Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[dav3yb]

I'd approach it like I do Smash 4. FD, or at least an identical Omega, is a must for game 1, any other options available are game 2 and on and at the player who's picking the stage discretion

 

[Untouch]

If Pictochat works like it likely works, will it be considered an FD clone? I remember the corners of the stage being wonky in the past.

 

[WritersBlah]

Somewhat unrelated to the current discussion, but something I want to address regarding stages being scrutinized due to blastzones. There are some instances in which banning a stage over blastzone height is an unfortunate necessity (though Halberd in Smash 4 has been the only major case, Delfino's was more about the inconsistent ceiling), but I want to try to arrive to some conclusions about what should be considered normal distance and how much we can deviate from it. I took the liberty of recording kill percents off the top and side blastzones (from the middle and edge of the stage, respectively) using uncharged versions of Fox's up smash and Dr. Mario's side smash (Fox's was too inconsistent) on a stationary Mario with no DI. Thus far, I've only recorded the numbers for the triplats in Melee and Smash 4, but I'll update this with more legal stages if need be.

Melee

Battlefield
Up Smash (Fox): 82%
Side Smash (Doc): 62%

Yoshi's Story
Up Smash (Fox): 74%
Side Smash (Doc): 47.5%

Fountain of Dreams
Up Smash (Fox): 83%
Side Smash (Doc): 55%

Dream Land 64
Up Smash (Fox): 94%
Side Smash (Doc): 66%

Smash 4

Battlefield
Up Smash (Fox): 107%
Side Smash (Doc): 64%

Dream Land 64
Up Smash (Fox): 103%
Side Smash (Doc): 63%

So, what data can we gleam from this? Well, first off, Melee's biggest deviations in kill percents are 20% off the top, and 18.5% from the side. With this in mind, I think it's fair to ballpark the range of acceptable deviations in blastzone size at around 25%, though I'd argue that this more forgivable in the case of living past a 25% difference versus dying below a 25% difference. This should be kept in mind when looking at stages like WarioWare Inc., Mushroom Kingdom U, and Wily's Castle (which from footage I've seen, looks to have a much higher ceiling than Final Destination, though I can't confirm this.)

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

Zero made a stage list for those who don't know.

Spoiler: Zero's stage list

Posting it for discussion purposes. He apparently said his thoughts on why he didn't include warioware and kalos but I'm not sure what they were.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Zero made a stage list for those who don't know.

I got the impression that he hasn't really been following the discussion much and kind of made up something he thought was good. It's not the worst list but we can do better than that, and he didn't seem to talk about issues with mixed hazards at all? Also, if we're going to do mixed hazards, we should probably do all starters hazardless or all starters hazards on, in order to reduce the risk of a mistake.

Seems he thought WarioWare would be the first stage to get banned (because of the blastzones) so he just banned it himself. Anyway, it's not a terrible list, but it could be better.

Decent enough list, Yoshi's Island (Brawl) should be hazards off though, and I think Lylat should replace Fountain of Dreams as a starter. But yeah, not too bad (I don't believe Brinstar will last but hey, we can test it).

 

[Untouch]

Zero thinks Kalos is too large.
https://imgur.com/M6zf8UR
Kalos is the same size as Smashville.

 

[Raysebi]

Oh, so he likes Brinstar. I see he is a man of culture as well.

 

[WritersBlah]

Zero made a stage list for those who don't know.

Spoiler: Zero's stage list

View attachment 179025

Posting it for discussion purposes. He apparently said his thoughts on why he didn't include warioware and kalos but I'm not sure what they were.

Well, it's not terrible. I'm glad to see that he supports mixed hazards on/off, though if we are going to end up going with the starter/counterpick system, I think leaving the starters permanently on or off would be a good idea to avoid accidents. Aside from that, I can't say I agree with him on Kalos and the jury's out for WarioWare, but I'm a bit curious that he didn't even get into Skyloft, Prism Tower, or Arena Ferox. Really glad to see him put Brinstar on the list though, that one's really got to be a more popular choice.

