Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Untouch]

Just got confirmation that the road is still there on Big Blue hazardless.
Magicant still has the cloud under it as well.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Just got confirmation that the road is still there on Big Blue hazardless.
Magicant still has the cloud under it as well.

One of the many streams that have cropped up tonight, I assume? Is there a clip or something of that nature?

 

[Untouch]

One of the many streams that have cropped up tonight, I assume? Is there a clip or something of that nature?

Someone I know posted a picture, I don't want to post it in case there's something in it that can get them in trouble though. so you'll have to take my word for it.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Someone I know posted a picture, I don't want to post it in case there's something in it that can get them in trouble though. so you'll have to take my word for it.

Fair enough.

*sadly removes Magicant from "hopeful" list*

 

[epicnights]

In addition, these leak streams have confirmed both Arena Ferox and Gamer to have randomized layouts during hazardless. This, of course, kills any chance for Arena Ferox to be legal, unfortunately.

 

[Zoljinx_]

In addition, these leak streams have confirmed both Arena Ferox and Gamer to have randomized layouts during hazardless. This, of course, kills any chance for Arena Ferox to be legal, unfortunately.

Can the same be said for Mario Maker? I'm assuming if Gamer still randomizes it's layout, then that stage would as well...?

 

[Mister M]

In addition, these leak streams have confirmed both Arena Ferox and Gamer to have randomized layouts during hazardless. This, of course, kills any chance for Arena Ferox to be legal, unfortunately.

Does it though? Do we have instances of certain randomised combinations being not tournament viable? Caves of life and such

 

[J0eyboi]

Does it though? Do we have instances of certain randomised combinations being not tournament viable? Caves of life and such

A stage being randomized makes picking it a gamble and therefore inconsistent and therefore not a thing anyone trying to win should ever do.

 

[Mister M]

A gam

A stage being randomized makes picking it a gamble and therefore inconsistent and therefore not a thing anyone trying to win should ever do.

Gambling tactics aren't automatically degenerate. I can see people banning it on the grounds of this being a ban happy community, but I'm just curious as to whether there are real reasons. Not trolling. Just interested.

 

[J0eyboi]

A gam
Gambling tactics aren't automatically degenerate. I can see people banning it on the grounds of this being a ban happy community, but I'm just curious as to whether there are real reasons. Not trolling. Just interested.

Whether or not it's degenerate is completely besides the point. There's no point in legalizing a stage with randomized layouts, because there's virtually no reason to pick a stage with a randomized layout. It's a massive risk you have no reason to take. I cannot think of a single situation in which it would actively benefit me to pick a stage where the layout is inconsistent, unless the stagelist is ****ing awful. And if a stage isn't played, there's no reason to keep it legal.

 

[Mister M]

I'm just asking how it works. If the stages random layouts still honour the hazardless rule, it may be more predictable than you think, and thus interesting to at least examine.

 

[Veggi]

If I'm more confident in my ability to adapt or my character's ability to adapt, then that's a reason to pick the stage.

 

[Munomario777]

Welp time to rework my entire stage list lol

 

[Untouch]

If Ferox truly is random with hazards off, I think it should be banned.
Even ignoring the randomness, some of the transformations have caves of life.

 

[WritersBlah]

In addition, these leak streams have confirmed both Arena Ferox and Gamer to have randomized layouts during hazardless. This, of course, kills any chance for Arena Ferox to be legal, unfortunately.

Yikes. Gamer I was kind of expecting this from, but Ferox feels like a huge loss for me. The layout shown in the demo looked super solid, the best of the four forms for the stage. Having the layout confirmed to be up to chance does ruin it competitively, and I understand some people were already dubious of the stage, but even I have to concede it's potential at legality now. Hopefully I can still run the hazards on version in friendlies.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Does it though? Do we have instances of certain randomised combinations being not tournament viable? Caves of life and such

Gamer has a Cave of Life layout at least, but even if it didn't randomized layouts would leave it dead.

 

[Gunman1357]

Gamer has a Cave of Life layout at least, but even if it didn't randomized layouts would leave it dead.

