Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Galgatha]

Random select is not good, and we've discussed that point several times. So far, I haven't seen any good alternative for game 1 aside from striking from a list (probably either 5 stages or 9 stages, 7 is an option but it's a little messy). There are some alternatives for stages after that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point.

And even if we don't do random select, I like the additional complexity that permanent bans add to a game.

It would prevent the whole "every round is smashville" that we constantly see in tournaments. And it still works given the wide amount of possible legal stages. It would honestly be your own fault if you main both DK and Mario and you permanently ban a stage that you want to play as Mario on.

Let's say, for instance, we do have to get rid of the random stage select (which I don't agree with), We can almost keep with the same formula that I talked about.

Each player perma bans 2 stages, winner of rock-paper-siscors picks 4 stages, 2 perma banned, select 1, risen repeat.

What do you think of the stage morph for final round idea? Given if both parties agree to it.

 

[Frihetsanka]

And even if we don't do random select, I like the additional complexity that permanent bans add to a game.

I imagine remembering all the bans might be annoying for best of 5s. I don't think complexity is something we should want in the stage process, I'd rather people win because they play better rather because they happen to be better at selecting stages.

It would prevent the whole "every round is smashville" that we constantly see in tournaments.

I'd rather have that than having randomness randomly give one player a significant advantage for round one (I don't have stats on it, but my personal experience and from watching streams I wouldn't agree that Smashville is that prevalent, though it and Battlefield are probably the most common starters, with Lylat being the least common starter by a a lot).

And it still works given the wide amount of possible legal stages. It would honestly be your own fault if you main both DK and Mario and you permanently ban a stage that you want to play as Mario on.

I'm probably going to solo main some character so permanent bans might be good for me, but I'm not basing decisions on what would be good for me, I'm basing them on what would be good for the game. I'm not 100% convinced permanent bans wouldn't work, but they seem to add more complexity and trouble than they're worth (people might feel forced to use a pen and paper just to remember which stages were banned, or a phone app or something).

What do you think of the stage morph for final round idea? Given if both parties agree to it.

I'm pretty open to most things that aren't stupidly campy if both players agree to it. If both players want to play on Norfair, that's fine with me. I don't want it as a default option though.

 

[Galgatha]

I imagine remembering all the bans might be annoying for best of 5s. I don't think complexity is something we should want in the stage process, I'd rather people win because they play better rather because they happen to be better at selecting stages.

We have something built into the game that can keep track, the Random Stage Selector list. Even if we don't do random stage selection round 1, we can still use it to toggle off stages that are perma banned.

Just open it up from the rules setting, toggle off stages that are perma banned, then go back and select a stage.

 

[Frihetsanka]

We have something built into the game that can keep track, the Random Stage Selector list. Even if we don't do random stage selection round 1, we can still use it to toggle off stages that are perma banned.

Just open it up from the rules setting, toggle off stages that are perma banned, then go back and select a stage.

I considered that, but it's kind of messy and time consuming, especially given the sheer number of stages in the game and having to change it before every set. An app might be preferable for those reasons, or pen and paper.

I suppose another option would be to use Random Stage Select to toggle on stages that are banned or picked, that way it would be easy to reset to neutral after the set is done, and it would be easier to see which stages are banned.

 

[dav3yb]

I still like the idea of using stage swap for game 1, but I would say only use the neutral stages for it. Having the stage swap every 45 to 60 seconds could lead to some really interesting cat & mouse play if someone were to want to constantly run away if it wasn't on their stage.

For any game after 1, I'm fine with having a large list and players either get some bans/vetoes, or someone picking some number of stages and banning/picking from those. Although I'd rather have the larger list available at all times, as I feel having players pick ~5 stages will still lead to a lot of the same issues we have now, and everyone will just stick the same neutrals into their pick.

 

[Untouch]

Press screenshots show that Dracula's Castle is NOT a walkoff.

I think outside of the darkness maybe effecting visibility, this stage looks very viable. The only potential problem I can see is camping on the stairs but that's very minor.

 

[Galgatha]

Press screenshots show that Dracula's Castle is NOT a walkoff.
View attachment 156870
I think outside of the darkness maybe effecting visibility, this stage looks very viable. The only potential problem I can see is camping on the stairs but that's very minor.