 

[J0eyboi]

Zero thinks Kalos is too large.
https://imgur.com/M6zf8UR
Kalos is the same size as Smashville.

That's omega Smashville, not normal Smashville.

Source:

I made that image LOL. Here's the full thing

Spoiler

From top to bottom, the stages are:

Gamer
PS2
Kalos
OMEGA Smashville (so, FD)
Mario U

(taken from smash 4's files)

Additionally, the other day we discovered that apparently Mario U has the same horizontal blast zones as Battlefield (again, in the Wii U game).

That said, it's still smaller than PS2, so I can't imagine it being banned because "too big."

 

[Thinkaman]

Match duration with regards to time limit follows a Laffer curve: Lower time limits cause longer-average matches by increasing incentive to stall. Higher time limits result in shorter matches.

Incidentally, higher stock count matches--while obviously longer in total--have historically shown to be faster per-stock on average. (There are a number of plausible psychological and mechanical explanations for this.) In early Smash 4, my community's average 2 stock (5 min) bracket game was 180 seconds, but our average 3 stock (8 min) bracket game was only 240. (90/stock vs. 80/stock)

 

[Untouch]

What I've been seeing so far has been about 60 to 70 seconds per stock.
This isn't in tournament settings though, with multiple factors at play.
I think time should be 7 minutes.

 

[NobleClamtasm]

This may be a controversial opinion, but Smashville and Town and City are absolutely horrible for spectating. The music selection in those stages are abysmal and just ruin the hype for what should be exciting matches. We have plenty of neutral stages to make do without them.

 

[Untouch]

This may be a controversial opinion, but Smashville and Town and City are absolutely horrible for spectating. The music selection in those stages are abysmal and just ruin the hype for what should be exciting matches. We have plenty of neutral stages to make do without them.

I'm fine with Town and City (minus the music) but I've always found it funny how Smashville is praised to be the most perfect stage when it has the same issues that a lot of the stages people are totally critical of have.

 

[GamerGuy09]

Ooooh. I really like what Ottawa, Canada is doing.'

Spoiler: Rules

I REALLY like this set up. The rules might be a bit convoluted, but I really like the banning system and the range of stages.

 

[NotLiquid]

Ooooh. I really like what Ottawa, Canada is doing.'

Spoiler: Rules

I REALLY like this set up. The rules might be a bit convoluted, but I really like the banning system and the range of stages.

On top of being a good selection of stages, I've always been a proponent of reversing the counterpick process by forcing the counterpicking player to simply select a group of stages, and then have the opponent begin the striking process based on their selection.

The only thing I don't really like that much about it is how it has to enforce an invisible clause of having the characters pre-determined by the time the stage's been picked. I think the basis for a good stage selection process is here however.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

Ooooh. I really like what Ottawa, Canada is doing.'

Spoiler: Rules

I REALLY like this set up. The rules might be a bit convoluted, but I really like the banning system and the range of stages.

These guys are doing it right. Start with a generous stagelist and remove stages that prove untenable. Also loving how they're handling counterpicks

 

[Thinkaman]

I mean, I would consider Smashville a contender to tie for "best stage" mechanically, though definitely not a clear winner and subject to dubious music.

But the idea that we should play 20%+, much less 50%+ of first games, on Smashville is absurd and awful.

 

[Gunman1357]

Ooooh. I really like what Ottawa, Canada is doing.

Hmn, I like the setup, very Rivals of Aether like, which I think is a good thing. but the stage list could be better. Here's my Proposal for this stage list set up instead. Though Obviously the Stage strike Rule-set for starters would have to change, for the inclusion of the 2 added starter stages.

Stage List

Spoiler

Echo Stages
Tri-plats/Deltas, FD/Omegas, Dual-plats

Spoiler

 

[Gunman1357]

Obviously some stage's are still uncertain for competitive play,
but the above adds some nice variety, and a awesome beginner stage list. Though for a list tidbit. There seems
to be...

Mixed Opinions on.
Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar, Warioware, Castle Siege, Skyloft, Dracula's Castle, Kongo Falls, Halberd, Wrecking Crew.
I personally feel like Arena Ferox is going to be too big for singles. So that's why it isn't in there.

