Final Destination Forms: How Will We Deal With Them?

[Cap'nChreest]

The difference between ledges can be Melee battlefield (garbage) vs Melee FD(Amazing) . So I'd say that it matters when it comes to recoveries. Either way the stages will be legal though.

 

[Sahfarry]

Will all FD forms be exactly the same? Will the blast zones be alike? Will stage hazards still be present?

1. They already aren't. Some stages you can go under, others you can't. Hopefully certain platforms shall remain in place.
2. I feel like the blast zones will stay the same as the normal version of the stage (except Palutena's temple? idek)
3. All hazards should be removed. Only thing that should be kept are platforms that may or may not move and certain slopes.

These are mostly what I want. I doubt that Nintendo'll do exactly this, but I still dream on.

 

[Chimera]

What I really dislike has to be how they label everything easier as 'bad'...there's NO -100% balanced for all characters- stage, so a stage giving slight advantages to a certain type of character is just a natural thing, the fact that people want to ban stages based on the undersides of the stage alone...that's just...a little bit nitpicky!? Unless you're M2K using Fox againist someone who plays fair, you'll be spending like 5% of your time on the edges or below them.

The underside can have a huge effect on the ability to recover, and ability to stage spike and other things. I doubt any stage will be banned over its underside, but it does make a difference. Also, it seems that you're implying that edgeguarding is unfair, which is really funny.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

The underside can have a huge effect on the ability to recover, and ability to stage spike and other things. I doubt any stage will be banned over its underside, but it does make a difference. Also, it seems that you're implying that edgeguarding is unfair, which is really funny.

look at *page 23* i believe in the "Why do people disagree with tech skill" forum and ull understand that idiara aint the most competitive friendly player.

 

[Chimera]

look at *page 23* i believe in the "Why do people disagree with tech skill" forum and ull understand that idiara aint the most competitive friendly player.

Gotcha. Well then, he should probably not post in threads aimed at competitive players.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Gotcha. Well then, he should probably not post in threads aimed at competitive players.

Let them do what they like its just now we know to ether take them seriously or not.

 

[Substitution]

Don't you think you're over-exaggerating this a bit too much?
This isn't gonna be an issue. I don't see a reason to ban them over a minor change.
There is no real "problem", you're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Don't you think you're over-exaggerating this a bit too much?
This isn't gonna be an issue. I don't see a reason to ban them over a minor change.
There is no real "problem", you're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Here's my take on it;

If some versions of FD are more balanced than others, then those can be starters, while the others can be counterpicks. It doesn't even mean we'll have to ban anything. We're just speculating, understanding that FD isn't actually perfectly balanced too.

 

[Substitution]

Here's my take on it;

If some versions of FD are more balanced than others, then those can be starters, while the others can be counterpicks. It doesn't even mean we'll have to ban anything. We're just speculating, understanding that FD isn't actually perfectly balanced too.

But why?
If anything, it shouldn't matter. Just because there's a minor change doesn't mean that they're should be consequences.
Heck, look at Yoshi's Story in SSBM. No underspace, and even while having platforms, is somehow still neutral.

 

[mimgrim]

Here's my take on it;

If some versions of FD are more balanced than others, then those can be starters, while the others can be counterpicks. It doesn't even mean we'll have to ban anything. We're just speculating, understanding that FD isn't actually perfectly balanced too.

My problem with this is having multiples of the same stages eligible for CPing and starter striking.

You see if character A has advantage on FD over character B then character A has a even better chance of getting to FD as character B has to strike out all FDs. And in CPing character B probably wouldn't be able to ban all FDs that way. It is hugely unfair.

Which is why I say we consider them all as one stage, despite possible differences, and make the started FD default FD only and for CPing the player who successfully CPed to FD can then chose the FD he wants to play on.

It's not perfect. But it is a lot more fair.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But why?
If anything, it shouldn't matter. Just because there's a minor change doesn't mean that they're should be consequences.
Heck, look at Yoshi's Story in SSBM. No underspace, and even while having platforms, is somehow still neutral.

We have to test things before we can decide on them. We didn't know that from the start, we played on it first. It's likely none will be banned, but we don't even have the game yet. Brawl's FD having those lips was horrible and actually was very bad for balance. Melee's version was far more neutral. It's not some clear cut decision to make. Testing is how we decide these things. I imagine them all starting as neutral, and just see if any cause issues. If any do, but not enough to severely unbalance the game, Counterpick. If none do, all Neutral. If there's some that somehow are an actual huge issue, Ban. As I said, I doubt any Bans will happen, but we can't really say till we test.

My problem with this is having multiples of the same stages eligible for CPing and starter striking.

You see if character A has advantage on FD over character B then character A has a even better chance of getting to FD as character B has to strike out all FDs. And in CPing character B probably wouldn't be able to ban all FDs that way. It is hugely unfair.

