Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Untouch]

https://youtu.be/UepuIYnutdY?t=377

Watching this set, I don't see anything wrong with prism tower outside of some of the platforms move up too quickly.
The walkoff isn't an issue because the stages transition quick enough that camping isn't valid.

Each transition takes about 10 seconds.
The entire trip is about 2 minutes.
The stage is already a counterpick in smash 3DS afterall.


Kongo Jungle is eh, I feel with ledge trumping, that the camping won't be AS strong, but the rock is very close to the blastzone, characters like Ness will flourish.

Unfortunately we don't have any transitioning stages so far (in the demo), so we can't see how (or guess how) castle siege and warioware will work.

 

[Frihetsanka]

My opinion is that there is a way to efficiently select from a large stage list while also being fair to both players.

If we understand "fair" to be something like "No player is given any unfair advantage", then random stage select flies out the window. Other alternatives could work, although I have yet to see anything aside from stage striking that seems compelling, at least not for the first game.

Regarding solo mains, if you do want to be fair to them, you could give each player one or two stage bans in the random stage select (removing them from the pool of stages that can be chosen), or alternatively give each player one or two chances to call for a redo on the random stage select.

This would certainly make random stage select a bit better. 1-2-1 ban order? If we are to do redos, we would have to find a way to decide redo order (since it would be better for you if your opponent called a redo instead of you). I think I'd prefer bans over redos, but I'd prefer regular stage striking over random select anyway.

The stage is too polarizing, so there's a case for removing that stage from the ruleset. If this happens for a lot of stages, then the stagelist is eventually small enough to where traditional methods from past Smash methods are more viable. Additionally, since the experimental period is likely over by that point, the main advantage of random stage select (giving all stages time in the spotlight) is rather obsolete.

I'm not necessarily opposed to random stage select for smaller tournaments (preferably non-PGR tournaments with smaller prize pools) for the sake of experimentation. In the long run, I'd prefer some other solution, though.

The other idea is introducing some sort of "character striking," but that concept as a whole is pretty iffy.

People would likely just ban the opponent's main.

Frihetsanka one issue I have with your vision is that you're taking the current process we have (character selection before stage, strike/ban system, starter/counterpick lists, etc.) and attempting to cram Ultimate into that process, instead of considering ways of modifying the process to better fit Ultimate. For example, it's clear that the existing stage striking process doesn't scale well for large stage lists. That should be an indication we need to figure out a better process that does scale, not that we need to ban stages just to keep the same process.

I have considered alternatives, but none of them seem all that compelling. I'm also not convinced that the amount of truly good stages will be as large as other people seem to think, but that remains to be seen anyway. The current system seems to work well even with around 9-10 legal stages (like Rivals of Aether and Project M), and I imagine it would be possible to cram a few more stages in there is it makes the game better (so maybe 12). Adding too many would break the system, and I don't think the extra variety makes it work breaking the system.

Also, I'm not convinced we'd actually get all that much extra variety from adding extra stages. If we have multiple similar stages then characters who thrive on those stages (say, triplats) will be able to more often play on triplats. Sure, hazardless Midgar, hazardless Dream Land 64, and Battlefield are all slightly different, but still similar enough to arguably be less different than, say, Battlefield, hazardless Pokémon Stadium, and Town & City (hazardless?).

I think having an odd number of starters and equal bans and doing a 1-2-1 or if there were 7 starters a 1-2-2-1 gives us the closest thing to an even starting ground. There's a slight argument that 7 starters with a 1-2-2-1 (aka snake order) ban would be more fair than 5 starters. With five starters whoever strikes first also gets to strike last. With 7 starters and a snake order ban order whoever struck second would get to strike last, which would arguably be even more fair than what we currently have.

Striking first is actually a bad thing, which is why we do 1-2-1 with 5 starters. Striking first means you're striking blindly, potentially removing a stage your opponent might have removed anyway. That's why I prefer 2-3-1 if we are to do 7 starters. Anyway, whether we should have 5, 7, or 9 starters seems like something that should be decided later.

You could have 15 good stages and 5 bad ones and all you did was play on your bad stages BC of RNG.

I admit that it would be kind of amusing if a set were randomized to Smashville 5 games in a row. I still don't support random stage selection for tournaments (past the experimentation stage, anyway).

I hope we are smart and not assume just because stage hazards are off means that stages with jank layouts and transitions like Kongo Falls and prism tower deserve to be legal

Prism Tower could be given a test run, I suppose. I predict it probably won't pass, though. Kongo Falls is dead on

What if we rotate the starter and counter pick list every pgr season with say 5 starters and 2 counter picks, that would be interesting...

Stage rotation has some issues. For one thing, it's arguably more frustrating to have your favorite stage taken from you rather than having to adapt to never playing on it. Secondly, different characters would benefit depending on the season.

Pokemon Stadium, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, Halberd, Arena Ferox, and Prism Tower itself are all legal in one title or another according to this wiki page.

I don't know the 3DS stages well enough to really comment (but though from what I've seen they don't look great), but Pokémon Stadium, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, and Halberd are all ranging from bad to mediocre (with stage hazards on, anyway). Previous games didn't have the luxuary to be picky, however (even Smash 4 begrungidly accepted Lylat Cruise). What's "Good enough" for Melee or Brawl or Smash 4 isn't necessarily "Good enough" for Ultimate. We can afford to set high standards.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't know the 3DS stages well enough to really comment (but though from what I've seen they don't look great), but Pokémon Stadium, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, and Halberd are all ranging from bad to mediocre (with stage hazards on, anyway). Previous games didn't have the luxuary to be picky, however (even Smash 4 begrungidly accepted Lylat Cruise). What's "Good enough" for Melee or Brawl or Smash 4 isn't necessarily "Good enough" for Ultimate. We can afford to set high standards.

The post you quoted for this was just making a point about how transforming stages have historically been acceptable in Smash. We obviously don't know exactly how the hazard toggle will affect the ones I named, but what we do know so far makes me optimistic.

That said, it sounds like you're moving the goalposts a bit as regards what stages are allowable. Because Ultimate has (or is likely to have) a larger variety of good stages, we should be more picky and exclude some of them? I don't agree with that logic at all. (Edited this paragraph for clarity.)

I'd like you to consider a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical: What if literally every single stage in the game was suitable for competitive play? Would you still want a limited stage list? Why or why not?

 

[WritersBlah]

I've been thinking, and I think the split is mainly between two groups of players.