Possible Double stages.
Big Battlefield, Kongo Jungle, Arena Ferox, Mushroom Kingdom U, Wuhu Island.

& we don't Have Enough info on.
Big Blue, Port Town, Prism Tower, Gamer, Mario Maker, and New Donk.

 

[Untouch]

Ooooh. I really like what Ottawa, Canada is doing.'

Spoiler: Rules

I REALLY like this set up. The rules might be a bit convoluted, but I really like the banning system and the range of stages.

I really like this ruleset, I hope more people open up to the idea of the 5-2-1 method, it makes things go way quicker.

 

[ShneeOscar]

The only stages I would add to this would be Prism Tower and Mushroom Kingdom U. Still not entirely sure about Yoshi's Story and FoD being sufficiently different, even with hazards on, from Battlefield

Also, what is the difference, mathematically, if any, between 5-2-1 and 4-1? Both should end up on the loser's 4th-best stage for the matchup, right?

Really great ruleset, otherwise.

 

[Gunman1357]

The only stages I would add to this would be Prism Tower and Mushroom Kingdom U. Still not entirely sure about Yoshi's Story and FoD being sufficiently different, even with hazards on, from Battlefield

Also, what is the difference, mathematically, if any, between 5-2-1 and 4-1? Both should end up on the loser's 4th-best stage for the matchup, right?

Really great ruleset, otherwise.

- Yoshi's story.
Platforms height and blast zones are different.
There's a slant on the edges, making neutral different.
Randel the cloud is a thing.
- Fountain of Dreams.
Platforms height and blast zones are different.
Platforms dynamically move, up, down and into the stage,
Changing Neutral through out the match.

I personally don't believe Unova Pokemon League is different enough,
from Pokemon Stadium 2. That's why its an echo on my list above.
I feel It doesn't have a big enough difference in gimmick or stage layout.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Platforms height and blast zones are different.

Do you have any proof for this? From what I've heard, they made Ultimate Blastzones for Yoshi's Story and Fountain of Dreams more similar to Battlefield.

 

[Gunman1357]

Do you have any proof from this? From what I've heard, they made Ultimate Blastzones for Yoshi's Story and Fountain of Dreams more similar to Battlefield.

Can't say I can find direct proof of that. I looked around alot, but alas, no luck. The difference in blastzones for stages in Smash 4 were around a 1-15% difference for top and sides, compared to battlefield. So I would expect them to be similar. I doubt they would make the stages have the same blastzones in ultimate though.

 

[Munomario777]

Apparently there's another event happening tonight. Keep an eye out for hazardless news

 

[Untouch]

Apparently there's another event happening tonight. Keep an eye out for hazardless news

They didn't have hazards off last time.
The big stages we don't know about (Big Blue, Pictochat, Magicant) also aren't in the demo apparently.

 

[Thinkaman]

X - Y - 1 alternating pick systems are mechanically identical to Y - 1 pick systems.

The initial sub-choice is entirely arbitrary with informed opponents and a total waste of time.

But that superfluous gripe aside, "winner picks from loser's group" is the objectively superior counterpick algorithm, so it's good to see it discussed.



What I'm disappointed at, is that the number of stage bans people think we need seems to be rising. I'm pretty sure it should be 0.

In the good ol' days, we allowed players ONE (1) ban, so that you could ban Green Greens (!), Corneria (!), Mute City (!), or Rainbow Cruise (!) if your character sucked there. It was a minor conceit allowed to promote character diversity over stage diversity.

These days we are talking about playing exclusively on minorly different flat-and-plat clones with no hazards and mostly consistent blast zones, and apparently we need 4 stage bans???

I mean, what the ****.

 

[WritersBlah]

X - Y - 1 alternating pick systems are mechanically identical to Y - 1 pick systems.

The initial sub-choice is entirely arbitrary with informed opponents and a total waste of time.

But that superfluous gripe aside, "winner picks from loser's group" is the objectively superior counterpick algorithm, so it's good to see it discussed.



