New Rule pertaining to stage bans and Omegas

[Player-1]

So the norm in every game including smash 4 has always been if Player A bans a stage during a set then neither player can CP that stage in the set, including Player A. Usually this has never been a problem in the past, usually if you would ever want to go to a stage that you banned is if your opponent brought out some surprise character that you didn't know he had when banning your stages which isn't too common especially at higher levels of play where most good players know what characters the other good players have.

However, I think with the addition of Omega stages changes things a bit. So right now the norm is to treat the Omegas as FD, banning FD also bans Omega stages and the same applies with DSR. It makes sense since although the Omegas are different in some ways, the differences are usually small enough in when you think of it in terms of MUs. i.e. The Duck Hunt Vs. Charizard MU probably won't change too drastically whether it's on Omega Windy Hill Vs Final Destination and the same applies for probably MOST MUs. Since the changes are usually not very significant, it's even weirder to think that you may want to ban FD/Omegas only to later want to CP a certain omega for the same MU.

I can't speak for other characters as I don't think I'm qualified to speak on their behalf, but as a Diddy/Villager player I think this particular rule affects Villager a fair amount. I think platforms are generally great for Villager so I usually end up banning FD/Omegas when I play as Villager. However, I do think walled Omega stages are pretty good for Villager in a lot of MUs and I'd say the changes from a non-walled stage to a walled one are significant even if the rest of the stage isn't changed. The walls make it so players can't just ride the underside of the stage to the edge which makes landing bowling balls as an edgeguard much more viable. There are definitely some MUs that I'd prefer to leave FD open so I can abuse a character's poor recovery, but at the same time want to ban it so the opponent can't take me to a non-walled stage and take advantage of not having platforms (Villager Vs. Duck Hunt comes to mind). Unfortunately, under the current ruleset I can't really do that (well I could if I lost first, so they use their bans and not ban FD and then I could CP there and then if I won I could use my bans to ban FD after that, but there's nothing there for if I win first).

So I find it sort of unfair that when I want to ban FD/Omegas, I have to ban the ones that are also good for me. The whole point of stage bans and CPs is to ban the stages that your character doesn't fair too well on and to CP to a stage where your character might be better.

So I would like to get this rule modified or changed at tournaments to account for this in the future. Right now I've thought of 2 things to do.
1. When you ban a stage only your opponent cannot CP this stage, but you still can (unless of course, your opponent uses their bans to ban the stage).
2. When you ban FD/Omega only your opponent cannot CP to FD/Omega, but you still can (unless your opponent uses their bans on FD/Omegas too).

These modifications were just the first things that came to mind, but if someone has a better suggestion then I'd like to hear it.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

That's just too hard to keep track of honestly. Come game three, it's not always obvious which player banned which stage, and we sure don't remember we just reference the random stage select to see what was left on. It also creates stage selection mindgames that get a bit silly, banning your best stages to lure your opponent into not banning them so you can pick them yourself later especially if you have a pocket character with opposite stage preferences from your game one pick. It seems unlikely to me that for any character, Villager included, walled omega would be a very good stage while non-walled FD would be a very bad stage all at the same time. I know it matters, but there's just no way that the magnitude of how much it matters is greater than the magnitude of how "everything else" on all of the other stages matters especially since good players usually don't ride the wall up they more often just aim straight at the ledge from whatever distant off-stage position they are at (riding the wall is a fake-out tactic against chases and an option if you happen to be hit to a location in which the stage itself is above you).

Even if it does matter that much, that's just a tactical decision you have to make; the problem of wanting to have your cake and eat it too has long existed on stage bans (especially when character switching starts happening). Every tournament I've ever been to has given players the non-trivially useful option of declining to ban stages if they don't want to and want to maximize their own options; if you feel as though limiting your own options on game 3 isn't worth it, feel free not to ban stages or to ban fewer than you are allowed before game 2. Making the stage ban significantly more powerful would cause more problems than it would bring solutions; the current way it is implemented never forces you to hurt yourself with it, only gives you an option to exercise that could maybe help you.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

If you want omega stages stop banning fd.....ijs.

 

[SphericalCrusher]

Good idea actually. Makes a lot of sense, especially if Player 1 (pun intended) wants to change his strategy mid-set. I like it.

