Don't Ban Stages that seem the "same"

[MrGameguycolor]

The competitive community hates being even a little experimental with regards to settings and it sucks. See: how Squad Strike will 100% be relegated to "side tourneys", despite being objectively more interesting and not any worse balanced.

Honestly, I just think it's bull**** that there are likely plenty of things they won't even bother testing and just relegate to side events or ban them outright.

I'm increasingly starting to think the competitive Smash community is immature, inconsistent, and doesn't know what they actually want.

How long have we collectively bemoaned the lack of competitively viable stages in Smash 4, especially relative to the total number of stages? How much did we facepalm when Sakurai apparently bought into the "no items fox only final destination" meme with For Glory being omega-only? How often did we wish for a hazard toggle so we could play on stages like Kalos and Warioware and even Castle Siege without having to deal with the incidental bull**** caused by their hazards?

Now we finally get a hazard toggle, and while it doesn't work perfectly, it's still a massive leap forward. And a distressingly common reaction is "...actually, let's not take full advantage of this."

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Seriously, We have Omega, Battlefield, Hazardless, and Normal variants of stages and and there are people still want the legal stage list to only be in the single digits for... reasons.

...
I already love this thread.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

 

[Big-Cat]

Here's my take.

I think hazardless will be the standard from here on. That said, judging by what likely will be legal, you're looking at a handful of stage archetypes. The differences between Battlefield, Dream Land, Midgar, Fountain of Dreams, and Yoshi's Story may vary, but are a general archetype. The benefits and drawbacks present in these stages are largely the same. So with that in mind, let them all be legal, but striking Battlefield, for example, means striking all the other ones. Otherwise, striking one of the five is completely pointless. This satisfies the backdrop issue we've had for years for starters. Not to mention that the FD and Battlefield variations will all be identical to one another, further alleviating this. To me, I think this is the bigger issue from a spectator standpoint than necessarily a conservative stage list.

Realistically speaking, you want a stage list to be conservative for logistical reasons alongside gameplay reasons. We can't spend ten minutes of stage striking after all.

 

[Kadji100]

Why make it sooooo damn complicated guys:
Stages are choosen before Characters now, which means we could do this:

(Best of 3 Scenario, Stage Hazards always off):
- Have a globally agreed PERMABAN list of stages (i think everybody agrees that a Stage with Cave of Life / Walkoffs / a huuuge stage that promotes camping should never be played in a tournament). We could also ban Stages that are just too simmilar to other Stages if the community agrees on this (Midgar/Battlefield for example?)
- Decide if Player1/Player2 can choose the first stage by Rock/Paper/Scissors or a coin Flip
- NO DAMN STAGE STRIKING, just play on the Stage Player1/2 (whoever won the coin flip) decided on. And since you can pick a Character AFTER the Stage pick the argument "i got hard countered by that stage!" is not valid anymore. Learn to adopt or switch to a different Character.
- Second Stage is Picked by the Looser of the Coin Flip, again NO DAMN STAGE STRIKING is needed
- If a third round is needed play on Random Stage. I think we can be very sure that you can change the stages that can appear when you play on a random stage in this game, too. Of course only "true" neutral stages should be allowed for the random stage selection.

This can also be used in a best of 5 scenario. Have each player pick 2 Stages, if its even after 4 matches the final match is played on a neutral random stage.

There you have it.
+ No more damn Stage striking, organizing tournaments should be even easier by that.
+ More variety in stages.
+ Fair approach to the problem

And best of all: Its a fresh idea to shake up the way tournaments have been run for years.

We could have sooooo much more different stages and the Tournament Organizers would not have the struggle of maintaining a huge list of neutral / counterpick stages anymore. And if, in the future, stages are deemed "problemativ" since they grant to much of an advantage to certain characters, just add them to the permanban list of stages.

I have yet to hear ANY valid argument against this idea.

Be brave Smash Community / TO organizers - try something new and at least give it a chance.