What I'm disappointed at, is that the number of stage bans people think we need seems to be rising. I'm pretty sure it should be 0.

In the good ol' days, we allowed players ONE (1) ban, so that you could ban Green Greens (!), Corneria (!), Mute City (!), or Rainbow Cruise (!) if your character sucked there. It was a minor conceit allowed to promote character diversity over stage diversity.

These days we are talking about playing exclusively on minorly different flat-and-plat clones with no hazards and mostly consistent blast zones, and apparently we need 4 stage bans???

I mean, what the ****.

I was under the impression that the logic behind a specific ban number was to give the previous game winner an amount of control over the stagelist that equaled something close to 1/5 of the stagelist, regardless of size. Back when I played All is Brawl with a nine-stage list, I distinctly remember having two strikes during the counterpick phase. From your perspective, I can see how one ban would keep characters like Ice Climbers from being too successful, as otherwise they could just always ban Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar to just get away with murder. But that said, Ice Climbers were an edge case. I'm curious as to whether you think if one ban would still be justifiable in a stagelist that included multiple similarish triplats. Would that not be skewed a little too heavily in the counterpicker's favor?

 

[Gunman1357]

X - Y - 1 alternating pick systems are mechanically identical to Y - 1 pick systems.

The initial sub-choice is entirely arbitrary with informed opponents and a total waste of time.

But that superfluous gripe aside, "winner picks from loser's group" is the objectively superior counterpick algorithm, so it's good to see it discussed.



What I'm disappointed at, is that the number of stage bans people think we need seems to be rising. I'm pretty sure it should be 0.

In the good ol' days, we allowed players ONE (1) ban, so that you could ban Green Greens (!), Corneria (!), Mute City (!), or Rainbow Cruise (!) if your character sucked there. It was a minor conceit allowed to promote character diversity over stage diversity.

These days we are talking about playing exclusively on minorly different flat-and-plat clones with no hazards and mostly consistent blast zones, and apparently we need 4 stage bans???

I mean, what the ****.

I Totally Agree, its pretty dumb we think we need so many bans for stages. Just look at rivals, its ban system has been the virtually the same,even after the DLC came out with new stages, (though their starter stages have stayed the same) and now there's 15 viable stages to pick from. I don't see their meta devolving into chaos from the low amount of stage bans.

- 5 Starters & 9 Counter Pick
Game 1 - RPS, Winner strikes 1 - Loser Strikes 2 - Winner Strikes 1. Leaving 1 stage.
Game 2 - Winner Strikes 3, Loser picks from the remaining 11 Stages.

If we Convert that from my Stage Proposal Above for Smash Ultimate.
- 9 Starters & 9 Counter Pick.
Game 1 - RPS, Winner Strikes 2 - Loser Strikes 3, Winner Picks from remaining 4.
Game 2 - Winner Strikes 4, Loser picks from Remaining 14 Stages.

 

[Thinkaman]

I was under the impression that the logic behind a specific ban number was to give the previous game winner an amount of control over the stagelist that equaled something close to 1/5 of the stagelist, regardless of size. Back when I played All is Brawl with a nine-stage list, I distinctly remember having two strikes during the counterpick phase. From your perspective, I can see how one ban would keep characters like Ice Climbers from being too successful, as otherwise they could just always ban Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar to just get away with murder. But that said, Ice Climbers were an edge case. I'm curious as to whether you think if one ban would still be justifiable in a stagelist that included multiple similarish triplats. Would that not be skewed a little too heavily in the counterpicker's favor?

I mean, you have to define "too heavily".

In the old days, people could force my Jigglypuff to play on one of Green Greens or Corneria--stages not even legal now. And I could force people to play on one of Mute City or Brinstar--stages not even legal now.

And, even on those relatively extreme stages, it was fine. I won on opposing CP and lost on my CP plenty of times against players of similar skill. Hell, the only time I've ever been 4-stocked in a tournament game of Melee was on Mute City, my CP.