 

[Raijinken]

I am a fan of categorizing Omegas/FD by structure, at least when impactful (wall vs not-wall should be fine for that distinction, dunno if we should factor in Grass yet). The difference between Gaur and FD is literally a tiny spire of rock that just means you can't Hyrule Jump the stage, hardly significant. But I agree with the wall distinction, especially for Villager/Megaman and the like.

 

[Player-1]

That's just too hard to keep track of honestly. Come game three, it's not always obvious which player banned which stage, and we sure don't remember we just reference the random stage select to see what was left on. It also creates stage selection mindgames that get a bit silly, banning your best stages to lure your opponent into not banning them so you can pick them yourself later especially if you have a pocket character with opposite stage preferences from your game one pick. It seems unlikely to me that for any character, Villager included, walled omega would be a very good stage while non-walled FD would be a very bad stage all at the same time. I know it matters, but there's just no way that the magnitude of how much it matters is greater than the magnitude of how "everything else" on all of the other stages matters especially since good players usually don't ride the wall up they more often just aim straight at the ledge from whatever distant off-stage position they are at (riding the wall is a fake-out tactic against chases and an option if you happen to be hit to a location in which the stage itself is above you).

Even if it does matter that much, that's just a tactical decision you have to make; the problem of wanting to have your cake and eat it too has long existed on stage bans (especially when character switching starts happening). Every tournament I've ever been to has given players the non-trivially useful option of declining to ban stages if they don't want to and want to maximize their own options; if you feel as though limiting your own options on game 3 isn't worth it, feel free not to ban stages or to ban fewer than you are allowed before game 2. Making the stage ban significantly more powerful would cause more problems than it would bring solutions; the current way it is implemented never forces you to hurt yourself with it, only gives you an option to exercise that could maybe help you.

I don't see how this has anything to do with keeping tracking of stage bans, actually I would think it would matter less since in the current ruleset you would want to avoid banning the same stages your opponent has banned since it's just a waste of a ban at that point. And arbitrarily saying it creates stage selection mindgames that get silly isn't a good argument against this, I mean at that point you're just wasting bans that you could be using to ban your opponent's best stages instead of yours. In the current ruleset people ban the same stages as me all the time not realizing I have already banned the stage anyway so that type of "mindgame" is already not happening.

That's great if you don't think any character would benefit enough to be going to walled omega but banning non walled omega, or any other omega distinction, then this distinction in the rules shouldn't really matter to you, but I'm telling you as a (IMO) high level Villager player that it does. You'd be surprised on the amount of people that ride the wall up against Villager, including good players, not realizing that it's a bad idea until after, not many people know the Villager MU. And a player doesn't have to ride the wall up to get hit by a bowling ball, they can totally get hit when they're going straight to the edge, riding an underside of the stage actually makes it impossible or very, very difficult to hit them. Making it much easier to land a move that can kill you at 40% is a powerful tool and definitely gives a significant change for Villager. Regardless, this isn't really a Villager on walled omega discussion as much as it is a ruleset change discussion.

Wanting to have your cake and eat it too has long existed on stage bans? In what other situation does using my ban on a stage that is bad for me also ban stages that are good for me? None since this is the first time that using a ban bans multiple stages at the same time. I think this undermines the whole point of Bans/CPs - I ban stages that are bad for my character, and CP to ones that are good. In the current situation I ban stages that are bad for my character, but it's also banning the ones that I'm good in. In the modifications I've suggested, it never forces you to hurt yourself either, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this.


I had someone suggest this which I think is a pretty good solution:

After every game your bans are reset, so if you want to keep banning the same stage(s) then you can do so, or you can change them midset. So at most the amount of banned stages at a time would be 2. Ampharos, this also alleviates whatever problem you have with "keeping track of things".

 

[san.]

Being able to go to stages that you have banned makes no sense whatsoever. I guess there can be an extra clause where if one bans FD/omegas, they can decide not to ban a certain subset. It's messy, but it'll work for the 2-3 people who would want to do this.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I suppose you're trying to limit your opponent's options, rather than your own.

 

[Big O]

I think the best you can hope for is for a slight amendment to the FD/Omega ban protocol. Something like "when banning FD, you can choose whether or not to ban Omegas as well."

