Melee Stage List

[Rockenos]

So, we all know that currently, our Melee stage set isn't quite well agreed upon.
Apex and Genesis both trimmed/are trimming the standard counterpick list, to the point where really the "standard" counterpick list has become "Pokemon Stadium and maybe another one idk"

We're all aware that the counterpicks (And perhaps even neutrals) need to be standardized to prevent unnecesary arguments. I believe this is already being discussed in the back room, but as long as this doesn't turn into "Should metaknight be banned?" I think we'll be fine.

So, current neutral stages are FD, FoD, DL64, YS, and battlefield.
Current counterpicks are... Pokemon stadium... And possibly Brinstar, Kongo Jungle 64, Rainbro Cruise, and hell, why not discuss Mute City and Poke Floats? Lol.

So yeah! Post what you think the neutral and counterpick stages should be, and, more importantly, WHY.

I'm actually a little too tired to do an in-depth analysis of each stage myself, but I like the current neutral setup and as far as counterpicks go, I definately like Pokemon Stadium and Brinstar, and Maybe rainbro cruise too.

 

[t3h Icy]

Europe has stages right.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Rainbow Cruise is a better stage than Brinstar and Kongo Jungle in terms of how fair it is for multiple characters. Almost everyone can do well on RC, Brinstar... not so much due to the lava, and KJ64 because of camping the top platforms.

As I've said before, I think we should be expanding the stage list to include stages like Kongo Jungle (the one with the rock and DK rap), Jungle Japes, Mushroom Kingdom II, Mute City, etc... And then strike from all of them. More stages = better.

 

[eet]

It'd be cool to see some new stages being used, but all of those stages are banned for a reason. I guess the real question is, if they are unbanned, will they be used unfairly by players and will it have an overall negative effect on the metagame in tournament play? No one wants a camp fest in a GFs.

We could simply ban the techniques used to make less-used levels cheap (like laser camping) on levels that facilitate it, similar to the ledge camping rules used in some tournaments. But, some of these ideas are hard to regulate. But really the only solutions are:

-add new levels, with no restrictions and see what happens.
-add new levels, and faciliate some kind of level-specific guidelines to stopping level-abuse.
-leave **** the same
-take away even more counter pick levels, leaving us with like 3.

 

[ETWIST51294]

Rainbow Cruise is a better stage than Brinstar and Kongo Jungle in terms of how fair it is for multiple characters. Almost everyone can do well on RC, Brinstar... not so much due to the lava, and KJ64 because of camping the top platforms.

Fox an Falcon are sooooooo much better than everyone else on RC. lol

 

[ph00tbag]

Good luck banning laser camping.

The basic issue with a stage ban is whether it gives rise to a strategy that gives one character an insurmountable advantage. Most stages are banned because of the combination of Fox's laser, speed and laundry list of ways to punish characters for jumping.

I always break it down to three major forms of camping: circle, wall and gap. Circle camping is the most insurmountable. Essentially, it's a Temple scenario, where Fox gains a percent lead, then uses an impenetrable circle to evade his opponent, or set up situations where he has a very easy time punishing them, for the rest of the match. The strategy becomes: maintain a 180 degree arc-length from your opponent at all times. It's because of this kind of camping that Temple and Great Bay are banned.

Wall and gap camping are harder to condemn outright. Essentially, both create an obstacle that forces a character into the air, limiting options and facilitating a reactive punishment strategy (aka Fox usmash). What makes it difficult to say out right that the strategy is illegitimate is that even though there are stages where it is a clear problem, (Yoshi's Island 64, Fourside, etc.) there are also stages where some characters have the options (Jiggs and Peach come to mind) to overcome the obstacle. Most existing stage bans actually attempt to rectify this strategy.

