Meta It's Time To Abandon 3 Starter Lists

[LunarWingCloud]

Smashville's platform is a lot more fair than Town and City's I will say.

I just wanna see a lot more legal stages. Skyloft has no business not being legal and since it doesn't have the nonsense hazards that Halberd has (hazards are IMO more dangerous than anything else to a stage's viability) and it has the same routine layout switching as Delfino while simultaneously not having as many walk off sections.

Tl;dr #LegalizeSkyloft

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Smashville's platform is a lot more fair than Town and City's I will say.

I just wanna see a lot more legal stages. Skyloft has no business not being legal and since it doesn't have the nonsense hazards that Halberd has (hazards are IMO more dangerous than anything else to a stage's viability) and it has the same routine layout switching as Delfino while simultaneously not having as many walk off sections.

Tl;dr #LegalizeSkyloft

Actually, Skyloft has hazards all over the place, and they are considerably less telegraphed than Halberd's are. And what's wrong with hazards, anyways?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Rather than requiring a difficult setup at very specific times, this requires low percents on both characters and the platform in a configuration it hits every... 3 seconds?

The platform takes 10 seconds to move across the stage, 20 seconds for a full loop.

 

[Teshie U]

doesn't TnC transform at set times or with fair warning (fireworks or something )?

 

[Raijinken]

Actually, Skyloft has hazards all over the place, and they are considerably less telegraphed than Halberd's are. And what's wrong with hazards, anyways?

Aside from the waterfall, the occasional cliff, and the once-encountered landing bug where I went through a small solid bridge as Bowser, what sort of hazards does Skyloft have?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

doesn't TnC transform at set times or with fair warning (fireworks or something )?

No explicit warning that I've noticed -- the closest is in the City form where the background releases a spray of bubbles every so often and the second spray roughly coincides with the transition back to the Town. It's not perfectly consistent though.

That said, each form lasts exactly 30 seconds from the time the platforms finish getting in position to the time they start moving offscreen again. A single back-and-forth cycle of the moving platforms takes exactly 10 seconds, so you can count that too -- 3 cycles and it's done.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Aside from the waterfall, the occasional cliff, and the once-encountered landing bug where I went through a small solid bridge as Bowser, what sort of hazards does Skyloft have?

The cliffs, mostly.

 

[New Age Retro Hippie]

I enjoy Skyloft as a competitive pick just for the variety but a lot of folks here are opposed to it due to the camp potential of some of the transformations. I don't know how I feel about that point. I'm not sure you can get more egregious than ground PS in Melee in terms of camp but consensus is fine with that one. I also think, despite how much I love the stages, the grab fishing I constantly see in the walkoff sections of Delfino/CS are way worse than whatever camp potential Skyloft has and the incredibly situational Wuhu boat bug. I haven't followed Melee in a long time but also remember Rainbow Cruise was legal for a while! We should give these stages chances before writing them off.

 

[Yikarur]

Lol "Final Destination or Smashville?"
Those Stages are so alike that you basically say "my best or my second best stage?" for a lot of "Top Tier" characters. And then people wonder why those characters are so exceptionally strong when the ruleset is always favoring those characters heavily .

The best and most "neutral" stage game 1 is obviously the one that both players agree on out of an as large as possible selection.

 

[Luigi player]

Lol "Final Destination or Smashville?"
Those Stages are so alike that you basically say "my best or my second best stage?" for a lot of "Top Tier" characters. And then people wonder why those characters are so exceptionally strong when the ruleset is always favoring those characters heavily .

The best and most "neutral" stage game 1 is obviously the one that both players agree on out of an as large as possible selection.

Nonononono. This SV/FD character stuff is so untrue it hurts every time. These stages are good for pretty much every character.
FD isn't as onesided for some characters as it was in previous Smash games (and in Brawl for example it wasn't as onesided for some characters as some people think). There might be ~2 characters who benefit from FD now, but the advantage isn't really anything truly noteworthy, it's just a little one. Halberd and Delfino are the "broken" stages this time around, because of superearly kills. BF is also way more onesided compared to other stages.

But yeah, now that Lylat is fixed overall the stagelist is so much more balanced.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Nonononono. This SV/FD character stuff is so untrue it hurts every time. These stages are good for pretty much every character.

"Every time". You mean like in Brawl? Where SV and FD were the best stages by a mile and a half for a lot of the cast?

FD isn't as onesided for some characters as it was in previous Smash games (and in Brawl for example it wasn't as onesided for some characters as some people think). There might be ~2 characters who benefit from FD now, but the advantage isn't really anything truly noteworthy, it's just a little one. Halberd and Delfino are the "broken" stages this time around, because of superearly kills. BF is also way more onesided compared to other stages.

On what metric? Compared to what? I have no idea what you're basing any of this on. Characters get advantage on FD compared to what? Characters get advantage on BF compared to what? I have this sneaking suspicion that you're unconsciously comparing it to Smashville...

 

[Piford]

Nonononono. This SV/FD character stuff is so untrue it hurts every time. These stages are good for pretty much every character.
FD isn't as onesided for some characters as it was in previous Smash games (and in Brawl for example it wasn't as onesided for some characters as some people think). There might be ~2 characters who benefit from FD now, but the advantage isn't really anything truly noteworthy, it's just a little one. Halberd and Delfino are the "broken" stages this time around, because of superearly kills. BF is also way more onesided compared to other stages.

But yeah, now that Lylat is fixed overall the stagelist is so much more balanced.

I (playing Shulk), absolutely hate Smashville and FD and they definitely aren't good. Also there can't be only 2 characters that benefit from FD. In a matchup, one character is almost always going to benefit from a stage more than another character.

 

[Luigi player]

"Every time". You mean like in Brawl? Where SV and FD were the best stages by a mile and a half for a lot of the cast?



On what metric? Compared to what? I have no idea what you're basing any of this on. Characters get advantage on FD compared to what? Characters get advantage on BF compared to what? I have this sneaking suspicion that you're unconsciously comparing it to Smashville...

No, I mean like every other time someone mentions something like that?
If you don't see the differences for these stages (with me even giving one example for Delfino and Halberd) you should probably check out the game a little more to learn about it.

Okay let me help you there... when I compare stages I compare them to neutral stages.

FD/Omegas, Smashville and Town and City seem like the most normal ones.
Why? Solid main platform, (almost) no interferance, nothing really stage-specific happening there.

Now Lylat can almost join them. It has a somewhat big difference to the others in swaying. It also has it's slopy and uneven ground, with pretty low platforms.

Now what are these differences of BF, Delfino and Halberd I'm talking about?