Edit: I should point out that we should only ban stages that are realy problematic and not based on some smal detail that does not matter 90% of the time.
Hyrule Temple -> Ban it, the cave of life is a huge problem that can't be fixed.
Great Cave / New Pork City ... -> Ban it, the stages are too huge.
Delfino Plaza -> Don't ban it just because a part of the transforming stage has some element to it that could be abused for camping.
That Metal Gear stage -> It has walls...but they can be destroyed. Not ban worthy in my opinion.

I hope I made my point about which stages are "ban worthy" clear.

 

[Jakisthe]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

How do I become a TO when I have no time and am not going to dump money into a video game's competitive scene for questionable, if any, change? Also, what about new things that have never seen widespread applicability to begin with, like Squad Strike? That's very much up in the air, but it'll still be completely shut down with no discussion.

 

[Necro'lic]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

This seems like a hilariously unfair condition to be able to criticize this lack of imagination for how to make a stagelist and stage ban system. Seems an awfully convenient way to dodge said criticism, similar to the whole "you're not a pro player, so you shouldn't criticize techs" excuse I've been hearing over the years.

Plus, like Big-Cat said, this is a spectator issue as much as a comp player issue, because having such a small amount of stages compared to the vast amount we have is not fun to see as well as play.

Honestly, with how stages are always picked before character, I think we can just upend the entire stage strike idea and just go with a loser pick system. Maybe then you could add a veto system and group up similar stages at that point and each round, one veto from the other player can be done.

Also, do we need a starter/counterpick system anymore now that I think of it?

 

[Big-Cat]

How do I become a TO when I have no time and am not going to dump money into a video game's competitive scene for questionable, if any, change? Also, what about new things that have never seen widespread applicability to begin with, like Squad Strike? That's very much up in the air, but it'll still be completely shut down with no discussion.

Squad Strike will end up being a side event. As for whether or not you have the time and money to be a TO, that's entirely on you.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

This can also be used in a best of 5 scenario. Have each player pick 2 Stages, if its even after 4 matches the final match is played on a neutral random stage.

There you have it.
+ No more damn Stage striking, organizing tournaments should be even easier by that.
+ More variety in stages.
+ Fair approach to the problem

It's funny how one word out of the number in this idea is going to immediately turn off the competitive community.

Spoiler

the final match is played on a neutral random stage.

I bet they won't even consider this idea for that reason alone.

 

[Necro'lic]

It's funny how one word out of the number in this idea is going to immediately turn off the competitive community.

Again, you are required to pick character after the stage, so even if it was a random legal stage, you pick your character based on that chance, so what is there to blame?

I swear, random is a comp player's trigger word here, and coming from a Dota player, it's sad that people don't understand the good a bit of randomness can do and that there is such a thing as "good" random chance.

 

[Kadji100]

Again, you are required to pick character after the stage, so even if it was a random legal stage, you pick your character based on that chance, so what is there to blame?

I swear, random is a comp player's trigger word here, and coming from a Dota player, it's sad that people don't understand the good a bit of randomness can do and that there is such a thing as "good" random chance.

As a dota / moba player myself I can fully support that stance.
There is "neutral" random (like having the final stage be a random neutral stage) and "bad" random (randomly appearing items, Smash Ball needing a random amount of hits and so on).

Of course we don't want the "bad" Random in our competetiv environement, but I fail to see the point how a random, NEUTRAL stage as the final Stage in a best of 3 / Best of 5 could cause ANY problem what so ever.

I thought the whole point of having a "neutral" stage (yeah, I don't like to call them that way) was so that no character has an stage advantag/disadvantage?

 

[Tbro]

I would also like to see Stage Builder be used in a competitive capacity. It would be nice to have some carefully-created stages, deemed legal by multiple professionals and open to be downloaded by anyone. Maybe the visuals are kind of bland, but at least we'd get a variety of layouts and music.