Oh wow, that's pretty nice looking and could possibly be legal. Only issue being that 1 side as the staircase and the other side doesnt(?). But we can certainly use more nonsymetrical stages as being tournament legal!

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I personally wouldn't mind random stage select, and unless/until we get evidence that the game does not show the players what stage was chosen, I believe that the subsequent character select phase constitutes a chance to prepare for that stage in particular and if you're unable or unwilling to do so then that's on you. That said, I also understand why random selection in general is unpalatable for some and I'm not interested in dying on this particular hill so whatever. Moving on.

The problem with game 1 stages being a subset of all legal stages has been covered several times already in this thread and frankly I have zero faith whatsoever in Ultimate bucking the historical trend if we keep that particular system. If a large stage list results in an unwieldy procedure to pick a stage, then it's the procedure that needs to change to fit the stage list, not the other way around. Whether or not we have such a procedure right now is immaterial to this point -- after all, the game won't be released for about 4 months anyway, possibly longer if it's delayed.

Dracula's Castle looks good to me based on that picture unless there's a ceiling somewhere offscreen. That seems unlikely, though.

 

[Crystanium]

My illegal stage criteria

• Auto-scrolling (horizontal, vertical, or both)
• Camping
• Cave of life
• Destructible surfaces
• Hazards/Obstacles
• Massive size
• Stalling
• Very low ceiling
• Walk-off (land, water)

With the option of turning of hazards, this could also include preventing destructible surfaces, as well as transitioning stages that could introduce hazards. My problem is it seems those who make the rules are so focused on reducing the amount of stages to choose from. Battlefield and Dream Land (64) are treated as one and the same, when they're actually not. I don't see why we can't have the option of playing on more than one tri-plat stage. I suggest we categorize stages from alpha (α) to omega (ω) based on their format if that's going to be the case.

 

[NewGuy79]

One of the ideas I had in mind was a plan where, every legal stage is available for game 1, and regardless of the number of stages, both players can strike down (blind from the opponent's choices) a number where the minimum possible stages at the end of that step is 1 or 2, and play the first game in a random one among those.
If a player doesn't mind many stages they'll leave them unbanned, if strikes overlap neither player would play on those stages and play in one neither minded, and if you end up being counterpicked Game 1 is because your character has way too many bad stages anyway.
It would be a far easier method to use and remember, specially if we use paper to perform it.

your method works in theory however in practice it runs into a few points of contention that have been discussed in this thread.
concerning time, lets say the final stage list is 20 stages large, banning down from 20 stages to 1 or 2 could take a significant amount of time especially when considering this process would have to be done for every set of a tournament and the possibility of some players simply taking to much time to cut their 20 stage list to 2.

practicality is also a problem, while having a pen and paper for every station may be fesable for a major tournament, local TOs and players may find the need for pen and paper sticking to be annoying or unapproachable and simply return to a limited stage list + pick/ban.

also while I don't have any issue with randomness in the stage selection process, there is a very vocal group of people who are adamantly against this. Even with banning to a single digit pool of stages all it would take is one salty top player to start complaining about the random select ( whether its legitimate criticism or not) for the thing to begin to fall apart.

In all honesty, the question of how are stage selection method should evolve to cater to Ultimate is a very tricky one, the ideal method itself must:

• have no random elements
• must be completely fair for both players
• must ensure an equal or fair starting ground for both players on game one
• must allow losing players to gain meaning full advantages in subsequent games
• must facilitate the use of a large stage list
• must not take up to much time between sets
• must not restrict the player's decisions
• must be quick to use
• must be easy to remember and implement

and the list probably goes on, are to say that the question is a complicated one to answer.

but your responses and some other in this thread have kinda inspired me, give me a day or two and I'm gonna try and put together a write-up of a system that I believe could be used effectively while meeting all these standards, while not being related with the old pick/ban method.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I don't see why we can't have the option of playing on more than one tri-plat stage.

It's for the sake of balance. Would you be okay if there were 5 stages that were basically Final Destination but with with some small variations (such as hazardless Wily Castle)?