Why are you against fountains and yoshi story? I know there are alot of triplat stages, but I feel like those are different enough to have their own pick.
Like how people also want Yoshi's island brawl, but also Halberd or even Wuhu island.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Why are you against fountains and yoshi story? I know there are alot of triplat stages, but I feel like those are different enough to have their own pick.

First off, I currently think the risk with hazards mixed is not worth it, so we should run hazards always off. With hazards always off, FoD and YS basically turn into Battlefield, so they're banned.

If we assume, for the sake of the argument, that hazards mixed is worth it, then I could see Fountain of Dreams being a counter-pick. It does have some differences from Battlefield, although it might still be a bit too similar... Anyway, with both Battlefield and Fountain of Dreams being legal, adding YS would be really bad for character who are bad on triplats. "I ban Battlefield and FoD", "Okay, Yoshi's Island".

Like how people also want Yoshi's island brawl, but also Halberd or even Wuhu island.

Yoshi's Island (Brawl) is a borderline case, but we should still test it. Halberd and Wuhu Island are probably dead, but I guess people could test it.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

A gam
Gambling tactics aren't automatically degenerate. I can see people banning it on the grounds of this being a ban happy community, but I'm just curious as to whether there are real reasons. Not trolling. Just interested.

Because the layouts are inconsistent since they're based on luck.

Players wouldn't have a chance to properly practice and prepare a on certain layout if they don't even know what layout they'll get.
It's just too polarizing and unfair as an option if we're relying on so much luck when trying to judge skill, even as a counterpick.

So unless there's a consistent way to pick what layout we want, people would just have to keep exiting in and out just to get the tournament legal layout which can waste a lot of time.
That's why it's banned.

 

[DJ3DS]

Because the layouts are inconsistent since they're based on luck.

Players wouldn't have a chance to properly practice and prepare a on certain layout if they don't even know what layout they'll get.
It's just too polarizing and unfair as an option if we're relying on so much luck when trying to judge skill, even as a counterpick.

So unless there's a consistent way to pick what layout we want, people would just have to keep exiting in and out just to get the tournament legal layout which can waste a lot of time.
That's why it's banned.

You've misunderstood the point the poster was making. If all of the layouts are individually capable of being tournament legal, what is the issue? Sure, you don't know what you'll get, but the ability to adapt to what you get (within reason) is hardly leaving the game down to luck.

The primary argument I see against it is "why would anyone pick a random stage?" and it just strikes me that the number of people arguing for it is evidence enough.

 

[WritersBlah]

You've misunderstood the point the poster was making. If all of the layouts are individually capable of being tournament legal, what is the issue? Sure, you don't know what you'll get, but the ability to adapt to what you get (within reason) is hardly leaving the game down to luck.

The primary argument I see against it is "why would anyone pick a random stage?" and it just strikes me that the number of people arguing for it is evidence enough.

As much as I love Arena Ferox though (seriously, pointing this out hurts me), I disagree with the notion that all of its transformations are well-tuned for competitive play, especially if they're permanent for the entire match. The transformation used in the demo is the absolute best one, but the other transformations include a multitude of walls and caves of life. In hazards on, I don't consider this a major issue since the stage will eventually transition to a different form, but having one of those transformations for the entire match (aside from the obvious one) just makes the gameplay too degenerate. And considering people don't even want hazards on PS1, I'm definitely not going to bother arguing for hazards on Ferox.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

You've misunderstood the point the poster was making. If all of the layouts are individually capable of being tournament legal, what is the issue? Sure, you don't know what you'll get, but the ability to adapt to what you get (within reason) is hardly leaving the game down to luck.

The primary argument I see against it is "why would anyone pick a random stage?" and it just strikes me that the number of people arguing for it is evidence enough.

-A: The post was asking for a real reason.
So I gave them real reason.

-B: Aside from previous points, a stage like Gamer just has too much RNG wrapped around it.
Now if the stage had only two layouts that were completely fine, then it could be reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the case with Gamer or any other stage.
Gamer has multiple way different forms and it doesn't even tell you what form you're going to get.

For example, while these stages have other own faults, Stadium 1 & Delfino at least start off with a fine legal layout and are telegraphed for when the stage is going to change, so while you don't always get the layout you want, you can still adapt and come up with a strategy accordingly.