Well, let's start with BF:
The stage is very different from the other stages, and in my opinion in a bad way.
The blastzones are further away which means you're living way longer here than normally. Which shouldn't be a bad thing, it just messes a little bit with the players perception of the usual smaller blastzones.
Now the problem I have with BF is this: The platorm formation makes it very difficult to land if you're getting juggled. Someone controlling the inner stage has a very big advantage sometimes. This advantage is so big, and the jugglinghelp in the means of the platforms make it a really unlikeful stage in my eyes. I have this experiences on no other stage. In Brawl there were partially problems like this present. "camping below the platform while spamming stuff". It just makes approaching more difficult. Now if you're at the edge of BF or even at the ledge, or just above the platforms trying to land - it is way more difficult to get on the main stage safely than it should be.
(for the record: Dreamland 64 is my favorite stage in both Smash64 and Melee - it didn't have these problems)

Delfino is a pretty nice stage. It was already nice in Brawl. It's very different than almost all the other allowed ones again, though. There are walkoffs (which are a little flawed, but it's "okay" since it's only for short periods of time), water sections (very different from all other normal gameplay other stages have), and some layouts could be questionable.
The big thing here, though, are the very, very, very, very, very tiny blastzones during transformations, which basically "break" the stage a tiny bit. It's still pretty decent, but this is one flaw it has. It can net "random" KOs and players obviously try to abuse this.

Halberd would normally be a pretty nice stage, but the low ceiling kinda destroys it again. Dying from Rosalinas doubleuair shouldn't be news to anyone. Mario apparently has a few combos like dthrow uair uair upB that can instantly KO, and let's not forget ZSS, who gets superearly kills with upB again. Or just dthrow uair -> read then uair or upB.

You can basically die super early on these stages (making them able to give out very varying results, depending on if the superearly kills happen or not), while BFs advantageous positions are too skewed into ones favor.


There's always a very good reason for why I don't like some stages (and I know for it's like that for many others as well). You know I hated Lylat before, because of it's "random" (not really, but almost) "making characters airborne to interrupt any action they're executing". The ledge was a very small turnoff that I didn't mind too much in Smash4 (in Brawl it was very annoying for many characters, but in Smash4 many more characters should be fine with it), but now even that got turned around. It's now one of my favorites.

I (would) really like Delfino as a stage. The layout is varying, it looks good, it has some interesting elements (jump-through main platform, water, etc.), it's mostly fun to play on. But there is just that one problem which is really turning me off. The possibility of dying too early just because my opponent got a deciding hit at the right moment of the stagetransition is pretty scary when you're trying to bring consistent results. In Brawl I liked it more, although it still had problems in the form of MK sharking being a little op and chaingrabs on walkoff sections without any platforms to be safe.

I never really had a problem with Halberd in Brawl, but now that we have so many true combos and "op" moves like Rosalinas uair it seems like there is a little problem now...

I (playing Shulk), absolutely hate Smashville and FD and they definitely aren't good. Also there can't be only 2 characters that benefit from FD. In a matchup, one character is almost always going to benefit from a stage more than another character.

It doesn't matter what character you play. You probably hate SV and FD because you just don't like them (any reason for that?). I like playing on them with every character. They aren't that character dependant, they're just really balanced stages without too much interfering which is what competitive players should want.


Why do people choose these stages? Because they're their best stages?
Why are they their best stages? Maybe because they're most consistent there? Why are they the most consistent there? Maybe because there isn't any weird or "a little op" stuff happening on them?
Many players just try to have "no BS" happening to them so they choose the stages that aren't having any of the stuff that can bring inconsistancy easily, like superearly kills, missing the ledge because of Lylat angling in the other direction, etc.
That's why we see Smashville the most. I'm guessing overall Town and City could be the second most seen stage, since some people think they're at too big of a disadvantage on/or just don't want FD/Omegas. Of course some people just try to get the most possible advantage from CPing a stage so they choose Halberd if their character can KO easily off the top etc., so we see that quite often as well.

 

[Piford]

It doesn't matter what character you play. You probably hate SV and FD because you just don't like them (any reason for that?). I like playing on them with every character. They aren't that character dependent, they're just really balanced stages without too much interfering which is what competitive players should want.

I like a lot of platforms as Shulk, so I want to go to Battlefield, Lylat Cruise, Skyloft (if it's legal), and maybe Town and City if the matchup is good.

I also play R.O.B., and where I like Shulk on Battlefield, I dislike R.O.B. there (although that's more playstyle preference rather than hurting the character). I much rather play on Smashville as R.O.B. (it's more matchup dependent, so characters I love to take there like Robin, but other's like Sheik I'd strike it immediately).

Your post seems to mention that stages that have "features" like transforming or swaying as being less balanced than the other stages, when this is inherently untrue. It's not guaranteed to be untrue, but saying that Lylat is less balanced because it tilts is wrong. Sure tilting might give a slight advantage or disadvantage (depending on side) to projectile characters, but it's evened out throughout the entire match. Not many character really benefits or is hurt from tilting to much. There are a few matchups that might cause it too be a bit swayed in one direction, but then it's not a neutral stage for that matchup. However, if you say that Lylat gives an advantage to some character because of it's tilting, than you are saying that Smashville gives that character a disadvantage because it doesn't tilt.

You also touched on a way more important points with the slopey and uneven ground and low platforms. How are low platforms any different than Battlefield, Smashville, and Final Destination. You would say, oh Lylat benefits characters who enjoy low platforms, so it's not as even. You'd be completely right. But then you come to this, Final Destination lacks any platforms, so characters who love platform play are at a huge disadvantage, and characters that like a lot of open space with no platforms are now at the advantage. You can now do the same for Smashvilles platform. Characters with good backthrows can get kills very early when on the platform near the blastzone. Characters with good fair chains can also utilize the platform to continue these chains for longer than usual and even get a kill off them because the platform is so close to the blastzone.

FD, Battlefield, and Smashville being the most fair is a huge misconception. You simply assigned the stages as the most fair, and then every stage that deviates from it becomes more and more unfair the farther it deviates. In reality, no stage is perfectly fair and you should be analyzing every aspect. You have to determine what stage is the most fair for each matchup by analyzing all the elements of it. Some things that are make things less fair in some matchups might actually make things fairer in others.

 

[Infinite901]

I think part of the reason rushdown characters are mostly high tier is that FD and SV are viewed as the fairest stages and the give advantages to rushdowns.

