• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Full Stage List Striking - New name

Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
omni

vs.

hundreds and hundreds of years of competitive philosophy

...

lmao, i got this
hahahahaha lmao indeed, omni

People are forgetting a key point in my people + money = competition.

People make a game competitive by wanting to play it. If no one wants to play a game then the game isn't very competitive.

Popular does equal competitive because you have to beat and work through more players to win. Money is a factor in these things because if you put more money on the line more people are likely to enter and compete for the glory/money.

...


People make something competitive by coming together and having an interest in competing. If no one wants to play Mighty Morphing Power Rangers Frighting Game, then the game isn't very competitive because there are less people you have to compete against.
I almost agree with this, although there are some points that I could argue with. I started writing a post for this yesterday, I'll just copy/paste what I have now.

----

More money != more competition.
More competitors = more competition.

Money is a factor that attracts more competition, but it's completely possible for a game to be very competitive by solely playing for honor. I'm pretty sure this is what you were trying to argue, but you added money into the equation, which is only optional when it comes to competition.

The equation would roughly look more like this: people = competition

instead of: people + money = competition.


A game could have key problem or just sound stupid, but that doesn't matter because if people like playing it for whatever reason and make it competitive because a lot of people want to compete in it. Money can add extra incentive for people to want to compete in something because you gave a greater reward for it.
I didn't write a response for this directly, but I do have a response that kinda goes along with it. I was trying to explain the importance of competitive depth, but the example I used in the bottom explains your point fairly well (which by the way I agree with).

------

Removing stages != Less competitive game
Removing stages = Less competitive depth.

Like I wrote to ADHD, the less things you have to work with, the less things you have to learn how to master/adapt to, which means that the game is less deep.

More competitive depth = good.

Why? Because more depth means that the game is harder to master. When you want to measure skill, you can probably do so in two ways: physical skill and mental skill. In both cases, it's best to be as skillful as possible, but most importantly, the bar that you have to reach to "master" that certain skill must be as high as possible, to prevent the game from not growing, and also to prevent the game from being too easy to master.

An example of a game that's too easy to master is Tic Tac Toe (TTT). The game doesn't demand any physical skill (the only skill you need is to be able to write X/O or tell someone to write X/O for you), which means that it's very easy to master in a physical sense. In terms of mental skill, the game does get much harder, but it's easy to master because of the small amounts of game states that the game holds. One could easily learn all of the game states and guarantee themselves at least a stalemate in every game simply because the game doesn't hold enough competitive depth (not to be confused with not being competitive. TTT can be competitive if there are enough people playing it). The game turns into a simple game of pre-determined rules, in which once the first move is made, then you automatically know what you're supposed to do after that.

Because the game is so easy to master in both senses, the game will never ever grow. Once you master the game, there's no point in competing over who is more skillful at high level of play, since by mastering the game, everyone should be at the same skill level. This is why it's a bad competitive game. That doesn't mean it can't be played competitively though. The fact that there is depth means that there are low level players out there that don't know all the moves, and if there are people competing, then there's competition. It's just that once you reach high level of play, there's no where else to go.

This is why having more depth is good. There's more space for the game to grow, more space for players to get better, and in my opinion, makes games more interesting since you can appreciate the decisions that the players make.

The criteria that the community seems to put down is that the stage adds too much for some characters that they overly dominate on the stage or that the stage adds elements that they deem anti-competitive.

Change their minds about that.
That's not really much of a criteria as much as it is a reason why they don't like it.

I mean, the purpose of a stage counterpick is to pick a stage that favors you more than the other character. There are characters that can deal with certain elements better than others, and that's the kind of thing that players are supposed to be abusing. If there are stages that a small amount of characters do bad on (for example, tethers on PTAD), we're not supposed to sympathize for them. However, if there are characters that do too well on certain stages against a large amount of characters (like for example, DDD on Shadow Moses), then that's where we're supposed to watch out.

The line between too good and degenerate is an iffy line. When we have a borderline case of too good vs. degenerate, things turn into an ugly case of "How much is too much?" coupled along with a bunch of subjective reasons from people with different levels of tolerance. The way I like to define the line between both is like this.

When something is too good, it's when the tactic is fairly strong, but it isn't impossible to beat. An example of this would be MK on Brinstar. He's really good there, but he isn't this unbeatable force that can't be reckoned with. You still have to fight him, and the fight isn't always one-sided.

When something is degenerate, it's usually because it's instant-win, excessively random, or just unreasonable to deal with. For example, Sonic or Fox on Temple, and King Dedede on Shadow Moses, Wario Ware in general, PPlanking.
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
Twinkie's posts are randomly so good. I'm bringing in avarice.
I agree here, while I was reading through his post is just feels awesome, nice, and so on.
It doesn't felt like this awkward "our philosophy is the way you should play this game" it sounded really good and it was more "entertaining" to read your wall of text then any other Pro-Full Strage Strike Wall of text yet.
thumbs up!

but I'm on ADHDs Side
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11554334&postcount=825
imo this post sums it up.
quantity is not > quality.
So you're right when you say "more content = more depth" but in a Brawl where the depth is already really deep, we have to draw a line. (in before: this is subjective and so on, I don't care).
More "Polar Stages" lead to more "Random"-like Results, were strange things can happen without the intend to do so.
and it doesn't matter if both players know the stage like their own mum, this things can still happen.
I remember my mate playing a Lucario dito on Norfair in tournament (it's a while ago).
he hits him with the final blow, his opponent would have died but suddenly the lava wall appeared and rescued him.
awesome..
Then we have a lot of abusable tactics on such stages.
we draw the line behind every stage that favors abusable auto-win-like tactics.
It doesn't matter if this "abusable tactic" is absolute broken or absolute unbeatable, a abusable tactic can become a problem in the moment a lot of chars cannot do anything against it. (airstalling and other kinds of stalling on Norfair, LM, RC(?) etc)
A few Stages are usually banned because the hazards and more are very strong but this is indeed subjective (like pirate ship, rudder camping is bannable)



I represent this opinion.
I'm not a scrub because I do so.
It's a rational way to do stage lists.
and you can pummel your philosophy into my mind, my point will not change EVER.

and I don't think SuSas "hundred and hundred years of competitive philosophy" is objective.
Objective can only be done on data (imo), everything else, the opinion of which stage list is the best for competitive and so on is all SUBJECTIVE.
it's not a fact.

Yika out ♥
 

chaosmaster1991

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
140
Location
Germany
and I don't think SuSas "hundred and hundred years of competitive philosophy" is objective.
Objective can only be done on data (imo), everything else, the opinion of which stage list is the best for competitive and so on is all SUBJECTIVE.
it's not a fact.

Yika out ♥
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the stage list best fit for competitive play is subjective in itself, but rather that there is an objectively best list for every subjective philosophy of what makes a game competitve.
That being said, when there is a set philosophy, you can probably figure out the most competitive setting for win condition, items etc. as well.
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,194
Location
New Jersey
No one wants to play on the most "objective" ruleset in a competitive environment, I'm telling you.

Everyone will see the interfering hazards as a foreign part of the match and distracting from skill, especially when there are pressures to win.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
TBH you probably would have won if you were able to go. Grand Finals would have been you vs M2K or Ally IMO.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
I agree here, while I was reading through his post is just feels awesome, nice, and so on.
It doesn't felt like this awkward "our philosophy is the way you should play this game" it sounded really good and it was more "entertaining" to read your wall of text then any other Pro-Full Strage Strike Wall of text yet.
thumbs up!
Thank you.

but I'm on ADHDs Side
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11554334&postcount=825
imo this post sums it up.
quantity is not > quality.
So you're right when you say "more content = more depth" but in a Brawl where the depth is already really deep, we have to draw a line. (in before: this is subjective and so on, I don't care).
You don't ever want to draw the line yourself. The line is already drawn, and that's by the game developer. They are the ones who put in all of the factors that you need to learn (characters, stages, items, etc.) and basically, the line of depth is drawn at where the game completes itself.

