Meta It's Time To Abandon 3 Starter Lists

[Raijinken]

Which is a stupid rule that makes you look stubborn and just making the most easy conclusion that doesn't really have to be about the truth.

Like, if there were 2 allowed stages, and one is considered by players to be less fair than the other, they'd all agree to start on the one that is more fair, instead of maybe choosing random to select the stage.
Now with your tunnel vision you'd see "damn, they always choose this stage, so it must be good for their character! the other one must be much better and should be my stage of choice".

If players just like a stage because there aren't sometimes a few imbalances occuring and they want consistency (like most top players want), then they'd choose that stage, because they don't want to get screwed by anything stupid a stage could provide.
Of course they would also try to get to a stage where they have an advantage as well (for most: as long as it doesn't have any weird risks).

You could probably see the general consensus of stagechoice by most players. If TaC is a starter, most matches would probably start with SV or TaC. Why? Because people like these kind of stages, because they seem the most "balanced" from a platform to no platform perspective while not having any weird stuff (although as you can see there are players who dislike it because the platform can drag you into your death if you're hit with the wrong move at the wrong place at the wrong time). Most people still dislike Lylat because of the angling or the uneven ground, or think that the ledges are even more weird.

I still don't get this mentality that tries to even up MUs by using stages. Of course, if characters "break" stages then they likely get banned to safe the game, but that pretty much only happened with MK on some in Brawl, and with Fox' shine in Melee. We choose stages because they're healthy for competition, not because they help a character to get better, or give other characters are harder time (which mostly might not even be the case, some stages just aren't as neutral (not the MU perspective) as other's and janky stuff can happen (like missing the ledge because of the platform angling on Lylat), which can give the illusion of it being worse for a character, because it creates more random results).

Let's suppose the two stages available are Final Destination and Battlefield. Let's suppose our character matchup is Little Mac versus Lucario. Literally the only "fair" way to pick the stage is to random, because each character (and, hopefully, their players) will absolutely not let the other player have their say without a fight. The point about "if you would willingly pick this stage as a counterpick, it's too advantageous to make sense as a starter." is that if your character has highly-desired counterpick preference in the starter list, then we thoroughly highlight the issue with the starter-counterpick system already: it favors preference towards round-1-favored characters.

The tunnelvision you propose here is not what we're describing, because you're suggesting that the automatic assumption is that the opposite is better. It may be, but it may be that the player doing this is being utterly ignorant and literally just playing to screw someone over. If you're not Sheik and I'm someone who thinks Smashville is my best option on the list, then I will absolutely take you there. But if I'm Little Mac, or Robin, or Shulk, or Lucario, or whoever else, then the only way I am giving you Smashville is if all other options are worse. Which, with such a small stage list, is quite likely to happen. Point: By keeping the stage list so small (starter/cp or flss, doesn't matter), you directly skew the stage bias towards characters who do not benefit from the available stages.

Quite frankly, if we don't want to use stage to affect matchup, we should get rid of stage picking altogether and do what "Sakurai Intended" - Final Destination and Omega Stages only, 5 stock, 2 minutes, winner screen takes all, including sudden death. That's exactly what you seem to want, except instead of FD, you want a stage that is slightly less-favorable to the character your avatar block says you main, and includes a random element.

If stage affects matchup (the general view is that it does), there are only two ways to treat stages with respect to "competitive fairness" and "being good for competition" - you either remove selection as a factor and let the tiers settle from there (aka For Glory), or you emphasize selection as a factor by allowing as many as are logistically feasible (and, if you wish, "fair" by some arbitrary, subjective, and inconsistent definition).

Fixed that for you bro, no thanks needed.

I'll correct your correction to "a properly aware and mildly skilled player." Because even I can dodge Kalos and MK8's hazards 90% of the time instead of johning about how uncompetitive they are. And that 10%, I was a moron and did something like start a Falcon Punch in the middle of a race track, or my opponent tossed me into a 4% damaging fire pillar.

 

[Strong Badam]

You've already picked your characters; what else are you hoping to glean from what they decide to ban? Matchup knowledge already dictates the overwhelming majority of reasoning for picking your stage(s) to strike, whether it's a 3-stage list or a 5-stage list.

If someone decides to strike Battlefield against my Little Mac, it's not going to make me like FD any less.

Depth is defined by ambiguity, and the resultant different styles from players with different opinions on what "optimal" looks like. Perhaps I'm not qualified to speak on it with regards to Smash 4, but I hope the good characters in your cast are designed such that several playstyles are viable (leading to player expression) making the "best" stage in a matchup ambiguous unless you know your opponent's specific style.
Other things factor in as well, such as preference and individual player ability on a stage. Regardless of what the textbook "best" stage is in a matchup, if I'm playing someone who has an exceptional record on Battlefield, I'm gonna strike Battlefield.

Choosing such an extreme character as your example whose optimal stage is quite obvious was probably a poor choice, as an aside.

 

[Luigi player]

I'll correct your correction to "a properly aware and mildly skilled player." Because even I can dodge Kalos and MK8's hazards 90% of the time instead of johning about how uncompetitive they are. And that 10%, I was a moron and did something like start a Falcon Punch in the middle of a race track, or my opponent tossed me into a 4% damaging fire pillar.

That has nothing to do with how anyone is, everyone gets thrown off by these things, I've seen it very often, and yes, by top players as well. As for your examples.. Everyone should be easily able to avoid these things, if they're just alone at the field, yeah... but there's an opponent that tries to hit you into that kinda stuff, so realistically speaking, it'll happen very often that people would get hit by stuff from Kalos. The Shy Guy Karts are pretty rare I think, but obviously could still happen to hit you if you get hit into them. That's why stuff that kills you is bad. There are always ways to get hit into them, and that is really stupid.

Just now I played classic mode with Dr. Mario and was standing on the bridgething that connects to the main stage for the water to flow through and I fight on the far side near the blastzone to kill the cpus early. Later I upB to kill one, and pretty much at the startup of my upB the bridge started taking off - and really fast - which caused me to fall into my doom. Yeah, predictable if you play enough on it, but still stupid and something to think about. People don't like these kind of things and in a competiton you want to iron out stuff like that. Although that example alone might not be a reason to ban the stage, it's mostly the very common hazards, platforms going off the top that can kill you (you know people will whine about that), metal-puddle and everything coming together, even the bridges and waterflow.

Now let's take Halberds hazards as exmples: the claw and laser follow the players, which means it's not even random and can be controlled, and they don't take up much room. As for the laser, the players can just stay away from it until it's finished. You can still easily SDI the laser to get out of there if hit, and it's almost impossible to hit your opponent into the claw. The hitbox is there for a very short time and follows the players, so if they're flying somewhere else they won't even get hit. So imo the hazards aren't a problem at all. Halberds problem is the really low ceiling. This wasn't that much of a problem in Brawl, because of less combos, but now we have/had Diddys hoo-hah, Rosalinas uair to uair, ZSS uair to uair/upB and even characters like Mario could have combos that lead into death at very low %s. Which is sadly enough of a reason for me to not want it allowed. There's a difference in dying ~10 % earlier to being able to die anytime if the opponent gets a read from a juggle or maybe even has a combo into the kill at fraudulent %.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's why stuff that kills you is bad. There are always ways to get hit into them, and that is really stupid.