• have no random elements
• must be completely fair for both players
• must ensure an equal or fair starting ground for both players on game one
• must allow losing players to gain meaning full advantages in subsequent games
• must facilitate the use of a large stage list
• must not take up to much time between sets
• must not restrict the player's decisions
• must be quick to use
• must be easy to remember and implement

1. Agreed.
2. I'd replace "completely" with "reasonably".
3. I'd replace "equal or" with "reasonably".
4. I'd replace this with "must ensure that the winning player does not gain an advantage in stage picking", I'm not convinced the loser has to gain a significant counter-pick advantage (even if that's likely to be the case).
5. Define "large"? Is 10 large enough? If not, then I disagree, 10 gives plenty of variety.
6. Agreed.
7. This is a bit vague, could you elaborate?
8. Seems similar to 6, but agreed.
9. Agreed.

 

[infomon]

My best proposal.

Game 1:
1. From the full stage-list, randomly pick 7 stages.
- It's super easy to make a webpage for this, that anyone can use from their phone. I'll post an example this weekend!
2. Players pick their characters (double-blind)
3. Stage-strike down the list of 7 stages.

There is a random element but it's minimal. This is probably the fairest mechanism we've ever had -- more fair than the old starter/counterpick system, because it tests skill at all valid stages equally, and that affects character balance.

Games 2+:
1. Loser picks 3 stages.
2. Winner picks which one of them to go to.

All the numbers can be tweaked once we have experience with the game and how many stages are legal. This system allows all viable stages to be legal and fairly represented in competition, and without any cost to there being "too many".

 

[Untouch]

The problem with allowing 4 stages that are effectively the same is it almost forces players to play on stages they may not be suited to.
If we were to pick 3 stages, letting the loser pick one of those stages, and all are battlefield clones, you're forced to play on battlefield. We don't count each omega form as its own separate stage apart from FD so I don't see how this is different.

 

[dav3yb]

ame 1:
1. From the full stage-list, randomly pick 7 stages.
- It's super easy to make a webpage for this, that anyone can use from their phone. I'll post an example this weekend!
2. Players pick their characters (double-blind)
3. Stage-strike down the list of 7 stages.

Being forced to use some outside device to pick stages isn't what I'd call a good system.

 

[Crystanium]

It's for the sake of balance. Would you be okay if there were 5 stages that were basically Final Destination but with with some small variations (such as hazardless Wily Castle)?

That makes no sense. Battlefield and Dream Land (64) are balanced, although the latter has wind. I'd be fine with a hazardless Wily's Castle.

 

[Untouch]

That makes no sense. Battlefield and Dream Land (64) are balanced, although the latter has wind. I'd be fine with a hazardless Wily's Castle.

It's safe to assume that hazards off will remove the wind, making it identical to BF.

Making educated guesses the following stages should be identical with hazards off.

• Battlefield
• Midgar
• Dream Land
• Yoshi's Island
• Fountain of Dreams

The following are identical as well.

• Final Destination
• Wily's Castle
• Smashville (The platform is not present on the site's picture of Smashville, making me think it's removed with hazards off.)

 

[Crystanium]

It's safe to assume that hazards off will remove the wind, making it identical to BF.

Making educated guesses the following stages should be identical with hazards off.

• Battlefield
• Midgar
• Dream Land
• Yoshi's Island
• Fountain of Dreams

The following are identical as well.

• Final Destination
• Wily's Castle
• Smashville (The platform is not present on the site's picture of Smashville, making me think it's removed with hazards off.)

And that's fine, but there's also blast zone and music differences. Nairo and D1 dismissed the Animal Crossing theme during the Nintendo Direct 8/8/18 because they're tired of Smashville and Town & City. When the players just agree on going to either of those stages, rather than bothering with a counter-pick, the notion of counter-picking becomes pointless. Not to mention, the tournament scene is going to want viewership. It's time for variety.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The talk of functionally identical stages makes me consider an ad absurdum hypothetical: What if every stage in the game was a Battlefield-style triplat with the sole exception of Final Destination? Would the legal stage list then be FD + Battlefield, omitting all other stages, in the name of fairness, or would we accept that being good at such a game means being good on a triplat stage?

To be clear, this is simply a thought experiment. But it's food for thought.

 

[infomon]

Being forced to use some outside device to pick stages isn't what I'd call a good system.