Nonononono. This SV/FD character stuff is so untrue it hurts every time. These stages are good for pretty much every character.
FD isn't as onesided for some characters as it was in previous Smash games (and in Brawl for example it wasn't as onesided for some characters as some people think). There might be ~2 characters who benefit from FD now, but the advantage isn't really anything truly noteworthy, it's just a little one. Halberd and Delfino are the "broken" stages this time around, because of superearly kills. BF is also way more onesided compared to other stages.

Hold on a second. You think BATTLEFIELD is onesided? Ok, sure. I notice that you also main Diddy and Sonic. Got any bias there?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, I mean like every other time someone mentions something like that?
If you don't see the differences for these stages (with me even giving one example for Delfino and Halberd) you should probably check out the game a little more to learn about it.

Okay let me help you there... when I compare stages I compare them to neutral stages.

So exactly what I thought, except that you're doing it on purpose, rather than subconsciously. Well, good to know you know where you stand, at least.

This is a phenomenally bad way of evaluating stages, because these so-called "neutral stages"?

FD/Omegas, Smashville and Town and City seem like the most normal ones.
Why? Solid main platform, (almost) no interferance, nothing really stage-specific happening there.

Those already grant a significant benefit to certain characters. There is literally no reason to choose these as your starting point, and if you do, of course they're going to turn out as neutral stages. What is the most neutral stage? Smashville. What's your comparison for that? Smashville. Why do you use Smashville as your comparison? Because I choose the most neutral stage for it. And round and round we go. It's circular reasoning and it does not work. The fact is that if you start from the presupposition that FD, SV, and T&C are "the most normal" then of course you're going to come to the conclusion that they're the most neutral. But that's not reasonable. How do we know that they're balanced? Because they don't move? What if the "balanced" state involves the stage being sharkable sometimes? Or the stage moving or transforming? Or the stage having hazards you have to play around? How would you determine that that's not the case? In that case, SV, FD, and T&C are a huge departure from "normal".

Your basis is completely arbitrary and has no place in a real discussion of the ruleset. Then you offer all these completely arbitrary reasons why BF and Delfino are somehow "not neutral", but it all falls prey to the same issue - you're comparing them arbitrarily. Maybe BF's advantage state is intentional? Maybe it's SV, T&C, and FD that are the weird ones in providing this incredibly easy way to land? (Oh, and by the way, that is also matchup-dependent, because for example Fox has a lot easier time landing against CF on BF than on FD). Halberd I agree on - the stage is incredibly non-neutral, but that's because I'm comparing it to the whole list, where it has the distinction of clearly being a go-to counterpick for a lot of the cast. Delfino, though? I've started on Delfino more often than on Smashville in FLSS, and I main one of the characters who should get a big advantage from it.

Also, on a side note, "no stage-specific stuff"? Smashville is busted as hell. Shiek, Ness, and Pikachu can all trivially carry people off the edge all the way to the blastzone thanks to that moving platform. The fact that you don't see this as an issue trivially demonstrates the bias at play here. Smashville is the norm; all other stages must conform or they are not. That's not a reasonable way of looking at the stagelist.

It doesn't matter what character you play. You probably hate SV and FD because you just don't like them (any reason for that?).

Yes! His character is bad there. You can blab on and on about them being the most balanced stages in the game in every single matchup but the fact of the matter is that that only works if you presume it from the start. Do the same thing with Halberd and you can immediately see the problem. "Halberd is the most neutral stage in the game. Why? I don't know, it just is. Smashville's ceiling is too low, and matches just take way too long. FD? Pff, how do you shark there?" Obviously this is nonsense. But it's just as nonsensical when you do it with Smashville.

Why do people choose these stages? Because they're their best stages?
Why are they their best stages? Maybe because they're most consistent there? Why are they the most consistent there? Maybe because there isn't any weird or "a little op" stuff happening on them?

Maybe because they're terrible at adapting and want to just play in this serene little bubble where the stage has no impact, and don't understand that every stage has a significant impact on the match. Maybe because Shiek, Diddy, Pikachu, and Ness are all really, really good on Smashville.

 

[Luigi player]

I like a lot of platforms as Shulk, so I want to go to Battlefield, Lylat Cruise, Skyloft (if it's legal), and maybe Town and City if the matchup is good.

I also play R.O.B., and where I like Shulk on Battlefield, I dislike R.O.B. there (although that's more playstyle preference rather than hurting the character). I much rather play on Smashville as R.O.B. (it's more matchup dependent, so characters I love to take there like Robin, but other's like Sheik I'd strike it immediately)

So I see you like stages if they're giving you an advantage. That's not how I view the game. I want to play on neutral stages, and just avoid ones that give disadvantages through "a little op-ness" as I'll just call it, which can randomize the result of the matches.

Your post seems to mention that stages that have "features" like transforming or swaying as being less balanced than the other stages, when this is inherently untrue. It's not guaranteed to be untrue, but saying that Lylat is less balanced because it tilts is wrong.

"less balanced" isn't really how I'd describe Lylat. It's more like "not normal" in terms of Smash, since stages usually aren't swaying around like that, making people miss the ledge sometimes if they're in the unlucky situation where they're hit(?) offstage and try to recover as the ledge goes up so they miss it.

Sure tilting might give a slight advantage or disadvantage (depending on side) to projectile characters, but it's evened out throughout the entire match. Not many character really benefits or is hurt from tilting to much. There are a few matchups that might cause it too be a bit swayed in one direction, but then it's not a neutral stage for that matchup. However, if you say that Lylat gives an advantage to some character because of it's tilting, than you are saying that Smashville gives that character a disadvantage because it doesn't tilt.

Huh, that's not even what I think about on that stage, but yeah some projectiles get hindered by it sometimes.
I'm mostly just looking at it from the view of [ all characters ], not MUs, or single characters. Although it's of course easy to pick some out to point out a few things for them. I didn't say the stage gives any advantage to any character. It's just that the tilting causing deaths "randomly" (like I said before), and uneven ground are very unnatural for a stage. Those are mostly the reasons people don't like it (how hard it was to grab on the ledge was a reason as well, but now that's fixed).

You also touched on a way more important points with the slopey and uneven ground and low platforms. How are low platforms any different than Battlefield, Smashville, and Final Destination. You would say, oh Lylat benefits characters who enjoy low platforms, so it's not as even. You'd be completely right. But then you come to this, Final Destination lacks any platforms, so characters who love platform play are at a huge disadvantage, and characters that like a lot of open space with no platforms are now at the advantage. You can now do the same for Smashvilles platform. Characters with good backthrows can get kills very early when on the platform near the blastzone. Characters with good fair chains can also utilize the platform to continue these chains for longer than usual and even get a kill off them because the platform is so close to the blastzone.