You're right, ban stages with things that will kill you if you get hit into them.

Just now I played classic mode with Dr. Mario and was standing on the bridgething that connects to the main stage for the water to flow through and I fight on the far side near the blastzone to kill the cpus early. Later I upB to kill one, and pretty much at the startup of my upB the bridge started taking off - and really fast - which caused me to fall into my doom. Yeah, predictable if you play enough on it, but

Aaaaaaaaand full stop. No, not "but". If it weren't for player error, you would have kept your stock? I have absolutely no sympathy. Stop making player errors.

People don't like these kind of things and in a competiton you want to iron out stuff like that.

"People" are scrubs and removing opportunities for player error to cause harm to the player is phenomenally uncompetitive. Why should we care what people do and don't like? You obviously don't care one bit that quite a few people genuinely enjoy playing around hazards and dealing with both the stage and their opponent.

(you know people will whine about that)

And you should know that it is our responsibility as competitive players to cross our arms, grit our teeth, and say (with our best Dr. Cox impression), "Tough *******, tiffany"

 

[Pugwest]

I'll always prefer the Japanese Meta, only 3 stages. (Brawl days) Makes everything easier.

 

[Luigi player]

Aaaaaaaaand full stop. No, not "but". If it weren't for player error, you would have kept your stock? I have absolutely no sympathy. Stop making player errors.

Nice ignoring the other things about the hazards and that I mentioned that that "not knowing" about the stage perfectly wouldn't be a ban reason anyway. Although stuff like that can still happen even if you know about it, like I said in my previous post.

And you should know that it is our responsibility as competitive players to cross our arms, grit our teeth, and say (with our best Dr. Cox impression), "Tough ******s, tiffany"

So you want Kalos legal? Is there any stage you would put into the banned section from all of them on your own?

 

[Raijinken]

Nice ignoring the other things about the hazards and that I mentioned that that "not knowing" about the stage perfectly wouldn't be a ban reason anyway. Although stuff like that can still happen even if you know about it, like I said in my previous post.


So you want Kalos legal? Is there any stage you would put into the banned section from all of them on your own?

With the sole iffy case of Registeel's influence on the Steel phase (which appears pretty rarely, hence my uncertainty on it), Kalos's hazards are less lethal than Halberd's, and infinitely more predictable than the Claw. An indirect hit by Rayquaza won't kill many characters before 130%, and a direct hit would require superb out-of-positioning or an excellently timed throw from an opponent.

And while I'm answering a question that wasn't directed at me, I'd still ban all permanent walkoffs, Pyrosphere, Massives, Windy Hill, Pilotwings, and Wrecking Crew without a second thought. I'd be inclined to ban Jungle Hijinxs, Mushroom Kingdom U, Big Battlefield, Port Town, Gamer, Skyworld, Wily's Castle, Luigi's Mansion, Garden of Hope, and Orbital Gate, too, but I'd also be open to playing a ruleset running those, and learning them accordingly.

 

[Riskman]

You're right, ban stages with things that will kill you if you get hit into them.

I think for the most part this is a reasonable, understandable mentality. If the hazard constantly pesters you, like the ones in Gamer and can kill you it has a high chance for something like that to happen which in the mind of a tournament player is too much of a risk and thus they would want it banned. Gamer's a pretty bad example though because there's a lot more wrong with it than just that, like random layouts and Caves of Life.

Aaaaaaaaand full stop. No, not "but". If it weren't for player error, you would have kept your stock? I have absolutely no sympathy. Stop making player errors.

I don't understand, why is it acceptable for a stage to be able to change what I would describe as "unsafe but decent kill option" into "player error" without any form of warning beforehand? I understand this is a relatively isolated incident, as well as uncommon but it did and can happen. I am genuinely curious as to why this is on the player. In the event that this was an actual match on Kalos, and the Doc Up B was a read of something or an OoS punish and it connects, but results in Doc dying due to the Doc player not being aware the stage was about to change back, they are then considered in error despite having outplayed their opponent.
If the Doc player had been worried about the stage and they had completely passed up on the chance to get their read or punish with Up B, and returned to the stage (despite knowing they were absolutely going to miss their punish, but could not be sure that the stage would have moved at a time which would have caused the Up B option to be an apparent error on their part) they would be the doing what the stage is encouraging.
The stage demands the players pass up opportunities to use an unsafe option for a read or punish for them to remain untouched by the stage, even if the player would have been able to use this unsafe option successfully on another stage such as Battlefield, meaning that playing on this stage would be played, at tournament level, incredibly safe and incredibly slowly. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with playing slowly or safely, many people would rather avoid anything that encourages this as it not only bores them perhaps, but also bores the audience and would be toxic to the metagame, even if the stage can be played at a tournament level. A stage such as PS2 is a prime example of a stage which can slow down a game at intervals but will not give the player any reason to play this conservatively which is why stages such as PS2 are more favored candidates to be legal instead of stages like Kalos. I don't really agree with people getting upset over a game moving slowly, but there comes a point where a stage can support projectile camping with its hazards so greatly that the stage might be a little more trouble than it is worth.

"People" are scrubs and removing opportunities for player error to cause harm to the player is phenomenally uncompetitive. Why should we care what people do and don't like? You obviously don't care one bit that quite a few people genuinely enjoy playing around hazards and dealing with both the stage and their opponent.

Removing player error is anti-competitive, and adding player error is pro-competitive. Though these statements seem objectively true, they have exceptions. Whether you feel you are aware that these exceptions exist or not, I do feel the need to stress that it is possible to add enough player error to the point where it can become difficult for anybody to avoid a hazard, to the point where it may be easier to randomly dodge and shield than it is to actually try to predict something happening, and it is possible for something to be removed, allowing for two players to cease dodging around it and may allow one player to perform to a higher standard thanks to the ability to do something that the obstacle made difficult or impossible.
Just because somebody enjoys dodging around hazards and their opponent at the same time, and they can do it particularly well it does not make it pro-competitive behavior. Taking someone who may not be as good as you to a stage with hazards that pester you often and are a constant danger may result in your loss thanks to their own ability to either camp you out and make you do punishable things while dancing around the hazard(s) or their own ability to use a hazard to strengthen their character's advantages even further or cover their downsides to an extent which would not be possible on a counterpick such as Castle Siege. It is implied without these things assisting them, they would lose to you fairly consistently.
If you enjoy playing on stages with hazards competitively that is completely fine and I wouldn't shy out of playing a match on Kalos, Wily Castle or even Gamer, but it would not mean I agree that playing on that stage allows either of us to perform to our best (although using the hazards can give one player a great advantage) or that winning or losing on that stage would make either player better than the other, without going to stages with no hazards, or at least less intrusive ones.

And you should know that it is our responsibility as competitive players to cross our arms, grit our teeth, and say (with our best Dr. Cox impression), "Tough ******s, tiffany"

Yeah, but it's also our job to call out something which makes actual skill and ability subjective to winning a match, even if it's just slightly. There's gotta be a balance.