Which is why I say we consider them all as one stage, despite possible differences, and make the started FD default FD only and for CPing the player who successfully CPed to FD can then chose the FD he wants to play on.

It's not perfect. But it is a lot more fair.

The fact they don't have the exact same properties means treating them as one stage is something I find completely unfair. No more, no less. Testing first, decisions later.

 

[mimgrim]

The fact they don't have the exact same properties means treating them as one stage is something I find completely unfair. No more, no less. Testing first, decisions later.

Look. It's like Pokemon Stadium and Pokemon Stadium 2 in Project Melee. They have different properties. PS1 has transformations. PS2 has higher platforms then PS1 and is a bit smaller.

The differences end up not mattering though. If you want to ban PS2 from being CP'd then you have to also ban PS1 because the differences don't matter in the end and are fundamentally the same.

Different variance of FD would fall under this even more so.

It seems like you are looking at stage fairness whereas I am looking more at character fairness.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Look. It's like Pokemon Stadium and Pokemon Stadium 2 in Project Melee. They have different properties. PS1 has transformations. PS2 has higher platforms then PS1 and is a bit smaller.

The differences end up not mattering though. If you want to ban PS2 from being CP'd then you have to also ban PS1 because the differences don't matter in the end and are fundamentally the same.

Different variance of FD would fall under this even more so.

It seems like you are looking at stage fairness whereas I am looking more at character fairness.

It's both. You have to properly test before assuming. I don't buy the idea that "they're similar, so they're the same in practice". That's a poor way to figure out rulesets in the end. And some have walls under the stage, some don't. This could actually affect match-ups or general balance overall. Also, I don't believe both PS courses are nearly as close to this difference. A wall Vs an open space is a pretty big note.

 

[Dravidian]

i think the talking of FD undersides is still abit much. Coming from a competitive player.

Exactly. We already have different edge variations on the legal stages in melee and brawl (and probably 64 as well), so why the heck is it a problem now? There's already too much complaining about theoretical matchups and not enough thinking of theoretical ways to adapt and overcome. How can we call ourselves a competitive community when we, as a whole, are constantly banning things instead of learning to adapt? I mean legit ledges....on a final dest stage.....really?!?!?! Are we really so trifling that we're trying to ban final dest because some characters can recover better.....like every single character on every single tournament legal stage? Get that ish out of here.

 

[8-peacock-8]

My views on this.

My character recover as well because there's no gap under the stage! WAAH WAAH

Get over it.

 

[The Real Gamer]

This is the type of question we'll have to put on hold until we get more information about the FD's.

 

[FlynnCL]

I don't expect every Final Destination to be exact at all. Mario Galaxy is a smaller stage in comparison to Battlefield, plus Mario Galaxy has a Dream Land N64-esque body shape while Battlefield has ledges that protrude a surprising amount.

To me, those are legitimate differences that can affect certain match-ups, however small. For example, Donkey Kong will have a worsened stage spike and less room to maneuver on Mario Galaxy. Lucario and Sheik I image would have a far easier time wall clinging on Mario Galaxy, as Battlefield has a complex underside. It should also be noted that certain recoveries and movement options might benefit with Mario Galaxy's shape, like wall jumping and... Wolf's up-b.

 

[Hayzie]

I'm pretty sure they're all just flat FD platforms with FD edges themed accordingly placed in other stage spaces. If the underside of the platform varies, well deal with it. Having variety for FD is a welcomed addition, no matter how cut-off the bottom is. I'm sure they'll all be roughly the same, if they're not the same in the first place.

Or get your friends and choose the original FD. Stage looks ace anyways. Platforms? Battlefield.

Mario Galaxy FD and Battlefield looks the same size to me.

 

[Dravidian]

I'm pretty sure they're all just flat FD platforms with FD edges themed accordingly placed in other stage spaces. If the underside of the platform varies, well deal with it. Having variety for FD is a welcomed addition, no matter how cut-off the bottom is. I'm sure they'll all be roughly the same, if they're not the same in the first place.

Or get your friends and choose the original FD. Stage looks ace anyways. Platforms? Battlefield.

This

To me, those are legitimate differences that can affect certain match-ups, however small. For example, Donkey Kong will have a worsened stage spike and less room to maneuver on Mario Galaxy. Lucario and Sheik I image would have a far easier time wall clinging on Mario Galaxy, as Battlefield has a complex underside. It should also be noted that certain recoveries and movement options might benefit with Mario Galaxy's shape, like wall jumping and... Wolf's up-b.

Everything affects matchups. It's because those differences are so common and already adapted to that they shouldnt matter. We already have legitimate methods for dealing with edges like this. We've had them for over a decade. Why is it suddenly an issue for people? There's a difference between a broken stage (stages that randomly kills, stages that allow broken strategies, etc) and a stages that gives a slight advantage (oh, no, I have to actually aim my up be better).