Honestly though, I feel like FD should just be removed from the stagelist and just have Omegas replace FD. That super annoying white flash crap in the background hurts my eyes. The fact that there are plenty of Omega stages virtually identical to FD just make it redundant to include.

 

[Shaya]

2D stages as omegas are also good for annoying rats as it flattens everyone and hence Z-axis doesn't matter.
I'm not sure if this has been fully explored yet, but heck, if it makes it so I can hit Pikachu just 1% more of the time, it's going to be a feasible CP for me lol.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

2D stages as omegas are also good for annoying rats as it flattens everyone and hence Z-axis doesn't matter.
I'm not sure if this has been fully explored yet, but heck, if it makes it so I can hit Pikachu just 1% more of the time, it's going to be a feasible CP for me lol.

Flat stages also help with Greninja's FAir and FSmash silly blindspots when facing right (I think it was right? @ Lavani I summon you)

 

[Lavani]

Flat stages also help with Greninja's FAir and FSmash silly blindspots when facing right (I think it was right? @ Lavani I summon you)

DK's blind spots on a lot of his attacks too

and Shulk's pointblank ftilt

and probably a lot of other characters

 

[Indigo Jeans]

...but the blind spots for greninja are when facing right, correct?

Isn't it mostly attacks that swing into the playable plane from either the foreground or the background?

Anyway I've never really been a fan of lumping Omegas in with Final Destination. The IDEA is that they are identical, but they can be mechanically and structurally different. These differences impact gameplay, and that reason warrants them being counted as distinct stages imo

 

[Player-1]

I think the best you can hope for is for a slight amendment to the FD/Omega ban protocol. Something like "when banning FD, you can choose whether or not to ban Omegas as well."

Honestly though, I feel like FD should just be removed from the stagelist and just have Omegas replace FD. That super annoying white flash crap in the background hurts my eyes. The fact that there are plenty of Omega stages virtually identical to FD just make it redundant to include.

Well under that amendment that's not really helping the problem here since they can just take me to a non-walled omega still.

...but the blind spots for greninja are when facing right, correct?

Isn't it mostly attacks that swing into the playable plane from either the foreground or the background?

Anyway I've never really been a fan of lumping Omegas in with Final Destination. The IDEA is that they are identical, but they can be mechanically and structurally different. These differences impact gameplay, and that reason warrants them being counted as distinct stages imo

They're different but the differences are slight that in most MUs it won't matter. Going back to my example in the OP: I'd very upset as a Charizard player to use my ban on FD against a Duck Hunt player only for them to go to an Omega stage which is probably basically the same MU (I'm not a Charizard player so if any Charizard main out there really does feel like they get some significant advantage on some certain omega in the Duck Hunt MU then by all means correct me, but I don't see it changing much lol).

So the point is to still have that DSR/Banning FD counts for all Omegas as well, while if you feel like you get a significant enough advantage to warrant taking an opponent to a certain Omega then you can do that while still banning it so you don't have to go to any Omega that you feel like your character is at a disadvantage on.

 

[Lavani]

...but the blind spots for greninja are when facing right, correct?

Isn't it mostly attacks that swing into the playable plane from either the foreground or the background?

Anyway I've never really been a fan of lumping Omegas in with Final Destination. The IDEA is that they are identical, but they can be mechanically and structurally different. These differences impact gameplay, and that reason warrants them being counted as distinct stages imo

Greninja's are all facing right from what I've seen, yes.

DK's ftilt actually punches forward before swinging out, I assume it whiffs because of how wide he is. I've seen it whiff facing both directions, at any rate.

The important thing is flat stages fix the Z-axis whiffing problem.

 

[Big O]

Well under that amendment that's not really helping the problem here since they can just take me to a non-walled omega still.

The thing is though that no one is going to:

1. Adopt "one-way bans".
2. Have certain groups of Omegas count as separate stages.

Which is why I stated it is probably the best you can realistically hope for. If you want to CP your preferred Omega, then don't ban it and be prepared to get taken to your worst Omega (tbh they aren't really that different). If abusing walls is enough to make an Omega your CP, then I'm guessing the lack of platforms aren't really that bad for you at the end of the day.