Group 1 wants a minimum amount of RNG and a high level of player skill and character skill. Quality over quantity, only good stages should be allowed. This means that it's necessary to limit the amount of stages in order to have a good stage selection. Having 10 counter-pick stages with something like 5 bans would be a mess, so limiting the amount of stages to 9-12 seems like a good solution. This solution has several advantages, such as keeping the wildly used starter/counter-pick system used by all Smash games, Slap City, and Rivals of Aether (and potentially other games as well). There are some disadvantages, however: One is that it might not be obvious which 9-12 stages should be legal. There might be more potentially legal stages available, yet this system cannot deal with too many stages. We're left with two options: Cut down to a permanent stage list, or run with seasons. Another alternative is to have a large stage list (like 15-20 stages or so) and have both players pick 5 stages each (or something like that) in order to make up the stage list (there are other alternatives as well). I'm personally leaning towards just having a permanent stage list, though finding one will be a challenge for the community. Some people will lose their favorite stages, unfortunately.

Group 2 values stage diversity higher than group 1, which necessitates alternative systems. People have suggested random, veto, and a variety of other alternatives. People in this group seem to believe (in general) that having a huge stage list is good and that variety in stages is more important than balance and fairness in stage selection (many seem to believe that people should play multiple characters in order to off-set the issues of poor stage balancing).

I think Group 2 sacrifices too much in order to attain "variety" and a large stage list. Neither are all that important for the health of the competitive game, and the costs are too great. People have been trying to come up with several alternative systems, all with significant flaws that make them inferior to stage striking/regular counter-picking. Having lots of stages may be marginally more fun for spectators, but the benefits don't seem to be worth the cost.

If I were to make an estimation, I'd say that a majority of tournament players belong to Group 1 in some form, while Group 2 consists of a loud minority of Smashboards users and Redditors. People in Group 2 are, of course, free to try to convince people in Group 1 (and people on the fence) that their solution is the optimal one.

It's unfortunate, but the fact that both players get an equal amount of strikes tends to lead to a fairly neutral stage being picked for game 1. Random stage select could lead to things like facing a Rosalina on Town & City, or playing as Little Mac on Smashville, and such. With RPS, you'd still be able to ban the worst stages.

Actually, it would be better for solo main players to pick their character before the stage. If you have random stage select and pick character before the stage, then solo main players risk being hurt by the system more (if their opponent isn't a solo main player). If both pick character before the stage, then RNG is about equally likely to hurt either payer. If you think it would be really unfair if you picked character first, then maybe we shouldn't do random at all? I don't think people should feel pressured to pick up multiple characters in order to deal with random stage select.

If you want character diversity, you should (ironically enough) encourage solo-maining, I think, or at least not heavily dissuade it. It seems to me that people who play multiple characters will, in general, play multiple top tier characters, not multiple mid tier or high tier characters. When a mid tier player picks up a secondary, chances are it'll be a top tier character. I haven't researched this though and I'm basing it on what I have noticed, so I admit that I could be wrong about this.

This entire post reads as grossly condescending to anybody who considers themselves to be a part of Group 2. First of all, calling them a vocal minority on Smashboards and Reddit feels like a projection. If it was contained to just Smashboards, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the Reddit post you're referring to, promoting a method for having a large stage list, got upwards of 200 upvotes. The top rated comment on that post, praising the concept for its completeness and addressing of counterarguments, got upwards of 70. YouTube comments on ESAM's video regarding the stagelist were largely in favor of a large stagelist. Calling Group 2 a vocal minority seems highly inaccurate.

What I take more issue with is your claim that Group 2 doesn't care about fairness and is only interested in diversity. Have you considered the fact that perhaps people have varying degrees of what they consider to be fair play? Because frankly, if your perspective of fairness is limited exclusively to "doesn't provide any character with an advantage inherent to the matchup," why aren't you arguing for only one or two legal stages? (Smashville and hazardless PS2 are easily the most "fair" stages in that regard.) The reason why we're arguing for so many stages at all is BECAUSE they look good for competitive play. Personally speaking, I consider diversity important because stages can potentially skew matchups more in one direction or the other. It prevents matchups from being static. Other fighting games don't have that kind of luxury, and I think Smash should be taking more advantage of it.

 

[Jamisinon]

Striking first is actually a bad thing, which is why we do 1-2-1 with 5 starters. Striking first means you're striking blindly, potentially removing a stage your opponent might have removed anyway. That's why I prefer 2-3-1 if we are to do 7 starters. Anyway, whether we should have 5, 7, or 9 starters seems like something that should be decided later.

I think it's honestly subjective whether striking first or second is preferred. There are pros and cons to both. With 5 stages yes maybe you ban first and ban a stage your opponent would have banned. But say in Melee if it's Fox vs Marth the Fox will almost always ban FD BC of Marth's chain grab and the Marth will almost always ban DL BC of blast zone size and platform height. So if you already knew for sure which 2 stages were definitely off the table but 3 stages are all preference, then I'd prefer to pick 1st. There's a greater chance of being able to get what would be my 2nd favorite stage in the MU by picking 1st.
But conversely, if the MU is a ditto I might want to pick 2nd BC it's all preference and I could really like 2 stages and hope my opponent blindly bans one of the 3 stages I don't like, thus ensuring we get one of the two stages I want. So I think it's MU and preference dependent. Both have their pros.

As far as if we used 7 starters I'd be fine with a 1-2-2-1 or a 2-3-1 ban order. They both have some minor pros and cons. If the community felt picking first was less desirable than picking 2nd then I'd be absolutely fine with whoever picks first also gets to pick last. I don't think either option would be horrible personally, but that's just me. As time progresses it would be clearer which stages benefit which character or which stages are disadvantageous, players would exhibit patterns of preference as well so over time it would become less and less of an issue.

As far as the conversation of number of "good" stages go. We all, myself included, seem optimistic that hazard toggle will create more viable stages. But the truth is we still don't know the full affects of hazard toggle. Hazards are not the only thing that make stages not viable in tournaments. A hazard toggle won't fix these issues. Now, I feel we can all probably agree that Ultimate will have more "viable" stages than Melee or Sm4sh and that the quality of our 6-8 best stages is likely higher. However, there's still a realistic chance that PM's stage list is better than Ultimate's. Ultimate is still a game with a casual first mentality. While PM is completely centered on competitive. The stage mods PM has offered makes a lot more stages viable. For example Spear Pillar. Hazard toggle removes the pokemon that flip the stage but hazard toggle is likely to leave the cave of life bottom half of the stage. PM mods have taken away the hazard and the bottom "cave of life" part making the stage more competitive friendly. Project M has made new stages and lots of mods "fixing" previous stages. That mod simply changes stages more than just a hazard toggle would. Yet, they still keep a stage list that isn't large, use starters, use counter-picks and strike and ban. I think maybe we should consider more what PM has done BC unlike Melee/Sm4sh that game actually has very viable stages that aren't in use.

