, I never played the 3DS version so I'm only going off screenshots. I'm not familiar enough with Find Mii or Arena Ferox to voice a legitimate opinion. But from screenshots I'm seeing I think they might work. But the statues on Arena Ferox are a bit concerning as they remind me of the 2nd transformation in Castle Siege. Prism Tower with the walk-offs doesn't look too good.

The issue with the statues transition on Castle Siege was more for the walk-offs than anything else, not to mention it's transitions were actually quite awkward. It interfered with projectile heavy characters, but it wasn't that bad. Arena Ferox is so much better as a whole and there is very little reason I could see anyone thinking it should be banned from the outset.

Same goes for Prism Tower, there is ONE walk-off, that's at the start. The stages moves to about 4 different area's, then resets back to the start before taking off again, much like a lot of traveling stages.

Just BC it literally adds "randomness" which takes away from competitiveness.

... how? the entirety of any card game played on a professional level is predicated on a RANDOMIZED DECK OF CARDS. The key to being better is how well you can mitigate the randomness of said deck.


If there are stages that are completely viable to be used, as in, nothing that encourages hyper degenerate play styles, and won't outright kill you if you sit still on the stage, then it NEEDS to be considered. I'm all for taking the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to stages. You need to find something very wrong with the stage before it gets axed, especially since we're getting a lot more control over stages with being able to toggle the hazards now.

 

[Galgatha]

After reading some of the comments for against larger stages or stages with odd gaps (Find Mii), we have to keep in mind that we now select the stage BEFORE we select the character. This means that we no longer pick the stage for the character, we pick the character for the stage.

Honestly, this is only my opnion of course, but I feel like this fact sort of invalidates those reasons.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I think with hazards off the stage would be absolutely fine, similar to Yoshi's Island (Brawl) but with the stage higher up.

The Great Plateau with hazards off becomes unbreakable, which actually makes it worse for competitive play (permanent cave of life). Unless they change that I don't see that stage being legal.

[...](again Little Mac seems to be the reason a lot of sm4sh stages didn't work).

I don't think there are any stages that were banned just because of Little Mac.

... how? the entirety of any card game played on a professional level is predicated on a RANDOMIZED DECK OF CARDS. The key to being better is how well you can mitigate the randomness of said deck.

Random stage select is closer to rolling dice than drawing cards. In most competitive card games you have factors such as deck tracking playing a role, which increases skill. With random stage select, it's fully random, thus reducing the competitive nature somewhat. Fighting games are different from card games anyway, and I don't think we should accept as much randomness as in card games. Another factor with many card games is that they rely on mindgames, which stage striking does but random stage select doesn't. By giving up stage striking we reduce the amount of skill in the stage selection process (although we do force people to be able to play on more stages, I suppose). You could add some bans to mitigate this but at that point it might be better to just do stage striking normally.

Would you be opposed to having 9 starters instead of 5 starters? That should provide plenty of choices while still avoiding the issue of randomness.

I'm all for taking the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to stages. You need to find something very wrong with the stage before it gets axed, especially since we're getting a lot more control over stages with being able to toggle the hazards now.

I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" (most stages should be easy enough to prove guilty), but I disagree that it has to be "very wrong". Quality over quantity.

After reading some of the comments for against larger stages or stages with odd gaps (Find Mii), we have to keep in mind that we now select the stage BEFORE we select the character. This means that we no longer pick the stage for the character, we pick the character for the stage.

This is already the case for every game except for game 1. I suspect we might still select characters before stages for game 1, anyway. In Smash 4 game 2 to game 5 you would first select a stage and then you'd pick characters, despite the UI wanting you to pick characters first. Anyway, I imagine most people will still primarily play one character, and I think it is generally better to leave counter-picking for characters instead of having really hard stages for certain characters (in some cases even generally good stages, like Smashville, are really bad for some characters, like Little Mac, but at least it's not Norfair).

 

[dav3yb]

I don't think there are any stages that were banned just because of Little Mac.

I think he was at least one of the MAIN reasons duck hunt got the axe. Of course it was more than just Mac, but I think some of those platforms he had to use his recovery move to get to.

Random stage select is closer to rolling dice than drawing cards. In most competitive card games you have factors such as deck tracking playing a role, which increases skill. With random stage select, it's fully random, thus reducing the competitive nature somewhat.

I still fail to see how it would reduce "competitiveness" in any significant way as to alter tournament outcomes.

Would you be opposed to having 9 starters instead of 5 starters? That should provide plenty of choices while still avoiding the issue of randomness.

I think the idea of starters and counter-pick stages needs to die. But more so, i think the entire striking process needs to die. Now if there are enough stages to consider leaving some of them off the list for the 1st pick, given that it's random, i wouldn't be completely opposed to that, but if a stage is viable for competitive play, it should be viable 100% of the time, not "only available after certain conditions are met."

I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" (most stages should be easy enough to prove guilty), but I disagree that it has to be "very wrong". Quality over quantity.