As a note I don't particularly disagree or agree with you, I do feel that people do often describe simple hazards as unavoidable instant kill moves without actually looking into them, but after playing around with a lot of these stages I find it extremely easy to camp out with my main and allow impatience and the hazards to help me rack up damage and kill. I've been playing on Gamer of all stages recently just because I enjoy dodging around the pestering hazard and it's fun killing at lower percents with Toon Link thanks to the hazard.
I also feel as if this is largely off-topic with the thread title.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Nice ignoring the other things about the hazards and that I mentioned that that "not knowing" about the stage perfectly wouldn't be a ban reason anyway. Although stuff like that can still happen even if you know about it, like I said in my previous post.

You brought that up for some bizarre reason. SDing on a non-random stage due to the stage transforming... Why bring it up? Why even mention it? There's also no reason to make excuses, or try to explain it. You didn't know the timing and did something stupid that cost you your stock. You could do this on basically any stage that moves or transforms.

And yeah, you brought up other things about hazards. Your opponent, for example, could throw you into them. This is not inherently problematic. Does a hazard kill you at 50? Might be a risk-reward problem if it's easy for your opponent to throw you into it. This is why PTAD is broken - the risk-reward on a throw at the right time is nuts. But on Kalos or MK8? Sure, it's easy to throw the opponent into the swords, or the fire pit, or even the dragon hazard (actually it isn't, but let's just pretend it is), but you don't actually get much from any of those. Rayquaza can kill... But not before the better kill throws start killing already. The Karts on MK8 are both hard to hit with and not particularly rewarding.

And this is important to remember - throws can both kill on there own and lead into kill setups. If you're able to hit your opponent precisely enough to knock them into a hazard, you deserve the reward for that.

So you want Kalos legal?

I don't think so. Rayquaza and Registeel really hurt the stage a lot. Everything else is pretty much fine, though. I'll gladly gentleman anyone to the stage, though.

Is there any stage you would put into the banned section from all of them on your own?

The list of stages I think should be legal is the basic 13-stage list run in Munich, plus MK8 and maybe Kalos and OGA. Norfair requires some more testing. Smash 4 doesn't exactly have a whole lot of "borderline" stages.

I think for the most part this is a reasonable, understandable mentality.

The joke being that this describes every stage ever, because every stage has blastzones.

I don't understand, why is it acceptable for a stage to be able to change what I would describe as "unsafe but decent kill option" into "player error" without any form of warning beforehand?

The warning beforehand is "I know this segment lasts 30 seconds, and it should transform any minute now". Or hell, just watch for the water, and once it's gone, be a little more careful.

In the event that this was an actual match on Kalos, and the Doc Up B was a read of something or an OoS punish and it connects, but results in Doc dying due to the Doc player not being aware the stage was about to change back, they are then considered in error despite having outplayed their opponent.

But they didn't outplay their opponent, any more than I have outplayed my opponent when I go deep on Yoshi's Story for an edgeguard and die because I thought Randall would be in a place where he wasn't. That's not the stage's fault, that's on me. It's entirely predictable and non-random.

The stage demands the players pass up opportunities to use an unsafe option for a read or punish for them to remain untouched by the stage, even if the player would have been able to use this unsafe option successfully on another stage such as Battlefield, meaning that playing on this stage would be played, at tournament level, incredibly safe and incredibly slowly.

This would be true... IF the stage were random. But it isn't. I know at what times I can and cannot, say, land a boost kick or a dark fists while standing on that bridge so that I don't die. I don't have to play slowly or carefully because I have that knowledge. It makes me more threatening, a more capable competitive player.

 

[Luigi player]

Yeah, there's a problem with things KOing the players if it isn't the players doing. And just really unwanted in a real competition.

Even if Rayquaza "only" KOs at 130 or 150, it still KOs. It is always a problem. Believe it or not, no one wants a high level tournament match that is last hit to end because "your opponent happens to hit you at the right moment into the thing that kills, where you wouldn't be KOed if it wasn't there". Of course this could happen because of the skill of the player and he might have planned it, but the thing being there and KOing the player was not the opponent. Either way you look at it, it is just unwanted.
I just played a match on Kalos and it went to the Fire transformation. At first it was just a little camping behind the fire pillars with me shooting projectiles through them while the cpu stayed on the platforms. Then he got to hit me offstage and suddenly a huge fire pillar shoots upwards to hit me back. What is this? This is totally taking away all kinds of placements from the stage, with people getting hit around from all of the pillars. Shortly after I got hit to the other side and then another fire pillar was shooting upwards to hit me. Even if one tries to plan this, it WILL happen "randomly" and there WILL be points in the match where "it just happened to be there at the right time", and that is a problem and unwanted by competition, because it randomizes things a great deal.

This is also why the platforms on town & city can be problematic if you just "happen" to be hit on them at the wrong time and they drag you off. You wanting to play on such stages sounds to me like you want to try playing competitive in a casual setting.

While these things might not be random, there will be times where random stuff will be happening because of them. And believe it or not, in a competition with accurate results (which SHOULD be wanted by competitors) you want to remove things that randomize.
While the SV platform is a small little thing for that as well, it is really not a big deal, because of the points I mentioned in all the other posts and not going to repeat here. It is also not the platform directly KOing you. It's just a platform. Not a hazard or one that drags you into your doom. And stop posting the vid where the Wario didn't react correctly, please. While the stage helped for that to happen, it was the players fault that let it happen, because he could've avoided getting killed by that, and yes I'm not talking about the initial hit.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Yeah, there's a problem with things KOing the players if it isn't the players doing. And just really unwanted in a real competition.

Even if Rayquaza "only" KOs at 130 or 150, it still KOs. It is always a problem. Believe it or not, no one wants a high level tournament match that is last hit to end because "your opponent happens to hit you at the right moment into the thing that kills, where you wouldn't be KOed if it wasn't there". Of course this could happen because of the skill of the player and he might have planned it, but the thing being there and KOing the player was nothing the opponent. Either way you look at it, it is just unwanted.
I just played a match on Kalos and it went to the Fire transformation. At first it was just a little camping behind the fire pillars with me shooting projectiles through them while the cpu stayed on the platforms. Then he got to hit me offstage and suddenly a huge fire pillar shoots upwards to hit me back. What is this? This is totally taking away all kinds of placements from the stage, with people getting hit around from all of the pillars. Shortly after I got hit to the other side and then another fire pillar was shooting upwards to hit me. Even if one tries to plan this, it WILL happen "randomly" and there WILL be points in the match where "it just happened to be there at the right time", and that is a problem and unwanted by competition, because it randomizes things a great deal.

This is also why the platforms on town & city can be problematic if you just "happen" to be hit on them at the wrong time and they drag you off. You wanting to play on such stages sounds to me like you want to try playing competitive in a casual setting.

While these things might not be random, there will be times where random stuff will be happening because of them. And believe it or not, in a competition with accurate results (which SHOULD be wanted by competitors) you want to remove things that randomize.
While the SV platform is a small little thing for that as well, it is really not a big deal, because of the points I mentioned in all the other posts and not going to repeat here. And stop posting the vid where the Wario didn't react correctly, please. While the stage helped for that to happen, it was the players fault that let it happen, because he could've avoided getting killed by that, and yes I'm not talking about the initial hit.

I think I found the disconnect. On a fundamental level, I am completely okay with dying to these hazards. I shrug it off and make a note to self about not standing there next time (or jumping or doing something laggy or whatever) and the match goes on. Or not, if it was the last stock.