I agree that's not awesome, but we already do: when we RPS for who strikes first, and again when you do double-blind character picks (though we suck at actually doing that, and it's cost me in tournament -- you just know sometimes that they wait to counterpick your game1 character choice!). I"m being loose with the word "device", but the point is it's a mechanism outside of the game.

Frankly, having a webpage to help people with stage/character choice would be super helpful to newcomers because it's so hard to keep track of what stages are legal and how counterpicking works. Have you used Anther's ladder (smashladder.com)? It's great, it would be awesome to have that simplified for tournament selection.

 

[Untouch]

The talk of functionally identical stages makes me consider an ad absurdum hypothetical: What if every stage in the game was a Battlefield-style triplat with the sole exception of Final Destination? Would the legal stage list then be FD + Battlefield, omitting all other stages, in the name of fairness, or would we accept that being good at such a game means being good on a triplat stage?

To be clear, this is simply a thought experiment. But it's food for thought.

I think that if there was only FD and Battlefield, since some stages have copyright issues, it'd be locked to those two stages only just to make it easier.

 

[Frihetsanka]

That makes no sense. Battlefield and Dream Land (64) are balanced, although the latter has wind. I'd be fine with a hazardless Wily's Castle.

Is it fine when you're fighting someone who greatly benefits from triplats? Is having both FD and hazardless Wily Castle fine when facing Sonic or Little Mac?

The talk of functionally identical stages makes me consider an ad absurdum hypothetical: What if every stage in the game was a Battlefield-style triplat with the sole exception of Final Destination? Would the legal stage list then be FD + Battlefield, omitting all other stages, in the name of fairness, or would we accept that being good at such a game means being good on a triplat stage?

Let us adjust this: Let's assume that there are 7 stages. 4 of them are different, while 3 of them are variations of Battlefield. Would it be better to keep all 7 stages, or run with 5 stages (1 Battlefield)?

Smashville (The platform is not present on the site's picture of Smashville, making me think it's removed with hazards off.)

That would be an amusing way to get rid of Starterville. Seeing how we'll have plenty of other options I wouldn't mind much if we lost Smashville.

 

[infomon]

I think that if there was only FD and Battlefield, since some stages have copyright issues, it'd be locked to those two stages only just to make it easier.

This is getting off-topic but when a tourney has "copyright" issues I think it's always because of the music. They should just turn the music volume down all the way (leaving in-game sounds on) and the problems are solved.

 

[Crystanium]

Is it fine when you're fighting someone who greatly benefits from triplats? Is having both FD and hazardless Wily Castle fine when facing Sonic or Little Mac?

I main Samus. She benefits from tri-plats. As for Sonic or Little Mac, that's up to both the character choice and the player. Since stages will be selected first, characters can be chosen for the appropriate situation.

 

[dav3yb]

I agree that's not awesome, but we already do: when we RPS for who strikes first, and again when you do double-blind character picks (though we suck at actually doing that, and it's cost me in tournament -- you just know sometimes that they wait to counterpick your game1 character choice!). I"m being loose with the word "device", but the point is it's a mechanism outside of the game.

Frankly, having a webpage to help people with stage/character choice would be super helpful to newcomers because it's so hard to keep track of what stages are legal and how counterpicking works. Have you used Anther's ladder (smashladder.com)? It's great, it would be awesome to have that simplified for tournament selection.

I've made sheets with a list of all the legal stages for some of the early tournaments I've run, as well an explanation of how striking works. It's a very convoluted system for new players, i know. And on the other examples you gave, top seed can be determined in game via Game & Watch judgements, and all blind pick needs is an extra person to be told a players pick in secret. Needing an outside website that might not be accessible for even more reasons, such as no internet at the venue (the last tournament I helped run lost internet for about 2 hours), or if tons of players are trying to access it at one time, will the host have enough bandwidth for the site to stay up? And then what do you do if it does go down? These are the things i try and think of as a TO. I think it'd be better to have a more simplified method than trying to do crazy things with randomized lists from somewhere outside the game itself.

 

[SmashShadow]

I'm honestly curious what the stage hazard toggle truly does. Of course we know about the removal of boss characters and other big intrusions, but will it also remove a lot of nuances that we've come to enjoy in previous smashes such as Randall, the ghost, and Whispy's wind? How far does the toggle actually go? How does it affect transforming stages like Kalos Pokemon League?