Lol there's no stage builder in Ultimate

 

[ParanoidDrone]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

While I agree that participation in the local scene is the best way to make your voice heard, I do in fact have a 9-5 job and several other games and hobbies all competing for my attention in addition to Smash. Becoming a TO simply isn't an option for me, I don't have that much free time.

 

[Jexulus]

In defense of what's come before, no other competitive scene besides those like RoA (I'm assuming, anyway) have had to deal with Stages as a major aspect of competitive play. Most of the time, competition comes down to the skill of the player and their choice of character. Most competitors don't want to fight the stage as much as the other person, so I can ultimately understand the hesitation to grow the list.

That being said, stages are now selected before characters this time, which I think in of itself changes the entire dynamic. I think the rules and systems in place need to be re-evaluated top to bottom. I think not keeping an open mind around it this time around will hamstring the game's early competitive life.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Why make it sooooo damn complicated guys

This is what I'm talking about. This attitude. Obviously, you are a supreme genius, so go out and become the greatest TO the world has ever seen. Reacting with anger and vitriol is a surefire way to turn people off to your idea. For the record, I like your ideas.

How do I become a TO when I have no time and am not going to dump money into a video game's competitive scene for questionable, if any, change? Also, what about new things that have never seen widespread applicability to begin with, like Squad Strike? That's very much up in the air, but it'll still be completely shut down with no discussion.

My point was not to say, "If you are not a TO, you have no say in this discussion." Personally, I love hearing everyone's opinion. I just see this mounting rage in people discussing the matter, and they're resorting to insults to make themselves heard. You wanna see more stage variety? Awesome! Just don't sink to the level of calling current TOs idiots, cowards, lazy, etc.

This seems like a hilariously unfair condition to be able to criticize this lack of imagination for how to make a stagelist and stage ban system. Seems an awfully convenient way to dodge said criticism, similar to the whole "you're not a pro player, so you shouldn't criticize techs" excuse I've been hearing over the years.

Plus, like Big-Cat said, this is a spectator issue as much as a comp player issue, because having such a small amount of stages compared to the vast amount we have is not fun to see as well as play.

Honestly, with how stages are always picked before character, I think we can just upend the entire stage strike idea and just go with a loser pick system. Maybe then you could add a veto system and group up similar stages at that point and each round, one veto from the other player can be done.

Also, do we need a starter/counterpick system anymore now that I think of it?

See my comments above responding to Jakisthe. I'm not silencing non-TOs in this thread. I chose my words carefully. I'm simply speaking to angry people: if you want a surefire way to have your ideas not implemented, go ahead and mock TOs and high level players.

While I agree that participation in the local scene is the best way to make your voice heard, I do in fact have a 9-5 job and several other games and hobbies all competing for my attention in addition to Smash. Becoming a TO simply isn't an option for me, I don't have that much free time.

I totally understand. I'm in the same boat. I have so many responsibilities now; it's hard to find time. I would just say this: if you have never been a TO for any length of time, be more empathetic to those running local communities. It's totally fine to voice your opinion (and you should).

 

[Kholdstare]

Stage variety is primarily needed from a spectator standpoint in order for Smash Ultimate to be appealing to the average viewer. As for the players, I think they'd be fine with having five stages with minor differences in layout from a gameplay perspective. Way easier to learn and practice and everything remains uniform.

 

[KetchupKaffei]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

I don't have a doubt in my mind at all that their are many people that have experience with tournaments.

However we need to actually improve our system and evolve. The game improved itself with stages(drastically) and so should we.
Obviously you know the system we have doesn't work, so instead of literally banning numerous stages, we should make a system that works for it.