 

[---]

Part of me has a feeling that we're going to end up with an even more conservative stage list this time around (I can't think of a time where that didn't end up being the case a year after release). The amount of potentially viable stages is the largest it's ever been and I don't see TOs & players wanting to deal with many of the stages that were reluctantly made viable previously both for practicality and conservatism. I'll be surprised if any transitioning stages make it into tournaments. I think we'll see a rule about the Hazard Toggle always being set off.

Starter:
Battlefield, Final Destination, Pokemon Stadium*, Smashville,

Counterpick:
Dream Land 64*, Yoshi's Story, Lylat Cruise, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), WarioWare*, Unova PL*, Kalos PL*, Town and City,

Midgar would be redundant and could spark problems with Square Enix. I can see Frigate Orpheon, Arena Ferox, and Magicant being up for debate. Brinstar depends on the toggle. Duck Hunt I can ironically see being worse off with the Hazard Toggle.

 

[Frihetsanka]

That said, it sounds like you're moving the goalposts a bit as regards what stages are allowable. Because Ultimate has (or is likely to have) a larger variety of good stages, we should be more picky and exclude some of them? I don't agree with that logic at all. (Edited this paragraph for clarity.)

I, of course, don't meant that we should have fewer stages than in Smash Wii U. What I meant with being "picky" was that we shouldn't accept mediocre stages. In the past, we were forced to because of a lack of options, but this time, we'll have plenty of stages to choose from, so we can afford to be picky. I'd rather have 10 really good stages than 10 really good stages and 10 mediocre stages (for 20 in total).

I'd like you to consider a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical: What if literally every single stage in the game was suitable for competitive play? Would you still want a limited stage list? Why or why not?

Unless people can come up with a way of selecting stages that works better than striking and counter-picking, I think we should have a limited stage list. Project M is a good example, that game has the potential to have a really large legal stage list, yet they still restrict it to 9 stages (they probably could've had at least 18 legal stages if they wanted to).

Calling Group 2 a vocal minority seems highly inaccurate.

The Twitter poll I linked earlier had 29% vote "No Limit", 53% vote 9-12 stages, 14% vote 13-15, 4% vote 16-18 (1,512 people voting). I wouldn't give much credit to Reddit upvotes anyway since people generally don't downvotes well-written posts that they agree with. If you have any data that indicates that more than 50% want a large (20+) stagelist, feel free to post such data. From what I've seen it seems to be a minority. With all that being said, I'm not saying that a majority is automatically correct or anything like that.

I understand why my post could be conceived as condescending, though. While I do find significant flaws with Group 2's argument (such as vetos or random stage switch) I do think most people supporting that

What I take more issue with is your claim that Group 2 doesn't care about fairness and is only interested in diversity.

No, no, no, I didn't say that they don't care about fairness, merely that diversity is more important to them (in general). Group 2 might sacrifice some fairness (such as with random stage select) and stage quality (20+ stages means some of those likely will be of lower quality) for the sake of diversity, and that's not obviously wrong. Group 1 is not nearly as concerned about stage diversity and would rather have a really good list with a good selection process over a really large list with a poor selection process (and with some mediocre stages).

Because frankly, if your perspective of fairness is limited exclusively to "doesn't provide any character with an advantage inherent to the matchup," why aren't you arguing for only one or two legal stages?

I don't think there has to be 100% neutral stages for every round. Game 1 should preferably be as neutral as possible (and this is achieved through stage striking). After that, counter-picking takes place, and at that point gaining a small advantage is okay, though I think there should be limits to how large that advantage is. 2-3 bans with 9-12 legal stages should do the trick. I admit that having 5 stages might actually be ideal if we don't care about diversity at all, but I'm not willing to go that far: Diversity has some value, but not enough to be worth adapting random stage select or vetoing or any of the other proposals I've seen people come up with.

I think it's honestly subjective whether striking first or second is preferred. There are pros and cons to both. With 5 stages yes maybe you ban first and ban a stage your opponent would have banned. But say in Melee if it's Fox vs Marth the Fox will almost always ban FD BC of Marth's chain grab and the Marth will almost always ban DL BC of blast zone size and platform height. So if you already knew for sure which 2 stages were definitely off the table but 3 stages are all preference, then I'd prefer to pick 1st. There's a greater chance of being able to get what would be my 2nd favorite stage in the MU by picking 1st.

I think you misunderstood me. Striking first is (pretty much) always bad, but striking last is always good. That's why we ban 1-2-1; whoever bans first will also ban last. If we ban 1-2-2-1, then whoever bans second will be at a notable advantage: Not only do they not have to ban first, they also get to ban last. That's why I think 2-3-1 would be better with 7 starters than 1-2-2-1. Ultimately, it might just be best to go with 5 starters and 4-7 counter-picks, although I'd be willing to try 7 starters as long as no one gets a notable advantage due to striking order.

Either way it's probably something we should discuss once we actually know which stages we'll use and such. Whether we go with 5 starters or 7 starters is a much less pressing issue than whether we go with random stage select vs stage striking vs veto/alternative system.

Yet, they still keep a stage list that isn't large, use starters, use counter-picks and strike and ban. I think maybe we should consider more what PM has done BC unlike Melee/Sm4sh that game actually has very viable stages that aren't in use.

Project M is a great example (much better than previous Smash games), which is one of the reasons why I think 9-12 stages is ideal (I'm leaning towards 9-10 right now, though we'll see).

I think we'll see a rule about the Hazard Toggle always being set off.

I also think this could be the case. I wonder what that means for Smashville? It could, interestingly enough, lead to Smashville being banned, which would make a lot of people happy (those who don't like the music) and lots of people sad (those that really like the stage). I personally hope stage hazards off would just remove the balloon and keep the platform moving, but there is a risk that the platform either is static (like Town & City) or removed altogether (like Wily Castle).

 

[Untouch]

If town and city doesn't change with hazards off, I doubt smashville does either.

 

[Frihetsanka]

If town and city doesn't change with hazards off, I doubt smashville does either.

It does change. The platforms stop moving (though they still transition). You can see it in this clip, for instance:

 

[dav3yb]

Unless people can come up with a way of selecting stages that works better than striking and counter-picking, I think we should have a limited stage list. Project M is a good example, that game has the potential to have a really large legal stage list, yet they still restrict it to 9 stages (they probably could've had at least 18 legal stages if they wanted to).

What if we did this....

Once we know which stages are the most "neutral" of the lot, you throw them all together into the pot for a random selection. FD, BF, T&C, SV, PS1/2, Yoshi's whatever, insert whatever else that might be a good neutral stage.

Then for every round after the first, winner bans some number of stages from the larger list, or maybe they get their number of vetoes, and loser picks the next stage.

This would limit the random element to the most "fair" stages, which shouldn't introduce much variance to the outcome.

 

[Frihetsanka]

What if we did this....