You don't ever want to draw the line, but in a game like this, you will have to lower it yourself )as a community) at one point. For example, the developers added this cool new level Wario Ware Inc., and in order to master competitive Super Smash Bros. Brawl, we should be learning that stage. However, since that stage is just way too random and unsuitable for our competitive ruleset, we must remove it, thus lowering the bar of competitive depth.

TL;DR, the bar should be set as high as possible, but it will eventually get lowered by things like stage bans.

On a side note, I'm also in favor of adding depth to a game whenever the game allows it, for example, via custom stages.



More "Polar Stages" lead to more "Random"-like Results, were strange things can happen without the intend to do so.
and it doesn't matter if both players know the stage like their own mum, this things can still happen.
I remember my mate playing a Lucario dito on Norfair in tournament (it's a while ago).
he hits him with the final blow, his opponent would have died but suddenly the lava wall appeared and rescued him.
awesome..
Then we have a lot of abusable tactics on such stages.
we draw the line behind every stage that favors abusable auto-win-like tactics.
It doesn't matter if this "abusable tactic" is absolute broken or absolute unbeatable, a abusable tactic can become a problem in the moment a lot of chars cannot do anything against it. (airstalling and other kinds of stalling on Norfair, LM, RC(?) etc)
A few Stages are usually banned because the hazards and more are very strong but this is indeed subjective (like pirate ship, rudder camping is bannable)
I don't exactly agree with how the first sentence is worded, but I understand what you mean, so I'll just ignore it for now.

As for the rest of your argument, there are some things that you must understand. One, the fact that the stage was able to save your friend's Lucario like that is a counterpick quality of the stage. The stage operates on it's own schedule, and the fact that the stage interfered with the player vs. player fight in the way that it did means that it has happened once, and it can certainly happen again. These are the kind of things that players should be keeping tabs of on the stage, so they can counterpick accordingly. For example, players who are subject to getting gimped should go on this stage (as well as Brinstar and to a lesser extent, Yoshi's Island Brawl) because they can get lucky and the stage can save them like this. On the bright side, by getting hit by the lava, they do pretty much turn into a free hit, rising rapidly from the surface of the lava.

Was the fact that the lava saved your friend broken or degenerate? No, it wasn't broken (although it's very discouraging).

And that brings me to my next point, you should never ever lower the line of competitive depth because you want to, you should be doing it because you have to.

If it isn't broken or degenerate, that means that it's suitable for competitive play, unless the game grows to the point where that element is proven guilty of being broken. Needlessly lowering the line of competitive depth is bad because it won't let the game grow around that problem to see if players work out their own solutions.

Every once in a while, a problem might arise in which it seems like it's borderline bannable, and in that case, I don't know what to say (yet).
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
I agree here, while I was reading through his post is just feels awesome, nice, and so on.
It doesn't felt like this awkward "our philosophy is the way you should play this game" it sounded really good and it was more "entertaining" to read your wall of text then any other Pro-Full Strage Strike Wall of text yet.
thumbs up!

but I'm on ADHDs Side
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11554334&postcount=825
imo this post sums it up.
quantity is not > quality.
So you're right when you say "more content = more depth" but in a Brawl where the depth is already really deep, we have to draw a line. (in before: this is subjective and so on, I don't care).
Why is less depth better than more depth? The only reason you could possibly bring up boils down to "people are too lazy to learn to play the game well". And before you bring that up, consider this:
-People have been playing melee on a competitive level for YEARS. Professional melee is miles harder to master than almost any form of brawl you can come up with, stages or not.
-When people discovered the BDacus, it took about 2 days for everyone who cared enough to master it. It's not an easy technique.

You really think that forcing people to learn how to adapt on a few more stages will push us over the peak? We aren't lazy (don't know a single case of a well-established community that is actually lazy when it comes to stuff like this) or new (Guilty Gear is fairly new and extremely difficult; these factors together lead to a game which is obscenely hard to just pick up and play and for which there's not much interest) enough that a little more difficulty in a part of the game which actually is ridiculously simple (stages) would actually drive people away from the game.

And even then, it wouldn't be less competitive. There would simply be less interest from players to compete in it. Believe it or not, all this means is that the game is less popular, not less competitive. Unless you want to claim that the GSC finals (if they hadn't split, I mean) was less competitive than Oktoberfest (Raven's last SF).

More "Polar Stages" lead to more "Random"-like Results, were strange things can happen without the intend to do so.
Um, no? Why whould they? More "polar" stages do not lead to inconsistent results at all. And although it may lead to, say, a G&W player winning against a player who 2-stocked him on FD, that has more to do with the counterpick nature of the stage and the nature of the characters than any inconsistencies.
The "inconsistencies" you're seeing will very well happen when going from one medium to another one. You might as well call it inconsistent when the thing that changes isn't the character, but the stage. And what's more dramatic, a player who places 1st at a tournament with a ridiculously conservative ruleset could place far worse in a more liberal one (and vice versa). These inconsistencies have nothing to do with the stages themselves, and everything to do with the level of skill both players have, and which characters they have (or how these characters perform on those stages).
There can be inconsistencies, for example, on stages like Pictochat. However, said inconsistencies appear on many stages. YI, for example. Or Pokemon Stadium 1. Almost all random events are completely negligible in affecting the outcome of matches-otherwise I wouldn't be supporting the stages.

and it doesn't matter if both players know the stage like their own mum, this things can still happen.
While this is true, what the player can do is:
-Learn the timing/pattern
-learn how to predict/avoid it
-Learn how to abuse it

I remember my mate playing a Lucario dito on Norfair in tournament (it's a while ago).
he hits him with the final blow, his opponent would have died but suddenly the lava wall appeared and rescued him.
awesome..
All right then, let me use the above things named.
What you could have done:
-Ensure that the lava wall (which the camera gives a good 7 seconds of warning for) isn't coming from the direction you're throwing your opponent, or throw them the other way before the event
-Followed up with a hit afterwards to finish the job while they were in hitstun
-Count on the lava wall yourself; play risky if you have it protecting you in the future

Granted, it's not exactly a shining example of why norfair should be legal, but why should we ban it for something like that when Yoshi's Island does virtually the same, but to a more extreme and less forewarned extent? (inb4other arguments against norfair; I know, I'm just saying that this particular one is a lousy one)

Then we have a lot of abusable tactics on such stages.
we draw the line behind every stage that favors abusable auto-win-like tactics.
It doesn't matter if this "abusable tactic" is absolute broken or absolute unbeatable, a abusable tactic can become a problem in the moment a lot of chars cannot do anything against it. (airstalling and other kinds of stalling on Norfair, LM, RC(?) etc)
A lot of characters can't do anything against ICs zoning, Diddy's camping, Falco's projectile spam, or MK's approach stuffing on FD. Let's ban that.

If a character can't deal with tactics in-game, what does that mean for the character? It usually doesn't mean "zomg the opposing character is broken, omg this stage is busted", no. Most of the time it means "My character is bad". It only starts to be a problem when the tactic spells an instant win for either every character (matchup-dependant like most circle camping stages), or for one character above all others. Overcentralization, in other words. Do you get that on LM, Norfair, or RC? Debatably on Norfair, the other two? No way in hell.