If the counterpicking player was winning 80% or 90% of matches, then we'd have a huge problem and would have to clamp down on stages. And that might have happened if we had ZERO bans with the ORIGINAL stage lists in Melee or Brawl. But, this wasn't the case. It was fine.


And now we're talking about vanilla platform stages with consistent blast zones in a game with no chaingrabs--not Green Greens, Halberd, and Norfair.

We clearly had no qualms about forcing Smash 4 Little Mac to play on Battlefield, which is surely far worse than any combination of characters and stages being discussed in Ultimate.

 

[Gunman1357]

I feel that as a smash 4 little mac main. Though Little mac did have some good offline jab lock set ups with battlefield platforms,
with all the Tri-plats in smash Ultimate, I know i'm going to feel it hard, if I stick with Mac. Though i'm excited about being able to do
tilts out of run, very powerful. Doing like melee marth down tilt / kill set up, out of little mac's run. (without the disjoint though)

 

[Thinkaman]

Battlefield was underrated for Mac, but was probably still the worst character/stage pairing that saw play under the mainstream ruleset. (Since Mac could at least ban Smashville, which was worse.)

Smash 4 was fine with Mac on Battlefield, and I'd bet terrible odds that not a single pairing in mainstream Ultimate is worse than that. AKA Smash Ultimate with 0 bans will have a better worst case than Smash 4's ruleset.

 

[Munomario777]

You make a good point regarding # of bans. I wouldn’t terribly mind going back to that, but it could go either way. Maybe I’ll cut down the CP list size from 5 to 3 for my 30-stage list... :thinking:

 

[Raysebi]

https://twitter.com/2GGaming/status/1066119043390746624

2GG is conducting a poll regarding some stages. Go there and vote in favor of Brinstar!

 

[Untouch]

https://twitter.com/jam1garner/status/1066380501282430978

This guy is looking at stage boundary stuff.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

https://twitter.com/jam1garner/status/1066380501282430978

This guy is looking at stage boundary stuff.

According to him, BF forms have identical blast zones. Only possible point of divergence now would be terrain. Presumably the same is true for Omegas.

Hoping he can find hazardless stages in particular.

 

[Frihetsanka]

According to him, BF forms have identical blast zones. Only possible point of divergence now would be terrain. Presumably the same is true for Omegas.

2D could potentially also be an issue, but if BF forms have identical blast zones and layouts, having them legal at tournaments looks promising.

Guess there's less need for Fountain of Dreams if we can play Battlefield Fountain of Dreams, right? So any argument about "That stage is so pretty" or "The music is so good" is irrelevant, since you can just play Omega/Battlefield versions of the stage.

 

[ProfessorVincent]

Could someone theorycraft examples in which small walls (such as in hazardless Rainbow Cruise and Dracula's Castle) could lead to degenerate strategies? Obviously they'd affect gameplay. That's the whole point. But could they still lead to infinites like in melee when the attacker itself is pushed out of range as in Smash 4 and Ultimate?

Also, the same thing for sharking. With no ledge regrab invincibility and limited ledge regrabs, I can see how it could be a viable situational strategy, but not an over centralizing or degenerate one.

These are the only factors in the stage discussion that I don't quite get yet.

 

[Untouch]

Could someone theorycraft examples in which small walls (such as in hazardless Rainbow Cruise and Dracula's Castle) could lead to degenerate strategies? Obviously they'd affect gameplay. That's the whole point. But could they still lead to infinites like in melee when the attacker itself is pushed out of range as in Smash 4 and Ultimate?

Also, the same thing for sharking. With no ledge regrab invincibility and limited ledge regrabs, I can see how it could be a viable situational strategy, but not an over centralizing or degenerate one.

These are the only factors in the stage discussion that I don't quite get yet.

Walls have two "problems".
1 - They can lead to infinite. This hasn't really been a problem since Brawl so it isn't really relevant.
2 - They force people to jump. I think this is really overstated, especially on Dracula's Castle based on the layout.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Seems when you pick a random stage, you won't know which stage it is until the game starts. This should kill any ideas of random game 1, right?