The competitive community right now:

 

[MintyTwister]

To each of you complaining: become a tournament organizer. You don't understand how many "great ideas" are killed by logistics. It's difficult to understand why certain decisions are made until you are under pressure to deliver a smoothly run event and keep a hundred patrons happy. I'm not saying the current state of aggressive stage-banning is good or even correct, but I hope you are at least attending events as competitors to voice your concern. I've lost count of how many times I've cornered people on this kind of debate in the past only to learn that they don't even compete in the first place.

I totally want there to be a huge stage selection. I support the push to keep the selection big, but there is a mountain of unknowns at this point. For instance, can a group of hazard-enabled and hazard-disabled stages be in the same random pool? Or do we show players a list of 40 stages and expect them to strike one at a time? When it comes to counter picks and bans, how are similar stages grouped? Are all tri-plats considered one stage? From there, how do you avoid overwhelming new players with the complexity of stage selection? Ensuring tournament attendees have a positive experience is the absolute lifeblood of a local smash scene.

Understand that many people in the community have been around the block. While they may have ideas you disagree with, respect the fact that they come from a place of experience and developed their opinions over time. When they say that a particular stage structure leads to degenerate play, it's not because they "can't handle this one little thing"; it's because the thing actually leads to crappy gameplay. Be ready to disprove that if you think they're wrong.

Source: I was a TO for years.

This is the worst reply I've seen here. It's such a low hanging fruit that people go for if they have nothing to add to the debate and can't prove anyone wrong.
By your logic we can't complain about how awful EA is, because we're not game publisher company CEOs. We can't complain about awful games like Big Rigs, because we're not game devs.

Stop. We're consumers and we have a standard of quality like anyone else. Stop using low hanging fruit just to shut down the debate. If you have nothing smart to say and can't contribute, leave the thread.

As for the topic of the thread, I made an account just to join this discussion. Having some variety in comp is very healthy for the lifespan of Smash: Ultimate. We're not a true 2D fighter so a lot of the RPS elements are slowed down, the "stage randomness" fills this exciting void. I'm very good in FighterZ and have lots of experience in comp for other games. Stages are part of player skill, especially in smash. Our characters have the freedom to work around these stages, in a 2d fighter like FighterZ we wouldn't be able too. But we're not a traditional 2d fighter. If a rock on the side of Jungle Japes screwed you over then that simply means you don't have a quick enough thinking mind to counteract the issues it brings. Having pro players worry about these things brings excitement and DOESN'T RANDOMLY make one or the other win. It's a stage hazard that isn't choosing to screw over a player, it's there for all players to think about at once. It's not true random, it's just a different META game, and having more meta games will bring in so much more people.

And, to other fighting communities, we already look like jokes for banning stages just because there's a rock to the side. The "Best players in smash" should be able to deal with some stage uniqueness. Banning them ALL just screams to viewers & communities, and even some of our own players, that our comp scene is just mediocre and nothing to look at. Pro players are suppose to deal with everything the game has, and banning everything untill it's a blank slate just means we're babifying comp.

DotA2 is the highest grossing, biggest competitive game in the entire world. And guess what? The map can screw players over with trees, stairs, random creeps looking for you, etc. In fact both teams don't have a symmetrical map, top right is janky as hell while bottom left is clean and open. But it's up to the players to deal with it and not complain to make the whole map flat. No one's lost because the map is anti-comp, players lose because they don't know how to work with the map. Fighting game or not, this "randomness" is still there and competitive players have done a work around using their skill and thought processes.

Look at League(LoL), that use to be so big, but they made the map like 99% symetyrical, and you don't even hear that game's name even muttered anymore. DotA2 completely took the spotlight, and probably has forever. League died as a comp game because there was SO MUCH LESS comp players had to think about, it became more character vs character, it had less meta game changes, it had just a rinse and repeat formula and died as a result. It was less of Pro players and more of people just figuring out the formula. With so much less for the comp scene to think about, it really didn't set them apart from the newbies. Dota's map uniqueness helped it thrive as it adds so much more to it, comp players have to 24/7 think about every creep, every piece of geometry nearby, what to do near them if x or y happens, what ability would be best, what placement would be best, where creeps are gonna be, creep agro, wards being in sneaky places, heroes exploiting areas and how to deal with them, etc. It adds a whole extra, huge element, and it's not anti-comp, if anything it just makes it have a higher skill-ceiling. And Smash would benefit the same way.