Low platforms are different, because they are different?! It was just a small point and yes you are correct in that FD is different in that it doesn't have any platforms. What makes FD better from a competitive standpoint is that it doesn't move or has any interferance.
As for Smashville, yes, Sonic almost had a very small gain on that stage prepatch because of sometimes netting backthrow kills while it's very far out. The platform can sometimes "randomly" be annoying if it's at the right moment at the wrong/right time. It can cause you forced landing because it happends to be right below you without having a jump. You might've avoided a followup/juggle if you could've airdodged to the ground, but now you basically have to land and your opponent who waits on the ground will try to punish the landing perfectly to leave even less possibilities of avoiding the hit.
Or it can safe people, because it happens to be offstage at the right time, etc.
But why is it still viewed as the best stage by many players? That's because a moving platform doesn't allow too much stagecontrol from being below one (like on BF), and it's just one platform, so you don't get stopped by platforms while trying to land safely from juggles. SV does indeed have it's negative points, but one moving platforms does really help in making a balanced playing field, which comes from all the years of experience on playing on it. I'm sure that if the platform was stationary in the middle of the stage the stage would be seen as less balanced, because being below the platform in the middle of the stage gives huge control over it.
"characters with fair strings" can use any platform from any stage, or no platform at all to continue their strings.

FD, Battlefield, and Smashville being the most fair is a huge misconception. You simply assigned the stages as the most fair, and then every stage that deviates from it becomes more and more unfair the farther it deviates. In reality, no stage is perfectly fair and you should be analyzing every aspect. You have to determine what stage is the most fair for each matchup by analyzing all the elements of it. Some things that are make things less fair in some matchups might actually make things fairer in others.

What is this "fair" you're talking about? If it's trying to create 50:50 matchups for all characters? Yeah, that's impossible, since characters themselves already have a natural (dis)advantages on each other, without factoring in any specific stage.
"Helping to balance the characters more" is one attribute I'd definitely assign to Brawl Smashville, though. Since BF and FD favored some characters and characters with some problems in the sense of chaingrabs were more safe from it with the moving platform.
People are seeing FD, BF and SV as the most fair from a competitive standpoint, where you don't want any interferances caused from stages, they aren't looking at it from the view of any specific character MUs. Which also should only be done while trying to ban/CP/strike for your character(s).

I think part of the reason rushdown characters are mostly high tier is that FD and SV are viewed as the fairest stages and the give advantages to rushdowns.

Hold on a second. You think BATTLEFIELD is onesided? Ok, sure. I notice that you also main Diddy and Sonic. Got any bias there?

That's what it feels like every time I play on BF. Sonic is my favorite video game character, and Diddy is one of them (and was my main in Brawl). [my favorites go like: Sonic>Mewtwo>Diddy>Luigi/DK>Wario ...]
I only main my favorite characters in Smash, but I do pick ones that have a better competitive chance. I'm also pretty sure that Diddy is very good on BF (extending his combos/juggles while being able to avoid them with sideB etc). I also disliked FD a lot in Brawl, even though Diddy is supposedly great on it.
And I don't "think" BF is onesided (if you want to call it that), I know it, because that's what it is like if I play there.

______________________________

Edit: @ Budget Player Cadet_

"Those already grant a significant benefit to certain characters."

Stopped reading there. That's not what you look for while trying to claim stages competitively balanced/neutral.
You're looking for stages that don't interfere with the players or hinder the gameplay, not for any MU stuff.
It's also very untrue.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Edit: @ Budget Player Cadet_

"Those already grant a significant benefit to certain characters."

Stopped reading there. That's not what you look for while trying to claim stages competitively balanced/neutral.
You're looking for stages that don't interfere with the players or hinder the gameplay, not for any MU stuff.
It's also very untrue.

Do stagespikes interfere with gameplay or does not having to tech stagespikes interfere with gameplay?

Do platforms interfere with gameplay, or does not having platforms interfere with gameplay?

Do transformations interfere with gameplay, or does not having transformations interfere with gameplay?

Of course, the whole concept is just plain silly. Stages don't interfere with gameplay, they are part of gameplay. You can no more remove stages from the gameplay of Smash Bros as you can remove player two, and simply reducing this down to Final Destination and a stage that acts a lot like Final Destination doesn't get us anywhere - it doesn't resolve the problem that the stage is part of gameplay. Simply seeking out the ones that have the "least impact" is stupid, because as anyone who played Brawl can tell you, "least impact on gameplay" distinctly favors certain character archetypes. Your character archetypes, specifically.

Non-random hazards do not randomize gameplay. Non-random transformations do not disrupt gameplay in any meaningful sense. The fact that you hold that there's this one specific way that the game ought to be played, which is completely unjustified and goes directly against the design philosophy of the game, does nothing to bolster your point.

 

[Luigi player]

Do stagespikes interfere with gameplay or does not having to tech stagespikes interfere with gameplay?

Do platforms interfere with gameplay, or does not having platforms interfere with gameplay?

Do transformations interfere with gameplay, or does not having transformations interfere with gameplay?

Can you not see the difference in your opponent doing something and a stage doing it?

Of course, the whole concept is just plain silly. Stages don't interfere with gameplay, they are part of gameplay.

Yes, you incorporate the stages into your gameplay, but some stages do it in a way that hurts the competitive nature that competitive players should be seeking for.

You can no more remove stages from the gameplay of Smash Bros as you can remove player two, and simply reducing this down to Final Destination and a stage that acts a lot like Final Destination doesn't get us anywhere - it doesn't resolve the problem that the stage is part of gameplay. Simply seeking out the ones that have the "least impact" is stupid, because as anyone who played Brawl can tell you, "least impact on gameplay" distinctly favors certain character archetypes. Your character archetypes, specifically.

It is "stupid" because it seems like all you're looking for is making stages even out the problems characters naturally inhabit. Or advancing their advantages, etc. That's not what stages are there for. They are there either way, and if your character has problems on them, it's the characters fault, not the stage. Stages aren't chosen to help characters. They're chosen to be competitive.

As for "my characters". I didn't know and sometimes others too all favor these stages so much. Like I said before: I prefer the stages with EVERY character. I don't choose my character because of stages, and I don't choose stages because of my character. I choose stages because some are good and not interfering, and some are stupid (like dying super early because you're getting hit while it's transforming, and getting 0-death'd in 3 hits because of a super low ceiling).

I'm seeking consistency. Some people seem to seek inconsistency, by choosing stages with a few unusually high risk/reward-moments.