 

[Player-1]

The thing is though that no one is going to:

1. Adopt "one-way bans".
2. Have certain groups of Omegas count as separate stages.

Which is why I stated it is probably the best you can realistically hope for. If you want to CP your preferred Omega, then don't ban it and be prepared to get taken to your worst Omega (tbh they aren't really that different). If abusing walls is enough to make an Omega your CP, then I'm guessing the lack of platforms aren't really that bad for you at the end of the day.

One-way bans sound waaaay more realistic than what you suggested. I don't think one-way bans are out of the question, some people already think it's that way and I don't think one-way bans are huge game changer anyway, especially since if you're banning a stage then you probably don't want to be taken there. I don't see how one-way bans isn't realistic lol.

Anyway I've already posted an idea a friend brought up that I liked more.

I had someone suggest this which I think is a pretty good solution:

After every game your bans are reset, so if you want to keep banning the same stage(s) then you can do so, or you can change them midset. So at most the amount of banned stages at a time would be 2. Ampharos, this also alleviates whatever problem you have with "keeping track of things".

I don't think bans being reset after every game is a huge change to the metagame either and is realistic too.

 

[Funen1]

I'm still not sure I see any merit in this. The way I see it, if your best stage is still better for your opponent than it is for you, then there may just be another underlying issue with the matchup at hand (either between characters or players), not necessarily a problem with stage procedure. Also, wouldn't your "reset bans every game" suggestion only work for best-of-5 sets? Assuming a Game 1 win and the usual stage bans chosen afterward, if you win Game 2, then the set's over, and if you lose Game 2, then it's your opponent that gets to ban stages for the winner-take-all Game 3.

As for keeping track of stage bans, I've heard suggestions regarding using the Omega page in the Random Stage selection screen as a sort of "master list" of all the legal stages for that tournament, allowing you to still use the page for regular stages during striking/banning throughout a set. Is this used anywhere, and are there any major issues to watch out for?

 

[Player-1]

I'm still not sure I see any merit in this. The way I see it, if your best stage is still better for your opponent than it is for you, then there may just be another underlying issue with the matchup at hand (either between characters or players), not necessarily a problem with stage procedure. Also, wouldn't your "reset bans every game" suggestion only work for best-of-5 sets? Assuming a Game 1 win and the usual stage bans chosen afterward, if you win Game 2, then the set's over, and if you lose Game 2, then it's your opponent that gets to ban stages for the winner-take-all Game 3.

Not sure what you're trying to say. I never said anything about anyone's best stage so I have no idea where that is going.

I win as game 1, I ban FD/Omegas. My opponent CPs to their stage, they win. Bans reset, they ban some other stage say Delfino, I now CP Omega Windy Hill because I want walls. So no this works in Bo3's as well.

 

[Pazx]

I support 1 way bans and/or bans resetting in all situations, rather than just Omega/FD.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The keeping track of things situation is this. You ban before game 2 by turning stages off the random stage select. Before game 3 there isn't a banning phase; you just reference what was done before game 2. Especially in areas that run several bans (Lux runs 4 per player which is admittedly a ton, but even with 2 this would be an issue), who can remember who banned what? Who can remember whether it was said that omegas were banned or FD? The only information we have is that FD is off so someone banned FD/Omega. It's a substantial additional burden to keep track of any information beyond this.

The have your cake and eat it too situation has long existed for dual mains. As a good example, two of Thinkaman's best characters are Ganondorf and Little Mac. Final Destination is just obviously Little Mac's best stage. Ganondorf strongly prefers platforms. He goes Ganon game one and wins, uses his first ban before game 2 on Final Destination. I figure he's committed to Ganon for the set and ban other things like Battlefield, leaving FD open. I pull it back and game 3 he goes Little Mac on Omega Woolly World or something like that. Now I know Thinkaman so you could say I could have accounted for that. What if I didn't and had no idea he had a pocket Little Mac? Seeing him ban Little Mac's best stage first while using a character for whom banning FD makes a lot of sense would certainly be a trick to make me lower my guard and allow him to get the extra powerful cp while also effectively blocking me on game two from testing his Ganon there (he might not want to show Mac in the tournament unless he's forced to a game 3). This is way more real of a situation than preference for the differences between omegas; tons of people play two characters that have different stage preferences and like to wait to pull the other out until a game 3.