A few Stages are usually banned because the hazards and more are very strong but this is indeed subjective (like pirate ship, rudder camping is bannable)
A few stages are usually banned because some people are lousy scrubs when it comes to hazards. If you want to just ban rudder camping, fine (although good luck convincing someone to surface against a ganon who's just waiting to dair them; it's the only position they have left to turn where they don't die lol). And after that... Pirate Ship is a great counterpick. Why ban it, the bombs that come once or twice a match, are telegraphed by miles, and don't really kill worth ****? PTAD... The cars that are also telegraphed miles in advance, are on a timer, and that any good player will always avoid?

I represent this opinion.
...Which is worse than our "opinion" for fairly well-demonstrated reasons.

I'm not a scrub because I do so.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

It's a rational way to do stage lists.
Because completely unfounded beliefs such as "Static is standard" have always been rational and have never had negative repercussions. Yep, saying things with no backing whatsoever when there's good reason not to is perfectly rational.

and you can pummel your philosophy into my mind, my point will not change EVER.
You know, you're just begging for the same kind of creationist analogy I've been throwing around on GSB. Just sayin'.

and I don't think SuSas "hundred and hundred years of competitive philosophy" is objective.
Objective can only be done on data (imo), everything else, the opinion of which stage list is the best for competitive and so on is all SUBJECTIVE.
it's not a fact.

Yika out ♥
I'm just going to make a comparison here.

On one side, we have the opinion of everyone who ever designed a competitive game over the last few hundred years.
On the other, we have... you. Who probably has not designed anything competitive. And several other people who have no idea what they're talking about in a community which is infamous for being INCREDIBLY scrubby.
Am I the only one seeing the disconnect here?

@ADHD: Yep, because common sense has never steered anyone wrong, ever. And because what people want is always what's best for them, the competitive community, and the like. And because therefore, it always matters what the community thinks.

EDIT: @Twinkie: you rock. Keep posting plz. :D
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
These are the points which it's a judgment call, imo.
This.

This is where the whole subjective ordeal gets messy, and when it gets to that, it becomes this big headache that I don't know my way around of. :phone:
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Is it objectively fair to give someone a chance to earn the right to be condescending?

Yes because there is no subjectivity in the world if your side is most correct.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
wow, you're such a jerk, dude


Omni you're a douche. 28 people agree :awesome:


View Post
Every once in a while, a problem might arise in which it seems like it's borderline bannable, and in that case, I don't know what to say (yet).
Has to be proven to fall under the criteria and be proven to be degenerate (which is easy to do if the stage is truly degenerate)

If it's "borderline" bannable - at least for Brawl - that just means the stage is extremely polar - but not quite degenerate.

That's not a judgement call, that's a need to change our ruleset. The stage is not an auto-win for more than a handful of characters (the one's it is polar for) and thus needs to be banned. However "FORCING" a ban is a really bad thing in a competitive community, because you have NO CHOICE but to ban that stage.

Essentially meaning your say in the counterpick system (you know, the one meant to give your opponent some help but not an auto-win) is worthless.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050

Has to be proven to fall under the criteria and be proven to be degenerate (which is easy to do if the stage is truly degenerate)

If it's "borderline" bannable - at least for Brawl - that just means the stage is extremely polar - but not quite degenerate.

That's not a judgement call, that's a need to change our ruleset. The stage is not an auto-win for more than a handful of characters (the one's it is polar for) and thus needs to be banned. However "FORCING" a ban is a really bad thing in a competitive community, because you have NO CHOICE but to ban that stage.

Essentially meaning your say in the counterpick system (you know, the one meant to give your opponent some help but not an auto-win) is worthless.


What is our criteria for banning stages though? Do we have a complete official criteria that doesn't leave anything up to interpretation? For example, I know that we ban stages with permanent walls and walk-offs, as well as hard circles because they have been proven to be degenerate. That leaves nothing to interpretation, because it's either the stage has that element, or it doesn't, and if it does, bam, it's degenerate.

But what about levels with light circles, sloped walk-offs, or caves of life, or a certain amount of randomness? What's the official word on that? Have they been proven to be degenerate yet, or just extremely polar and unwanted? If it's just extremely polar, what is it that we're looking for that'll tip the scale?

IMO, the biggest problem with figuring this out is that players probably won't ever be able to tip the scale from extremely polar to degenerate if TOs don't let them play those stages by banning the stages that the BBR recommends to them. The BBR is composed of top players, top TOs, and excellent posters/debaters from our smash scene, and they as a group, set up a standard and recommend certain stages legal because they haven't been proven to be degenerate in today's metagame. How will we ever concretely tip the scale from highly polar to degenerate if nobody listens to them when they create rulesets? If TOs don't legalize the stages that the BBR deem acceptable, how will we ever prove that there's a tactic there that is degenerate and will win tournaments? More importantly, once the stage is legal, how will we ever prove that the stages are degenerate if nobody chooses to play on them and abuse the "broken" strategy?

Let me use planking as an example. How will we ever prove that planking is degenerate and can easily win tournaments if TOs keep on putting LGLs? PPlanking is proven frame-wise to be almost impossible to beat, but if LGLs are in place in every tournament, how will we ever prove that someone can plank perfectly and without error for 8 minutes to win the game under tournament conditions? Or how about 16 minutes for the set (24 minutes for WF/LF and GF)? Consider the fact that humans aren't machines, and are prone to error and/or imperfections.

The BBR recommends that TOs don't place an LGL, yet, people continue to ignore them. Other TOs are essentially making a solution for a tactic that isn't proven to be degenerate in practice
(or at least to my knowledge)
, and the solution that they use causes more problems than it attempts to solve x__x.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
You answered your own question in the post.

A soft circle may not be as easy to show as a hard circle, but it could still be there. How can we ever prove this if every TO ban's the stage?

It comes down to our community taking the easy way out of the problem. But only regarding stages because, by some odd occurrence, stages aren't seen to have a large change on matches - yet are seen to have an enormous change on matches?

As it stands now, every stage except Final Destination and Battlefield should be banned. (Lylat tilts, the platform+ghosts of Yoshi's Island (brawl) and the moving platform of Smashville can all vastly effect matches)

But it all comes down to "what can the people tolerate" which is a horrible decision making policy.

Also, at Omni (this time seriously)

Does the BBR recommend what's popular? Or what's objectively right? Because most of what I've ever seen from them is the latter. Why should this be any different?
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Hey guys. I just want to give you all a heads-up; I might not be posting for a few days... because my primary hard drive just failed for good. I'm in the process of trying (though unsuccessfully) to recover as much data as I can to my secondary drives and get my OS and programs up and running again.

So... hopefully I'll see you guys again soon. :/
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
A bunch of areas in the midwest had stages all the way down to tier 3, they were slowly removed as people played the game and time went on.

I kinda want to look at something since people haven't analyzed it yet.

This post will contain summaries for some of the more controversial stages - more will come over time. Credit to AmazingAmpharos for several of these.

Vote counts reflect number of votes from the entire revision process.


<hr />
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counterpick Group Two
Vote: (7-24-18)

We feel that Pokemon Stadium 2 was banned in many regions without being given a fair chance. The votecount clearly shows that we do not think this stage should be banned.

The most common issue brought up with this stage is that it forces players to deal with changes in the game's physics, such as icy floors or low gravity. However, the majority consensus was that these changes do not degrade play, but instead open up new options that can be used to the advantage of the player that takes the time to become familiar with the stage.