Non-random hazards do not randomize gameplay. Non-random transformations do not disrupt gameplay in any meaningful sense. The fact that you hold that there's this one specific way that the game ought to be played, which is completely unjustified and goes directly against the design philosophy of the game, does nothing to bolster your point.

Seems like you've never played or watched any match on any of these stages, ever.

 

[Piford]

But you just hugely contradicted your self when you said

So I see you like stages if they're giving you an advantage. That's not how I view the game. I want to play on neutral stages, and just avoid ones that give disadvantages through "a little op-ness" as I'll just call it, which can randomize the result of the matches.

You want to play on neutral stages, so the one that gives the closest to 50:50 in a matchup, but then you say

What is this "fair" you're talking about? If it's trying to create 50:50 matchups for all characters? Yeah, that's impossible, since characters themselves already have a natural (dis)advantages on each other, without factoring in any specific stage.
"Helping to balance the characters more" is one attribute I'd definitely assign to Brawl Smashville, though. Since BF and FD favored some characters and characters with some problems in the sense of chaingrabs were more safe from it with the moving platform.
People are seeing FD, BF and SV as the most fair from a competitive standpoint, where you don't want any interferances caused from stages, they aren't looking at it from the view of any specific character MUs. Which also should only be done while trying to ban/CP/strike for your character(s).

So do you want matches to be fair, or do you just want to make things easier for you with having to deal with less things. Do we want to reward players who learn less and punish those who use a certain character, or do we want to try and make your character pick impact the match as little as possible because we don't want to punish your play style for an arbitrary reason.

Trust me when I say when designing a ruleset, I want round 1 to be as close to neutral as possible. That is why I want FLSS, and thats why I hate 3 stage starter list. A stage is going it interfere with a match a lot because it's part of the match no matter what stage you pick becuase its part of the map. Delfino transforming will have just as much impact (if not less) than Final Destination's lack of platforms. If you want to just pick the easiest stages to play on, then that's just catering to being lazy. We would be punishing people who learn and can better utilize the aspects of the stages that aren't SV/BF/FD. If two players want to just go to Smashville, that's completely fine, but if one player wants to show off his skill on Castle Siege than he should get the chance too.

Let me go through an example of one time I personally full list stage strike (this happen at a live event and isn't theory).
It was me (Shulk) versus my opponent (Diddy). So I had first strike and then I struck Halberd because Diddy was a monster there. My opponent preceded to strike Castle Siege and Lylat Cruise presumably because they are bad for Diddy. I then strike Final Destination and Smashville because I hate playing there as Shulk. He then strike Town and City and Battlefield probably because Shulk can do some cool stuff with the platforms in Town and on Battlefield. That left me with Duck Hunt and Delfino Plaza. I'd normally go with Delfino Plaza because of the platforms, but since Diddy can easily convert a read to a kill on Delfino, I opted to go to Duck Hunt. I figured I could attempt to stage spike him with Advancing Air Slash (customs were on) and that I could use jump to synergies with the tree. On the contrary, I lack a lot of good platforms in the center for me to utilize, so Diddy gains an advantage there. Duck Hunt was probably the most neutral stage for both the matchup and players based off our playstyle (it could've ended up on Town or City or Delfino). This is fair. We both agreed out of the entire stage list that Duck Hunt would be the best stage round 1.

If that same event had run 3 starters instead, this is what it would've looked like. Round 1 I decide to strike Smashville because while it may be a bit better for Shulk in most matchups, players are often comfortable there and Diddy can use the platform better than Shulk can. Next my opponent strikes Battlefield because I like platforms. Now we end up on Round 1 on FD. This stage was 2nd/3rd worst stages and hist 2n/d3rd best, but yet we have to play there because we said that stages that give advantages to Diddy are more fair than those who give advantages to Shulk or are even.

You might want to make round 1 neutral, but that means Shulk is a little bit less neutral and Sheik is a little bit more neutral than everyone else.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can you not see the difference in your opponent doing something and a stage doing it?

I see this difference, and it's completely meaningless in the case of most stages. In the handful of stages that it is meaningful, we ban it, because it lowers the game's depth significantly and trivializes gameplay. The problem is that the game obviously demands, as a skill from the player, that they are able to play around stages. To deny this would be like denying that Street Fighter demands that you be able to play around fireballs. The list of stages with no moving parts is 3 - of those, one is banned because it's competitively unviable. The list of stages that travel in Smash 4 is 4. Of those, one is banned but should not be. The list of stages that transform in Smash 4 is 3. Of those, one is banned. You see what I'm getting at here?

Yes, you incorporate the stages into your gameplay, but some stages do it in a way that hurts the competitive nature that competitive players should be seeking for.

Then we ban those stages. That's really all there is to it. If the stage is not competitively viable, we do not use it in competition.

It is "stupid" because it seems like all you're looking for is making stages even out the problems characters naturally inhabit.

This is simply not true at all. There are somewhere between 13 and 21 competitively viable stages in this game. Of those, you are picking 2 and saying "this is characters in their natural habitat" for no reason.

Or advancing their advantages, etc. That's not what stages are there for. They are there either way, and if your character has problems on them, it's the characters fault, not the stage. Stages aren't chosen to help characters. They're chosen to be competitive.

So what stages are competitive, then? And why are we playing any others? See, when I build a stagelist, I look at "what stages are competitive". Then I ban every other stage. Stages that are not competitive don't make the list. Because if a stage is not okay in round one, it is not okay in round 2 either. The fact that there are some segments on Delfino with a much higher risk/reward doesn't bother me, because the same is true of Smashville, and Town&City, and virtually every stage with a moving part. There are three stages that don't fit that criteria in the entire game, and it's up to us as competitive players to be knowledgeable of that and take advantage of it whenever possible. You don't like that? Tough ****, play a different game.

Like I said before: I prefer the stages with EVERY character. I don't choose my character because of stages, and I don't choose stages because of my character. I choose stages because some are good and not interfering, and some are stupid (like dying super early because you're getting hit while it's transforming, and getting 0-death'd in 3 hits because of a super low ceiling).

Final Destination only? That's not only not a game I particularly want to play, that's not the game we're playing.

 

[Mr. Potatobadger]

I think lylat should be a starter. 5 starter stages is a really good number.

Also, I don't think PS2 should be legal. Halber'ds stage hazards aren't a big deal because they're very easy to avoid. With PS2, you have almost no choice but to be affected by the stage "hazard." Especially the wind transformation, I hate that one -_-

#LegalizeSkyloft2k15

 

[Balgorxz]

Fixing Lylat is one of the best things the new patch has brought, it's time we learn how to play on more stages.
#TeamSkyloft
#LegalizeSkyloft

 

[Luigi player]

But you just hugely contradicted your self when you said


You want to play on neutral stages, so the one that gives the closest to 50:50 in a matchup, but then you say

When did I say that I want to play on a stage that gives the closest 50:50 in a MU?