Once we know which stages are the most "neutral" of the lot, you throw them all together into the pot for a random selection. FD, BF, T&C, SV, PS1/2, Yoshi's whatever, insert whatever else that might be a good neutral stage.

Then for every round after the first, winner bans some number of stages from the larger list, or maybe they get their number of vetoes, and loser picks the next stage.

This would limit the random element to the most "fair" stages, which shouldn't introduce much variance to the outcome.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to convey here. Basically, you have a (small?) list of starter stages, but instead of striking like normal, you pick randomly? Wouldn't it be better to just stage strike then?

For the whole "Then for every round after the first", isn't that basically counter-picking like usual?

 

[Jamisinon]

Striking first is (pretty much) always bad, but striking last is always good. That's why we ban 1-2-1; whoever bans first will also ban last. If we ban 1-2-2-1, then whoever bans second will be at a notable advantage: Not only do they not have to ban first, they also get to ban last. That's why I think 2-3-1 would be better with 7 starters than 1-2-2-1.

I was very torn on doing a 1-2-2-1 or a 2-3-1 stage ban. My initial inclination was to do 1-2-2-1. I even thought not having the same person pick 1st and last could be good. But if this were the case I believe we'd be using 1-1-1-1 ban system currently instead of 1-2-1. So I think you're right with going with 2-3-1 instead. It best resembles what we already have in place. Same number of banning phases, so that should help with the speed at which striking is done. It essentially just gives each person 1 additional ban in their first round of stage bans. So it doesn't drastically change what we already have and know works well.

 

[NewGuy79]

I don't really see how this is meant to work? Like, if the five highlighted stages are meant to be chosen "at random," having the players themselves select the five stages isn't the way to go about it lmao.

Let me clarify the player simply selects randoms 5 times ( or however amount of times is deemed fair for the meta) and the 5 stages selected through the process become the natural pool that the players then pick/ban through.

It's a way to get a variety of different stages and strategies on the floor, while still giving players a measure of control while avoiding any surprises that may prop up through a purely random system.

sorry probably could have worded it better in my last post, it was late for me so eh

 

[dav3yb]

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to convey here. Basically, you have a (small?) list of starter stages, but instead of striking like normal, you pick randomly? Wouldn't it be better to just stage strike then?

For the whole "Then for every round after the first", isn't that basically counter-picking like usual?

Yes, if 15 stages are deemed "neutral" they would go into the pool for random selection for game 1.

And I haven't really seen many other suggestions to change much about the pick for game 2+.

I personally don't see why any legal stage shouldn't be available for game 1, but I'm just looking for an opinion on this as a more compromised solution.

 

[Jamisinon]

I'm still not for random but what about just taking the best stages, leave out the questionable ones and say you get 15 maybe 20 stages total from that. You could give each player a set number of vetoes. Maybe 3 vetoes in a bo3, 5 in a bo5. Then you just select a random stage and if you don't want to play on that stage you use a veto. You could RPS to determine who gets to decide to veto second. Loser of previous game could always veto second during the set. You could use up all your vetoes on one game, not use any vetoes all set just kinda let the cards lie where they fall. Maybe make an exception if a stage pops up again that you've already played on you reroll. That way you would never play the same stage twice in a match unless Gentlemans'ed to. You wouldn't have to complicate things with creating a stage list mid-set. You'd only have to remember how many bans you have. It could make stage striking/bans/turning off and on stage all obsolete so it could streamline the process of stage selection while guaranteeing variety. Just a thought.

 

[ExceptionalBeasts]

Stuff

I am in support of this idea (which I think I tried to explain a bit ago but maybe the message didn't quite get through). Maybe even just give each player 2 vetoes in a 20-stage list and let them be used whenever wherever, or just use the veto system for Game 1 and let the rest of the games have the loser pick with however many bans/vetoes (which I think would be the same thing in this case). Side note, when I use the term reroll I don't mean that word any differently than I would veto. Instead of going through random stage select, just press B if you get something you don't like.

 

[NewGuy79]

Snip

I'm pretty sure this method has been brought up a couple times in this thread, just said in different ways. what you going over is essentially the Veto method that some are proposing mainly Amazing Ampharos , PoptartLord and the Reddit user (that had there idea linked a couple of times.)

I'm all for it especially for game 1, I'd like to know however would you continue to use random for subsequent games? or would the loser get to pick a stage while the winner vetos?

 

[Jamisinon]

Sorry if I ended up sort of repeating what someone else may have conveyed. I just wanted to focus on the idea that you wouldn't have to mess with which stages are toggled on for random stage select. I hate the idea of unchecking stages then hitting random when you're dealing with so many stages. It's so easy to not realize what someone has unchecked if you have two dozen stages. I still may not be fully supportive but it would make sets flow quite quickly. I think it would be best for a side tournament or like an exhibition tournament. You could have a super randomizer bracket where both players must play random characters on random stages. Definitely not the most competitive rule set but random, random, go could be fun.

I do still think that any form of random stage select could have potential in an amateur bracket while still keeping a more traditional strike/ban/counter-pick style for the main bracket. I think the biggest thing with having so many stage potentially selected at random is simply making sure all the stages stay in the randomizer. I just picture a list of 50 stage names and trying to remember which 20 to leave highlighted. I never see that working out. And needing a print out to remember doesn't feel efficient either.

 

[KanataLen]

If i understand this correctly, the idea behind the tournament play is simply to first: create as equal a space for the first match between players; and second: each subsequent match to have the stage pick be in the loser's favor (with some slight counter by the winner)? and our largest concern is that the potential to have a much larger list of stages means it takes too long to pick a stage correct? then lets see why things were done before and then look at what has changed and what needs to change.

at first we had neutral and counter pick stages
neutral stages: these are the most fair stages and help the most with determining where to start. these were few
counter picks: not as neutral stages that others might want to go to in order to have an edge to win the next round. these were the other legal stages

Originally with our system we had a striking system. one person chose first and the other second and it fell to one neutral stage. match was had and the counterpicks rose up. Winner banned a few and the loser picked a stage (that they hadn't won on previously). This all flowed smoothly with 5-10 stages.

2 big changes happened with the new game. a hazard toggle, and the switch of character pick/ stage pick.
our perceived problem is with so many stages now viable, how can we keep tournaments running smoothly?
I find our actual problems are these: the vagueness of our definitions and what it means to pick the stage before the character. (please let me know if i'm wrong here!)

Our perceived problem appears to be a symptom of the actual problem, not the problem itself. The nature of Smash bros. (and it's largest difference to other fighting games) is that of a platformer fighter. Our stages are vastly more different from each other than any other fighting game, hence making it vital to both our character choice and potential victory. What we need are better definitions of a neutral or counter-pick stage to start with (as far as I understand, it is more on popular opinion than actual definition for how a stage is categorized)

Unlike some of the other arguments, Smash must have that difference in stages, otherwise the stereotype of no-items, fox, and final destination only would be true of the competitive scene.