 

[Untouch]

I'm honestly curious what the stage hazard toggle truly does. Of course we know about the removal of boss characters and other big intrusions, but will it also remove a lot of nuances that we've come to enjoy in previous smashes such as Randall, the ghost, and Whispy's wind? How far does the toggle actually go? How does it affect transforming stages like Kalos Pokemon League?

It seems inconsistent between stages, we'll have to wait until release to truly see.

 

[NewGuy79]

It's for the sake of balance. Would you be okay if there were 5 stages that were basically Final Destination but with with some small variations (such as hazardless Wily Castle)?

1. Agreed.
2. I'd replace "completely" with "reasonably".
3. I'd replace "equal or" with "reasonably".
4. I'd replace this with "must ensure that the winning player does not gain an advantage in stage picking", I'm not convinced the loser has to gain a significant counter-pick advantage (even if that's likely to be the case).
5. Define "large"? Is 10 large enough? If not, then I disagree, 10 gives plenty of variety.
6. Agreed.
7. This is a bit vague, could you elaborate?
8. Seems similar to 6, but agreed.
9. Agreed.

• 5. when I say large what I mean is "as many stages as possible", the rule set I hope we adopt should be able to accommodate any number of stages when it is 10,5 or 20 and this isn't about variety I would say, rather its to avoid division within the smash scene. it's very likely that if we were to limit our selves to an artificially small stage list then who gets the final say on which stages make up that list? what happens if someone disagrees? the situation just isn't one we should subject ourselves to just so that our old rules work with the new game.
• 7. what I mean by this is that the system ideally should allow the player access to the full stage list at all times, at no point should an ideal system block or prevent a player form selecting a stage or banning/vetoing/skipping a stage. aka the ideal system does not use starter counter pick limitations.
• on your other notes I seem them as correct changes, ill keep it in mind

Let us adjust this: Let's assume that there are 7 stages. 4 of them are different, while 3 of them are variations of Battlefield. Would it be better to keep all 7 stages, or run with 5 stages (1 Battlefield)?

ill take a crack at this one, IMO we should stick with the 7 stages; 1. the decision of which version of battlefield stays and which goes is one that would cause immediate derision even if the difference is small how they advantage and disadvantage different characters makes cutting one or the other seems like artificial balancing.

an ideal system in the one you mention here is one that would allow the players who do not want on battlefield to avoid them regardless if there is one or 3 battlefield like stages, whether its through banning, vetoing, or skipping the system we use should as I've said before should facilitate the game and not the other way around.

 

[infomon]

OK how about this. You write the name of each stage on a deck of cards or cue-cards. Shuffle it and take the top 7. That's the strike-list for game 1. You look at the list then pick your characters, then stage-strike from the list.

 

[StormofThunder]

I think the first stage of the match should be randomly selected from the set list of legal stages using random stage select. Then maybe. I just want the community to move away from starter/counterpick stage idea as a whole. It's confusing and ultimately just a bad idea in general that was made out of necessity.

I think, possibly the best option would be this following formula:

Each player permanently bans 2 stages from list of playavle stages
Random select stage for round 1
Insert DSR to permanently ban stage from round 1
Insert your idea, Loser selects 4 stages from the available list of playable stages
Winner permenantly bans 2
Loser selects 1 of the remaining 2 for round 2
DSR to permenantly ban stage from round 2
Loser selects 4 stages
Winner bans 2
Loser picks stage for round 3
OR! (In the event of a tie and both parties agree)
Winner and loser agree to Stage Morph battle, Loser picks stage 1 from remaining avaialble legal stages after DSR from round 2
Winner picks stage 2
Timer is set to 45seconds-1min for morphing.

What do you think Frihetsanka ?

First you suggest moving away from starter/counterpick stages because they're confusing (they're really not), and then you suggest an extremely convoluted, utterly unmemorizable system.
I'm sure that historically people have tried unhorthodox or "outside of the box" options and it almost always results in a detriment to the competitive scene. Trying things outside of the box by itself also doesn't have any merit by itself compared to years of accepted methods. DtJ Glyphmoney has already addressed assumptions that the starter/CP system hasn't worked.

 

[Thinkaman]

This is getting off-topic but when a tourney has "copyright" issues I think it's always because of the music. They should just turn the music volume down all the way (leaving in-game sounds on) and the problems are solved.