It's important to note that there are twenty stages in the game that theoretically give rise to these strategies via permanent features. If you started from all 29 stages for a striking, then, every Fox match-up that was not a ditto could end up on a stage where he could camp, if the Fox player wanted it that way. This is not a desirable outcome, so we have two options: ban only enough stages such that the last stage left in a striking process would have no permanent campable features, or simply ban all stages with permanent campable features.

I prefer the latter. Not because I'm opposed to matches where one player simply runs away for the whole match, but because the former leads to a lot of useless debate about subjective issues, and tries to define things that are indefinable. Better to ban it all outright than spend months trying decide if wall camping on Onett is more broken than gap camping on Kongo Jungle. If you dig that kind of debate, that's your call, but I don't think it really has a place in the discussion if the point is to get things done.

This leaves us with 15 stages that contain no permanent campable features. Note that I said permanent. Many of these stages have temporary campable features. In fact, I'll star these stages for you.

Battlefield
*Big Blue (Falcon's Gunship)
*Brinstar (breakable stage gap)
Dream Land
Final Destination
Flat Zone
Fountain of Dreams
*Icicle Mountain (various impenetrable rocks)
Kongo Jungle 64
Mute City
*Pipes (breakable blocks)
*Poké Floats (gaps between Pokémon and impenetrable Pokémon)
*Pokémon Stadium (tree and mountain)
*Rainbow Cruise (gaps between platforms)
*Yoshi's Story (Randall)

From here, I would surmise that there would be several stages that would be stricken 100% of the time because no one plays on them anyway:

Big Blue
Flat Zone
Icicle Mountain

I would just ban these stages outright, in the interest of time. Of course, now this leaves us with an even number of stages to strike. This is as good a reason as any to bring in a counter pick system. The popular layout for it would be with the following five as neutral stages for the striking process:

Battlefield
Dream Land
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams
Yoshi's Story

And the rest are counterpicks. This is actually pretty close to the way we have things right now. Note that in a situation that would normally be determined by rock paper scissors, this method effectively tends to give the striking advantage to any character not playing Fox, since Fox is usually less strong on the neutrals than he is on the counterpicks. But then, I suspect the primary reason stages are banned is so we don't have to ban Fox instead, which I find to be an admirable goal.

Now, lately we've been seeing the counter pick stages thin out, since some stages are simply never played anyway. As a result, these stages only real impact on the metagame is to make certain other stages more likely to be chosen as counterpicks (floaties will always ban RC against spacies, so spacies will take them to PS or something like that). The result that I see is that if this process continues, the counterpick stages will go out of use entirely.

At this point, it becomes a question of; are you the type who would rather maintain stage variety? Or the type who would rather just speed the process up to its natural endpoint by getting rid of all the counterpicks entirely.

I've already said that I would rather just set seven legal stages, and strike for the first match, then let the counterpick system play out afterward. I consider this to be something of a compromise; pick two commonly played counterpicks (probably PS and either Brinstar or KJ64) that can maintain stage variety, and get rid of the rest because no one is playing them now anyway. This way, everyone is equally unhappy.

 

[erbanez]

I've always felt that a stage should be a place for two characters to fight each other. They shouldn't have to fight the stage. In other words, any stage that can cause percentile damage should be banned, enough said. The neutral five are fine, but as for counterpicks, an even number should be kept in case a stage-strike-for-EVERY-stage-rule is made. Ideally, 7 stages total should be the goal IMO. I would pick Kongo, because it doesn't really give any one character an immense amount of an advantage, and pokemon stadium.

 

[Varist]

All stages can cause percentile damage.

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Hoop_damage

And Kongo severely disadvantages characters with poor vertical movement (assuming they are playing against a character without that hindrance).

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

I think the stagelist is fine as it is here in The Netherlands, or EU as far as I know.
It's usually this;
Neutral:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Pokemon Stadium
Dreamland 64
Yoshi's Story/Fountain of Dreams

Counterpick:
Yoshi's Story/Fountain of Dreams


And you know, I'm perfectly okay with stages that aren't really advantageous for that many characters, except maybe some top tier vs low tier matchups, but you shouldn't change your neutrals list to accomodate a few low tiers, and especially not the counterpick list to help a few of them, which could also give top tiers a huge boost.