Maybe part of it is that I spent ages studying all the stages, so I already know that, for instance, Kalos' Fire form makes it dangerous to recover low because of those flame pillars. If I still get hit by them despite spending several hours on that stage figuring out how it works, then either a) I was stupid and got punished for it or b) the opponent trapped me into a situation where I was forced to recover low, in which case good for them, they managed to leverage the stage against me, kudos and all that. Maybe it's a point of pride for me that since I spent so much time studying literally all of them, I better be able to handle anything a stage throws at me. "I spent an admittedly abnormal amount of time studying all the stages and want to leverage this knowledge against my opponent."

 

[Ulevo]

Yeah, there's a problem with things KOing the players if it isn't the players doing. And just really unwanted in a real competition.

Even if Rayquaza "only" KOs at 130 or 150, it still KOs. It is always a problem. Believe it or not, no one wants a high level tournament match that is last hit to end because "your opponent happens to hit you at the right moment into the thing that kills, where you wouldn't be KOed if it wasn't there". Of course this could happen because of the skill of the player and he might have planned it, but the thing being there and KOing the player was not the opponent. Either way you look at it, it is just unwanted.
I just played a match on Kalos and it went to the Fire transformation. At first it was just a little camping behind the fire pillars with me shooting projectiles through them while the cpu stayed on the platforms. Then he got to hit me offstage and suddenly a huge fire pillar shoots upwards to hit me back. What is this? This is totally taking away all kinds of placements from the stage, with people getting hit around from all of the pillars. Shortly after I got hit to the other side and then another fire pillar was shooting upwards to hit me. Even if one tries to plan this, it WILL happen "randomly" and there WILL be points in the match where "it just happened to be there at the right time", and that is a problem and unwanted by competition, because it randomizes things a great deal.

This is also why the platforms on town & city can be problematic if you just "happen" to be hit on them at the wrong time and they drag you off. You wanting to play on such stages sounds to me like you want to try playing competitive in a casual setting.

While these things might not be random, there will be times where random stuff will be happening because of them. And believe it or not, in a competition with accurate results (which SHOULD be wanted by competitors) you want to remove things that randomize.
While the SV platform is a small little thing for that as well, it is really not a big deal, because of the points I mentioned in all the other posts and not going to repeat here. It is also not the platform directly KOing you. It's just a platform. Not a hazard or one that drags you into your doom. And stop posting the vid where the Wario didn't react correctly, please. While the stage helped for that to happen, it was the players fault that let it happen, because he could've avoided getting killed by that, and yes I'm not talking about the initial hit.

There's some flawed and inexperienced ideology here. Many of these events are not in fact random, nor are they unreasonable to react to or prepare for by the player. If the events are not random in order, the events that lead up to and including their interaction are not random either. Just because you were unfortunately hit in to a hazard does not mean you were randomly hit in to a hazard. This is scrub talk.

I am just making mention of this because while I definitely feel stages like Kalos do not deserve to be legal, there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for this. Stage ignorance is not a legitimate case, nor is feigning specific case by case interactions on these stages as 'random' occurrences.

If a stage hazard is random with a reasonable level of player impact, it is a problem. If a hazard is dangerous and present enough to pose a legitimate threat, it is a problem. If a hazard can promote or form the development of degenerate strategies, it is a problem.

This idea that we are talking about Town & City platforms as problematic is concerning, to say the least. There is nothing 'casual' about the elements of a telegraphed, chronically patterned, and pseudo static stage platform.

 

[PUK]

I think the debate went a little too far.

Kalos shouldn't be legal outside of FLSS, because it shouldn't be a counterpick. And even in FLSS there is better stage to use. By the we shouldn't use more than 11 stages.

Anyway it doesn't concern the current debate

 

[Luigi player]

@ParanoidDrone

Well we already adressed that. Nobody will just get hit by the hazards by themself. You can position yourself perfectly and still be hit into it. What do you want to go against the Rayquaza flying about the whole stage? Plank on the ledge? Yes your opponent did it, yes maybe the hazard was not random and had a set path/timing. But it's still luck in the sense that it helps him in that moment even if he didn't plan anything and just got "lucky" enough to hit you at the right time. And if it kills that is not what people should want in a competition.

There's some flawed and inexperienced ideology here. Many of these events are not in fact random, nor are they unreasonable to react to or prepare for by the player. If the events are not random in order, the events that lead up to and including their interaction are not random either. Just because you were unfortunately hit in to a hazard does not mean you were randomly hit in to a hazard. This is scrub talk.

I am just making mention of this because while I definitely feel stages like Kalos do not deserve to be legal, there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for this. Stage ignorance is not a legitimate case, nor is feigning specific case by case interactions on these stages as 'random' occurrences.

If a stage hazard is random with a reasonable level of player impact, it is a problem. If a hazard is dangerous and present enough to pose a legitimate threat, it is a problem. If a hazard can promote or form the development of degenerate strategies, it is a problem.

This idea that we are talking about Town & City platforms as problematic is concerning, to say the least. There is nothing 'casual' about the elements of a telegraphed, chronically patterned, and pseudo static stage platform.

If you hit someone on the street onto the road and a car crashes into them "just because it was there" that's not really random. but that is the random I'm talking about. there's nothing random about it, but it's still in the sense random that it just happens to be there for the bad timing and no influence on either player. and it kills.

now tell me that was a fair show of skill.

 

[Nintendrone]

You cannot call things you don't like out as "luck" if it can be planned for. Kalos has a few things that are actually random, but the difference is that they all have warnings and many aren't particularly dangerous. The form it changes to is random, but you are warned via the colored transition and that the layout changes on a delay. Each layout has 2 potential hazards, and you are warned about which one will occur based on whether a singular or group of Pokémon appear well in advance. I'm not sure if the hazards are on a timer, but they all have warnings and patterns. Whether and where Rayquaza appears is random, but you are given visual and audio warnings.

Why are killing hazards are so bad anyway? All of Kalos can be played around! Kalos's hazards have strategic value, and people like you who don't like it shouldn't exclude those who want to be able to use their stage knowledge because you didn't bother to learn a stage. If you are adequately warned that a car will appear, then you both have time to plan around it. If you manage to throw someone into said car and kill them, then they got outplayed!

 

[PUK]

If you manage to throw someone into said car and kill them, then they got outplayed!

Kids, don't do that at home.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you hit someone on the street onto the road and a car crashes into them "just because it was there" that's not really random. but that is the random I'm talking about. there's nothing random about it, but it's still in the sense random that it just happens to be there for the bad timing and no influence on either player. and it kills.

now tell me that was a fair show of skill.

You know what the singular (pseudo)random element in that is? The player's behavior. You know what we're testing? The player's behavior. That's really what it comes down to. It does not matter that in some cases, due to the layout of the stage, the pseudorandom behavior rewards one player more than the other. We call that "getting outplayed". Or at least, we all do on some stages. You wouldn't let anyone get away with the excuse that "I thought he was going to die and then the smashville platform saved him", right? But it's just as random as any other non-random element! The only randomness is how the players react to it! It doesn't matter if the non-random or predominately non-random element is a harmless moving platform, a moving platform that can carry you into the blastzone, or a roving OHKO black hole!