Asking players to go into an obscure menu to change the audio balance between matches based on stage is asinine; particularly when, if ever done incorrectly, it opens the event up to IP liability.

It's trivial to just turn off certain Omegas/Battlefields, and leave the other 100 on.


Anyway, stage 1 has to be one of these 3 compromise systems:

1. Random
2. Stage Striking
3. Stage Morph (Timed - 1 Minute)
4. Always The Same Stage (Battlefield?)

All of them are messy in their own way. Based on the information we have, Stage Morph seems the least messy.

 

[Frihetsanka]

With hazard toggle, should we:

#1. Always have hazards on
#2. Always have hazards off
#3. Switch between the two

I'm leaning towards "always off".

 

[Untouch]

No one is going to want to go into the options every time we want to turn hazards off.
Off potentiallykills Smashville and Fountain of Dreams so it'll be up to the community to decide if it's worth it.

 

[NewGuy79]

we should keep in mind that the SMASH game mode Rules are selected before entering into the stage select menu, this could mean a lot when it comes to how easy it is to select and change options.

consider after a game is won which menu would the game boot out to? traditionally it would have been the character select but that's no longer the first menu chosen now it seems the rules menu is the first chosen.

and in all honesty, I fell like the only situation that should discourage the ability to go into the rule settings would be the existence of long load times, if not its just a few button presses, not enough to ban significant ruling possibilities over.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'll bet good money that the emotional simplicity of "Hazards == Bad, Hazards == Off" will reign supreme over literally any words typed here or elsewhere.

Edit: At best you'll have a really rare exception made purely for the sake of Randall and Fountain of Dreams. God have mercy on the day when the greatest hope for stage variety lies in Melee nostalgia.

 

[DtJ Glyphmoney]

This isn't super tied to the present conversation, but I just had a thought that really puts me off of the whole 'winner of game 1 lists 3/5/X stages, and the loser picks from them'

It certainly looks good on paper, but what it's actually doing is giving the winner a ludicrous amount of bans. It becomes especially apparent in a large stage list.

Say we have 40 stages legal. By saying 'here are the 5 you can pick from', what's really being said is 'I ban these 35 other stages'. That's a ludicrous amount of control to give a player who's supposed to be being put into a disadvantageous position, at least in my eyes. Maybe this works better with smaller stage lists, but at that point why even move away from bans?

 

[blackghost]

This isn't super tied to the present conversation, but I just had a thought that really puts me off of the whole 'winner of game 1 lists 3/5/X stages, and the loser picks from them'

It certainly looks good on paper, but what it's actually doing is giving the winner a ludicrous amount of bans. It becomes especially apparent in a large stage list.

Say we have 40 stages legal. By saying 'here are the 5 you can pick from', what's really being said is 'I ban these 35 other stages'. That's a ludicrous amount of control to give a player who's supposed to be being put into a disadvantageous position, at least in my eyes. Maybe this works better with smaller stage lists, but at that point why even move away from bans?

personally, i don't get it either. especially since smash is the only gamey where you can win game 1 and then switch characters as well. The winner locks the loser out of most options they may want to use to begin with.

 

[Thinkaman]

Giving a stage ban was a concession to promote character balance over stage diversity, based in an era with Brinstar, Green Greens, Corneria, and Mute City, in a game with waveshines and wobbles.

Frankly, there is little actual need for a stage ban in Smash 4 and even less in Ultimate. (Now that Little Mac can jump higher)

So the best pick procedure is "loser picks any legal stage."

But if you are going to do a (single) ban, then there are a few essentially the same ways of doing it:

• Worst - Winner bans a stage. Loser picks any other stage.
• Better - Loser picks a stage. Winner can veto that stage, and make the Loser pick a different stage.
• Best - Loser picks two stages. Winner vetoes/picks between them.

In all cases, the players should end up on the loser's 2nd best/favorite stage. The only difference is how much we want to penalize new, uninformed players for not knowing the legal stage list or matchup preferences.

"3-2-1" picking is just the last one with the loser naming an extra decoy stage for no reason.