And This is coming from someone who plays Ness and Dedede. A poorly spaced/timed Up B kills me on certain stages. Did I complain? No. I learned to aim better. I got better at timing. I got better at staying on the stage in the first place. I stopped having that problem. There is nothing unfair about the edge. Focusing so much on a bloody edge instead of the game and character balance as a whole makes no sense if you're making a competitive argument.

Look at Little Mac. He sucks in the air and has crap recovery, but will bend you over and brutally fist you (with his fist) on the ground where much, if not most, of the game occurs. Why would you want to make his recovery easier?

Or look at the less powerful/effective characters that have good mobility. Are you gonna screw them over because they get an extra jump on certain edges?

For the sake of balance, Sakurai toned down the variations, but it's still there and it's there for a reason. Use it.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Mario Galaxy is a smaller stage

It looks about the same to me.

 

[Spazzy_D]

YES! The day has come when the Smash community is discussing banning FD! I knew this would happen!

...... I think this topic is pretty much pointless until we see how FD forms work. We're not even sure if they are selectable outside of "For Glory" mode.

 

[Substitution]

I swear. This was something we've wanted since forever. And now we're just shoving it aside because God forbid there's walls. Oh the humanity.

 

[8-peacock-8]

YES! The day has come when the Smash community is discussing banning FD! I knew this would happen!

...... I think this topic is pretty much pointless until we see how FD forms work. We're not even sure if they are selectable outside of "For Glory" mode.

Rosalina's final smash was shown on FD Mario Galaxy in the Direct. So i assume it's possible.

 

[Tremendo Dude]

I was discussing this in the For Glory topic. My qualms with the FD stages isn't that some characters might have some advantage because of the shape of the stage, but that it seems like such a waste of potential. Why would you have 20 versions of the same stage (FD) when you could have 20 different balanced layouts for the stages by tossing some platforms into the mix here and there? Even if some of the balanced stages turn out to be banworthy, or if the game is properly balanced on a completely flat arena (which I believe is a pipe dream), everyone (casual and competitive player alike) would be better off with a more varied choice for stage selection in local play. That, and the striking issue mentioned earlier in the thread would vanish.

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

While it's not SFIV, Playstation All-Stars has had tons of balance patches. At the start, Kratos was over powered, as he was very strong, had great range, had omni range with a few attacks, his attacks came out fast, combos were super easy, and his Super Attacks were pretty good. He had no blatant shortcomings. Since then, they've given some attacks less range, slowed him down a bit, balance his power a bit more (so not every single attack is really strong), and stuff like that. Of course, lots of other characters received changes overtime.

Also, PS All-Stars' latest balancing patch came very recently, and it was a very big one. So big, it got it's own trailer.

Just to give an idea of how balancing patches can go down.

tbh PSASBR is pretty good in terms of balance, or at least to my knowledge of the game pre-2014 big update, Kratos was way easier to manage in the months after release, but on launch everybody was playing Kratos becaues he was the only way to guarantee you had a chance of winning. Now somebody like me, a Sir Daniel main, can still dominate.

Edit: To stay on topic, I think we're only really going to know about Final Destination balance until the game comes out, there might be factors to the FD variations we don't know about yet (unlikely, but it's important to keep in mind). The meta game might evolve to accommodate FD more based off these variations or it might turn it away/delegate it to CP. We really have no idea

 

[Dravidian]

I was discussing this in the For Glory topic. My qualms with the FD stages isn't that some characters might have some advantage because of the shape of the stage, but that it seems like such a waste of potential. Why would you have 20 versions of the same stage (FD) when you could have 20 different balanced layouts for the stages by tossing some platforms into the mix here and there? Even if some of the balanced stages turn out to be banworthy, or if the game is properly balanced on a completely flat arena (which I believe is a pipe dream), everyone (casual and competitive player alike) would be better off with a more varied choice for stage selection in local play. That, and the striking issue mentioned earlier in the thread would vanish.

Characters moves are being balanced to the point where it seems that platforms just wont be necessary. People liked platforms because some characters had really good projectile game and platforms helped deal with that; however, the characters in smash 4 seems like they're capable of dealing with projectiles better (more reflecting moves, better ground dodges, armor,, better mobility, etc) so plat forms just dont seem as necessary. At this point it looks like people want platforms simply because they're used to platforms, not because they'd actually make smash 4 more balanced. At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

 

[LancerStaff]

YES! The day has come when the Smash community is discussing banning FD! I knew this would happen!

...... I think this topic is pretty much pointless until we see how FD forms work. We're not even sure if they are selectable outside of "For Glory" mode.