Unfortunately, there is no perfectly fair stage for every character in smash bros, so there cannot be a universal starting stage. Hence our list of neutral stages.

The other factor that I haven't seen given much thought is the switch of picking stage and character. Our perceived problem would be our only problem if we still chose our character first and then the stage, but with the switch, the loser even has some control over who they fight too. That is pretty huge considering some people still want to solo main.

these are just my thoughts, i'm still working on a new system.

TL;DR: we need to better define neutral and counter-picks to solve our bigger problem of numbers, and address the power a losing player gets with the switch in selection order (now stage then character) in our game 2+ to really solve this,

 

[Jamisinon]

2 big changes happened with the new game. a hazard toggle, and the switch of character pick/ stage pick.
our perceived problem is with so many stages now viable, how can we keep tournaments running smoothly?
I find our actual problems are these: the vagueness of our definitions and what it means to pick the stage before the character. (please let me know if i'm wrong here!)

TL;DR: we need to better define neutral and counter-picks to solve our bigger problem of numbers, and address the power a losing player gets with the switch in selection order (now stage then character) in our game 2+ to really solve this,

First off I would like to point off that there is no new difference between stage and character select order. Ultimate has the stage select screen appear before the character select screen. This is a change in the game but not how we play in tournaments. With the exception of game 1 every other game in a set the stage is chosen before the character.

The big issue that Melee and Sm4sh have is that they simply don't have enough good stages. So we are forced to try to simply use the best of what we've been given. There are things such as Pokemon Stadium Rock/Fire transformations in Melee or the tilting of Lylat Cruise in Sm4sh. We'd obviously like to remove these things as they aren't conducive to competitive play. But we tolerate them BC they are simply a lesser evil than what other stages offer.

I think defining any stage as neutral is difficult. Simply BC there are so many different characters and even then play styles can vary as well as personal preference. Best we can do is take a sample of stages and offer them to players and let them choose which between the two of them is the most neutral. It's like selecting a paint color. We can figure out which stages are the "whites" but we wouldn't want 5 shades of white to choose from. Sometimes people want blue or yellow. So we make sure to have the white but we also add have some of the more basic colors just like our starters may seem more simple, often more symmetrical than other stages. But they still offer some variety and differ from each other.

As far as counter-pick stages go I wouldn't view counter-pick stages necessarily even as a stage that offers a counter-pick advantage. We simply label them as such BC they are used in the counter-pick part of the set. Often one of the starters is still the strongest counter-pick a player can pick. But we of course use our best stages as starters and thus have been left with jankier stages as the "counter-picks."

The whole counter-pick mentality is likened to most sports in the post-season. Baseball, basketball, hockey etc. one team is deemed to have a higher seeding and thus get home field advantage. Your counter-picks are essentially home field advantage and you are expected to win on them more often than not. Since we don't use rank or seed to give someone an advantage game 1, game 1 is used to determine who then gets that "home field advantage." Just we play on several different fields.

There are several concerns over using a large stage list. One of which of course is more stages likely makes things like stage striking, banning, picking a stage etc. take more time. Since we are very much used to using only 6 stages this process is typically very quick in a match. With so few stages it's easy to know exactly where you want to play and where you don't. Using a large stage list likely wouldn't work with this method and a replacement method like random stage select would need to be implemented.

You can't fully have the best of both world's. We could keep a similar system to what we use in Melee, Brawl, Project M and Sm4sh, possibly use a larger list of stages but with the current method of stage selection the most stages I realistically see us using would be 10-12. I think most people are open to expanding the stage list to more than just 6 stages. The problem is there is a very vocal group of people who are advocating a large stage list of 20+ stages. So this creates a divide of small stage list or large stage list. There are very few who are in between. Whenever you have polarizing opinions there's no way to appease everyone. So you have one group of people wanting to use the same or at least similar rule set to what we are using in Melee, Brawl, PM and Sm4sh which limits how many stages we can use. Then you have a group that wants to change things up and use a different rule set for stages. There are of course benefits of a large stage list too. More variety which for some players is more enjoyable. It can also be more enjoyable for spectators. Sm4sh has a considerable number of games played on Smashville and people simply get tired of seeing the same thing. The more stages obviously the less likely we are to see certain stages overused.

I personally believe balance is a far greater issue. Although, many of these stages are likely to be as good as if not better than stages we've been playing on, more stages is simply more variance. Using a massive stage list certain super advantageous aspects of one stage could be found in several stages. So if you allowed the player to choose stage the advantage of the counter-picks could be very strong. But if you just select a stage completely randomly you lose all advantage that a counter-pick would offer. All the proposed ideas that incorporate a large list stage inherently remove some aspect of competitive fairness. It's simply harder to maintain balance when you add more variance.

 

[infomon]

Take a step back. Forget anything about "counterpicks" etc. What are we doing.

We're having a competition for who's the best at Smash Bros. How do you determine that? The game involves fighting on a stage. So if you had lots of time, for best results, you could compete on every stage in the game. At each stage, pick whatever character you want and fight. Maybe Bo3 or Bo5 per stage.

Obviously we don't have time for that, so we have to compromise.

For the first match, we want a stage that is a fair fight between the players. If two players are evenly matched but one happens to be an expert at Lylat (e.g. by being proficient at a character good at that stage), and the other happens to be an expert at Town&City, then it is not reasonable to start on either of those stages. This is why stage-striking is a useful tool to avoid specific player strengths or weaknesses in the first match. It gives us better information at the end: who is actually better, overall, in general, at this game Smash Bros. Because we've avoided the specific "sore points" where the result might be skewed to one player or another.

The starting stage does not need to be simple, but it should be a good representative of what most Smash Bros stages are like. And not let a very "stage-specific strategy" dominate the match, because then we're seeing more about who's better at that specific tactic than at the game overall. That explains the competitive bias toward simple starters, because those tend to avoid over-centralizing or unique game-mechanics. The first stage also needs to be fair to the players, which typically means it shouldn't give a strong bias to experts of a certain type of character, unless that "bias" exists across a majority of the stages anyway.

We could pick a random starting stage, but that gives a random chance of skewing the results by picking somewhere that just happens to favour one of the players. So it's not a fair fight. If there are 9 stages and I'm better than you at just 2 of them, I could win a best-of-3 set by getting lucky with the randomized starting pick. Screw that. A proper ruleset means that I will not win, which is the correct result.