I'd rather it be a bit conservative.

 

[Doser]

I think KJ64 is better when you use fixed camera mode because you can at least keep track of where the barrel is, the barrel stops arbitrarily and for random amounts of time and then continues on its path so it's pure guesswork to land in the barrel normally. Even with that, I still think the stage is crap.

 

[Mokumo]

phootbag that was an awesome post and i think that pretty much sums up the whole situation. the question now is whether to ban brinstar or kj64? i like both i guess but personally i prefer kj64

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@Phoot
What's wrong with Kongo Jungle Melee? What about Mushroom Kingdom II? Onett?

 

[crush]

Fox can camp the rock on Kongo jungle

 

[Veetaak]

Europe's rules>

 

[TheGoat]

About the stages that fox can waveshine infinite...just try those if nobody is using fox. I know he's popular but people play lots of other characters too.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

@Phoot
What's wrong with Kongo Jungle Melee? What about Mushroom Kingdom II? Onett?

Kongo Jungle is very debatable

Onett and Mushroom Kingdom II, Waveshine makes it impossible for a lot of characters. It would only add stages would get auto-banned vs Foxes, giving them more options from the other stages.

You can imagine how gay it is to be waveshined on Onett against the wall, or off the edges on both levels.

 

[Rubyiris]

None of this would be an issue if y'all played on MK2 only.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Onett has cars that come on a regular basis that interrupt wave-shining and tell you when they are coming. If you are worried about a wave-shining Fox, time your approaches so you can pressure them along with the car.

MKII's walk-offs are laughable. It's very easy to play on the stage without getting caught between the walk-off and Fox by camping the middle platform.

And there is nothing to debate about KJ, except maybe the Klap Trap, it's legit as. I've tested "rock camping" pretty thoroughly, it's high-risk/high-reward like Rest.

 

[Varist]

Onett has cars that come on a regular basis that interrupt wave-shining and tell you when they are coming. If you are worried about a wave-shining Fox, time your approaches so you can pressure them along with the car.

MKII's walk-offs are laughable. It's very easy to play on the stage without getting caught between the walk-off and Fox by camping the middle platform.

And there is nothing to debate about KJ, except maybe the Klap Trap, it's legit as. I've tested "rock camping" pretty thoroughly, it's high-risk/high-reward like Rest.

Re Onett: Easier said than done in many cases, and besides that, there's no reason to go to Onett.

Re MKII: Middle platform has edges too bro. It's a free fox CP. Good for vertical killers, good for shine spikes, why does Fox need this CP?

Re KJ: I really like KJ, and I never thought the rock was a big deal, and to this day I haven't even seen the Klap Trap when I've played on the stage, but the question to ask is: why? Why do we need KJ? What we have now is fair, KJ is a risk, a novelty.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ok, I can accept that Onett and MKII might be too strong for Fox, but for KJ...

Stages should be legal until proven ban-worthy, the question isn't "why do we need KJ?" it's "why shouldn't we have KJ?". An extra stage would add extra depth to the game.

 

[Ghostbone]

and to this day I haven't even seen the Klap Trap when I've played on the stage

-First time Grim Tuesday tried out this stage with me

Oh yea, and sometimes the klap trap comes and gets stuck in the barrel
-klap trap gets stuck in the barrel, shoots up and I combo him to death with it-
laughter ensues.

And yea burden of proof is on the person wanting the stage banned.
I could say, why do we need PS?

 

[Varist]

A majority of the stages on the list are banned already. This precedent has been set. The list is established with few fluctuations. Understand that the burden of proof is not on people who want to ban stages, that job has already been done. It is on the minority who want to propose the change. You are proposing a change. It is up to you to back up that proposal.