The tendency for transformations to lead to stalling was raised as a concern, as several characters can stall the entire duration of Flying transformation, and both Electric and Ground transformations tend to discourage approach. For this we look at the precedent set by Pokemon Stadium 1, for which there are no qualms about its legality. As Rock and Fire transformations also have a tendency to halt battle, it is clear that the 30 second intervals of ceasefire is not a banworthy quality for Pokemon Stadium 2.

A strong point for its legality lies in the fact that no characters seem to consider this stage a strong counterpick, and no characters seem to consider this one of their worst stages. This leads us to believe that this is a very fair stage overall. In fact, with no characters currently considering Pokemon Stadium 2 as a strong counterpick, there was a movement to allow Pokemon Stadium 2 to be considered as a Starter stage.



<hr />
Jungle Japes

Counterpick Group 2
Vote: (0-28-18)

In place where this stage was banned, Falco's performance was sometimes cited as a reason. However, there was a strong consensus that his strength here was overestimated, and is certainly no reason to ban the stage.

The Klap Trap was raised as a concern, but we decided it was a non-issue. Although it kills at low percents, it occupies space away from the main part of the stage. Combined with the fact that the timing of its appearance is completely predictable, this makes the Klap Trap a stage feature that can be incorporated into a strategy, rather than a hazard that interferes with gameplay.

The greater concern was for the stalling potential on the stage. The multiple ledges and the constant presence of water make running away significantly easier than on most other stages. Wario and Meta Knight in particular are two characters who could use these features effectively. While many of us acknowledge that this could be problematic, the fact that this stage has been legal in many regions, with no such strategy being proven to be overpowered or degenerate, is enough to allow this stage to remain legal until it is more conclusively shown that these stalling tactics are broken.



<hr />
Green Greens

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-23-26)

We recognize this stage has been controversial in the past, and after considering the merits and problems with this stage, we concluded it was overall an acceptable counterpick.

The single most dominating aspect of the debate was the randomness issue; Green Greens has three random aspects. The first is that blocks randomly fall into incomplete columns and may or may not be bombs, the second is that apples occasionally fall and may randomly be throwable items, healing items, or self-detonating explosives, and the third is that the wind event occurs randomly. The consensus on the blocks was that, while they do contain a significant random element, it is small when players understand the rules governing the stage and play correctly to minimize risk. It is further limited as a problem by the fact that good DI prevents deaths to the bomb blocks except at fairly high damage so getting hit into a randomly falling bomb block should very seldom be fatal. The apples were agreed to be somewhat harder to predict, but apples fall rarely with the most deadly aspect (exploding apples) being the rarest issue of all. Again, very rare misfortune may occur, but the vast majority of problems randomness in apples cause can be avoided by all players using smart play. The third random aspect, the wind, was not raised as a significant point and therefore is likely considered irrelevant to the stage's legality by the majority of the BBR. While some BBR members did feel the randomness was significant enough to warrant a ban, the majority did not feel it was especially significant when informed players approached the stage.

The potential for wall infintes was another concern for this stage, but it was ultimately decided by the majority to be acceptable. The breakable nature of the blocks does much to limit the power of wall infinites on this stage.

The closeness of blast zones was another concern, but the majority dismissed this concern. Some feel that blast zone proximity should not be a large concern when deciding counterpick status at all, and others were quick to point out that Green Greens is not as extreme as it initially seems. The main ground on Green Greens is actually slightly further from the upper blast zone than the deck of the Halberd, and play on Green Greens is usually based around the center stage which is reasonably distant from the side blast zones.

The stalling potential of this stage with under the stage antics and ledge stalling was considered but ultimately dismissed. The majority felt that, while this was a potential concern, it was not significantly more dangerous than it is on Smashville, an uncontroversial legal stage.

Matchup balance was the last point considered, but no consensus was reached on how powerful this stage was for characters such as Meta Knight. The fact that few seemed sure of the character balance on this stage was highlighted by what a rare pick this stage was at both MLG events. This uncertainty led us to conclude that this stage should not be banned on that basis.



<hr />
Distant Planet

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-20-25)

We feel Distant Planet is another stage that was banned without proper justification.

The Bulborb was brought up as a ban reason because it instantly kills players regardless of percent. However, it was generally agreed that the lethal zone is too far removed from the main area to affect play to any significant degree. The creature is more likely to influence the match by providing a platform to recover than by taking a stock from a player.

Another concern was the presence of the walkoff. Although it is a sloped walkoff, some characters such as King Dedede and Pikachu can still use it to score early kills, but we deem it reasonable to expect the player to avoid such situations when playing against these characters, since taking your opponent to the blast zone generally has to be initiated facing the near blast zone while on the slope; this is a very specific situation that can reasonably be avoided.

It was also argued that the stage promotes camping strategies too heavily, with a very strong defensive position at the bottom of the slope and two ledges between which most characters can travel easily. In response, it was noted that the stage itself helps to combat abuse of such features. The rain flushes players out from the bottom of the slope, and the pellets provide even characters without projectiles with a means to combat camping. All in all, when considering that this stage was never given much of a chance to show that camping tactics are indeed overpowered, it was decided that Distant Planet should not be banned.



<hr />
Luigi's Mansion

Counterpick Group Three
Vote: (0-22-27)

There were several issues raised over the legality of Luigi's Mansion. One was the claim that Olimar and Meta Knight are overpowered here. Meta Knight was brought up as being too strong, with Mach Tornado being the claimed overpowered move. Olimar's strength was also raised with heightened camping ability and u-smash chains. Another was that the solid ceilings created a cave-of-life effect, shifting the reason for death from "being hit by a KO move" to "failing to tech a KO move", which tends to lead to variance in results. Lastly, it was argued that running the timer is too easy on Luigi's Mansion. The layout of the mansion is such that faster characters could easily avoid combat while it is standing, and when it is destroyed, the runner needs to avoid combat for only twenty seconds before it respawns.

In response to all of these concerns, strategic breaking of the mansion was raised. Both the cave-of-life and the path for running away become less effective as the mansion is destroyed. While some claimed that attempting to attack the pillars left you unfairly open to attack, it was generally agreed that each player's interactions with the house with respect to the most desirable state for each player led to very strategic gameplay, rather than degenerate gameplay. The player who wants the cave-of-life, or who wants to run away naturally wants the house to stay standing. By destroying the house, the other player can either force a response, or remove the feature that enables the opponent's strategy in the first place. It should also be noted that it is not obvious that Mach Tornado and Olimar's u-smash are overpowered on Luigi's Mansion. Through smart use of teching and get-up options, many claimed that it was very possible to escape any sort of attempt to chain these moves into themselves.



<hr />
Pirate Ship

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-22-28)

Pirate Ship was one of the most controversial stages discussed, and due to the tie in the votecount we have placed it in the Counter/Banned category.

Some felt the bombs were too strong of a hazard, with the potential to deal over 50% damage and KO at lower percents than most hazards, and that their trajectory was too difficult to follow. Others claimed that it was reasonable to expect the players to avoid the bombs, and that following the trajectory was just a matter of practice, and did not think the bombs were an issue despite the severe punishment inflicted when they connect.

Other minor concerns raised for this stage were the catapult and the period of low gravity while falling from the whirlwind. However, it was generally agreed that the catapult is not an issue as characters will only be killed by it with poor DI, and that low gravity is a tolerable change in physics that does not degrade gameplay.

The most controversial aspect of this stage, however, was the camping enabled by the presence of water, and in particular swimming under the rudder, or "rudder camping". Because not all characters have a way of forcing the opponent out from under the rudder, many matchups can see the game decided as soon as a stock lead is obtained. 31.7% of all matchups in the game see rudder camping as a problem. Some felt that rudder camping should be banned under stalling to allow the stage to be legal, while others felt that it should be Pirate Ship that is banned rather than rudder camping. Still others felt that even with rudder camping the stage should be legal. We have decided to leave the issue of whether swimming under the rudder should be labelled as stalling to the discretion of the TO. The TO's decision on the matter will likely be a major factor in placing the stage into the Counterpick or the Banned category.