Best-case is to stage-strike across all legal stages. But this can take too long and reveal too much private info that's best saved for in-game. But the main argument is that the "better" player has to waste their strikes on stages with randomizing or chaotic factors, which lets the "worse" player (who doesn't mind randomization skewing the results) have more influence on the final choice. So typically we've selected a set of "starters" that don't have any strong nuance or other randomizing / stage-dependent factors. But this is controversial!! The better player is the one who can win on a majority of the game's stages, after all. But some stages would need longer sets (more stocks or games) in order to really see who's better at them.


For the next matches, hypothetically we don't need to do counterpicking. We could just do random again (same problem as above). Or maybe we stage-strike the full stage-list, minus the stages where we've already fought. That would probably be better! But that has another problem -- it means our tourney results will be super biased in favour of whoever's the best at the "least-offensive" stages, which means it fails to capture important elements of the game that might happen to be absent from those choices. Imagine that 30% of stages have water, and I'm better than you at water. If we round-robin'd all of the stages, my skill in that aspect of the game would come out. But if we always stage-strike, we'll miss that detail of the game. So the results wouldn't be a good reflection of the dimensions of skill at Smash Bros.

Hence this cool "counterpick" idea. It's giving the loser the benefit of the doubt, to say (john?): "ok you beat me but only because of the stage. On one of the my stages, I'm better than you." This is a quick way to band-aid the fact that we can't compete on all stages. If you beat me on my own stage, clearly you are better at the game!

Stage-bans help soften that effect, in case you happen to be specifically bad at my one best stage., but still better than me overall at even my own stages.

----

So in order to determine the best at Smash Bros, I propose the following:

* First game uses stage-striking from a hearty list of stages that reflect the diversity of the full list (e.g. different platform layouts, moving/changing platforms, swimming, wall-jumpable surfaces), but avoiding specific types of over-centralizing chaos (e.g. timed hazards, super-low-ceiling).

* Next games: loser chooses a small set of stages, winner picks which one from that set.

I think this is the best compromise. Also no complex vetoes or seasons etc. that bias results in favour of meta-game shenannigans.

 

[Munomario777]

Excellent post, infzy. I'm sold on that as a long-term solution tbh.

 

[monkssb]

Brinstar
And why it should be legal
(besides the sick new remix for it)​

With the confirmation of a stage hazard toggle, the floodgates are now open for legal stages in Smash Ultimate. The dream (and potential nightmare) of having a 15+ tournament stagelist is finally here. So now us, the community, must take on the arduous effort of deciding which stages to legalize and which to ban. In my genuine opinion, I believe Melee's Brinstar Depths should be legalized as a counterpick stage in Ultimate.

THE PROS
-A unique layout which still doesn't differ too much from the norm (I'm looking at you, Reset Bomb Forest.)
-With the hazard toggle, we can confirm that the lava no longer rises. We can't confirm if the stage can break apart or not, but we can hope for the best.
-The non-flat ground allows for even greater counterpicking depth. Brinstar might become the rushdown character's dream, due to some projectiles hitting the slope.
-The music on this stage is great. I'm reeeaally tired of hearing Animal Crossing music for otherwise hype sets.

THE CONS
-We do not yet know if the hazard toggle makes the stage parts unbreakable. While I can attest for the two side platforms being breakable, the middle break part is a serious problem.
-Depending on the spectrum of stages we choose to ban, the features of this stage may be considered too extreme when compared to the more neutral stages (Battlefield, Smashville, etc.)

Final Thoughts
The only reason I can't see this stage being legal is issues with the middle breaking apart. After playing around on it in melee a bit today, not once did the stage break in the middle unless I actively tried to break it. There's 14 of those little orb things, and I believe that the stage doesn't break until 9 orbs are broken. Lots of projectiles are completely invalidated on this stage, which is pretty cool in my opinion. I can see highly-aggro players loving this stage, while zoner-mains insta-ban it. I really hope we break the norm of super-neutral stages only, such as Battlefield, Smashville, and Town & City. My dream is that we legalize more diverse stages like Brinstar, Frigate Orpheon, hazard-in Pokemon Stadium, Castle Siege, etc. Obviously these stages shouldn't be starters, but they're definitely viable counterpicks. Because we pick stages before characters (yes, I know we've always picked stages before characters,) we might see the meta evolve into a counterpick-heavy game, which in turn boosts individual player skill if everyone needs to play multiple characters. In the end, we won't know for sure if Brinstar is a viable stage until the game actually releases. But, it is always fun to speculate. Feel free to correct me on anything I got wrong in this post.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

Even if every stage in Smash 5 was competitive viable, we still wouldn't have all those stages legal simply due to time constraints and the fact people would forget what they even banned. The current way we choose what stages to play and counter-picking indicates we need to not have a massive stage list. Stages play too important of an role in Smash to just choose random either; that argument is dead. The best solution is to simply have seasonal stages that tries to accommodate all basic designs of stages so we can still have some form of consistency why having variety with time.

 

[WritersBlah]

I want to take a step back from the actual arguments going on in this thread and look at this situation realistically. I feel like Smashboards has become a breeding ground for players with naturally liberal ideals in mind (legalizing Miis, custom moves, larger stage lists) but I feel like I have to beg the question: who actually cares about this? Most players really won't care one way or the other whether we end up with a large or limited stage list so long as they get to play Smash. But do you know who does care? Top level players care about these rulesets. They care about consistency and not having to memorize 20-something stage layouts when all they want to do is fight their opponent. More layouts means more variance, and that means more complication, on top of a game that is already complex through it's base gameplay. Even if we try to pull an EVO again to get Mr. Wizard to legalize a larger stagelist, top players will only lobby and rally against it, because it jeopardizes the game they enjoy playing.

I mean, what's the point of even arguing this anymore? It's already a lost argument. As much as I disagree with Frihetsanka and his ideals on what constitutes a good stage list, it probably doesn't matter that we disagree. It probably won't even matter if the majority of players don't agree. The right people who shape the game agree with him, and with that, he doesn't even need to "win" an argument against us. Nobody needs to prove us wrong. We're fighting the ocean. They will play the game they want to play, and we have to either play it ourselves or give up any hopes of being competitive. I thought maybe if I could convince the right people that things could be different, I could play a game I could actually enjoy playing, but I feel as though I'm quickly realizing that won't be the case. The most we can hope for is sideshow events. Competitive Smash Bros. already exists, and it's not going to change, not because it can't, but because it doesn't want to.

edit: Smash Ultimate Stagelist for 2021

Starters: Smashville
Counterpicks: Battlefield, Final Destination

 

[NewGuy79]

So reading This I think something is getting lost in translation with our theories and all, so I'm gonna try and take on your points one at a time.