 

[NewGuy79]

This isn't super tied to the present conversation, but I just had a thought that really puts me off of the whole 'winner of game 1 lists 3/5/X stages, and the loser picks from them'

It certainly looks good on paper, but what it's actually doing is giving the winner a ludicrous amount of bans. It becomes especially apparent in a large stage list.

Say we have 40 stages legal. By saying 'here are the 5 you can pick from', what's really being said is 'I ban these 35 other stages'. That's a ludicrous amount of control to give a player who's supposed to be being put into a disadvantageous position, at least in my eyes. Maybe this works better with smaller stage lists, but at that point why even move away from bans?

I would think that losing a game would be the most disadvantaged a player could be in a set, as losing 2 would mean elimination in a 2/3 set.

I believe that game 2 should, in fact, give the losing player an advantage of this scale, they've already lost on supposed neutral grounds, I don't think to give the winner any more advantage from there would be fair for the loser, if we're trying to see which of the two players are better, the winner in said situation should be able to best the loser despite what stage they pick.

Giving a stage ban was a concession to promote character balance over stage diversity, based in an era with Brinstar, Green Greens, Corneria, and Mute City, in a game with waveshines and wobbles.

Frankly, there is little actual need for a stage ban in Smash 4 and even less in Ultimate. (Now that Little Mac can jump higher)

So the best pick procedure is "loser picks any legal stage."

But if you are going to do a (single) ban, then there are a few essentially the same ways of doing it:

• Worst - Winner bans a stage. Loser picks any other stage.
• Better - Loser picks a stage. Winner can veto that stage, and make the Loser pick a different stage.
• Best - Loser picks two stages. Winner vetoes/picks between them.

In all cases, the players should end up on the loser's 2nd best/ favourite stage. The only difference is how much we want to penalize new, uninformed players for not knowing the legal stage list or matchup preferences.

"3-2-1" picking is just the last one with the loser naming an extra decoy stage for no reason.

I agree with most of this but can I suggest that we up the selection number from 2 to mabey 5? I say this so tackle 1 problems here

1. loser stacks the selection with similar variations of stages (ie. he selects both battlefield and dreamland)

while I don't think similar stages should be banned in any capacity, I can still see how some players would take advantage of their inclusion if they had the chance. it seems insignificant adding just a few more picks works to discourage players from stacking the choices with similar stages.

consider this, when it comes to similar stages we have to major outliers. ( I don't count Midgar or miivers in this case because they are not similar but identical to battlefield)

Battlefield/Fountain of dreams/dreamland64 & Final destination/wily's castle (hazards off)

with 2 picks players looking to go on one of the stages above could very easily just pick a similar stage for safety, however bumping up the picks even just to 5 more picks eliminates this strategy forcing a battlefield crazed player to learn and possibly adopt a less safe triplat like Yoshi's story or brinstar (hazards off).

what do you think?

 

[DJ3DS]

The following are identical as well.

• Final Destination
• Wily's Castle
• Smashville (The platform is not present on the site's picture of Smashville, making me think it's removed with hazards off.)

Would you be able to link this picture to us?

I personally hope this is true, to be honest. Smashville being removed (due to being effectively functionally identical to FD) because the community refuses to look at stages with hazards on/off separately would be hilarious and I honestly think quite healthy for this game spectator wise.

This said, this is coming from someone who has been outspoken against Smashville for quite a long time. I almost always ban the stage, and ALWAYS ban it if someone asks me to gentleman there.

Perhaps it falls through when a ruleset is clearly defined but at my university smash club I am pushing for a much more liberal stage list. This includes all of the obvious ones, but I am also a strong proponent for stages like Prism Tower and New Donk City Hall.

 

[Untouch]

Would you be able to link this picture to us?

I personally hope this is true, to be honest. Smashville being removed (due to being effectively functionally identical to FD) because the community refuses to look at stages with hazards on/off separately would be hilarious and I honestly think quite healthy for this game spectator wise.

This said, this is coming from someone who has been outspoken against Smashville for quite a long time. I almost always ban the stage, and ALWAYS ban it if someone asks me to gentleman there.

Perhaps it falls through when a ruleset is clearly defined but at my university smash club I am pushing for a much more liberal stage list. This includes all of the obvious ones, but I am also a strong proponent for stages like Prism Tower and New Donk City Hall.

Of course this may be the FD version but I don't think they would showcase that here.