Stages should be legal until proven ban-worthy, the question isn't "why do we need KJ?" it's "why shouldn't we have KJ?". An extra stage would add extra depth to the game.

A long time ago, when these decisions were made, all stages were legal. Then they were proven ban-worthy. You are calling into question past decisions, so provide a good reason for it.

 

[Kal]

Onett has cars that come on a regular basis that interrupt wave-shining and tell you when they are coming. If you are worried about a wave-shining Fox, time your approaches so you can pressure them along with the car.

The stage is banned because it promotes a huge amount of camping, because it has walk-off edges, because there are two walls for Fox infinites, and because of the absurdly low ceiling. It's not the infinites alone that demote the stage to "banned" status, and to suggest that the cars make the stage less broken by interrupting infinites is wrong.

MKII's walk-offs are laughable. It's very easy to play on the stage without getting caught between the walk-off and Fox by camping the middle platform.

This stage is predominantly banned because it encourages camping far too heavily, to the point where gameplay effectively ceases.

And there is nothing to debate about KJ, except maybe the Klap Trap, it's legit as. I've tested "rock camping" pretty thoroughly, it's high-risk/high-reward like Rest.

The Klap Trap is not random at all. And no, rock camping is incredibly unfair; literally every character is in an extremely vulnerable position when they attempt to approach someone who is camping on the rock. Combine this with the platforms that are too high and the incredibly high ceiling, and the stage is clearly unfit for competition.

And Varist, I strongly disagree with your above post. Yes, a standard has been set, but if we can't explain why these stages are banned, we're doing little more than appealing to authority. A precedent is not worth perpetuating if we cannot justify it: if someone asks why a stage is banned, we should provide an explanation, and if they disagree with these reasons, we should engage in open debate.

 

[Varist]

And Varist, I strongly disagree with your above post. Yes, a standard has been set, but if we can't explain why these stages are banned, we're doing little more than appealing to authority. A precedent is not worth perpetuating if we cannot justify it: if someone asks why a stage is banned, we should provide an explanation, and if they disagree with these reasons, we should engage in open debate.

Firstly, we can explain why these stages are banned. We do not do this, because it is superfluous when those reasons are outlined elsewhere. So in this case, we can "justify" the precedent.

I agree that explanations for the precedent should be provided. And they have been, many times, in past debates. You yourself gave one, two, three explanations. Notice that these explanations are given easily and are well-supported. Understand that this means that the precedent is in good standing amongst the majority. Understand that if the burden of proof worked in reverse, it would be the majority who would have to keep repeating themselves to make the minority agree that stages should be banned. Moreover, understand that when those calling into question the decisions of the majority are given the burden of proof, there is far less redundancy to be found in the open debate.

The discovery of new aspects of a stage, or a shift in the metagame, are reasons that can invalidate past decisions. When these new elements are brought to the table properly, they are the burden of proof that was needed. Understand that those in conflict with the precedent are the only ones able to properly obtain new proofs.

 

[tickytoc]

Ok I understand that there has been drastic improvement in the meta game over the years but personally i miss counter picking and seeing counter picks on stages that used to be legal. how many epic matches has smash witnessed on stages like mute city, corneria, rainbow cruise, kongo jungle and even peaches castle.

I understand that no body wants to be playing a series in a tourney and feel like they are losing to the stage more so than the character, but the beauty of having more counter picks was that if you were taken to a stage where your character had a disadvantage you could take him to a stage with your chars strengths the next match.

Counter picking used to be a strategic part of playing smash and now it has almost been eliminated completely.

Personally im tired of seeing 3 out of 5 games of a series played on battlefield. that **** gets boring.

I do however feel kongo jungle does present one of those insurmountable advantages to fox. ive seen foxes laser from the rock until approached then simply drill-shinespike and then rinse and repeat. it's a great stage to have with every other char. but fox is pretty broken on it.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

All these problems would be solved if we just banned Fox

 

[Varist]

Banning Fox and opening up a ton of new awesome stages would be ****ing cool if Fox weren't so fun to play. He's so smooth, so easy...