 

[Pyr]

This is the worst reply I've seen here. It's such a low hanging fruit that people go for if they have nothing to add to the debate and can't prove anyone wrong.
By your logic we can't complain about how awful EA is, because we're not game publisher company CEOs. We can't complain about awful games like Big Rigs, because we're not game devs.

Stop. We're consumers and we have a standard of quality like anyone else. Stop using low hanging fruit just to shut down the debate. If you have nothing smart to say and can't contribute, leave the thread.

You completely misread and misinterpreted his post. It's hard to even address the rest of your post because you missed the point so badly. It's like you took aim at the bullseye and somehow hit the wall behind you.

We can't use traditional 2D fighters because stages matter more in Smash then they do in any other fighter. Degradative stage picks are, of course, banned. Of legal picks, a stage's differences can be the difference between a win and a loss for a player. Who cares if other people in the FGC thinks we're a joke for banning stages? But, here's a spoiler: as someone who is actually in the FGC in general, Smash isn't something talked about or considered without prompt. When it is, most people can understand why there is a stage selection limitation. Especially Tekken players.

Also, to specifically address the "rock" argument: Are you joking or trolling or something? We've banned stages for having techable surfaces that prolong stocks unnecessary, aka "Caves of Life." That's not why Japes was originally banned.

Banning them ALL just screams to viewers & communities, and even some of our own players, that our comp scene is just mediocre and nothing to look at. Pro players are suppose to deal with everything the game has, and banning everything untill it's a blank slate just means we're babifying comp.

Oh, it's this sort of argument. Do you even know why some stages are banned over others? Do you know why stages with walk-offs are banned? You do realize that, regardless of what "Pros" do, other tournament players will have to deal with it as well, right? It isn't that black and white and, news flash for you: other communities don't care what we do within ourselves. We aren't that important.

And then we have a MOBA comparison, which is hilarious. This is a fighting game, not a MOBA. You can't compare stages between the 2 because stages between the 2 serve entirely different purposes and both need to meet different requirements to be "good" for gameplay within the respective genres.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

This is the worst reply I've seen here. It's such a low hanging fruit that people go for if they have nothing to add to the debate and can't prove anyone wrong.
By your logic we can't complain about how awful EA is, because we're not game publisher company CEOs. We can't complain about awful games like Big Rigs, because we're not game devs.

And you're welcome to point to the part where I said that, if you're not a TO, you're not allowed to have an opinion.

Using your analogy, it's more akin to players trying to tell the game devs behind Big Rigs what features are easy to add and what features are hard to add. Based on how the game engine is structured, certain features can be added in 2 hours; others would take weeks of code refactoring.

You're more than welcome to say, "I want feature X. The game sorely needs it."

You're not allowed to say, "You're all idiots for not having added it already. What's the problem? It's so easy! I know everything about game dev!"

If you have nothing smart to say and can't contribute, leave the thread.

Right back at ya.

 

[Tbro]

Stage variety is primarily needed from a spectator standpoint in order for Smash Ultimate to be appealing to the average viewer. As for the players, I think they'd be fine with having five stages with minor differences in layout from a gameplay perspective. Way easier to learn and practice and everything remains uniform.

I agree mostly except for two things:
1) personally from a gameplay perspective I wouldn't be fine with the same stages. It gets boring quickly. However, I know other players don't feel this way
2) Izzet > Golgari

 

[MintyTwister]

None of you adressed my DotA analogy, really shows how good you guys are at debates. Must mean I'm correct and won this debate because litteraly none of you broke it down or made any counter points. You ignored more than 90% of my message and with good reason; it's sound and you can't debate against it. Also for a moderator you're really hostile and like to not be mature about this, I'll be sure to report this.