I'm making the assumption here that the hazard toggle will lead to more quality stages. There needs to be some serious flaws in the stage before cutting it, not just some excuse that it favors X character, or the ledges are "jank," whatever that means.

*********

On a somewhat unrelated note, I thought of a neat idea for a bit of a side event game... King of the Hill.

On some of these stages with extra tiny platforms, you could have players fight with a time limit to be the last person on that particular platform. One of the side platforms in Jungle Japes/Green Greens, the helipad on Saffron City. You could even use some of the larger stages like Hyrule Temple and use the lower platform under the stage. Not sure how'd you handle an outcome if neither player are on the platform when the time ends, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

A few thoughts on the current hot topics:

I'm in favor of leaving the hazard toggle off permanently, as opposed to switching it on/off on a case-by-case basis per stage. Should be simpler and less prone to mistakes and arguments. (Wasn't there one Smash 4 tournament where the damage ratio was accidentally set to 1.1x on a particular setup or something?)

I think it's better to start with as large of a stage list as possible and ban individual stages if/when dealbreaking issues become apparent, instead of starting with a small stage list and trying to add to it later.

While there are certain stage elements that are grounds for an immediate blanket ban (permanent walkoffs, caves of life, excessive size), we should still make a good (and good faith) effort to study the rest and see if they are or are not fit for competitive play. Norfair, for example, has a completely unique layout that might or might not lead to degenerate play. Mushroom Kingdom U might or might not be too big for a 1v1 match. We can theorize all day long, or we could bite the bullet and play a few matches there for real to see what happens. (Doesn't even have to be in a tournament. At home on the couch would be fine as long as no one's sandbagging.)

It really boils down to being willing to try new things. I get the impression that a lot of the accepted rules and procedures are only accepted due to tradition and "this is how we've done it for ages now", which is not only awful reasoning on its own but also fails to take into account what the new game has (will have) to offer.

 

[Untouch]

Some observations on what hazard toggle does for certain levels. A lot of these we know about, but just for some confirmation. (This is assuming 1v1 with stocks at CEO turns off hazards which I believe it does.) I don't know if a compilation like this exists already but I couldn't find one.


Peach's Castle: https://youtu.be/J2kFk1lJ70U
Removes Bullet Bills, platforms are static, no buttons.

Tortimer Island: https://youtu.be/4r5b-Lf1NCo
Fruit doesn't spawn, Kappa doesn't appear. Layout may be static, I only found one video playing on this stage with hazards off.

Town and City: https://youtu.be/lh_tUQirZp8
Nothing? Moving platforms aren't considered hazards here it seems, which was one of the concerns with hazards always being off.

Frigate (already known): https://youtu.be/9Onr2zBp6I0
Stage doesn't flip.

Boxing Ring: https://youtu.be/Bnn_Ki1eQg8
Nothing?

Kongo Jungle: https://youtu.be/UepuIYnutdY
No barrel, stage is static, no klaptrap.

Prism Tower: https://youtu.be/UepuIYnutdY?t=377
Nothing? Looks as if moving stages aren't considered hazards, in this stage at least.

Cerulean City: https://youtu.be/nqQogNUVYLA
Platform doesn't move, no pokemon spawn.

Suzaku Castle: https://youtu.be/J2kFk1lJ70U?t=383
Nothing?

 

[dav3yb]

Peach's Castle: https://youtu.be/J2kFk1lJ70U
Removes Bullet Bills, platforms are static, no buttons.

Should be considered

Tortimer Island: https://youtu.be/4r5b-Lf1NCo
Fruit doesn't spawn, Kappa doesn't appear. Layout may be static, I only found one video playing on this stage with hazards off.

Water would be the only reason I see this as possibly getting cut

Town and City: https://youtu.be/lh_tUQirZp8
Nothing? Moving platforms aren't considered hazards here it seems, which was one of the concerns with hazards always being off.

*sigh* still fine

Frigate (already known): https://youtu.be/9Onr2zBp6I0
Stage doesn't flip.

Completely viable imho

Boxing Ring: https://youtu.be/Bnn_Ki1eQg8
Nothing?

Looks like the Light Rigging above the stage still acts as a platform, but can't be knocked down. Still has 2 walkoffs though.

Kongo Jungle: https://youtu.be/UepuIYnutdY
No barrel, stage is static, no klaptrap.

Seems fine to me.

Prism Tower: https://youtu.be/UepuIYnutdY?t=377
Nothing? Looks as if moving stages aren't considered hazards, in this stage at least.

Still good

Cerulean City: https://youtu.be/nqQogNUVYLA
Platform doesn't move, no pokemon spawn.

SAFFRON city. and it also seems fine.

Suzaku Castle: https://youtu.be/J2kFk1lJ70U?t=383
Nothing?

Yeah, there wasn't anything hazardous on this stage to begin with, but it still has the right-side walk-off.

 

[Jamisinon]

The Great Plateau with hazards off becomes unbreakable, which actually makes it worse for competitive play (permanent cave of life). Unless they change that I don't see that stage being legal.