First off I would like to point off that there is no new difference between stage and character select order. Ultimate has the stage select screen appear before the character select screen. This is a change in the game but not how we play in tournaments. With the exception of game 1 every other game in a set the stage is chosen before the character.

while you are correct on that tournament already pick stage first on counter pick, we are not arguing about changing the stage selection method because of the fact that the game now picks the stage first, were arguing a change because we want to figure out a method to incorporate a larger stage list into competitive games. with that in mind, the traditional pick and ban method are simply not up to the task (as you have pointed out).
a solution may be found with the veto method that many people have already sugeted, it is not only faster than our traditional method but it can also be used without any trouble with a large stage list, which is why we are considering it as a replacment for the old system.

(The veto method as fallow to be clear is: player winning player bans # stage > loser suggest a stage from the remainder >winner decides whether to use # of veto to force the loser to pick a different stage > continue to untile winner runs out of vetos or decides to play on a suggested stage)

There are several concerns over using a large stage list. One of which of course is more stages likely makes things like stage striking, banning, picking a stage etc. take more time. Since we are very much used to using only 6 stages this process is typically very quick in a match. With so few stages it's easy to know exactly where you want to play and where you don't. Using a large stage list likely wouldn't work with this method and a replacement method like random stage select would need to be implemented.

no one is suggesting that random select be used to pick the stage in all parts of a competitive match, at the most it has been suggested to be used for game one because each player is on even footing and even then many have suggested that we simply use RPS to determine the veto order just as we use it to determine Pick/ban order today.

there is no random element attached or required to accommodate a larger stage list.

as for selecting stage at random, on game 1 it works because both players pull for the same pool of stages and both players know what the stage is before their character is selected. this is why the ultimate selection change is significant, it doesn't matter for the counter pick phase of a match as you've pointed out we already do that. But it is rather important when it comes to how we approach choosing a stage for game 1, because now it doesn't matter if the stage is perfectly neutral or not on game 1 or not both players will have ample warning on what they will be tackling on game one and they can create strategies around that, whether it be a change in character or even a change in playstyle.
In essence, there is no longer even a need for a "neutral" stage in smash anymore as selecting a stage on game one is no longer the deciding factor of the matchup, the character is.

You can't fully have the best of both world's. We could keep a similar system to what we use in Melee, Brawl, Project M and Sm4sh, possibly use a larger list of stages but with the current method of stage selection the most stages I realistically see us using would be 10-12. I think most people are open to expanding the stage list to more than just 6 stages. The problem is there is a very vocal group of people who are advocating a large stage list of 20+ stages. So this creates a divide of small stage list or large stage list. There are very few who are in between. Whenever you have polarizing opinions there's no way to appease everyone. So you have one group of people wanting to use the same or at least similar rule set to what we are using in Melee, Brawl, PM and Sm4sh which limits how many stages we can use. Then you have a group that wants to change things up and use a different rule set for stages. There are of course benefits of a large stage list too. More variety which for some players is more enjoyable. It can also be more enjoyable for spectators. Sm4sh has a considerable number of games played on Smashville and people simply get tired of seeing the same thing. The more stages obviously the less likely we are to see certain stages overused.

as ParanoidDrone has pointed out we really need to stop focusing on what we have been using and focus on what we can use for ultimate, our system should be adaptable to the contents of the game, the game should not be forced to adapt to our old rule set simply because its what we've been using for the older games. If a suitable method can be found for Ultimate I don't see why we shouldn't embrace it.

I personally believe balance is a far greater issue. Although, many of these stages are likely to be as good as if not better than stages we've been playing on, more stages is simply more variance. Using a massive stage list certain super advantageous aspects of one stage could be found in several stages.

I don't know how you managed to undersell and oversell the variance between the stages, but ya managed it. looking at any list of potential legal stages I don't know how you can view the differences in them as being minor or even not significant enough to the point where we could disregard them due to sheer redundancy alone, while at the same time disregard them because their variance makes them to hard to balance? (seriously help me out on this one)

So if you allowed the player to choose stage the advantage of the counter-picks could be very strong. But if you just select a stage completely randomly you lose all advantage that a counter-pick would offer. All the proposed ideas that incorporate a large list stage inherently remove some aspect of competitive fairness. It's simply harder to maintain balance when you add more variance.

once again no one is suggesting random be used to select counter picks, thinking about it that kind defeats the who purpose of the loser picking it to gain an advantage...? random selection os being suggested for game 1 ONLY and other methods using RPS have also been suggested if the random button in the game isn't fair.

and ill point to the veto method that has been suggested above and throughout this thread, it offers players control over their picks, the loser an advantage by doing the selection, the winner counterplay through their vetos all while allowing the implementation of a large stage list. we get competitive fairness, player control and stage variety and all we got to do is step away from the older methods that have served us well, but won't work for Ultimate.

Dame I took way to long to type this up, I'm sorry if this came out condescending (reading it over)

EDIT:

I really want someone to explain to me why the veto method can't work, its literally player 2 bans bad stages, player 1 picks a stage that's not banned, player 2 says yes or no to said stage, repeat steps to 2-3 until the player 2 says yes or runs out of no's...

also

Snip

what brought about this episode of pessimism and depression...?

I'm pretty sure the competitive scene isn't that dead on the inside, also Miis and custom moves had legitimate problems and I don't see how their apparent banning is in any case relevant to the stages players will be playing on.

the smash pros I follow Zero and Niro seem to be excited at the prospect of a larger stage list and M2K also appears to be excited about the possibility, so I really want to know where you're getting this impression at the moment.

 

[Skitrel]

What I'm seeing here are a lot of criticisms for a boring 12-15 stagelist that just uses strikes, a lot of criticisms for a massive list using strikes, a lot of criticisms for random, a lot of criticisms for seasonal rotations, a lot of criticisms for the stage pooling system and basically no criticisms for the veto system.

I put forward that the veto system is the system at the middleground of this discussion with few if any major issues either side really has with it. The system itself doesn't seem to have any real debate or unhappiness at all, so the only thing that will occur with it will be debate on which stages ultimately have to be banned due to being broken. It will upset the fewest people.

The only thing to debate if veto occurs is - what stages don't get in? I'm in favour of a large stagelist and not being TOO nitpicky but I have a couple of crucial things that I'd like to see people discuss:

Transformations
If transformation stages function the way they did in Smash 4 where the ceiling would get lower during the transformation then I can agree with their ban.

Platforms
Stages with platforms that are too high should be banned. They essentially create a large stage that allows for running around in circles and time wasting.

Hazards on/off
Stage legality should be independently decided for BOTH hazards on and off. What this means is that a stage can be legal with hazards off but illegal with hazards on. For either striking or picking in the veto system hazards on/off should be counted as one stage, not two stages. If a stage is vetoed or striked then it is vetoed for both. This is in-line with the same approach we took to Final Destination and Omega stages in Smash 4.

 

[Munomario777]

For either striking or picking in the veto system hazards on/off should be counted as one stage, not two stages. If a stage is vetoed or striked then it is vetoed for both. This is in-line with the same approach we took to Final Destination and Omega stages in Smash 4.