 

[erbanez]

At least fox is no meta knight. As in, he doesn't destroy the whole cast, just a moderate amount.

Anyways, what I meant is, minus hoop damage, the stage shouldn't have an obstacle that gives percentile damage like brinstar.

 

[Kal]

Understand that this means that the precedent is in good standing amongst the majority. Understand that if the burden of proof worked in reverse, it would be the majority who would have to keep repeating themselves to make the minority agree that stages should be banned. Moreover, understand that when those calling into question the decisions of the majority are given the burden of proof, there is far less redundancy to be found in the open debate.

I'm not in disagreement here. I was simply pointing out that we should avoid the sort of elitist mindset of discrediting what people have to say based on precedent. If there is some thread which explains why stages are banned, I would recommend linking people with questions to that thread. I am not necessarily saying that we need to write out the explanation every time someone asks.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The Klap Trap is not random at all.

Really? That's cool, what is the pattern?

And no, rock camping is incredibly unfair; literally every character is in an extremely vulnerable position when they attempt to approach someone who is camping on the rock.

...

Why?

Standing on a small platform slightly below ground level doesn't give you enough options to turn it into a low risk/high reward situation, especially when the platform has ledges.

I challenge you to show me a video or explain in more detail how having to approach someone on the rock limits your options to the point where the rock-camper has an advantage strong enough to break the stage.

Combine this with the platforms that are too high and the incredibly high ceiling, and the stage is clearly unfit for competition.

Are you serious? You might as well ban every stage that isn't a Battlefield clone with that attitude. Those traits are just that, traits. There is no reason to ban a stage because of them unless they break gameplay in some manner.

Hell, if we banned stages for being too "different", we'd have banned FD long ago. I mean, it's the only stage in the entire game with no platforms, and one of the few non-static stages.

And Varist, I strongly disagree with your above post. Yes, a standard has been set, but if we can't explain why these stages are banned, we're doing little more than appealing to authority. A precedent is not worth perpetuating if we cannot justify it: if someone asks why a stage is banned, we should provide an explanation, and if they disagree with these reasons, we should engage in open debate.

^This x1000^

 

[Doser]

Why should people have to keep repeating themselves? Do you think nobody played those stages in the past and judged them? If not then, why do you believe the majority of players believe these stages when included, worsen the game? If you think they did it because of simple dislike then I believe you are arrogant to a fault to think that the players don't have the mental capacity to judge something like this.

 

[Ghostbone]

The Klap Trap is not random at all.

Technically nothing is random.

But the Klap Trap is as random as it gets lol, there's no pattern to it.

 

[Kal]

Why should people have to keep repeating themselves? Do you think nobody played those stages in the past and judged them? If not then, why do you believe the majority of players believe these stages when included, worsen the game? If you think they did it because of simple dislike then I believe you are arrogant to a fault to think that the players don't have the mental capacity to judge something like this.

Cut me some slack here. I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't get into the habit of discrediting what people have to say based solely on a precedent.

It's our responsibility to repeat ourselves. To not justify why we're doing what we're doing simply because we don't want to repeat ourselves is totally absurd, and will allow us to make arbitrary bans and simply discredit anyone who disagrees on the premise that we shouldn't have to repeat ourselves. I'm not saying that we need to engage in open debate, especially if someone doesn't provide very good arguments, but at the very least you should provide an explanation to people with questions. It does not necessarily need to be a writing you compose each time questions arise (e.g. it could just be a link to someone else's writing), but to deny someone answers to these questions just because we've discussed them before is totally unfair.