<hr />
Port Town Aero Dive

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-24-32)

One concern raised for Port Town Aero Dive was the power of the cars. Despite the fact that every stop has at least one, and often two zones that are safe (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=217615), it was argued that killing many characters at ~60% is too powerful of a hazard for competitive play. However, it ultimately decided that they would not be a reason to ban the stage, as the existence of safe zones is enough to ensure that smart play on this stage would see very few car kills not resulting from one player outplaying another. Experience backs this up; many confirmed through testing the stage that avoiding the cars is a reasonable expectation. The opportunity for one player to force the other into the cars' path changes the risk-reward balance slightly, but the consensus was that it is not a banworthy change. In fact, some even said that the power of the cars could be seen as a counterpick quality for characters such as Samus, who have trouble killing in general.

The other concern is the lack of ledges on the main platform, and the implication for characters with poor recoveries, and tether recoveries in particular. Ultimately, we decided to label the lack of ledges as a strong counterpick quality instead of a cause for a ban. The justification for this is aided by the fact that the track is present for the majority of the course. It is reasonable to expect characters with poor recoveries to save their double jump and instead use the track to bounce themselves back towards the stage, especially when you consider that it is not uncommon for some characters to take upwards of 30% trying to recover against an edgeguarder even on static stages. Again, testing has shown that the lack of ledges is not as detrimental to balance as one might first think.



<hr />
Counter-pick Stages [ Top ]
Counter Pick Group One

These stages are typically used as counter picks, alongside any starters that might not have been in the starter list. TOs looking for a reliable set of counter picks are recommended to at least include these.

* Frigate Orpheon
* Brinstar


Counter Pick Group Two

These counter picks are less of a standard, but still relatively commonly used. They are considered to be perfectly playable in a competitive environment in the sense that they provide consistent results when used properly. However, they typically require extensive stage knowledge more so than the stages not in this category and have interfering or perhaps over-centralizing hazards which don't suit everyone's tastes. Note that they have been ordered in terms of overall acceptance in the BBR, which also holds true for tier three.

* Pictochat
* Rainbow Cruise
* Pokémon Stadium 2
* Jungle Japes
* Norfair


Counter Pick Group Three

These stages vary in the amount they're used in the competitive scene today. While some are adopted by MLG and the Midwest, others are rarely seen, if at all. The BBR itself is as split on their competitive viability as the scene at large. Otherwise, the same applies as with tier two stages.

* Green Greens
* Distant Planet
* Luigi's Mansion
* Pirate Ship
* Port Town Aero Dive
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Specifically the tier 3 ones are all extremely questionable to even the BBR, dunno if people want to analyze it, I thought it would be an idea for both sides of this debate.

Hey guys. I just want to give you all a heads-up; I might not be posting for a few days... because my primary hard drive just failed for good. I'm in the process of trying (though unsuccessfully) to recover as much data as I can to my secondary drives and get my OS and programs up and running again.

So... hopefully I'll see you guys again soon. :/
Sorry this happened, I hope you can recover as much as you can.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
I kinda want to look at something since people haven't analyzed it yet.
All of those stages except for Luigi's Mansion have already been analyzed:

Port Town (I'd wish more people read this, specifically the last two pages and the first page, as this stage is NOT unpredictable)
Green Greens (should have moved to tier 2 a long time ago)
Pirate Ship
Distant Planet
Yoshi's Island

*cough*Someone should do LM*cough*

Specifically the tier 3 ones are all extremely questionable to even the BBR, dunno if people want to analyze it, I thought it would be an idea for both sides of this debate.
See the above, and there is nothing wrong with Green Greens, Port Town, Yoshi's Island or Distant Planet, heck the former two should be bumped up to tier two. Pirate Ship is pushing it in terms of legality, but people seem to like it, so it's there. The one I REALLY think should be questioned is Pictochat (a high group 2 stage), there are so many things wrong with it that it isn't funny. PC should be a tier 3 or banned stage.

Hey guys. I just want to give you all a heads-up; I might not be posting for a few days... because my primary hard drive just failed for good. I'm in the process of trying (though unsuccessfully) to recover as much data as I can to my secondary drives and get my OS and programs up and running again.

So... hopefully I'll see you guys again soon. :/
I feel for you man, I've lost hard drive data similarly too, it sucks when that happens.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
I decided that I should test out PTAD, again, to see what actual facts I get or reconfirm on the stage.

I'll use the numbering for transformations in the thread here.

Red Ryu's Raw data on Port Town Aero Drive:

Aerial Platform:
This is the platform that moves you around the track so far here is what can be concluded on the platform.

The platform has no ledges as stated in this thread multiple times.

The track itself has area where you will e hit up after hitting ground, characters will take 15% damage from receiving knock back from the track.

the wall at #3.5 does 25% damage.

There are portions where the stage vanishes and you can't make it back on the track, I have heard arguments such that Mute City was similar in that there was a drop off point, difference here is that it was only at the last section, there are far more points on this stage where the stage won't save you, so I tried to figure out exactly where the stage couldn't save you at certain moments.

The problem is almost every movement from one transformation has some kind of hole in which you will die if you hit it. I'll see if I can get pics of every part where you can fall off and die, but no matter which portion you are moving to, there is a hole of some kinda that lacks a track. I will say this is a fact, there is a larger % in which there is no track compared to Mute City.

The Transformations:

If you have read the thread here you should be at least familiar with the layouts.

So what do we know about the layouts?

1.) Cars will only not appear on transformations #3-#4.
2.) Every transformation has a safe zone which you can avoid cars while standing still.
3.) Transformations #1,#2, & #5 have walls on both sides
4.) Transformations #3, #4, #6 & #7 have walkoff on both sides
5.) All of the transformations have a floor which you can jump up from underneath, meaning if you fall off from a outside of a wall of the how on transformation #5 you can jump you.
6.) Transformations seem to last varying lengths depending on which one you land one, I beleive this is why some lasted from 6-9 seconds.

This is what I got atm.

How it transforms:

People say that the stage is predictable, which is partially right.

The cars will follow a set track regardless of where you stop, they will keep moving at the same speed as they flow around the course. There is also the fact while you are on the aerial platform it will follow the track how the cars do except woth the going off the track at #3-#4.

The one thing that is random is where it stops. I've checked by running the stage quite a few times and there isn't a set pattern of where it stops at all. This is a difference from Mute City as I recall where that stage would stop at each section, if I'm recalling this correctly. Port Town does not. Where it stops is completely random. So while you follow the track in a set manor, where you will stop is something of another matter.

This is somewhat similar to Delfino: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=257415except while that one was slightly predictable if you knew the flow chart, this one doesn't have that.


The cars:


The dreaded cars. Ok here is the scoop, there are portions in which the cars cannot hit you on the transformations in which they appear and even some platforms can keep you safe. The cars will do 20% damage when they hit you., this should kill someone at about 55%.

There is one exception to this, people have stated that the cars can hit you on the platforms, this is completely true. I beleive this has to do with the hit boxes on some of the cars, some of them are taller than others and therefore have a hit box that extends onto the above platforms that are low enough,

Basic stuff from the testing I have done on the stage, however I need to figure out the exact parts where you can fall down via time duration where the track isn't there.