On Gamer, you don't have any sort of warning. You're just thrown in the match with a static layout picked out of a hat that never changes.
So you may not get to use your strategy at all.

The reason why some players opt for Stadium 1 & Delfino was they have some idea of what they were getting into and could form a plan off of it, especially if they wanted to play on a certain layout.

With Gamer, you're stuck on that layout when picked and can throw your plan off from pure bad luck.
And like others have said, Gamer has a cave of life that lasts the whole game...

Maybe if Gamer's layouts were just like FD, BF, Staduim 2, SV & Lylat then it might work...

But knowing the higher up TO's, it just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

 

[Zoljinx_]

You've misunderstood the point the poster was making. If all of the layouts are individually capable of being tournament legal, what is the issue? Sure, you don't know what you'll get, but the ability to adapt to what you get (within reason) is hardly leaving the game down to luck.

The primary argument I see against it is "why would anyone pick a random stage?" and it just strikes me that the number of people arguing for it is evidence enough.

I agree that Gamer's randomization factor may be getting overblown. In the case that [at least a majority of] the layouts are tournament viable, the stage should still be given some time for review.

Personally, I think Gamer is a good alternative if you yourself don't care that much about what stage to play on (like me). another thing to note is that other fighting games that have differing stage layouts typically have all random for the stage selection process, most notably Tekken. it may not be the best comparison considering the drastic difference in game-play, but it does present the idea that randomized stages still are viable options in a competitive environment. Tekken has walled stages (breakable or otherwise), Stage transitions, and endless stages, and yet the scene is still very popular.

I do think that Gamer has a niche that Smash hasn't had the opportunity to look into a stage like this before. and we should still look into this possibility of it being viable.

 

[J0eyboi]

Personally, I think Gamer is a good alternative if you yourself don't care that much about what stage to play on (like me). another thing to note is that other fighting games that have differing stage layouts typically have all random for the stage selection process, most notably Tekken. it may not be the best comparison considering the drastic difference in game-play, but it does present the idea that randomized stages still are viable options in a competitive environment. Tekken has walled stages (breakable or otherwise), Stage transitions, and endless stages, and yet the scene is still very popular.

Gameplay is not where the Tekken comparison falls apart. It and Smash have a lot of gameplay similarities on an abstract level. Where it falls apart is when you look at the stages themselves. The main differences between Tekken's stages are where the walls are, which is basically the Smash equivalent of stage size. There are a few stages with breakable bits that allow for combo extensions and such, but due to the way Tekken works, those tend to benefit most characters roughly the same amount. In Smash, differences in stage geometry can fundamentally alter how you play neutral, advantage, and disadvantage. It would be like a Tekken stage that halved your sidestep distance.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

I agree that Gamer's randomization factor may be getting overblown. In the case that [at least a majority of] the layouts are tournament viable, the stage should still be given some time for review.

Personally, I think Gamer is a good alternative if you yourself don't care that much about what stage to play on (like me). another thing to note is that other fighting games that have differing stage layouts typically have all random for the stage selection process, most notably Tekken. it may not be the best comparison considering the drastic difference in game-play, but it does present the idea that randomized stages still are viable options in a competitive environment. Tekken has walled stages (breakable or otherwise), Stage transitions, and endless stages, and yet the scene is still very popular.

I do think that Gamer has a niche that Smash hasn't had the opportunity to look into a stage like this before. and we should still look into this possibility of it being viable.

Yeah, but the TO's are likely going see it as "Too aliening" and just sucks how some layouts having a cave of life ruined it's chances overall.

It's a great friendlies stage and I'd like to see it legal, but similar to Duck Hunt, a few minor flaws can lead to a bunch of problems.

 

[Zoljinx_]

Gameplay is not where the Tekken comparison falls apart. It and Smash have a lot of gameplay similarities. Where it falls apart is when you look at the stages themselves. The main differences between Tekken's stages are where the walls are, which is basically the Smash equivalent of stage size. There are a few stages with breakable bits that allow for combo extensions and such, but due to the way Tekken works, those tend to benefit most characters roughly the same amount. In Smash, differences in stage geometry can fundamentally alter how you play neutral, advantage, and disadvantage. It would be like a Tekken stage that halved your sidestep distance.

