Is it skillful to effectively utilize stage hazards?

[Spiny Top]

Lately I have been going through each stage and learning the hazards in detail. I try to make note of the damage it can do, the knockback angle, what timing the hazard normally shows up, where on the stage the hazard tends to appear, and if there are any visual or audio clues warning it will appear.

By doing so, I’m trying to make optimal use of them during games to get an edge over my opponent, such as using them to extend combos, press them against if I’m being aggressive, or placing the hazard between us if I’m zoning.

I have turned on all stages in the preferred rules for my elite smash games.

I guess my question is, is this something thought of as skillful, and worth spending time on, (like tech skill or your combos or anything else) or should I not bother?

 

[shrooby]

It is technically game knowledge just like anything else. However, it's generally not a metric that competitively-minded players are interested in measuring. Like how we deem how to use and maneuver around items not something we want to measure in a competitive environment even though it is technically a "skill" that one can actively get better at.
Because these aren't things that we deem worth measuring competitively, most competitive players will generally get annoyed when forced to do so. (As I'm sure you know, a big issue with Ultimate's online matchmaking is that you are not guaranteed to be matched with someone using a similar ruleset.) But if you find the act of doing so enjoyable and it doesn't really cause harm, then more power to you. There's nothing really wrong with that inherently. We generally play games to have fun, after all.

Tangentially related: The idea that stage knowledge is worth measuring was in fact sometimes used as an argument for certain stages staying tournament-legal in the past. Such as Delfino Plaza and Halberd in Brawl/Smash 4. This argument was also sometimes used in defense of Lylat's tilting in previous games, for instance. "If you don't bother to learn how these stages work, then you deserve to lose." Or something along those lines.

The general consensus, especially nowadays with more manageable, static stages to choose from, is that this indeed is not something we wish to measure in our competitive setting. This was more of a debate when the amount of stages deemed "relatively unobtrusive" was very small. In competitive Melee, for example, most players would probably rather Pokemon Stadium not transform or Whispy not blow wind on Dreamland. But they deal with it because their options for "relatively unobtrusive stages" are quite limited.

You can technically make the argument that all game knowledge is worth measuring between players.
For example, I could pose the question: "Is there, fundamentally, a difference between knowing how to abuse a walk-off and knowing how to use tri-platforms to extend your combos?"
However, people generally don't take these positions seriously outside of thought exercises for fun. What makes up the ideal "better player" in our "may the better player win"-game is pretty set in stone nowadays. Though, debates do still actually come up every now and then. Not so much with stages, but particularly with regards to defensive play, stalling and what constitutes stalling, but that's a separate topic.

 

[OnyanRings]

Why yes, throwing you into the Ultimate Chimera's mouth on New Porky City was completely intentional !
Truly a masterful plan from my part.

 

[Spiny Top]

It is technically game knowledge just like anything else. However, it's generally not a metric that competitively-minded players are interested in measuring. Like how we deem how to use and maneuver around items not something we want to measure in a competitive environment even though it is technically a "skill" that one can actively get better at.
Because these aren't things that we deem worth measuring competitively, most competitive players will generally get annoyed when forced to do so. (As I'm sure you know, a big issue with Ultimate's online matchmaking is that you are not guaranteed to be matched with someone using a similar ruleset.) But if you find the act of doing so enjoyable and it doesn't really cause harm, then more power to you. There's nothing really wrong with that inherently. We generally play games to have fun, after all.

Tangentially related: The idea that stage knowledge is worth measuring was in fact sometimes used as an argument for certain stages staying tournament-legal in the past. Such as Delfino Plaza and Halberd in Brawl/Smash 4. This argument was also sometimes used in defense of Lylat's tilting in previous games, for instance. "If you don't bother to learn how these stages work, then you deserve to lose." Or something along those lines.

The general consensus, especially nowadays with more manageable, static stages to choose from, is that this indeed is not something we wish to measure in our competitive setting. This was more of a debate when the amount of stages deemed "relatively unobtrusive" was very small. In competitive Melee, for example, most players would probably rather Pokemon Stadium not transform or Whispy not blow wind on Dreamland. But they deal with it because their options for "relatively unobtrusive stages" are quite limited.

You can technically make the argument that all game knowledge is worth measuring between players.
For example, I could pose the question: "Is there, fundamentally, a difference between knowing how to abuse a walk-off and knowing how to use tri-platforms to extend your combos?"
However, people generally don't take these positions seriously outside of thought exercises for fun. What makes up the ideal "better player" in our "may the better player win"-game is pretty set in stone nowadays. Though, debates do still actually come up every now and then. Not so much with stages, but particularly with regards to defensive play, stalling and what constitutes stalling, but that's a separate topic.

Thanks for the good reply. I understand the argument against items in competitive play, because although there are skills involved such as using the item effectively, or effectively playing around it, the fact they drop in random locations at random times is fundamentally non competitive because they can randomly fall into one player’s lap and leave the other high and dry.

I leave items off in my preferred rules.

Stage hazards are different. They are not random, or if they are it doesn’t matter because they have an obvious clue to warn players of their arrival. It is something that can be planned for and played around, which makes them viable for competitive play.

 

[meleebrawler]

Thanks for the good reply. I understand the argument against items in competitive play, because although there are skills involved such as using the item effectively, or effectively playing around it, the fact they drop in random locations at random times is fundamentally non competitive because they can randomly fall into one player’s lap and leave the other high and dry.

I leave items off in my preferred rules.

Stage hazards are different. They are not random, or if they are it doesn’t matter because they have an obvious clue to warn players of their arrival. It is something that can be planned for and played around, which makes them viable for competitive play.

It's not a question of fairness for the most part (although I wonder if you'd have the same tune if you played someone like Ganondorf instead of someone with a strong camping game and the ability to fly over anything), competitive players want to emphasize the fighting aspect of Smash, not the platforming. To that end even predictable hazards can kill flows and be very distracting.