You guys know where I stand on this stages legality, but this is the raw data I've had on it via research of the other thread and personal testing.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
the wall at #3.5 does 25% damage.
There is absolutely no reason to get hit by the wall if you're already on the platform, it's also extremely situational to hit someone into it, to the point where it's almost unnoticable.

There are portions where the stage vanishes and you can't make it back on the track, I have heard arguments such that Mute City was similar in that there was a drop off point, difference here is that it was only at the last section, there are far more points on this stage where the stage won't save you, so I tried to figure out exactly where the stage couldn't save you at certain moments.
There are only two sections that present this as an issue


The problem is almost every movement from one transformation has some kind of hole in which you will die if you hit it.
There are only FOUR areas, and all of them are short enough to be stalled out by virtually every character [except maybe Olimar and Ivysaur]:

-The series of jumps before the "turn stop", but you aren't going to get killed by it UNLESS you are spiked into a gap, and even then, if your damage is high enough (180%ish with a regular meteor, about 120% with Ganon) you'll go through the stage anyway when meteored. The series of jumps takes less than a second to pass by, so that shouldn't be a problem, especially since the start/finish line is clearly visible a few seconds before that turn.

-The huge jump after the giant ROB lasts for a whopping . . . . 3 seconds, in comparison, Ganondorf's recovery talkes about 1.5 seconds, with about another second to fall back off screen.

-The crossover maneuver from the loop that "transformation" 3.5 is at: there's a 2 second gap (with a blue disc which can be bounced off of), followed by one second of road [you can tell where it is because the platform will be sliding to the right over it] and another two second gap. This gives you two chances to bounce off the road, assuming your character couldn't stall it out anyway.

-The last area, right after the vertical stretch of track also lasts 3 seconds in the air, HOWEVER, the track's hitbox loads offscreen after two of those seconds, meaning you can still bounce off of it even if you can't see it.


I'll see if I can get pics of every part where you can fall off and die, but no matter which portion you are moving to, there is a hole of some kinda that lacks a track. I will say this is a fact, there is a larger % in which there is no track compared to Mute City.


That is NOT true. Compared to the maximum duration of 3 consecutive seconds on Port Town, Mute City's longest consecutive "air time" (as in, without a track to protect the player) is SIXTEEN seconds. Using Brawl's gravity speed and speed in general, that would be the equivalent recovery chance of having no track to land on for about 30 seconds. Not to mention, Mute City is less competitive because of the cars on that stage, which UNLIKE in Port Town, give less than a half-a-second of warning, and, at the tunnel section, no warning at all.


1.) Cars will only not appear on transformations #3-#4.
A given, as they aren't on the track.

2.) Every transformation has a safe zone which you can avoid cars while standing still.
LOL You can do more than that. I've fought just fine while the cars passed by, they don't stop you from fighting in the air at all as long as you don't fast fall, and for the most part, you have plenty of opportunities to land to refresh your jumps due to how spread out the cars are, something Mute City's cars don't allow.

3.) Transformations #1,#2, & #5 have walls on both sides
Wall infinites aren't a significan problem with these walls, as they are temporary, #5 also has a hole in the bottom, which can be used to stop DeDeDe from getting you to the wall. Besides, temporary walls never stopped Pokemon Stadium or Delfino Plaza from being starters, and their walls are easier to get chained into.

4.) Transformations #3, #4, #6 & #7 have walkoff on both sides
Again, these are temporary, there are also temporary walkoffs on Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege, Rainbow Cruise, and Halberd.

5.) All of the transformations have a floor which you can jump up from underneath, meaning if you fall off from a outside of a wall of the how on transformation #5 you can jump you.
Again, the former is not correct, You can not go through #3, #4, #6, or #7. The only ones you can are #1, #2, and #5. And the only one that can be really taken advantage of is #5.
However, you can do similar antics on Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, Brinstar, and several others.

6.) Transformations seem to last varying lengths depending on which one you land one, I beleive this is why some lasted from 6-9 seconds.
That's not really that big of a deal if it's true, I haven't checked it though.

The cars will follow a set track regardless of where you stop, they will keep moving at the same speed as they flow around the course. There is also the fact while you are on the aerial platform it will follow the track how the cars do except woth the going off the track at #3-#4.
The cars are also predictable on how they approach, for example, the cars can always be seen several seconds in advance before they reach you, something that Mute City didn't let you do. Another example is that there will ALWAYS be a 3-4 car pack of cars that have no hitboxes at the vertical section, with them coming 2 seconds before the "harmful cars".

The one thing that is random is where it stops. I've checked by running the stage quite a few times and there isn't a set pattern of where it stops at all. This is a difference from Mute City as I recall where that stage would stop at each section, if I'm recalling this correctly. Port Town does not. Where it stops is completely random. So while you follow the track in a set manor, where you will stop is something of another matter.
Mute City alternated each time, so half of the transformations would be used on each circuit.

This is somewhat similar to Delfino: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=257415except while that one was slightly predictable if you knew the flow chart, this one doesn't have that.
The wall (3.5) always appears in between transformations 3 and 4, being out of reach any other time. Also the "flow chart" isn't really that useful, as each of the flying transformations can go to two different locations, making it useless to memorize. Port Town also has less transformations, and, as far I've played NEVER goes to the same location twice, unlike Delfino. Also, Delfino is truly random as it takes off, giving you no indication of what the next stage will be until you land, only giving possible hints JUST before landing, at least in Port Town you can look at the track and determine where the next potential stop location will be.

The dreaded cars. Ok here is the scoop, there are portions in which the cars cannot hit you on the transformations in which they appear and even some platforms can keep you safe. The cars will do 20% damage when they hit you., this should kill someone at about 55%.
Their DI must be garbage then, because most characters would need to be at 60-90% [weight dependent] before that actually becomes a threat, and they can be shielded, jumped over, rolled through, or simply avoided. The cars don't take up nearly as much of the playing field as people think they do.

There is one exception to this, people have stated that the cars can hit you on the platforms, this is completely true. I beleive this has to do with the hit boxes on some of the cars, some of them are taller than others and therefore have a hit box that extends onto the above platforms that are low enough.
It has more to do with the platform locations than the variation in car hitboxes. The two lower platforms on transformation #7 are pierced directly by the cars, the upper platform is safe however, and many of the characters can clear the pack on that transformation simply by jumping and using their recovery. Similarly, the lower platform on transformation #5 [which is about level with Mario's height] is obviously too low to be safe, while the other two platforms are completely clear of the cars.
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
So, I missed a lot, but I got a video of Krystadez (Thanks for the correction) timing out BigLou on Norfair (Wario vs. Luigi). I only caught the tail end of it, but before other people bring it up, I'm just gonna inb4 the arguments I know will arise.

"This is too good."

Ban it, or pick someone who doesn't have aerial mobility as horrendous as Luigi's.

"But if we ban it, then Brinstar..."


This is why I recommend two (or more) stage bans.

Also, FUN FACT: Almost every pro-bracket game1 started on CS. Go go 9-list striking for encouraging dynamic stages? It's not as good as full-list, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I'll have a ton of vids up over the next few days, I recorded a LOT of the pro-bracket sets, mostly the sonics, and ones that did not include MK. (Except Tyrant vs. Gnes)
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,194
Location
New Jersey
So, I missed a lot, but I got a video of Bassem timing out BigLou on Norfair (Wario vs. Luigi). I only caught the tail end of it, but before other people bring it up, I'm just gonna inb4 the arguments I know will arise.

"This is too good."

Ban it, or pick someone who doesn't have aerial mobility as horrendous as Luigi's.

"But if we ban it, then Brinstar..."


This is why I recommend two (or more) stage bans.