(Well, actually, that last one probably falls into the category of "uncompetitive risk/reward", but that's an entirely separate issue to how random it is.)

 

[Luigi player]

You cannot call things you don't like out as "luck" if it can be planned for. Kalos has a few things that are actually random, but the difference is that they all have warnings and many aren't particularly dangerous. The form it changes to is random, but you are warned via the colored transition and that the layout changes on a delay. Each layout has 2 potential hazards, and you are warned about which one will occur based on whether a singular or group of Pokémon appear well in advance. I'm not sure if the hazards are on a timer, but they all have warnings and patterns. Whether and where Rayquaza appears is random, but you are given visual and audio warnings.

Why are killing hazards are so bad anyway? All of Kalos can be played around! Kalos's hazards have strategic value, and people like you who don't like it shouldn't exclude those who want to be able to use their stage knowledge because you didn't bother to learn a stage. If you are adequately warned that a car will appear, then you both have time to plan around it. If you manage to throw someone into said car and kill them, then they got outplayed!

it does not matter how many warnings anything has, the problem is with getting hit into them

why are hazards that kill bad? .....

oh well, im done with this, i've said everything about these things i wanted to already.

 

[Ulevo]

If you hit someone on the street onto the road and a car crashes into them "just because it was there" that's not really random. but that is the random I'm talking about. there's nothing random about it, but it's still in the sense random that it just happens to be there for the bad timing and no influence on either player. and it kills.

now tell me that was a fair show of skill.

If you're going to use an analogy you might want to use one that is applicable and does not sound ridiculous. The person about to be hit by the car in question cannot go ahead and research the time and placement of when that specific car is going to hit them to avoid it.

Educate yourself.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

it does not matter how many warnings anything has, the problem is with getting hit into them

why are hazards that kill bad? .....

oh well, im done with this, i've said everything about these things i wanted to already.

Yes, and thankfully, everyone except you recognizes how wrong your argument is. Getting hit into a non-random hazard is like getting hit into a non-random blastzone. You got outplayed.

 

[Luigi player]

If you're going to use an analogy you might want to use one that is applicable and does not sound ridiculous. The person about to be hit by the car in question cannot go ahead and research the time and placement of when that specific car is going to hit them to avoid it.

Educate yourself.

yeah and even if the cars would drive in a set manner it could and would still be "randomly happening". why would you want them there anyway? just go on to a platform with a set cliff that doesn't have these things.

lollllll cadet

 

[Ulevo]

yeah and even if the cars would drive in a set manner it could and would still be "randomly happening". why would you want them there anyway? just go on to a platform with a set cliff that doesn't have these things.

lollllll cadet

No. It would be perceivably random in a real world situation because you are not expecting someone to come up and push you in to a car. That is not something people generally do. In a fighting game, in Smash, you have someone deliberately trying to kill you.

You made a bad analogy. I think it is best we leave it alone.

 

[Luigi player]

No. It would be perceivably random in a real world situation because you are not expecting someone to come up and push you in to a car. That is not something people generally do. In a fighting game, in Smash, you have someone deliberately trying to kill you.

You made a bad analogy. I think it is best we leave it alone.

In my scenario these 2 people would be fighting against each other, and the one guy may or may not intend to hit the other guy onto the road while the car is coming, it just happens to be there (not random, but still there at this point in time).

I was btw only trying to explain what I mean with "random", but not really random, and it's a perfect example for that. For that example it didn't matter if anyone knew they were random or not.

Well anyway, hazards are unwanted by competitive players. I think the only Smashgames right now that have them allowed are Smash64 with the Tornado on Hyrule Castle, and Smash4 with whatever stages are legal (mostly Halberd, who has nonproblematic hazards).

Whatever though, you can play with all the hazards and stages you want to. It's not like I don't like these all these stages. I'm sad they are too much, and would love more variety. It's just for me and other top players we do not want these disturbances some of the stages bring, because we want to focus on playing a competitive match against the opponent and not against the stage.

Not everyone's the same though, so whatever.


I think we've driven enough out of the subject of this thread.

Also if you think I hate many stages you're wrong, I'm just arguing that some are better fitted for a competitive battle than others. Although I would be in favor of having Halberd gone, or at least have 2 stagebans, since it's a little too heavy with its early kill possibilities, while I would be for Wuhu Island and Kongo Jungle as additions (for standard stagerosters).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well anyway, hazards are unwanted by me and some people I know.

Fix'd.

 

[Raijinken]

In my scenario these 2 people would be fighting against each other, and the one guy may or may not intend to hit the other guy onto the road while the car is coming, it just happens to be there (not random, but still there at this point in time).

I was btw only trying to explain what I mean with "random", but not really random, and it's a perfect example for that. For that example it didn't matter if anyone knew they were random or not.

Well anyway, hazards are unwanted by competitive players. I think the only Smashgames right now that have them allowed are Smash64 with the Tornado on Hyrule Castle, and Smash4 with whatever stages are legal (mostly Halberd, who has nonproblematic hazards).

Whatever though, you can play with all the hazards and stages you want to. It's not like I don't like these all these stages. I'm sad they are too much, and would love more variety. It's just for me and other top players we do not want these disturbances some of the stages bring, because we want to focus on playing a competitive match against the opponent and not against the stage.

Not everyone's the same though, so whatever.


I think we've driven enough out of the subject of this thread.

Also if you think I hate many stages you're wrong, I'm just arguing that some are better fitted for a competitive battle than others. Although I would be in favor of having Halberd gone, or at least have 2 stagebans, since it's a little too heavy with its early kill possibilities, while I would be for Wuhu Island and Kongo Jungle as additions (for standard stagerosters).

How is a lethal but blatant (and randomly targeted) laser and a meh and random claw less of a problem than meh and obvious hazards on MK8 or Kalos? A player is precisely as capable of being thrown into Halberd's laser as into any other hazard (moreso, seeing as it aims directly at players and lasts for several seconds before dissipating).

I think I found the disconnect. On a fundamental level, I am completely okay with dying to these hazards. I shrug it off and make a note to self about not standing there next time (or jumping or doing something laggy or whatever) and the match goes on. Or not, if it was the last stock.

Maybe part of it is that I spent ages studying all the stages, so I already know that, for instance, Kalos' Fire form makes it dangerous to recover low because of those flame pillars. If I still get hit by them despite spending several hours on that stage figuring out how it works, then either a) I was stupid and got punished for it or b) the opponent trapped me into a situation where I was forced to recover low, in which case good for them, they managed to leverage the stage against me, kudos and all that. Maybe it's a point of pride for me that since I spent so much time studying literally all of them, I better be able to handle anything a stage throws at me. "I spent an admittedly abnormal amount of time studying all the stages and want to leverage this knowledge against my opponent."

I think you hit it on the head. That disconnect is probably the gap in understanding that will never be bridged between people who hate hazards and people who don't care or like them. It's like trying to explain hunting for sport to a PETA member. Right or wrong, it's incomprehensible. Even logical mismatches won't convince them they're overlooking an issue.

Either way, I like hazards. They give me more things to aim for and dodge, and it lets me use a skill that I have and many people are too stubborn to develop.