So do you want matches to be fair, or do you just want to make things easier for you with having to deal with less things. Do we want to reward players who learn less and punish those who use a certain character, or do we want to try and make your character pick impact the match as little as possible because we don't want to punish your play style for an arbitrary reason.

Sounds scrubby to me. YOU'RE basically trying to buff characters arbitrary by adding more stages (with "random" elements basically so they have a better chance).
If there was a 100:0 MU and a stage that could randomly spawn bob ombs on random places the MU would be more "even", because both players are in the same boat that they could randomly get hit by it. That's basically the small "random" facor super exaggerated a few stages add to the game. It helps to beat better players, it helps to "buff" worse characters, and it makes everything a little more even.
Edit: actually let's switch that up because I'm sure someone wants to tell me that all of this isn't random:
If there was a certain place where characters can be OHKO'd onstage, it'd basically be about the same thing as my previous example.
Nothing random about it, but it'd even everything up. Players, MUs, results. Because there's that chance a player lands (or gets hit into) that one spot.

Trust me when I say when designing a ruleset, I want round 1 to be as close to neutral as possible. That is why I want FLSS, and thats why I hate 3 stage starter list. A stage is going it interfere with a match a lot because it's part of the match no matter what stage you pick becuase its part of the map. Delfino transforming will have just as much impact (if not less) than Final Destination's lack of platforms. If you want to just pick the easiest stages to play on, then that's just catering to being lazy. We would be punishing people who learn and can better utilize the aspects of the stages that aren't SV/BF/FD. If two players want to just go to Smashville, that's completely fine, but if one player wants to show off his skill on Castle Siege than he should get the chance too.

You want round 1 to be an even MU. There's a way for this: playing dittos. You don't need to abuse some stages for that. Delfinos small transforming blastzone might have the same impact as FDs platformlessness, BUT the thing is, on FD it's always like that. You can control everything. On Delfino? It's very situation-depending. "you could die really early if hit at the wrong time" On FD everything is set. I hope you can see the difference. And it has absolutely nothing to do with easy. So you're saying if I want to avoid super early KO situations I'm being lazy to learn to adapt to them. Why not play on walkoffstages then? People are being too lazy to adapt to them as well. Oh, why not play on Whooly World, or Orbital Gate, or any other stage? Are people just being lazy? The answer is obviously no.

Interesting example you have there with "chance". The rules we use actually give the players the chance to completely shut out 1-2 stages of the game so they never have to play on them.

Let me go through an example of one time I personally full list stage strike (this happen at a live event and isn't theory).
It was me (Shulk) versus my opponent (Diddy). So I had first strike and then I struck Halberd because Diddy was a monster there. My opponent preceded to strike Castle Siege and Lylat Cruise presumably because they are bad for Diddy. I then strike Final Destination and Smashville because I hate playing there as Shulk. He then strike Town and City and Battlefield probably because Shulk can do some cool stuff with the platforms in Town and on Battlefield. That left me with Duck Hunt and Delfino Plaza. I'd normally go with Delfino Plaza because of the platforms, but since Diddy can easily convert a read to a kill on Delfino, I opted to go to Duck Hunt. I figured I could attempt to stage spike him with Advancing Air Slash (customs were on) and that I could use jump to synergies with the tree. On the contrary, I lack a lot of good platforms in the center for me to utilize, so Diddy gains an advantage there. Duck Hunt was probably the most neutral stage for both the matchup and players based off our playstyle (it could've ended up on Town or City or Delfino). This is fair. We both agreed out of the entire stage list that Duck Hunt would be the best stage round 1.

It's true that you can see it that way. But I'd say you just landed on your "agreed" preferred stage out of all the allowed stages.
Doesn't have to mean the stage is "balancing" the MU, or that all allowed stages are fair to strike from (note: here I'm not saying they aren't).

If that same event had run 3 starters instead, this is what it would've looked like. Round 1 I decide to strike Smashville because while it may be a bit better for Shulk in most matchups, players are often comfortable there and Diddy can use the platform better than Shulk can. Next my opponent strikes Battlefield because I like platforms. Now we end up on Round 1 on FD. This stage was 2nd/3rd worst stages and hist 2n/d3rd best, but yet we have to play there because we said that stages that give advantages to Diddy are more fair than those who give advantages to Shulk or are even.

Well, like I said before. To me you're just striking down from the more neutral (not MU wise, but not-interfering wise) stages to the one both players seem to like.

You might want to make round 1 neutral, but that means Shulk is a little bit less neutral and Sheik is a little bit more neutral than everyone else.

What "neutral" are you talking about here? You're saying "this character is a little worse with these stages and this one is a little better"? Well, if we want to play on these stages then that's how it'd be, yes.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sounds scrubby to me. YOU'RE basically trying to buff characters arbitrary by adding more stages (with "random" elements basically so they have a better chance).

Yeah, see, that's just not true. You've fundamentally misunderstood the issue here. What you're doing is arbitrarily limiting the stagelist in round one to a handful of stages which, undeniably, favors certain characters. There's simply no way to avoid this - being good at multiple stages is an important character trait. You can see this immediately the moment you have Little Mac, FD, and literally any other stage. There's nothing arbitrary about respecting this characteristic in the choice of stage for round one. In fact, what you're doing is arbitrarily buffing and nerfing characters.

Honestly, the fact you compare Delfino to walkoff stages just tips your hand. Like I said earlier - if you want to play FD only, go right ahead. I'm not going to. That's a dull, lifeless, boring game that I have no interest in. If you're getting killed early on Delfino, you're getting outplayed. If it's happening consistently, and you're not getting it, the problem is you.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Nonononono. This SV/FD character stuff is so untrue it hurts every time. These stages are good for pretty much every character.

FD is Robin's worst stage, and Smashville is not a very good stage for Robin either. I would strike both of those in a 5 stage starter list.

 

[Luigi player]

Yeah, see, that's just not true. You've fundamentally misunderstood the issue here. What you're doing is arbitrarily limiting the stagelist in round one to a handful of stages which, undeniably, favors certain characters.

I'm not even trying to argue for a 3 starter stage list. I'd be fine with 5, not sure about more, didn't think about that too much in Smash4, especially since Lylat is viable now, but 80+% of the time it'll probably come down to the same as before and just taking more time.