And Doser, keep in mind that players are fallible, and frequently try to ban things based on preference alone. Recently, with regards to a more liberal stage list (i.e., one with more stages banned) we have players making strange arguments about how the stage list needs to be "standardized," about how the tier list is more balanced, and about how it should be "player vs. player" not "player vs. player vs. stage," none of which have to do with whether they are broken and warrant banning. Keep in mind that Wobbles, in the interest of proving Wobbling to be broken, went out and did exactly the opposite, and that Wobbling is still banned at almost every tournament. So please, don't call me arrogant; I'm just doing my best to adhere to a higher standard, without trying to force my preferences down the throats of other players.

Really? That's cool, what is the pattern?

I don't really remember; I don't play on the stage enough. I just recall this being debated in the past. When I get a chance I'll see if I can play the stage with a timer.

...

Why?

Standing on a small platform slightly below ground level doesn't give you enough options to turn it into a low risk/high reward situation, especially when the platform has ledges.

I challenge you to show me a video or explain in more detail how having to approach someone on the rock limits your options to the point where the rock-camper has an advantage strong enough to break the stage.

The majority of the cast is at a huge disadvantage when above another character. If you simply wait on the rock with a lead, your opponent is forced to approach, and, in the vast majority of cases, your opponent will lose. If you don't buy this, I'll see about finding a video or perhaps a better explanation from a better spoken player.

Are you serious? You might as well ban every stage that isn't a Battlefield clone with that attitude. Those traits are just that, traits. There is no reason to ban a stage because of them unless they break gameplay in some manner.

Look man, if you want to engage in debate, you're going to need to drop this arrogant, douchey attitude. If you have a point that disagrees with mine, then go ahead and state it; you don't need to respond with "are you serious?" when someone disagrees with you.

I'm not saying we should ban it because it's different from Battlefield, and you know that's just a strawman. If you're not going to argue like an adult, I'll add you to the ignore list and let you wallow in your ignorance.

No, we shouldn't be banning things just because they're different. However, the platforms on this stage too strongly encourage camping. Again, if you don't buy this, I'll either find you a video, or find someone better spoken who can explain why it's banned.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The reason I said "are you serious?" is because I debate like this a lot on the Brawl section of the site, and I see so many people trying to ban stages for stupid things like the platforms being too high, etc... I didn't realize you were implying that the height of the platforms actually caused a problem, sorry

Anyway:
If those platforms encourage stage-breaking camping, then Kongo Jungle should be banned first, lol. Those platforms are way worse.

High ceiling isn't a problem at all, not sure why you brought it up o_O

The main issue: I can't see approaching from above being an issue. I mean, you have ledges on either side to grab onto and your opponent can't move at all. I mean, if you jump down as Fox and nair the opponent, what are they going to do? Chances are they'll slip off the rock onto the ledge, and you can gimp them from there (or they can gimp you, like I keep saying, high-risk/high-reward).

Top players approach from above all the time. This is a platform-based fighter, so knowing how to approach from above is a vital part of game-play. It doesn't put you at a major disadvantage as long as you have good downward aerial options.

If you don't, your character will normally be able to make up for that in some other way (needles, fair and bair if you are Sheik, for example).

And if your character still has no way of approaching an opponent who is stuck in one place, then it's a sign that your character is **** and shouldn't be catered for (also you should use your stage ban on KJ).

 

[Kal]

The reason I said "are you serious?" is because I debate like this a lot on the Brawl section of the site, and I see so many people trying to ban stages for stupid things like the platforms being too high, etc... I didn't realize you were implying that the height of the platforms actually caused a problem, sorry

It's ok. I'm more concerned with the strawman you used. I bring these things up because it's difficult to keep a debate civil when people aren't taking the time to address each other's arguments properly.

Anyway:
If those platforms encourage stage-breaking camping, then Kongo Jungle should be banned first, lol. Those platforms are way worse.

Not necessarily in disagreement there. However, the platforms, combined with the rock, make the stage banned. I could be wrong as to whether the platforms are a main cause for banning the stage, but the rock is universally agreed upon to be unfair, especially when a better character, e.g. Fox, Falco, Sheik, Peach, takes strategic advantage by acquiring a lead and camping on the rock.