Also, FUN FACT: Almost every pro-bracket game1 started on CS. Go go 9-list striking for encouraging dynamic stages? It's not as good as full-list, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I'll have a ton of vids up over the next few days, I recorded a LOT of the pro-bracket sets, mostly the sonics, and ones that did not include MK. (Except Tyrant vs. Gnes)
Two stage bans are terrible. You're against artificially buffing characters, when you're doing the exact same thing in a different form.

Wario gets two bans for FD and battlefield against anyone with grab advantages against him, Metaknight can ban FD and halberd against snake, Diddy kong no longer has to worry about brinstar and rainbow cruise, but his two best hopes vs metaknight vanish. This is the same case with falco or ice climbers.

Metaknight does not deserve to play around with stages from the start and other matchups are of course altered.

The only way we can actually strive for every character to be stage-balanced is to only allow them to play on certain stages respectively, now that's an insane thought.
 

Ripple

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
9,632
just think of our ban system right now ADHD. what's its goal? to prevent a character from being to good on a CP. does it accomplish this goal? not even close. wario still gets grabbed on BF, diddy is taken to brinstar, norfair or RC. and MK takes his opponent to RC or brinstar.

our current ban system does nothing
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,194
Location
New Jersey
just think of our ban system right now ADHD. what's its goal? to prevent a character from being to good on a CP. does it accomplish this goal? not even close. wario still gets grabbed on BF, diddy is taken to brinstar, norfair or RC. and MK takes his opponent to RC or brinstar.

our current ban system does nothing
Two stage bans are doing nothing more than pleasing the false notion that you've balanced out the "too good" scenarios, like Metaknight on norfair or brinstar. You're also limiting characters who are only viable on a few stages (and don't dare say that it's supposed to be this way, when you've proposed something foreign in a ruleset--they need at least one fair enough stage against metaknight) while others are unnecessarily given advantage in other matchups. I'm really not buying this.
 

Ripple

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
9,632
Two stage bans are doing nothing more than pleasing the false notion that you've balanced out the "too good" scenarios, like Metaknight on norfair or brinstar. You're also limiting characters who are only viable on a few stages (and don't dare say that it's supposed to be this way, when you've proposed something foreign in a ruleset--they need at least one fair enough stage against metaknight) while others are unnecessarily given advantage in other matchups. I'm really not buying this.
characters that are only good on a few stages are already limited.

and how is it a false notion? name one character that is absurdly good on more than 2 stages other than MK.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
Ok debate time.

There is absolutely no reason to get hit by the wall if you're already on the platform, it's also extremely situational to hit someone into it, to the point where it's almost unnoticable.
Of course off the platform your going to take the road over the wall.

Situational, yes, but it there and I'm just pointing it out as a fast.

There are only FOUR areas, and all of them are short enough to be stalled out by virtually every character [except maybe Olimar and Ivysaur]:

-The series of jumps before the "turn stop", but you aren't going to get killed by it UNLESS you are spiked into a gap, and even then, if your damage is high enough (180%ish with a regular meteor, about 120% with Ganon) you'll go through the stage anyway when meteored. The series of jumps takes less than a second to pass by, so that shouldn't be a problem, especially since the start/finish line is clearly visible a few seconds before that turn.

-The huge jump after the giant ROB lasts for a whopping . . . . 3 seconds, in comparison, Ganondorf's recovery talkes about 1.5 seconds, with about another second to fall back off screen.

-The crossover maneuver from the loop that "transformation" 3.5 is at: there's a 2 second gap (with a blue disc which can be bounced off of), followed by one second of road [you can tell where it is because the platform will be sliding to the right over it] and another two second gap. This gives you two chances to bounce off the road, assuming your character couldn't stall it out anyway.

-The last area, right after the vertical stretch of track also lasts 3 seconds in the air, HOWEVER, the track's hitbox loads offscreen after two of those seconds, meaning you can still bounce off of it even if you can't see it.
These are some of the holes, that isn't all of them.

There are holes in each transformation spot which are much smaller in duration compared to the four large ones you pointed out.

Every single area has one inbetween has one, while it is more likely you will hit the road. It is very possible to fall through one of these holes.

Of course some characters can stall it out, I doubt everyone can stall out effectively at certain points.

That is NOT true. Compared to the maximum duration of 3 consecutive seconds on Port Town, Mute City's longest consecutive "air time" (as in, without a track to protect the player) is SIXTEEN seconds. Using Brawl's gravity speed and speed in general, that would be the equivalent recovery chance of having no track to land on for about 30 seconds. Not to mention, Mute City is less competitive because of the cars on that stage, which UNLIKE in Port Town, give less than a half-a-second of warning, and, at the tunnel section, no warning at all.
I'm talking about total duration on the stage, Mute has a longer duration but this stage when you put the timing on the holes together seems to be even longer than mute city was.

On sections like #7 there is virtually no way to tell the cars are coming outside of the quick zoom noise they make or the first very fast cars that come by before the evil ones come.

LOL You can do more than that. I've fought just fine while the cars passed by, they don't stop you from fighting in the air at all as long as you don't fast fall, and for the most part, you have plenty of opportunities to land to refresh your jumps due to how spread out the cars are, something Mute City's cars don't allow.
Depends on positioning.

Wall infinites aren't a significan problem with these walls, as they are temporary, #5 also has a hole in the bottom, which can be used to stop DeDeDe from getting you to the wall. Besides, temporary walls never stopped Pokemon Stadium or Delfino Plaza from being starters, and their walls are easier to get chained into.
Delfino doesn't have a wall or walk off on every single transformation, PTAD has one or the other on every transformation, while #4 is the least abusable it's still able to be abused by other characters.

Again, these are temporary, there are also temporary walkoffs on Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege, Rainbow Cruise, and Halberd.
It adds to the stage in what it does.

Again, the former is not correct, You can not go through #3, #4, #6, or #7. The only ones you can are #1, #2, and #5. And the only one that can be really taken advantage of is #5.
However, you can do similar antics on Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, Brinstar, and several others.
I might be wrong about some of those, still stage lacks ledges so it might be a bit harder to scrooge it.

That's not really that big of a deal if it's true, I haven't checked it though.
Means your on the ledge less platform more.

The cars are also predictable on how they approach, for example, the cars can always be seen several seconds in advance before they reach you, something that Mute City didn't let you do. Another example is that there will ALWAYS be a 3-4 car pack of cars that have no hitboxes at the vertical section, with them coming 2 seconds before the "harmful cars".
Isn't that what I said? lol.

Mute City alternated each time, so half of the transformations would be used on each circuit.
So it's at least predictable, unlike PTAD.

The wall (3.5) always appears in between transformations 3 and 4, being out of reach any other time. Also the "flow chart" isn't really that useful, as each of the flying transformations can go to two different locations, making it useless to memorize. Port Town also has less transformations, and, as far I've played NEVER goes to the same location twice, unlike Delfino. Also, Delfino is truly random as it takes off, giving you no indication of what the next stage will be until you land, only giving possible hints JUST before landing, at least in Port Town you can look at the track and determine where the next potential stop location will be.
It's not useless to memorize.



Even the layout of the platforms will give away where you are going.

While PTAD you can pay attention to what you pass there isn't any guarantee where you will stop.

Also the platform that takes you there is larger, has ledges and platforms. PTAD's is smaller and lacks the other traits.

Their DI must be garbage then, because most characters would need to be at 60-90% [weight dependent] before that actually becomes a threat, and they can be shielded, jumped over, rolled through, or simply avoided. The cars don't take up nearly as much of the playing field as people think they do.
55% was the average I listed for the moment, I'm sure at some areas you could live longer. I think Only Norfair and Green Green can kill that early for legal stages.