We've seen items on the various FDs, and items aren't in fG. We know for a fact that they can be used outside fG.

Anyway, I fully support Mimgrim's idea for handling the FDs. One gets picked as the starter, (Vanilla, no arguments just because things would get complicated when some areas choose one FD while others choose others.) and the rest can be chosen as a counterpick, and striking one means striking all.

Or we'll play just on the FDs.

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

YES! The day has come when the Smash community is discussing banning FD! I knew this would happen!

...... I think this topic is pretty much pointless until we see how FD forms work. We're not even sure if they are selectable outside of "For Glory" mode.

The Japanese version of the Direct confirmed that you could play the FD variations outside of For Glory, I'm too lazy to find the image though

 

[Tremendo Dude]

Characters moves are being balanced to the point where it seems that platforms just wont be necessary. People liked platforms because some characters had really good projectile game and platforms helped deal with that; however, the characters in smash 4 seems like they're capable of dealing with projectiles better (more reflecting moves, better ground dodges, armor,, better mobility, etc) so plat forms just dont seem as necessary. At this point it looks like people want platforms simply because they're used to platforms, not because they'd actually make smash 4 more balanced. At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

It's a want vs a need on my end, at least. Not because I'm used to playing on platforms, but because it feels like a waste to have 20 different almost identical stages when you can use those slots to heavily increase stage variety for players who want to play matches uninterrupted by stage hazards/bad layouts.

 

[R0Y]

Theoretically it would make every stage legal (unless the FD version was too big.)

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

Theoretically it would make every stage legal (unless the FD version was too big.)

Like in terms of stage size or blast zone? Like Bridge of Eldin too big or Dreamland blast zone big?

 

[R0Y]

Like in terms of stage size or blast zone? Like Bridge of Eldin too big or Dreamland blast zone big?

Good catch there, I forgot about blast zones...Temple from Melee and Brawl had real messed up blast zones given the nature of the stage for example, far higher than they were wide. Trying to hit a player up even from the top of the stage wasn't the best plan, whereas the left and right edges were lethal. If Palutena's Temple is anything like that even in FD form then that could be grounds for a pro ban even in said FD form.

If Palutena's Temple FD is extremely large then that might get it banned as well.

Regardless, Palutena's Temple looks like it could be "the stage" like Temple was in Melee, great fun, just not allowed competitively.

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

Good catch there, I forgot about blast zones...Temple from Melee and Brawl had real messed up blast zones given the nature of the stage for example, far higher than they were wide. Trying to hit a player up even from the top of the stage wasn't the best plan, whereas the left and right edges were lethal. If Palutena's Temple is anything like that even in FD form then that could be grounds for a pro ban even in said FD form.

If Palutena's Temple FD is extremely large then that might get it banned as well.

Regardless, Palutena's Temple looks like it could be "the stage" like Temple was in Melee, great fun, just not allowed competitively.

God Temple is such a frustrating stage to play on, even in super casual matches because
a) it's annoying to chase people down (we already know that)
b) the blast zones
The blast zones were so awful and your opponents had to be >=150% to get a kill from the top

Edit: To stay on topic, yes blast zones could be a problem, but nothing I can see worth a ban, maybe only used as a counterpick

 

[Mike_Tha_Hero]

I still can't come to terms with there not a least being Battlefield variations. So many characters rely on the mere option of having platforms in order to stand a fighting chance. To just remove it altogether seems halfassed. A step in the right direction, but halfassed none the less.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

What do you mean "Deal with it"? We'll just pick the stage we want to play on.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I still can't come to terms with there not a least being Battlefield variations. So many characters rely on the mere option of having platforms in order to stand a fighting chance. To just remove it altogether seems halfassed. A step in the right direction, but halfassed none the less.

Then pick battlefield.

 

[Smash G]

Honestly as neat as the level design is in the midst of battle who pays much attention to it?

 

[TimeSmash]

Apologies. Ignore my quote then.
What? That's like me saying "I bought this blue shirt, and bought you one just like it" and then you coming along and asking if the shirt is red.

I just never know with Sakurai at this point, to be honest. Forgive my stupidity there.

Anyways, though a lot of people think this topic is making a big deal over nothing, which admittedly it potentially could be . But I think it warrants discussion, because as we've seen with past Smash games people like to scruintize every detail--even if this ends up being not that big a deal in the long run, I still think it warrants looking into.

 

[Mike_Tha_Hero]

Then pick battlefield.

Does For Glory even give you that option? I thought it was FD variants only.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Does For Glory even give you that option? I thought it was FD variants only.

I honestly don't plan on playing for glory, or online in general. I would rather play with my friends in person where this really isn't an issue.

If anything you could just treat it like Brawl and just play with your friends. Now that names are attached to IDs I'm sure it will be easier to play someone you want without having to input a 12 digit number.