There's simply no way to avoid this - being good at multiple stages is an important character trait. You can see this immediately the moment you have Little Mac, FD, and literally any other stage. There's nothing arbitrary about respecting this characteristic in the choice of stage for round one. In fact, what you're doing is arbitrarily buffing and nerfing characters.

Most stages don't even change that much about MUs. Little Mac is an obvious exception. Halberd and Delfino can help KOing at the top, BF can give strong stagecontrol and juggling, FD granting Little Mac some slack... other than that there really isn't anything too notable.

Honestly, the fact you compare Delfino to walkoff stages just tips your hand. Like I said earlier - if you want to play FD only, go right ahead. I'm not going to. That's a dull, lifeless, boring game that I have no interest in. If you're getting killed early on Delfino, you're getting outplayed. If it's happening consistently, and you're not getting it, the problem is you.

Did I compare them or just giving an example of a situation where someone said I'm being lazy and not trying to adapt to "op-ness"?
Your comment about getting killed early and outplayed just shows you don't care about consistency. Of course players will get outplayed. Everyone will, even the best ones. But if one is unlucky enough to have it in that one exact moment? Well, damn that's kinda lucky for the other guy. You're really just giving people the opportunity to get superearly kills in specific situations that kinda break the stage a little. Is this comparable to offstage spikes? Maybe, but it's still adding another "spikeable situation" on the whole stage, one in which you you can be comboed into, which is a pretty big difference.

 

[Raijinken]

I think lylat should be a starter. 5 starter stages is a really good number.

Also, I don't think PS2 should be legal. Halber'ds stage hazards aren't a big deal because they're very easy to avoid. With PS2, you have almost no choice but to be affected by the stage "hazard." Especially the wind transformation, I hate that one -_-

#LegalizeSkyloft2k15

That's such a broad definition of "hazard" that it can be extended to Smashville and T&C easily. You have no choice but for that platform to get in your way sometimes, and in T&C you have no choice but to be stuck without platforms for a few seconds every now and then.

BPC made a nice thread a while back explaining what Stadium 2 offers that other stages don't - highly emphasized aerial play. With the possible exception of ground-mode:
Flying reduces fallspeeds, makes landing against a grounded opponent riskier, makes aerial combat more prolonged, etc.
Ice adds slipping and complicates turning around during a spring. It forces either direct and near-irrevocable assaults, or aerial play, or standing immobile and hoping your opponent does the same.
Electric forces central stage control, with the primary means of claiming that space being through aerial and platform play. Alternately, it forces offstage play due to the (much more manageable than in Brawl) conveyors.

Obviously, every Little Mac ever should ban the stage every round. But bar Mac's obvious terrible existence on the stage, the rest of the stage properties are entirely neutral in the sense that they affect all characters identically (technically true of Mac, for that matter). Even compared to, say, Halberd, nothing in Stadium 2 can actually harm your character. Bar extremely polar characters (i.e. Mac) who are emotionally harmed by leaving the ground anyway, there isn't much, if any, room for "hazard abuse" by particular characters (at least not that I'm familiar with, though I am now interested in a grounded Flame Choke on the conveyor). Players play around the temporary stage form and the changed properties that come with it, but as a general rule they can't deliberately abuse stage elements in the same way that, say, Smashville caters to the top five characters.

Personally, I was skeptical and gave it little attention except in Classic/All Star, just due to leftover impressions from Brawl. But playing it a bit more (and I'm a highly stage-liberal person), it's so far from even being borderline that I have a hard time entertaining the notion of banning it.

FD is Robin's worst stage, and Smashville is not a very good stage for Robin either. I would strike both of those in a 5 stage starter list.

Preach it.

 

[Teshie U]

@ Budget Player Cadet_

You'll be happy to know that there is a major tournament tomorrow using full stage striking from 15 stages.

I'll be sure to let you know how much everyone hates/ignores it.

 

[Raijinken]

The only time people should ignore FLSS is if they're either too new/bad/ignorant to care about their stage, or so good that they can actually make the informed decision to jump straight to their most-equal stage.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

The only time people should ignore FLSS is if they're either too new/bad/ignorant to care about their stage, or so good that they can actually make the informed decision to jump straight to their most-equal stage.

I'm thinking that a large amount of players from all skill levels will just gentlemen to Smashville, because like hell are they going to bother memorizing a 15 stage starter list and going through the process of striking every single one. You're looking at this from an idealistic perspective, not a realistic perspective. Especially because most of the top players either play characters who like Smashville (Diddy, Sheik, Sonic, etc.), or are so stage conservative that they prefer playing on Smashville even if it harms their own character. I support a 5 stage starter list with however many counterpicks we want, because I think that having a smallish, easy to remember starter list will decrease how often the players gentlemen to Smashville.

 

[Infinite901]

Let's face it: There is no such thing as a "fair" stage in this game. With 50+ characters and even more playstyles, there is NO may to make a completely neutral stage, they will all favor someone in some way. If we had completely neutral stages, it wouldn't possibly be Smash Bros. Simply the unique fighting style of this series relies on the stages being the way they are.

Another thing: in competitive, people will abuse stages as much as they can, just look at Randall. However, every stage has something to abuse. Lylat has the tilts for quicker kills, Smashville has the plat for insanely cheap kills, etc. Whatever makes a stage unique, people will use that to their advantage as much as they can, and that makes the game more complex, which, competitively, is a good thing. Transforming stages do not interfere with play, they increase the metagame.

 

[Raijinken]

I'm thinking that a large amount of players from all skill levels will just gentlemen to Smashville, because like hell are they going to bother memorizing a 15 stage starter list and going through the process of striking every single one. You're looking at this from an idealistic perspective, not a realistic perspective. Especially because most of the top players either play characters who like Smashville (Diddy, Sheik, Sonic, etc.), or are so stage conservative that they prefer playing on Smashville even if it harms their own character. I support a 5 stage starter list with however many counterpicks we want, because I think that having a smallish, easy to remember starter list will decrease how often the players gentlemen to Smashville.

Perhaps it's because I come from a Dota background when it comes to picking things that will help my team, so I can't comprehend picking something that clearly disadvantages you because of laziness and poor memory.

But you've got a fair point, people are lazy. I think it's worth the balance implications to at least go to 7 or 9 legal stages for FLSS (that's hardly, if at all, more than, say, PM has using starter/counterpick systems). To say nothing of the option of using the Omega Stage screen on the random select menu to keep track (though that relies on a console with all stages unlocked, and I've seen an impressive number that just refuse to idle their way through a round on each Smash Tour map).