It has more to do with the platform locations than the variation in car hitboxes. The two lower platforms on transformation #7 are pierced directly by the cars, the upper platform is safe however, and many of the characters can clear the pack on that transformation simply by jumping and using their recovery. Similarly, the lower platform on transformation #5 [which is about level with Mario's height] is obviously too low to be safe, while the other two platforms are completely clear of the cars.
No arguments here.

So, I missed a lot, but I got a video of Bassem timing out BigLou on Norfair (Wario vs. Luigi). I only caught the tail end of it, but before other people bring it up, I'm just gonna inb4 the arguments I know will arise.

"This is too good."

Ban it, or pick someone who doesn't have aerial mobility as horrendous as Luigi's.

"But if we ban it, then Brinstar..."


This is why I recommend two (or more) stage bans.

Also, FUN FACT: Almost every pro-bracket game1 started on CS. Go go 9-list striking for encouraging dynamic stages? It's not as good as full-list, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I'll have a ton of vids up over the next few days, I recorded a LOT of the pro-bracket sets, mostly the sonics, and ones that did not include MK. (Except Tyrant vs. Gnes)
More like you can't pick most of the cast on Norfair against Wario.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
Of course off the platform your going to take the road over the wall.

Situational, yes, but it there and I'm just pointing it out as a fast.
Fair enough, though PT is far from the only one with a very situational ko prop. *cough*Halberd*cough*


These are some of the holes, that isn't all of them.

There are holes in each transformation spot which are much smaller in duration compared to the four large ones you pointed out.

Every single area has one inbetween has one, while it is more likely you will hit the road. It is very possible to fall through one of these holes.
However, unless you get spiked into one of those, the gravity makes it VERY difficult for that to happen, especially if you're aware of the holes and fastfall/don't fastfall beforehand.

Of course some characters can stall it out, I doubt everyone can stall out effectively at certain points.
I'll have to look into which characters can and can not, the only ones I see having problems (like I said efore) would be Olimar, Ivysaur, and Bowser.

I'm talking about total duration on the stage, Mute has a longer duration but this stage when you put the timing on the holes together seems to be even longer than mute city was.
Mute City still had longer air time regardless of the distribution in Port Town's holes.

On sections like #7 there is virtually no way to tell the cars are coming outside of the quick zoom noise they make or the first very fast cars that come by before the evil ones come.
The "very first cars" give more than enough time for the players to react, watch how long it takes for these characters to get hit after the first ones pass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZgFJkvolQ&feature=related&fmt=18&#t=1m3s



Delfino doesn't have a wall or walk off on every single transformation, PTAD has one or the other on every transformation, while #4 is the least abusable it's still able to be abused by other characters.
Port Town also has much larger spans in between the walls and walkoffs, letting most characters break free before the walkoff-ko or wall infinite is possible. And even then, DeDeDe would only be able to get about 10 throws in at the most, so there's a reasonable chance of survival before the stage lifts off again. The killzones are also further than on Delfino.


I might be wrong about some of those, still stage lacks ledges so it might be a bit harder to scrooge it.
Agreed.


Means your on the ledge less platform more.
Which isn't a bad thing.

Isn't that what I said? lol.
The way I read it, I thought you stated that they constantly go around, I commented that they also come onto the battlefield in specific patterns that have certain timings.

So it's at least predictable, unlike PTAD.
Except the cars aren't as easy to determine, as they can vary in speed and are nearly twice as fast there.

It's not useless to memorize.

*chart*

Even the layout of the platforms will give away where you are going.
The chart is pretty much as good as useless when in play. (especially since there aren't notable advantages for knowing where the next stage is going, the opponent will have more than three seconds during the landing time to figure that out) It doesn't give away where you are going, it only halves the potential locations, if you watch the arrows:

There are four places the "red" configuration can go, four where the "purple" can go, three where the "blue" can go, and two where the "green" can go. You still are not able to determine where you'll end up until you actually get there.

While PTAD you can pay attention to what you pass there isn't any guarantee where you will stop.
True, though you'll know that there is one (the previous mode) where it won't be going to next.

Also the platform that takes you there is larger, has ledges and platforms. PTAD's is smaller and lacks the other traits.
It also doesn't have a road to refresh your recovery and give the player upward momentum, allowing them to get back on the stage from virtually any part of the platform without having to worry about edgeguarding.


55% was the average I listed for the moment, I'm sure at some areas you could live longer. I think Only Norfair and Green Green can kill that early for legal stages.
Green Greens kills at about 70% or more aswell, and unless you're already at the upper killzone on the former, you'll at least survive to 80% with good DI.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
Two stage bans are terrible. You're against artificially buffing characters, when you're doing the exact same thing in a different form.
Good point ADHD. Let me see if I can sort this out.

Lets take for example, the Bowsercide rule. The old one stated that the initiator of the action gets the win no matter what the game screens says. Then they changed it so whoever comes out as the winner in the results screen is the winner. There was controversy because people thought that Bowser/Ganon/Kirby/etc. deserved the win for X reason, while the opposition said that nobody deserves any artificial buffs because the game already declared a winner, and who are we as players to say that "we want Bowser to win because he deserves it" when the decision is already made?

In this case, we don't want to artificially buff anyone for the reasons explained above, but in terms of handing out more than one ban, it's okay to do so because the game doesn't have a system that picks out the most fair stage for every matchup.The system was made so that the players can reach a better median of bias depending on the matchup they are playing, as an alternative to just picking random. With that being said, our current stage striking/counterpicking system is completely artificial, and in fact, is already artificially buffing characters. So if we're artificially buffing characters already, why is it so bad to do it again as a way of revising our current system?
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
Two stage bans are terrible. You're against artificially buffing characters, when you're doing the exact same thing in a different form.

Wario gets two bans for FD and battlefield against anyone with grab advantages against him, Metaknight can ban FD and halberd against snake, Diddy kong no longer has to worry about brinstar and rainbow cruise, but his two best hopes vs metaknight vanish. This is the same case with falco or ice climbers.

Metaknight does not deserve to play around with stages from the start and other matchups are of course altered.

The only way we can actually strive for every character to be stage-balanced is to only allow them to play on certain stages respectively, now that's an insane thought.
Hmm... You're right, it's way better that you get one stage ban to deal with all of MK's best stages.

Oh wait, MK is too good then! The stages are degenerate when MK/Wario can pick them! So we ban the stages... Or, no we don't. Because that's also artificially buffing/nerfing characters.

There's exactly one difference between allowing more stage bans and stages (3 with a 21-23-stage stagelist) and banning the "polarizing" stages and allowing only one stage ban (EC ruleset). Wanna know what that is? Unless you want to waste your bans in every match on the same stages, you still have to learn the stages in question, which aren't really degenerate except in one or two matchups. Therefore, you must know more and must become a better smasher. In short, the most competitive thing to do is that.

Allowing more stage bans? Artificially buffing/nerfing characters. You still have to learn polar stages.
Banning all "polar" stages? Artificially buffing/nerfing characters. You do not have to learn polar stages in any matchup.
Allowing counterpicks at all? Artificially buffing/nerfing characters. You have to learn a ****ton of stages.
Any system proposed by the game? Competitively unviable.

You can't win, you can only decide which system is the most competitively viable. And I'll give you a hint-it isn't the one that neuters the necessary game knowledge. The counterpick system itself buffs/nerfs characters with really good stages. Perhaps to the extent that games 2 and 3 become trivial. Which is why we have stage bans.
 
Top Bottom