High ceiling isn't a problem at all, not sure why you brought it up o_O

It's not worth changing things in most cases, but a ceiling which is too high favors characters who kill off the side. This isn't necessarily bad, but can be problematic. Much more important is when the ceiling is too low, of course.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned the high ceiling at all. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about why some of the "obvious" stages are still banned, so I have to recall some pretty old discussions, which is why my explanations here are somewhat lackluster.

The main issue: I can't see approaching from above being an issue. I mean, you have ledges on either side to grab onto and your opponent can't move at all. I mean, if you jump down as Fox and nair the opponent, what are they going to do? Chances are they'll slip off the rock onto the ledge, and you can gimp them from there (or they can gimp you, like I keep saying, high-risk/high-reward).

You'll either need to take my word for it or let me upload a video, because it's not very easy to explain through text. Grabbing the ledge is not as easy as you think, and landing on the rock itself is definitely not an option. Keep in mind that if your opponent approaches, he can be attacked mid-air, which is also hugely unfair for most of the cast, who have no aerials that can work such a situation. Marth can camp the platform and just utilt, and against everyone but Falcon (and maybe Ganon), this works absurdly well and requires little skill; no character possesses a downward attacking move with the speed and priority to outmatch Marth's positional advantage beneath them. Similar arguments hold for the majority of the better characters.

Top players approach from above all the time. This is a platform-based fighter, so knowing how to approach from above is a vital part of game-play. It doesn't put you at a major disadvantage as long as you have good downward aerial options.

Yes, but approaching from above by performing an aerial against someone on a stage, and approaching by jumping on top of a player on a small platform, next to a blast line, with no walkway beneath, are drastically different things.

If you don't, your character will normally be able to make up for that in some other way (needles, fair and bair if you are Sheik, for example).

This exemplifies the problem: neither character would want to approach, because both are going to be in a disadvantaged position by doing so. So, instead, both players just sit there. The rock, on top of being overpowered, encourages camping too strongly.

And if your character still has no way of approaching an opponent who is stuck in one place, then it's a sign that your character is **** and shouldn't be catered for (also you should use your stage ban on KJ).

In some cases this is true (for example, when people try to ban Brinstar, I tell them that they're being very Fox/Falco centered and ignore the fact that the stage hasn't been provably broken in any sense), but here the issue is that every single character is at a disadvantage with regards to the rock and that that the rock encourages camping, which is furthered by the platforms encouraging camping. It's not like we've simply thrown the stage away because a few characters get ***** by the rock.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I can't really take your word for it, cause I've done my own testing on the stage with Ghostbone, so I guess I'll have to request a video lol

In regards to the Marth up tilt argument, that has been used against me by two different players: Ghostbone and Timic, I beat it the same way both times: Timing an aerial so it hits between the slashes (I used Falco's dair and Fox's bair iirc) and I managed to convince both those players that rock camping isn't an issue lol.

Hmm... There will be a tournament soon, I might be able to get some videos recorded of this stage...

 

[Kal]

I don't know how good you and your friends are, so I can't necessarily buy that your friends did the Marth up-tilt thing correctly. But, even if rock camping isn't an issue, you can't ignore the absurd amount of camping that would occur on a stage that big, which the rock just makes even worse.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well, we're competitive players (we're all power ranked)... But we're also Australian, so we're awful. But it isn't like it's a difficult tactic, lol.

I don't really see any problem with camping, as long as it isn't game-breaking. I mean, I doubt we'll be banning Young Link any time soon.

 

[Kal]

There isn't anything wrong with camping, but if a stage is such that gameplay effectively halts due to camping, then it's a problem. This occurs on on Kongo Jungle pretty frequently, as neither player will wish to approach when one players take siege on the rock.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well one player will HAVE to approach if they don't have the lead, so I don't see how a stalemate could happen except at the very start of a match.