Edit: I admit I got heated but good lord a lot of you are pretty dismissive in this topic and it's good reason to get annoyed.

 

[lucasla]

With all stages basically having a variant where it is a simple plan stage with static basic plataforms in the battlefield style, I dont see any reason at all for most of the stages be available, even because that way the stages are basically the same, just with different skins. And be against it is just nitpicking.

 

[Kholdstare]

2) Izzet > Golgari

 

[Pyr]

None of you adressed my DotA analogy, really shows how good you guys are at debates. Must mean I'm correct and won this debate because litteraly none of you broke it down or made any counter points. You ignored more than 90% of my message and with good reason; it's sound and you can't debate against it. Also for a moderator you're really hostile and like to not be mature about this, I'll be sure to report this.

1) DotA analogy was addressed.

2) This isn't a debate.

3) Your opinion and views became meaningless as soon as you laughably decided to go the route you have in this post. It's clear you have no desire to "debate" with anyone.

But that's enough for now. I won't feed the troll anymore. I hope no one else does, either.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

None of you adressed my DotA analogy, really shows how good you guys are at debates. Must mean I'm correct and won this debate because litteraly none of you broke it down or made any counter points. You ignored more than 90% of my message and with good reason; it's sound and you can't debate against it. Also for a moderator you're really hostile and like to not be mature about this, I'll be sure to report this.

Welcome to Smashboards dude.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

Welcome to Smashboards dude.

Was about to type this into my post, but you beat me to it.

Also for a moderator you're really hostile and like to not be mature about this, I'll be sure to report this.

You're the one being hostile towards the moderator such as how you explicitly told him to "leave the thread" because you don't agree with his opinions, yet I have seen zero hostility in any of his posts. Moderators after all don't get their title for no reason.

You can't just make claims like that without presenting evidence.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

Was about to type this into my post, but you beat me to it.

You're the one being hostile towards the moderator such as how you explicitly told him to "leave the thread" because you don't agree with his opinions, yet I have seen zero hostility in any of his posts. Moderators after all don't get their title for no reason.

You can't just make claims like that without presenting evidence.

You realize I agree with that guy, right? You can have your Like back, get disrespected.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

None of you adressed my DotA analogy, really shows how good you guys are at debates. Must mean I'm correct and won this debate because litteraly none of you broke it down or made any counter points. You ignored more than 90% of my message and with good reason; it's sound and you can't debate against it. Also for a moderator you're really hostile and like to not be mature about this, I'll be sure to report this.

There's really nothing to say about DotA or LoL or many other esports. For starters, they simply aren't Smash. From there, the creators of those games dump millions of dollars into the competitive aspect. Meanwhile, Sakurai has expressed that he dislikes that people are trying to make a lifestyle out of Smash. He doesn't directly fight it, but Nintendo seems to echo that sentiment by only very lightly sponsoring tournaments. I'll need confirmation on this, but it is my understanding that players like Mang0 make more money from streaming now than from tournament winnings. That's unfortunate. You have to admit that competitive Smash would look very different if the first place prize were in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As for no one addressing your comments, yeah, I guess you won the debate... or no one finds you credible or worth arguing with...? For being your first posts on this forum, you made it abundantly clear the kind of cage match you're interested in. Forgive us for not acquiescing to your request.

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't have a doubt in my mind at all that their are many people that have experience with tournaments.

However we need to actually improve our system and evolve. The game improved itself with stages(drastically) and so should we.
Obviously you know the system we have doesn't work, so instead of literally banning numerous stages, we should make a system that works for it.

The competitive community right now:
View attachment 176223

Fine, then you test to see if all the stages are reasonably fair. Tell us how that goes.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

What happens when you select a random stage in Ultimate? Is the stage revealed before character selection? Or does it remain sealed until the match starts?