 

[Luigi player]

How is a lethal but blatant (and randomly targeted) laser and a meh and random claw less of a problem than meh and obvious hazards on MK8 or Kalos? A player is precisely as capable of being thrown into Halberd's laser as into any other hazard (moreso, seeing as it aims directly at players and lasts for several seconds before dissipating).

Because you can SDI out of the laser making it just give you a few more %, unless you get hit into it at the very end. Which is like very few frames (maybe even just 1, who knows) while it's there. And also seen hours before it actually reaches that point. It's not really lethal. And for that 1-5 frames the final hit is there you can try to avoid your opponent. The claw isn't really random, and if you mean my "random" then that can almost never happen, because you cannot hit someone into it (maybe in doubles), because it follows players and before it reaches forward it will stand still. Which means it will not follow someone who got hit. Its hitbox is also there for only very few frames. The only thing you have to watch out for is getting hit by it in neutral, if you don't look at it or something (maybe because you're focusing on trying to edgeguard your opponent or something like that). Really the only thing that can happen is getting grabbed and pummelled so that the claw hits you (and that can also only happen if it's following the grabbed player, because the grabber wouldn't want to risk that for himself). And you could still mash out. And even then, the claw won't really kill as well, unless you vector into the blastzone. The cannonball is also only there for a few frames which if you're scared from it (because of high %) you can stall that small timeframe out by avoiding your opponent somehow.

On Kalos the hazards are there for longer, allow for juggling (like, getting hit from hazard - opponent - hazard... because at times they're taking over like half of the stage in parts), really shrinking the whole possible gameplay to very small points of the stage. Some (Rayquaza, offstage fire pillars?) suddenly appear without warning and can KO (and aren't just there for very few frames). There's also the weird metal effect (not a hazard though) and the swords... and the legendaries sometimes (no idea when they will come, I think I've only seen Manaphy - I didn't even know about the others until a few hours ago when I looked into ParanoidDrone stageanalysis thread lol). All of these things together kinda make the stage unplayable for the most part and it consists so much of hazards that it's really just too much. On Halberd you have 3 hazards that you can see coming from miles away, that you can easily avoid since they're only lethal / on the stage for very very few frames on specific spots, and they're likely only going to appear like at most 2-3 times during the stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

On Kalos the hazards are there for longer, allow for juggling (like, getting hit from hazard to hazard... because at times they're taking over like half of the stage in parts)

Actually, this never happens. The fire pillars have so little knockback and such a long repeat period that getting knocked between them is not only impossible but inconsequential. Rayquaza can technically link into himself if you're really unlucky, but this hardly counts. The swords are a lot like the fire pillars. I'm honestly not sure which hazards you're talking about here.

Some (Rayquaza, offstage fire pillars?) suddenly appear without warning and can KO (and aren't just there for very few frames).

Rayquaza has a solid 2-3 seconds of warning beforehand in the form of lightning where he's going to pass through. The offstage fire pillars are non-random and always happen at the same time.

There's also the weird metal effect (not a hazard though) and the swords... and the legendaries sometimes (no idea when they will come, I think I've only seen Manaphy - I didn't even know about the others until a few hours ago when I looked into ParanoidDrone stageanalysis thread lol). All of these things together kinda make the stage unplayable for the most part and it consists so much of hazards that it's really just too much.

I feel the need to point out that you're explaining a stage you just admitted to having virtually no understanding of to people who have played on it quite extensively, and trying to tell us why it's not competitive. That's... not a great strategy.

 

[Riskman]

The joke being that this describes every stage ever, because every stage has blastzones.

Well I guess I'm stupid then because I thought you were referring to how you can be thrown into things and end up being killed on Halberd, the "ban anything that you can be thrown into that kills you" being sarcasm instead of a joke about blastzones.

I got nothing else to say about hazards, I only replied to receive a response and I got that and yeah I guess I can see how it would be the player's fault for screwing up the Up B. I think Randall is a bit of a poor example though because that guy can be measured as to when he comes out since he just follows a track (Takes 20 secs I think).

 

[Luigi player]

Actually, this never happens. The fire pillars have so little knockback and such a long repeat period that getting knocked between them is not only impossible but inconsequential. Rayquaza can technically link into himself if you're really unlucky, but this hardly counts. The swords are a lot like the fire pillars. I'm honestly not sure which hazards you're talking about here.

Let me teach you about the stage you know so much about:

The offstage firepillars have so much knockback they can hit you into (and through) the others sometimes.
The blades of the swords can sometimes knock you far enough you'll be hit into the other one (although this doesn't happen often and can probably be avoided by DI etc).
But I was actually more talking about (hazard ->) opponent hit -> hazard -> opponent hit -> hazard..

Rayquaza has a solid 2-3 seconds of warning beforehand in the form of lightning where he's going to pass through. The offstage fire pillars are non-random and always happen at the same time.

I didn't think the offstage pillars were random. But they randomly appear (out of nowhere). I'm not sure I've ever noticed the lightning from Rayquaza.

I feel the need to point out that you're explaining a stage you just admitted to having virtually no understanding of to people who have played on it quite extensively, and trying to tell us why it's not competitive. That's... not a great strategy.

The hazards alone are reason enough to not have it allowed, because they're taking over too much of the stage (and some can also KO), so there was never a reason to learn more about it. I'm sure you can understand. I've also played a few battles on the stage, so it's not like I have zero knowledge about it. Although to be fair there was quite a bit I was missing, and it's making it even worse for the stage (Ho-Oh, Registeel).

The point I wanted to try to bring across should've went through, even if not all details were correct. I think it's a little ridiculous that you're even trying to argue about anything on Kalos when it's pretty clear it's a surefire ban for almost everyone (even for yourself @ Cadet).

 

[Infinite901]

I'm fairly stage-liberal but I'm mostly against Kalos, mainly because some transformations just leave no room to fight, and because of Registeel. (Then again those are both bad for my main, so I guess I'm a bit biased.)

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I didn't think the offstage pillars were random. But they randomly appear (out of nowhere). I'm not sure I've ever noticed the lightning from Rayquaza.

About 3 seconds in advance, you hear thunder and see lightning streak across the stage along the exact path Rayquaza will take. Rayquaza makes 3 appearances total before the stage transforms back to neutral, each with its own such warning. (But he won't necessarily appear in the first place, like all legendaries on Kalos.) I've also never observed it taking a path that would hit someone standing on the base of the stage. Broadly speaking, it seems to have three possible paths: horizontally over the stage and vertically offstage on either side.

(As a side note, since Rayquaza is very snake-like in shape and undulates as he moves along, it's possible for him to miss you even if you don't try to dodge. That said I wouldn't actually try this in a match since the penalty for failing is, well, getting hit by Rayquaza.)

You're correct that the offstage flame pillars aren't really random. They don't give any explicit warning that I'm aware of, but their timing is mostly consistent plus or minus a few seconds.