 

[Mr. Potatobadger]

That's such a broad definition of "hazard" that it can be extended to Smashville and T&C easily. You have no choice but for that platform to get in your way sometimes, and in T&C you have no choice but to be stuck without platforms for a few seconds every now and then.

BPC made a nice thread a while back explaining what Stadium 2 offers that other stages don't - highly emphasized aerial play. With the possible exception of ground-mode:
Flying reduces fallspeeds, makes landing against a grounded opponent riskier, makes aerial combat more prolonged, etc.
Ice adds slipping and complicates turning around during a spring. It forces either direct and near-irrevocable assaults, or aerial play, or standing immobile and hoping your opponent does the same.
Electric forces central stage control, with the primary means of claiming that space being through aerial and platform play. Alternately, it forces offstage play due to the (much more manageable than in Brawl) conveyors.

Obviously, every Little Mac ever should ban the stage every round. But bar Mac's obvious terrible existence on the stage, the rest of the stage properties are entirely neutral in the sense that they affect all characters identically (technically true of Mac, for that matter). Even compared to, say, Halberd, nothing in Stadium 2 can actually harm your character. Bar extremely polar characters (i.e. Mac) who are emotionally harmed by leaving the ground anyway, there isn't much, if any, room for "hazard abuse" by particular characters (at least not that I'm familiar with, though I am now interested in a grounded Flame Choke on the conveyor). Players play around the temporary stage form and the changed properties that come with it, but as a general rule they can't deliberately abuse stage elements in the same way that, say, Smashville caters to the top five characters.

Personally, I was skeptical and gave it little attention except in Classic/All Star, just due to leftover impressions from Brawl. But playing it a bit more (and I'm a highly stage-liberal person), it's so far from even being borderline that I have a hard time entertaining the notion of banning it.


Preach it.

I wasn't exactly sure what to call PS2's transformations, so that's why I put "hazards" in quotes.

With that being said, the thing about PS2 is that it alters physics majorly. There's no legal stage that changes how the game plays THAT much.

It'd be like a stage where at the beginning, the game plays completely normally. Halfway through the match, all of the sudden every one falls faster and you can wavedash. Then at the end, it becomes slower paced like brawl.

Now, obviously, PS2's changes aren't that drastic, but they still directly affect the way a character controls. Which, in my book, is a big no-no.

But hey, that's just my take on it lol. I definitely understand why people would want PS2 legal, and I respect your opinion,

 

[cot(θ)]

Can you not see the difference in your opponent doing something and a stage doing it?

I think we disagree on the difference, actually. To me, the difference is that you know exactly what the stage is going to do, or you know the stage's available options and are always warned well enough in advance to do something about it (on legal stages).

Your comment about getting killed early and outplayed just shows you don't care about consistency. Of course players will get outplayed. Everyone will, even the best ones. But if one is unlucky enough to have it in that one exact moment? Well, damn that's kinda lucky for the other guy.

No, not "kinda lucky for the other guy" - you should be respecting the narrowed blastzones that occur during a stage transformation, and be considering your risk vs. reward tradeoffs differently during that time, just like you should be respecting walkoffs.

So you're saying if I want to avoid super early KO situations I'm being lazy to learn to adapt to them. Why not play on walkoffstages then? People are being too lazy to adapt to them as well. Oh, why not play on Whooly World, or Orbital Gate, or any other stage? Are people just being lazy? The answer is obviously no.

I've run a couple of weeklies with Orbital Gate, Wooly World, and walkoffs legal. 1st and 2nd seeds got 1st and 2nd respectively every time. I won't claim that everyone who shares your point of view is just too lazy to learn new stages, but generally, players who are too lazy to learn new stages will take your position, giving it a disproportionate amount of support.

 

[Raijinken]

I wasn't exactly sure what to call PS2's transformations, so that's why I put "hazards" in quotes.

With that being said, the thing about PS2 is that it alters physics majorly. There's no legal stage that changes how the game plays THAT much.

It'd be like a stage where at the beginning, the game plays completely normally. Halfway through the match, all of the sudden every one falls faster and you can wavedash. Then at the end, it becomes slower paced like brawl.

Now, obviously, PS2's changes aren't that drastic, but they still directly affect the way a character controls. Which, in my book, is a big no-no.

But hey, that's just my take on it lol. I definitely understand why people would want PS2 legal, and I respect your opinion,

Yeah, that's a fair observation. I guess as a frequent Shulk player I'm kinda used to just invoking similar spec changes on a whim, so it doesn't seem so far-fetched to me that suddenly everyone fallls a bit slower or slides a bit when running.

If it were, say, Spear Pillar-esque where the changes were extremely minimally foretold (if even that, I can't remember if the changes in Spear Pillar took place after Dialga/Palkia moved, or during the movement) and they lasted a random (and sometimes very long) amount of time, I'd be far more inclined to agree. But they're very blatantly warned, short in duration, and accompanied by a very nice untransformed phase. I think it's worth learning.

 

[Mr. Potatobadger]

Yeah, that's a fair observation. I guess as a frequent Shulk player I'm kinda used to just invoking similar spec changes on a whim, so it doesn't seem so far-fetched to me that suddenly everyone fallls a bit slower or slides a bit when running.

If it were, say, Spear Pillar-esque where the changes were extremely minimally foretold (if even that, I can't remember if the changes in Spear Pillar took place after Dialga/Palkia moved, or during the movement) and they lasted a random (and sometimes very long) amount of time, I'd be far more inclined to agree. But they're very blatantly warned, short in duration, and accompanied by a very nice untransformed phase. I think it's worth learning.

Fair enough, you have some really good points. I think I'm going to learn the stage now.

 

[Raijinken]

Fair enough, you have some really good points. I think I'm going to learn the stage now.

It's certainly not for everyone, but I hope you'll find it more reasonable and enjoyable as you experiment with it.

 

[Rog48439]

I know that people generally see this as a joke, but we're just going to strike to Smashville anyway. We don't need to spend that extra 10-30 seconds every set striking stages that will almost never be played.

I also don't agree with Town and City being a starter because its platforms can kill you at ridiculously low percents. Say you get footstooled and therefore can't tech. Just get good and avoid that situation, you say? That shouldn't be an acceptable possibility for a starter stage without going through an explicit use of the Gentleman's Clause, IMO.

This is an extremely situational circumstance, and if it is that prominent in the sets that any particular player plays, they always have the option to strike it with one of their two stage strikes. I wouldn't consider such an argument to be substantial enough to bar T&C from starter status, however. Perhaps if there were literally anything else gimmicky about it?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Between the potential instant death and skewing the list toward the extreme of no platforms a good bit of the time, I think that's enough cause for concern, myself.