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

You realize I agree with that guy, right?

I didn't mention whether or not I agree with his viewpoints, I was mentioning how his approach comes off as negative.

You can have your Like back, get disrespected.

I don't understand what drives people to try to start wars on message boards. First the new person disrespecting people with different opinions than theirs, and now this? I'm not going to defend them if they're showing troll like behavior even if I agree with them.

If you want my opinions, I think having just five stages again isn't healthy and it should be expanded to at least double digits. The issue is we have seen time and time again certain stages providing unfair advantages to many fighters and play styles or promoting survival over battle. Walk offs, caves of life, camping spots, scrolling stages, excessively large stages, janky transformations, awkward layouts, actual hazards, and probably more things I missed are bad for the competitive community because it partially or fully takes skill away from the picture. Because most of the stages feature at least one of those, it often leads to a ton of stages being banned. We can only keep stages where the hazard toggle can fix those issues.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

What happens when you select a random stage in Ultimate? Is the stage revealed before character selection? Or does it remain sealed until the match starts?

That's an excellent question. I don't think anyone knows yet.

 

[Pyr]

On one hand, I hope it does because that would introduce an efficient, elegant option to stage selection in tournament.

On the other hand, the last time I proposed random stage selection to an open forum, it went... Not well. One of the main "against" arguments was that stage selection matters too much to be left to chance. I can kind of see that point.

The issue is that stage selection in tournament eventually falls into:

a) You lose and get to take your opponent to their 2nd-5th worst stage or to your 1st-5th best stage.
b) You win and get taken to your 2nd-5th worst stage or their 1st-5th best stage.

If it was a random stage selection, we get this:

c) Win or lose, either player has a chance to go to an advantageous stage for them.

Honestly, I'd love random selection. Fits everything I personally want as a tournament goer:

1) Don't have to wait 2 minutes for my opponent to strike in locals
2) Don't have to ask, "Wanna just gentleman to x?" every match.
3) Stage diversity is literally as high as it can be.

I understand this won't meet everyone's wants and needs. It's just so... Elegant. To me, it feels so much more balanced. On average, neither player plays on their worst or best stage and it's fast to go through the process of stage selection.

The argument just falls on deaf ears, though. I'll talk to my local TOs around release, but, online, John "Armchair" Samson gets their opinion heard and echoed more often then not. You aren't going to win an argument by talking to a deaf dude.

 

[Kleric]

I am curious on what would go wrong if we just stopped stage striking as a thing. It is the one of the biggest points of contention when it comes to allowing "similar stages", making it a far more convoluted process.

Does anyone know how simply allowing the loser to pick any of the legal, and clearly non-degenerate stages could be abused negatively?

 

[maxistrife]

I have seen similar opinions to mine, but really the "pro" scene needs to stop being such babies. The game as Sakurai envisions it is SUPPOSED to be random and chaotic. Learn the game and "git gud"...don't whine because you smash attack a box that happened to have a bomb in it and get obliterated, or if a stage hazard kills you. Adapt and overcome. If you can not safely pick up a box, throw something else at it, or just leave it alone. On that point, the no items thing is dumb too. If you are really so confident in your abilities with a character, you can defend against any item or be good enough to acquire a powerful item first. People being like "BAN THAT" to Big Blue because there is too high a chance of "accidental deaths"....well....don't "accidentally" die. Know which cars are coming when, when they jump ramps, where it is safest for your character at all times.

 

[Jakisthe]

Squad Strike will end up being a side event. As for whether or not you have the time and money to be a TO, that's entirely on you.

Yeah, and that's what sucks - a lack of serious experimenting with the format and considering all new options. Like, forget about SS, something the community has never had to consider; it's now the case that "hazards off" will be the starting benchmark for looking at stage legality, leading to things which were legal in 4 - like, say, a moving platform in Smashville - to be made even *more* boring.