I think there are exceptions, like if for whatever reason something like PS1 with hazards were legal (as an example of a stage that changes radically between those two forms). The gameplay would be very different in that case.

 

[Skitrel]

I think there are exceptions, like if for whatever reason something like PS1 with hazards were legal (as an example of a stage that changes radically between those two forms). The gameplay would be very different in that case.

If we split some and not others that becomes a huge amount of information for players to remember in the ruleset. It just makes sense to keep it all consistent so it's memorable. It would also reduce the quantity of nitpicking debate over what should be split and what should not be split.

 

[dav3yb]

I really want someone to explain to me why the veto method can't work, its literally player 2 bans bad stages, player 1 picks a stage that's not banned, player 2 says yes or no to said stage, repeat steps to 2-3 until the player 2 says yes or runs out of no's...

Any of the methods people have been mentioning CAN work, it's mainly that there is some aspect of it that people either don't like, or feel it won't adapt well to what could be a much larger stage list. The main issue i have with the way you described this veto system is the somewhat constant back and forth between players, which is essentially a variance of stage striking, but more on-the-fly.

 

[Untouch]

stuff

I think it'll be a real shame if a lot of stages with slopes and uneven ground become viable, but we just ignore them for the same flat stages.

 

[WritersBlah]

also

what brought about this episode of pessimism and depression...?

I'm pretty sure the competitive scene isn't that dead on the inside, also Miis and custom moves had legitimate problems and I don't see how their apparent banning is in any case relevant to the stages players will be playing on.

the smash pros I follow Zero and Niro seem to be excited at the prospect of a larger stage list and M2K also appears to be excited about the possibility, so I really want to know where you're getting this impression at the moment.

I can believe M2K having those opinions, but do you have a source for ZeRo and Nairo's comments on the subject? Last I checked, ZeRo thought nine stages were too many.

 

[Untouch]

I feel if we're going to be limiting the amount of stages to 9 or whatever, we should prioritize variety in layouts.
This is just from a spectator's PoV though, obviously my opinion will different from other people.

 

[NewGuy79]

Any of the methods people have been mentioning CAN work, it's mainly that there is some aspect of it that people either don't like, or feel it won't adapt well to what could be a much larger stage list. The main issue i have with the way you described this veto system is the somewhat constant back and forth between players, which is essentially a variance of stage striking, but more on-the-fly.

the thing is the on the fly striking is necessary, is because it will only require one player to look through the stage list. instead of going back and forth with several bans using forcing both players to go through the long list several times, which would take to much time. The on the fly method simply means that after getting rid of whatever stage would be 100% problematic for them only one player needs to go through the large stage list, with player 2 simply responding yes or no to their choices we save a lot of time. and essentially that's the goal of the veto method saving time by streamlining the process in which a favourable stage is picked.

I can believe M2K having those opinions, but do you have a source for ZeRo and Nairo's comments on the subject? Last I checked, ZeRo thought nine stages were too many.

I couldn't tell you which moment on Niro's stream where he mentioned it and doing further research and not being as tired your right zero does seem to want a smaller stage list, however, he suggests something around 9. I'm just adamant with the idea that if we provide a stage list of stages that feature no random element, no elements of variability like a transforming blast zone or element of unfairness like a platform disappearing too quickly or any bannable element, the competitive scene could easily adapt to a larger stage list and were doing them a disservice by suggesting that they all want to every stage down to the most basic of basic levels when it comes to stages.

for example, zero tweets point out Halbard and Delfino as issues as we know their transforming blast zones during transformations have been a point of contention, but I do not see him reject a hazardless Brinstar for example simply because it's not town and city.

 

[dav3yb]

for example, zero tweets point out Halbard and Delfino as issues as we know their transforming blast zones during transformations have been a point of contention

Just to elaborate on Delfino a bit so people know why it was a bad stage in smash4 and less so brawl...

When Delfino would "land" at one of its stops, the blast zone area would essentially snap to the new location, instead of following the platforms and camera down smoothly, which was very deceptive looking. This lead to being able to get very low percentage kills off the top during the early seconds of arriving at a location on the map.

If this is still the case with traveling stages, I'm all for leaving them off the list, although maybe prism tower would still be fine, since it's only a single area where the platform actually lands again. And I'm not sure if this was ever an issue with the 3ds version of the stage.

 

[Untouch]

iirc halberd's main reason for getting banned is the cannons and hook arms.
Hopefully hazard mode should toggle them off.
The initial part of the level is still a bit of a problem though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Just to elaborate on Delfino a bit so people know why it was a bad stage in smash4 and less so brawl...

When Delfino would "land" at one of its stops, the blast zone area would essentially snap to the new location, instead of following the platforms and camera down smoothly, which was very deceptive looking. This lead to being able to get very low percentage kills off the top during the early seconds of arriving at a location on the map.

If this is still the case with traveling stages, I'm all for leaving them off the list, although maybe prism tower would still be fine, since it's only a single area where the platform actually lands again. And I'm not sure if this was ever an issue with the 3ds version of the stage.

AFAIK this was only an issue with Delfino in particular. Or, at the very least, I don't recall anyone saying it was a problem with Skyloft or Wuhu Island. (Skyloft had weird collision with the island as it flew around and IDK why everyone hated Wuhu after the boat glitch was fixed but whatever.)

 

[infomon]

Halberd was a legal (though controversial) counterpick for the lifetime of Brawl. I don't know if the reasons it was banned in S4 were legitimate, or just reflectively of a more ban-happy culture.

It certainly had problems in Brawl: random-tripping-into-laser, random choice of who gets targeted, low ceiling at a transition point, and MK sharking/scrooging. Still we mainly kept it legal. So I don't know what happened with S4 where those problems are lessened.

 

[Skitrel]

Halberd was a legal (though controversial) counterpick for the lifetime of Brawl. I don't know if the reasons it was banned in S4 were legitimate, or just reflectively of a more ban-happy culture.

It certainly had problems in Brawl: random-tripping-into-laser, random choice of who gets targeted, low ceiling at a transition point, and MK sharking/scrooging. Still we mainly kept it legal. So I don't know what happened with S4 where those problems are lessened.

Halberd had a number of glitches in Smash 4. You can glitch inside the stage from the ledge to the place where the platform would open up and float out of the ground before blasting off.

It also has that irritating blastzone issue with transformations that Smash 4 has where the ceiling is briefly drastically lower than it normally is. This DID affect the outcome of numerous matches and was really enough for people to want it gone for good.

The stage is a good stage and should be legal if it doesn't have these janky aspects. It was banned for jank. Not because it's a bad stage. The long platform is incredibly effective as a counter pick for some characters that produces interesting gameplay.

 

[infomon]

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.