I would disagree, as some characters benefit more from walls than others, much like how one stage layout in smash would benefit one character over another, so a player may want an endless stage (no walls) to combat that person's character.

however, their given ruleset doesn't necessarily give them that option for a stage counterpick, and need to adapt to that situation. I have watched Tekken long enough to know that the stages may not be as polarizing as Smash bros., but they do play a factor in how effective a character can be in certain matchups, and [while rarely] have been awkward when performing combos at the wall, which would result in a combo being dropped.

I will concede that the stages in Tekken are not as polarizing as stages in Smash, but in Gamers case specifically, i feel it is mild enough to still be considered.

Yeah, but the TO's are likely going see it as "Too aliening" and just sucks how some layouts having a cave of life ruined it's chances overall.

It's a great friendlies stage and I'd like to see it legal, but similar to Duck Hunt, a few minor flaws can lead to a bunch of problems.

i don't think the cave of life is even as polarizing as some people might think. i think the biggest issue with the hard ceiling is the ability to circle camp around it. which is another point against it that i don't think people have touched on yet, and i feel poses a bigger problem than the cave.

I can understand the arguments against most caves of life, but just cause there's a ceiling does not make it a "cave," it just changes the dynamic of the fight in that area. I still see people considering Skyworld as a viable stage when that stage is practically notorious for it's ceilings, yet Gamer's ceiling is a no-go? i'm sensing a twinge of bias in that regard.

 

[J0eyboi]

I will concede that the stages in Tekken are not as polarizing as stages in Smash, but in Gamers case specifically, i feel it is mild enough to still be considered.

Third time now.

How polarizing the stage's layouts are isn't really the issue. Players value consistency, and randomness kills consistency. Give Tekken players the option to choose which stage they go to, and no one would ever pick random. There's no real reason to pick Gamer over some other stage. Even if you're confident in your ability to adapt, there's a chance you get a layout that your character sucks on, and why take that risk if you could just go to a stage you know you do well on?

Also the fact that there's no way to practice the different layouts of Gamer is a serious issue.

I can understand the arguments against most caves of life, but just cause there's a ceiling does not make it a "cave," it just changes the dynamic of the fight in that area. I still see people considering Skyworld as a viable stage when that stage is practically notorious for it's ceilings, yet Gamer's ceiling is a no-go? i'm sensing a twinge of bias in that regard.

No one with any credibility is saying that Skyworld is a viable stage, and I know that because saying Skyworld is a viable stage instantly destroys your credibility.

 

[Munomario777]

Arena ferox, Gamer, and SMBU are dead. They have random layouts. Rts so people know

— a1 (@a1xday1) November 25, 2018

i swear... '_>'

 

[Zoljinx_]

Third time now.

How polarizing the stage's layouts are isn't really the issue. Players value consistency, and randomness kills consistency. Give Tekken players the option to choose which stage they go to, and no one would ever pick random. There's no real reason to pick Gamer over some other stage. Even if you're confident in your ability to adapt, there's a chance you get a layout that your character sucks on, and why take that risk if you could just go to a stage you know you do well on?

Also the fact that there's no way to practice the different layouts of Gamer is a serious issue.

There are very few issues outside of the random layout (i'll get to that later) on why the stage "should" be banned. just because some, or even most, people would not want to pick it doesn't mean no one should be able to pick it. consistency may make it unappealing to people, but still providing the option shouldn't be the issue.

While the stage's layout is random, the stage still has some consistencies to them:
1. each piece is pre-set, giving consistency to not where, but what is on the table.
2. 2-3 pieces of pre-constructed objects are placed on the table.
3. the stage remains the same size every time it is picked.

you'd not be practicing the layouts specifically, practicing on the objects that spawn on the stage would be a more accurate approach.

No one with any credibility is saying that Skyworld is a viable stage, and I know that because saying Skyworld is a viable stage instantly destroys your credibility.

I never said i personally think Skyworld is a viable stage. i think it's very easy to circle camp on that and i'm more a proponent of banning a stage for circle camping than a cave of life.

I have to leave the house, so i'll come back to this in a while.