 

[Kleric]

I have seen similar opinions to mine, but really the "pro" scene needs to stop being such babies. The game as Sakurai envisions it is SUPPOSED to be random and chaotic. Learn the game and "git gud"...don't whine because you smash attack a box that happened to have a bomb in it and get obliterated, or if a stage hazard kills you. Adapt and overcome. If you can not safely pick up a box, throw something else at it, or just leave it alone. On that point, the no items thing is dumb too. If you are really so confident in your abilities with a character, you can defend against any item or be good enough to acquire a powerful item first. People being like "BAN THAT" to Big Blue because there is too high a chance of "accidental deaths"....well....don't "accidentally" die. Know which cars are coming when, when they jump ramps, where it is safest for your character at all times.

I used to have this view as well. While I agree there is definitely a bit too high of a standard on what some people immediately think should be banned, if you dive deep into what got stages banned, it's far more understandable. One thing to note is that tournaments have money involved, so I don't think it's too bad to try to keep random factors to a minimum. And the decision of something being banned is less of someone being a baby about it, and more of the fact that competitive players abused some quality about the thing to the point of gameplay being unchallenging and not fun to watch. These are what people refer to when they call something "degenerate". Something easily abused.
Take Hyrule Castle for example, my favorite casual stage. If that stage in particular was legal, and money was involved, it'd really be ideal for me to just get a % lead on the opponent, and run away the entire match because on that stage, it's really easy to do that.

 

[maxistrife]

I used to have this view as well. While I agree there is definitely a bit too high of a standard on what people immediately think should be banned, if you dive deep into what got stages banned, it's far more understandable. One thing to note is that tournaments have money involved, so I don't think it's too bad to try to keep random factors to a minimum. And the decision of something being banned is less of someone being a baby about it, and more of the fact that competitive players abused some quality about the thing to the point of gameplay being unchallenging and not fun to watch. These are what people refer to when they call something "degenerate". Something easily abused.

I honestly had not even considered the whole monetary reward bit. That does make absolute sense then I guess. If you are paying for a chance at a larger cash prize, you want things as even level as possible, and I guess certain characters would have greater advantage on certain stages. Totally fair point in the case of tournaments then. Still, when I am playing online, I personally want it as chaotic and random as possible =D

 

[Kadji100]

This is what I'm talking about. This attitude. Obviously, you are a supreme genius, so go out and become the greatest TO the world has ever seen. Reacting with anger and vitriol is a surefire way to turn people off to your idea. For the record, I like your ideas.[...]

Sorry if my post sounded rude, that was not my intention (my native language is not english).
The intention was to show that the whole discussion is turning in circles with no progress beeing made, while the solution (from my point of view) is obvious and simple.
I just don't see the point of banning ~70% of the aviable stages because one tiny little thing in the stage deems it as "not viable for tournaments".

And I would love to organize a tournament for the german scene, but with the time I have to spend on my daily job this is (sadly) not possible.
I did hower organize or at least helped with some smaller Tournaments on local conventions, so I have some experience (~50 player Tournaments).

But if you like my ideas - where exactly do you see a problem for TOs with the idea I (and I think others, too) have suggested?
This is not meant to be rude, but from my personal experience with participating in tournaments and organizing / helping smaller tournaments I think this would even help TOs. Less time spent on stage banning / striking would lead to more time for matches and quicker tournaments in general. And time is almost always the main concern I hear when talking about stage selection in Ultimate.

Maybe I just can't see the bigger point since I don't have enough experience. Maybe those problems only rise up if the playerbase of the tournament is over 100 participants.

I would love to hear what you deem problemativ with the proposed idea, after all I, like everybody else here, want this game and the tournament scene for it to be the best, to be truly "ultimate".

 

[kendikong]

I think all battlefield forms of stages should be allowed to be interchangeable with battlefield. They should all be nearly identical after all, and some people might vastly prefer some battlefield version of stages over the default battlefield.