 

[Illuminose]

@ Budget Player Cadet_ it's pretty unreasonable to state that @ Luigi player and some people he knows are the only ones that don't like hazards in competitive play or that is position is wholly illogical. One reason is that, in they eyes of many people, hazards just aren't fun/fit for competitive play. I don't know about you, but I don't think someone being picked off by the claw on Halberd (this is the most egregious hazard for that stage really as it is ridiculously difficult to avoid) or being thrown into the laser due to a simple positional element of standard gameplay (this is mainly in regards to ledge play) is "fun" or "hype". This even extends to other forms of "cheese" kills, like someone being spiked in the water on Delfino, being uthrow uair'd by DK or uair killed by Diddy or killed by Rosalina at some stupid percent like 30 or 40 as the stage transforms on Delfino, and being hit into Castle Siege's second transformation's stupidly close horizontal blastzones. You want to know why people counterpick these stages? These stages are counterpicked to cheese the opponent out, to gain an undeserved win. I was watching a TLOC stream yesterday and one of the commentators even made a comment along the lines of this: "you take someone to Castle Siege if you want to pull out a win somehow". That's because the stage's attributes can decrease the impact of skill. It's not against the spirit or idea of competition to restrict these things that aren't based around rewarding normal fighting skill in the game. Viewers see these things happen, these stupid early kills and hazard KOs, and it makes the game look terrible because people think that the game isn't competitive as a result. It's not just viewers that hold these opinions either. You have players like for instance ZeRo (the best player in Smash 4, and he's not alone in this aspect that I'm talking about) that speak poorly of these stages and frequently ban them in high level tournament settings to prevent themselves from losing to, frankly, stupidity.

As for this discussion's actual topic, I think three stage starter list is fine. Let's be realistic: we are wasting time to do stage striking with any more stages. Most matches are going to start on Smashville anyways because it's the most 'neutral' stage and widely preferred among players. I keep seeing these videos brought up like Pikachu or Sheik fairing some character into the blastzone. The only thing I see in these videos is people who don't know how to DI out of a fair string, because those fair strings are so far from guaranteed. You have to be DI'ing directly toward Sheik for those fair strings to be happening. Not all matches start on Smashville, but a lot do because people like the stage. When you have Lylat and T&C as starters, they're basically just there because almost no one starts on them. Sometimes T&C, but I have never seen someone start a set on Lylat even with a 5 starter system because, however silly that might sound to you, most of the competitive community dislikes the stage. People do counterpick to Lylat sometimes, but that's really about it.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

As for this discussion's actual topic, I think three stage starter list is fine. Let's be realistic: we are wasting time to do stage striking with any more stages. Most matches are going to start on Smashville anyways because it's the most 'neutral' stage and widely preferred among players. I keep seeing these videos brought up like Pikachu or Sheik fairing some character into the blastzone. The only thing I see in these videos is people who don't know how to DI out of a fair string, because those fair strings are so far from guaranteed. You have to be DI'ing directly toward Sheik for those fair strings to be happening. Not all matches start on Smashville, but a lot do because people like the stage. When you have Lylat and T&C as starters, they're basically just there because almost no one starts on them. Sometimes T&C, but I have never seen someone start a set on Lylat even with a 5 starter system because, however silly that might sound to you, most of the competitive community dislikes the stage. People do counterpick to Lylat sometimes, but that's really about it.

Let's attack it from a different angle then. By explicitly limiting the starter stages to a subset of all allowed stages, you are effectively saying "these other stages are not good enough to be used in game 1." Why, then, are those other stages allowed at all? What makes a stage good enough for game 5 of grand finals after a bracket reset, but not for game 1 of a pools match? The disconnect boggles the mind, if I'm being honest.

This is also ignoring the fact that from a procedural point of view, 3 is strictly inferior as a number to 5, 9, 13, or any other number that satisfies the formula 4x + 1.

 

[Piford]

If your picking any stage in order to "cheese" your opponent, you are almost guaranteed to lose because your opponents probably better than you, and any stage where an actually unfair kill would happen has been banned (like Pyrosphere or Port Town Aero Dive). All the legal stages (and some banned ones like Wuhu Island and Skyloft) are fair and if you lose there it was your fault. Castle Siege doesn't suddenly make the worse player win; if a player dislikes it, it's probably because they have little to no practice on the stage and aren't familiar with it. Look at all the friendlies and pro players streams, you rarely see any stage that's not Smashville get played. When another one does get played, it's Town and City, Battlefield, or Final Destination. In tournament, players aren't well practiced on those other stages, so they chose Smashville. This leads to basically not playing the other stages and making wins feel less deserved when they are actually taken there because the players didn't practice those other stages. If a player wins because the other person doesn't have enough experience on the stage, it's the players fault not the stages.

Saying ZeRo doesn't like these stages is a terrible reason to ban the stage. Players like Dabuz love Castle Siege. Nakat and Keitaro have been pushing to get more stages legalized recently. Banning stages should be based off actual reasons and not because people don't like them. If ZeRo has to ban Castle Siege to make sure he wins, then why did he play against Dabuz there at Apex grand finals. Clearly it was worth banning two other stages, and ZeRo managed to win on Castle Siege anyways.

Also it seems most arguments for 3 starter stage system are more people wanting to play on Smashville. Would most people in favor of 3 stage starter list still be in favor if it was Town and City, Final Destination, and Battlefield, compared to adding Smashville and Lylat Cruise and making it 5, or going even further to FLSS.

 

[Raijinken]

About 3 seconds in advance, you hear thunder and see lightning streak across the stage along the exact path Rayquaza will take. Rayquaza makes 3 appearances total before the stage transforms back to neutral, each with its own such warning. (But he won't necessarily appear in the first place, like all legendaries on Kalos.) I've also never observed it taking a path that would hit someone standing on the base of the stage. Broadly speaking, it seems to have three possible paths: horizontally over the stage and vertically offstage on either side.

(As a side note, since Rayquaza is very snake-like in shape and undulates as he moves along, it's possible for him to miss you even if you don't try to dodge. That said I wouldn't actually try this in a match since the penalty for failing is, well, getting hit by Rayquaza.)

You're correct that the offstage flame pillars aren't really random. They don't give any explicit warning that I'm aware of, but their timing is mostly consistent plus or minus a few seconds.

Ho-oh's presence indicates that the pillars WILL flare. I'm not sure if he gives a specific tell immediately preceding the event, but much like Registeel indicates the swords will flip, and Manaphy indicates the sinkhole and not the waterslide, the presence of a legendary should be a sufficient indicator (even without a blatant tell) that one should avoid the hazard zones until the mode changes.

I believe Rayquaza has at least four patterns, as he can cross horizontally from either direction (or I could just be mis-remembering it, I've literally been hit by him once because I wasn't watching), and I believe it is (or can be) slightly angled as well, making for six directions. They're all extremely obvious, though, the camera even zooms out for the lightning.

Seriously, the only iffy thing in Kalos is Registeel. I've half a mind to just play Kalos a few times and save every replay just with the intention of figuring Registeel out.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Ho-oh's presence indicates that the pillars WILL flare. I'm not sure if he gives a specific tell immediately preceding the event, but much like Registeel indicates the swords will flip, and Manaphy indicates the sinkhole and not the waterslide, the presence of a legendary should be a sufficient indicator (even without a blatant tell) that one should avoid the hazard zones until the mode changes.

I believe Rayquaza has at least four patterns, as he can cross horizontally from either direction (or I could just be mis-remembering it, I've literally been hit by him once because I wasn't watching), and I believe it is (or can be) slightly angled as well, making for six directions. They're all extremely obvious, though, the camera even zooms out for the lightning.