 

[dav3yb]

I know it would be a bit time consuming, but is there any particular reason people just couldn't reset until they hit the good layout?

 

[TCT~Phantom]

With Gamer and Ferox (and potentially Mario Maker), to me it depends on how the random layouts occur. Are they broken? Are there any problems on each one?

I understand that consistency is important, but if each stage in Gamer has a random layout that is tournament viable, there is not a strong reason to ban it. With Ferox, some of the layouts clearly have their issues. But if we assume each layout is ok, we do not have a strong arguement to prevent it from being a counterpick.

Granted, I am in favor of banning gamer if it has a single banworthy area. I feel that it is highly likely it will possess the caves of life transformations it had in Wii U. Should at least one of those pop up, it is automatically on the chopping block. At the same time, I feel further testing is required in order to make sure that these stages are banworthy.

To shift things in another direction, one topic I have been thinking about a lot is Hazardless Rainbow Cruise and Dracula's Castle. I feel that both of these have strong arguements for testing. The Walls on both stages are very small, and the platform layouts for both stages are interesting. I feel the threat of infinates must be sussed out. How likely are infinates to appear on small walls? The Wall on Dracula's in particular seems very small. I feel both stages deserve testing hazardless before we ban.

Transformation Stages that are predictable like Prism Tower I feel also deserve a fair look. Should New Donk be similar I support that as well. I personally find that aside from blastzone wizardry in Delphino, the stages inconsistant layout is something to note. I feel that if New Donk is ok, we should keep it.


Finally, there is the topic of size for stages. I feel we need to look harder at WarioWare, Wuhu, and Skyloft. All three I feel have sizes that vary from our current stages enough for a strong look at them. I personally think all three are fine, but I feel that we should consider them in the future.

 

[Untouch]

All three of those stages have transformations with ceilings of life.
It's really funny how the one time we saw hazardless versions of these stages all three managed to make really legal looking stages.

 

[WritersBlah]

Arena ferox, Gamer, and SMBU are dead. They have random layouts. Rts so people know

— a1 (@a1xday1) November 25, 2018

i swear... '_>'

For the record, the SMBU referred to in that tweet was actually referring to Mario Maker and NOT to Mushroom Kingdom U. Just wanted to clarify that before we all collectively ban it without further thoughts.

SMBU isn't random. You mean Mario Maker.

— ✿ heron ✿ (@djinr8) November 25, 2018

Oh yes I blanked out I treated them as the same my bad. I'll tweet that out. Tyty.

— a1 (@a1xday1) November 25, 2018

 

[Thinkaman]

Random layout platform stages should be banned, just like Luigi, G&W, Villager, Isabelle, Peach, and Daisy.

 

[Untouch]

Random layout platform stages should be banned, just like Luigi, G&W, Villager, Isabelle, Peach, and Daisy.

I don't think the problem is the randomness, it's that each stage can form into a cave of life.
Honestly hazards off makes the stages even less legal in this case.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Random layout platform stages should be banned, just like Luigi, G&W, Villager, Isabelle, Peach, and Daisy.

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm pretty sure Villager and Isabelle's turnip aerials are consistent now.

EDIT: Also, regarding hazardless Ferox, Gamer, and Mario Maker, I'm seeing claims elsewhere that they had the same layout each time in mall demos and the like. This is getting to he-said she-said levels, it's a bit silly. I think we should reserve judgment until one of two things happens:

1. We get hard video evidence of multiple hazardless matches on these stages. Any difference in layout would prove it's random per-round, in which case Ferox gets the boot and we would need to investigate if any features are excluded from use on Gamer and Mario Maker. (Unlikely, but due diligence.)
2. We get the game and check for ourselves.

 

[WritersBlah]

Random layout platform stages should be banned, just like Luigi, G&W, Villager, Isabelle, Peach, and Daisy.

I was just having this argument with some friends, so I'm going to parrot what I said there. Even if all the layouts on a given randomized stage are all hypothetically good, there's one major issue with legalizing stages with random forms, that being the fact that it selectively makes counterpicking specific stages a structural gamble. If one layout on Gamer, for instance, were to benefit a specific character archetype (let's say floaties), but another layout was more viable for campers, then there would never be a good reason to counterpick to that stage. Luck could be on your side in giving you a preferred layout, or it could screw you over by playing to your opponent's strengths instead. That's versus all the other stages that always offer the same layout, so you can strategize going there or banning it more specifically. Why would you purposefully choose to go to a stage where you might get a good layout, versus going to a stage where a preferred layout is guaranteed?