I thought it was just a platform I didn't realize it was thicker so characters couldn't pass through. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah with that little ceiling I wouldn't use the stage at all. The "cave of life" would be enough to ban it.

I don't think there are any stages that were banned just because of Little Mac.

Probably true. But Mac was one of the characters that couldn't reach the Duck Hunt tree with just his double jump. Though I believe Duck Hunt's banning ended up having more to do with how much it was dragging out sets than just a couple characters suffered on it. Mac's super weak aerial approaches were also a strong case against Norfair. I don't think the stage as it was in sm4sh would have been the most viable either way but Mac's lack of aerial approach to the sides gave other characters huge advantages.

... how? the entirety of any card game played on a professional level is predicated on a RANDOMIZED DECK OF CARDS. The key to being better is how well you can mitigate the randomness of said deck.

It's smash, not cards. Irrelevant.

we have to keep in mind that we now select the stage BEFORE we select the character. This means that we no longer pick the stage for the character, we pick the character for the stage.

With the exception of game 1 where players double blind then strike, every game is played with the stage being selected before the character.
I'll point you to the official rules for further clarification:

Spoiler: Official Ruleset

Tournament sets typically progress in the following manner.

1. Player priority is agreed on (or determined).
2. Each team selects players' controller ports. In doubles, the teammate of the player that picks first must pick last (i.e. selection is in the order 1-2-2-1).
3. Each team selects a character. Any player may enforce a double-blind pick (where all players tell a third party their character choice or write their character choice down, and then select the character they said they would choose, where the third party then enforces the prior announced character choices).
4. The first stage is selected from the list of starter stages, either through mutual agreement, or by stage striking.*
5. The first game is played.
6. The loser of the game may opt to re-pick controller ports, starting with themselves.
7. The winner of the game may ban a stage if they have not already done so in the set.**
8. The loser of the game chooses a stage from the list of starter and counterpick stages. A stage cannot be chosen if the other side has banned it or the chooser has already won on the stage in this match.***
9. The winner selects their character.
10. The loser selects their character.
11. The next game is played.
12. Repeat from step 6 until the sufficient amount of games have been played to determine a winner.

*Stage striking either proceeds in a 1-2-1-2-etc. order, or a 1-2-2-1 order, with the players each getting one more initial strike for every 2 stage increase in the starter list.

**Tournaments will occasionally implement two stage bans, especially if a larger stage list is being used and/or Dave's Stupid Rule isn't being implemented.

***Known as Dave's Stupid Rule, a player cannot choose a stage they won on prior. While often used, sometimes an additional stage ban is used instead of enforcing Dave's Stupid Rule.

You'll notice Rule 8 that they actually choose stage first. This seems to be causing a TON of confusion to many persons with smUsh as it's the first time the stage select screen appears in game before the character select screen,

I do wonder about the idea of using 7 or 9 starters instead of 5. Once you have set starting stage people are usually quick in the striking phase of a set as they have a predetermined stage order of preference. I don't think added a couple more starters would greatly impede the flow of the sets. So I'd be open to exploring that option.

I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" (most stages should be easy enough to prove guilty), but I disagree that it has to be "very wrong". Quality over quantity.

Completely agree with you on this one. I still think a lot of people are overlooking how potentially game breaking certain stages actually can be. All it takes is one person "lame" enough to camp a top platform once ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiQp5w-9IAE ) then you realize how bad it is. But since we've experienced these issues as a community already there's no desire to implement stages that have a similar feature that most likely could be exploited in like manner. It's not always as obvious as a massive stage made for 8-man smash, often times it's something as simple as a wall or platform in a bad enough place.

Spoiler: Walls can act as a cave of life too, not just ceilings

Also, walls of any sort on a stage have a "cave of life" aspect to them. This is something often overlooked simply BC it doesn't apply to KO moves with a completely or almost completely vertical knockback. But many characters lack vertical KO options and are more reliant on horizontal KO's. This to me means stages like Saffron City or Peach's Castle could be viewed as not viable, even without hazards. I have personal experience in surviving way longer on such stages so trust me, walls can be abused as much as ceilings. If you look at current competitive stage lists for any smash game I think you'll notice a trend of stages not having permanent walls.

If anyone wishes to discuss a particular stage's potential viability in tournament I'd be more than happy to voice my opinion on it. =)

 

[dav3yb]

It's smash, not cards. Irrelevant.

Except it is, and it's far EASIER than a card game. A randomized stage pick would simply force people to be familiar with those stages, and thus being able to mitigate the random factor.

If anyone wishes to discuss a particular stage's potential viability in tournament I'd be more than happy to voice my opinion on it. =)

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

This is the only thought I need to know on your opinions.

Completely agree with you on this one. I still think a lot of people are overlooking how potentially game breaking certain stages actually can be. All it takes is one person "lame" enough to camp a top platform once ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiQp5w-9IAE ) then you realize how bad it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--z4R0X87I8 Guess we should ban Battlefield then, since people can "play lame" on it.