Seriously, the only iffy thing in Kalos is Registeel. I've half a mind to just play Kalos a few times and save every replay just with the intention of figuring Registeel out.

The offstage flame pillars happen regardless of Ho-oh. What Ho-oh does is increase the intensity of both the onstage and offstage flames -- the onstage ones triple or quadruple in height, while the offstage ones get a bit stronger (like, +3%) and makes them linger for the duration of the transformation. Which is admittedly still a pain to deal with.

Ho-oh does have a tell, IIRC it glows and spreads its wings or something.

 

[Luigi player]

If your picking any stage in order to "cheese" your opponent, you are almost guaranteed to lose because your opponents probably better than you, and any stage where an actually unfair kill would happen has been banned (like Pyrosphere or Port Town Aero Dive).

Yeah, people sometimes pick such stages to beat better opponents in order to win through some jank. That is another reason top players do not like it, because they don't want to get janked out of their win.
Of course players may also pick them because of their other attributes, like in Castle Sieges case the statues can help against projectile users (or surprise / throw people's timing off because of the longer duration of the hitbox through hitlag), but that still doesn't change the fact that "cheesy" stuff can happen more easily. And yeah, even if both players know all the querks about them.

All the legal stages (and some banned ones like Wuhu Island and Skyloft) are fair and if you lose there it was your faultCastle Siege doesn't suddenly make the worse player win; if a player dislikes it, it's probably because they have little to no practice on the stage and aren't familiar with it.

You're just plain wrong, it's that simple. Of course not playing on the stage often contributes to players not liking it, but they don't like it in the first place because of some reasons.

Look at all the friendlies and pro players streams, you rarely see any stage that's not Smashville get played. When another one does get played, it's Town and City, Battlefield, or Final Destination. In tournament, players aren't well practiced on those other stages, so they chose Smashville. This leads to basically not playing the other stages and making wins feel less deserved when they are actually taken there because the players didn't practice those other stages. If a player wins because the other person doesn't have enough experience on the stage, it's the players fault not the stages.

That does not change the fact that some stages are less competitive and have more jank.
You really have to accept that.

Skyloft is mostly banned because it has stuff that can hit the players while the stage is flying around, and that stuff sometimes isn't even really seeable. "huh, I suddenly got hit by the environment". And that stuff even kills. And like we've had numerous times before: it will happen even if players know about it. They could always get hit into them, or hit offstage. Whoops I got hit offstage at the wrong time now I have to die because the hazards kill me while I'm trying to recover.
"why should it be more rewarding for you to hit me offstage, when I hit you offstage 3 times and nothing happened because there were no hazards when I did that? why is it that you get such a high reward for doing the same thing that I did 3 times and not get?"
Competitive players do NOT want stuff like that. When I'm saying things like that, I'm talking about competitive players. If you do like these things and love trying to avoid them etc, you're trying to play very differently then these people, and might not be as competitive as you think. You could still play this competitively, but people want to play against people without too many disturbances. You need to see this. In Brawl when Luigis Mansion and Norfair got banned I was sad. I was still just wanting more stages because of more variety and they're cool and stuff. But if you look at competitive play they are just less viable and distracting / degenerating the gameplay to cave-of-life stuff and ledgecamping with lava decreasing the playing field.

The more intensely you play competitively the more you do not care about any more stages, because you only care about playing against your opponent (and without any stuff that might disturb). I've noticed that I can play on SV all day long in Brawl if it's just playing high level matches against someone.

Also it seems most arguments for 3 starter stage system are more people wanting to play on Smashville. Would most people in favor of 3 stage starter list still be in favor if it was Town and City, Final Destination, and Battlefield, compared to adding Smashville and Lylat Cruise and making it 5, or going even further to FLSS.

It's likely more people would be for a 5 starter system if SV wasn't in the 3, because most people want to play on SV and not the other ones.

What would you do it you could go out with 3 girls and one of them is one you like? Probably go with them. What if the one you like isn't there, but if you'd go with 5 she is? Obviously you'd choose the 5. Simple logic. Why would the best ones not be included with the less numbered choices anyway? That doesn't make any sense (for Smash).

 

[Jaxas]

You're just plain wrong, it's that simple.

That does not change the fact that some stages are less competitive and have more jank.
You really have to accept that.

No, stop that. That's not how discussions(/arguments/debates) work.

Why should I have to accept that?
You haven't actually provided any 'proof' so far, you've just stated your opinions as facts and then immediately dismissed anyone who disagrees with you.

It's likely more people would be for a 5 starter system if SV wasn't in the 3, because most people want to play on SV and not the other ones.

What would you do it you could go out with 3 girls and one of them is one you like? Probably go with them. What if the one you like isn't there, but if you'd go with 5 she is? Obviously you'd choose the 5. Simple logic. Why would the best ones not be included with the less numbered choices anyway? That doesn't make any sense (for Smash).

Alright, well according to this analogy (which is... unfitting, to say the least - people almost always have more than 1 stage they want to go to for a certain matchup, and it's not always Smashville!) then if everyone wants to go to Smashville all the time...
Why would we have even 3 starters? With this logic why not just always play on Smashville? I legitimately don't understand the logic here...

 

[Luigi player]

No, stop that. That's not how discussions(/arguments/debates) work.

Why should I have to accept that?
You haven't actually provided any 'proof' so far, you've just stated your opinions as facts and then immediately dismissed anyone who disagrees with you.

These are facts, you can't argue them. The only thing you can say is "I accept this but still want to play like that, because imo that's part of the game / not bad enough".
If you don't see that, then I can't help you. That's why rulesets are thought out by people who know their stuff and not people that just joined the community or just want to play for fun and a little competition.

Cadet has always had way out of place opinions / logic for stuff like that and mostly people just ignore him and don't take him seriously, because really most competitive people don't want to play like this (like Zeros opinion isn't really anything out of place, it's quite normal for the real competitive players, no matter if you "never liked him" or anything like that). I'm just here to diminish him (Cadet) spreading around his thoughts of how the game should be played so people aren't too allured by his stuff, because that's really a minority that think like that, and it's mostly people who aren't too competitive (a big part of the community isn't really that competitive actually). See on which stages Japan plays? See how Europe had the "always play on Smashville" fad? Even in America the stages always got less and less over time for all Smashgames (dunno about 64). While some parts of Europe had quite a few stages (even Norfair and stuff) on Brawls start it always got less and less, because most people don't want stuff like that. And please don't come up with "we shouldn't do what people want/don't want", because they actually have good competitive reasons for not wanting that.

 

[Charey]

Part of the reason I'm for FLSS is that Smashville is one of Charizard's worst stages, he can't use the moving platform for aerial protection like in battlefield and it lets Sheik and others do low% kill strings negating his great survivability against MUs that already give him issues. The only stage that I have found worse is Kongo and that is because he doesn't have any way to stop circle camping there.

I don't see any reason a stage is "bad" for game one yet "good" for game 2-5. If a stage has "Jank" (I hate that word) that makes it uncompetitive then it should be banned, not allowed as a counter pick. If a stage is legal at all it is considered good for competitive play so there is no reason it shouldn't be game one if neither player dislikes it enough to strike it, if that stage is bad for a character it should be stuck by that player.