This is discounting the fact that the stages with confirmed random layouts can just have some poor variants. I believe the case with Ferox has mostly been made already (even with transformations in hazards on, its legality is basically nill), but Gamer has at least one variant with a decently significant cave of life. I can't reference Mario Maker, so that may be an entirely different case, but if a match just so happens to give an unfortunate layout, is it feasible to quit the match, reselect the stage, restart the match, and hope a better variation comes out this time?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I was just having this argument with some friends, so I'm going to parrot what I said there. Even if all the layouts on a given randomized stage are all hypothetically good, there's one major issue with legalizing stages with random forms, that being the fact that it selectively makes counterpicking specific stages a structural gamble. If one layout on Gamer, for instance, were to benefit a specific character archetype (let's say floaties), but another layout was more viable for campers, then there would never be a good reason to counterpick to that stage. Luck could be on your side in giving you a preferred layout, or it could screw you over by playing to your opponent's strengths instead. That's versus all the other stages that always offer the same layout, so you can strategize going there or banning it more specifically. Why would you purposefully choose to go to a stage where you might get a good layout, versus going to a stage where a preferred layout is guaranteed?

This is discounting the fact that the stages with confirmed random layouts can just have some poor variants. I believe the case with Ferox has mostly been made already (even with transformations in hazards on, its legality is basically nill), but Gamer has at least one variant with a decently significant cave of life. I can't reference Mario Maker, so that may be an entirely different case, but if a match just so happens to give an unfortunate layout, is it feasible to quit the match, reselect the stage, restart the match, and hope a better variation comes out this time?

Whether or not anyone actually wants to pick a stage shouldn't be a reason to ban it, because then you're literally turning it into a popularity contest and that's not a route I'm even remotely interested in exploring.

For my part, I think picking a stage with a random layout (assuming all layouts are acceptable) is a matter of betting that you're better than your opponent at building and executing a strategy with minimal preparation.

 

[WritersBlah]

Whether or not anyone actually wants to pick a stage shouldn't be a reason to ban it, because then you're literally turning it into a popularity contest and that's not a route I'm even remotely interested in exploring.

For my part, I think picking a stage with a random layout (assuming all layouts are acceptable) is a matter of betting that you're better than your opponent at building and executing a strategy with minimal preparation.

I definitely agree with your popularity assessment, don't get me wrong. Otherwise, Lylat Cruise would have been banned a long time ago, and that's something I would personally be against. My concern isn't people not going to a randomized stage because they don't like it, it's more to do with having zero control over what character archetype the stage will decide to favor. You could argue that this could potentially be more fair since it would be a player's choice in taking that gamble in the first place and would eliminate the inherent biases of counterpicking a stage by leaving it up to chance like that, but personally, I feel like the entire purpose of choosing a stage should be predicated on its character benefits, whether that be to arrive to a "neutral" stage or one that moderately favors a player.

In addition to this, I'm pretty certain that both Ferox and Gamer have problematic layouts within their rotation which make their legality pretty suspect. As stated before, I can't comment on Mario Maker because I'm comparatively unknowledgeable about that stage in particular. If all of Mario Maker's layouts could be tournament legal, I think you'd have a better argument, though I'd still be hesitant to commit to a stage with an untransforming random layout. Perhaps if the collection of layouts included did not heavily skew towards one playstyle over another from layout to layout.

 

[ProfessorVincent]

Naturally, if a stage with random layouts features at least one layout that is exploitable, the stage will probably be banned as it should.

The inherent issue with it being randomized (supposing that all transformations are viable) doesn't seem to be much of a problem to me. If never counterpicking there is the optimal strategy, than the stage won't be picked. That's fine.

But I could totally see a Pokemon Trainer player counterpicking Mario Maker because they know their character pick is three archetypes in one. If there's nothing exploitable about the randomized layouts, that seems kinda awesome to me, actually.