Rebanning every game would in fact work just fine and would have no fairness issues, but it would add a large amount of extra time for a fairly marginal advantage. A lot of players already throw away strategic advantages by skipping stage banning for non-tactical reasons and agreeing to Smashville game 1 just because they lack the patience for the current system. I'll be the first to wag my finger at them for being too lazy to try to win on the stage select screen, but given that reality, I'd be hesitant to add yet another stage selection step to the longer sets (3 game sets are not super common and already are what slow events down). Just think carefully before you ban FD if the differences between the omegas matters a lot to you. To be fair, wasting time is hardly the biggest sin of a rule; I wouldn't mind dealing with it at an actual event (unlike the 1 way bans which would be actively extremely obnoxious), just wouldn't endorse it.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

If we consider Final Destination and Omega stages to be separate, we are giving a massive advantage to characters who have Final Destination as their best stage. For example, as a Robin main, Final Destination is probably the last stage I would ever want to play on. If I'm up against a Little Mac, I would DEFINITELY want to ban FD. However, now I have TWO FD's to worry about. A lot of places have been allowing three bans per round, so I would be able to ban both FD and Omega. But now I only have one ban left, whereas I would've had two if we considered them to be the same stage.

 

[Pazx]

Before game 3 there isn't a banning phase; you just reference what was done before game 2.

I hate to single out a single line from a very good post but

Really? If this is a bo3 you're certainly mistaken, if this is a bo5 (and you're assuming the winner of game 1 also won game 2) then I think referencing what stages were banned in game 2 is mostly done for simplicity's sake and if we were to carry out formalities the winner would have to announce their stage bans for game 3 which may or may not be different.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I hate to single out a single line from a very good post but

Really? If this is a bo3 you're certainly mistaken, if this is a bo5 (and you're assuming the winner of game 1 also won game 2) then I think referencing what stages were banned in game 2 is mostly done for simplicity's sake and if we were to carry out formalities the winner would have to announce their stage bans for game 3 which may or may not be different.

Local to me we do all of our stage bans before game 2, both the winner's bans and the loser's bans. It's about symmetry of information; losing game 1 shouldn't give you the information from game 2 on which to make your stage bans while the winner only gets to know what happened in game 1 to make his decision. Some regions may do things differently; thanks to the nuisance that is Facebook hiding information so effectively, it's kinda hard for me to know what the average rules across the country are whereas in the old days I'd just browse other regions' regional zones...

 

[DeLux]

Our stage banning procedure is an outlier Ampharos. We don't even do character counterpicking since it's technically blindpick on all games for our rules

 

[Arcadenik]

I personally turn off the following stages:

75m (it is too big and there are too many small platforms everywhere)
Pyrosphere (Ridley is too bothersome)
The Great Cave Offensive (it is too big and there are lava that kills at 100%)
Palutena's Temple (it is too big)
Wily Castle (Yellow Devil is annoying)

 

[Mericus]

I may be a bit ignorant of the SSB Stage Ban's processes / reasons, but I can provide an example of Stage Banning from a different community that was used in Majors. ( Maybe someone could draw something from it? idk ).

M1 begins with a group of 6-7 different stages

The players have a TO use a coin toss program and the winning player Strikes 1 Stage
The players trade off Stage Striking until 1 stage remains
They then privately tell the TO their characters and the TO announces them simultaneously

After M1 the losing player picks any Legal Stage in the game with the exception of the winning player's Ban(s) of 1-2 depending on the current ruling ( to prevent heavy MU Trapping ).
EDIT : -almost forgot- The winning player announces their character first and the losing player picks after

It has flaws, but with this FD/Omegas wouldn't be banned for the whole set unless the winner continues to ban FD/Omegas. ( I believe this was the problem some of you were upset about? )

Ofc any of this could be altered to work for SSB, but either way my reason for sharing a different game's rules was only for insight and by no means do I wish to impose :]

 

[AccountsDept]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the logistics of this is easy.

Banning FD bans all omegas. If you pick fd, you can pick whatever omega you desire.

This would provide not only basically the same effect of balance, you would also get plenty of scenery changes because a lot of players prefer different omegas.