Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
You kid, but a pinball stage that has a bunch of different forms based on various series's pinball spinoff games (& Waluigi Pinball because why not?) would be pretty neat.
I meant as their own stages, but sure, why not? I mean, we have crazy stuff like The Great Cave Offensive, so. Though to be fair, that one's... pretty bad too. Cool idea, mostly annoying to deal with.
Plus, we have multiple arcade stages(Mario Bros., 75m), and Pinball is the same spirit in general for the concept. If not multiple forms, you could have multiple BG's. It could be random or based upon how many of a franchise you actually use. It'll be RNG-based normally, but based upon the characters chosen, the "odd one out" or "most"(technically can be the same thing) it leans towards for the BG.
Also, Sonic Spinball. Cause yes. What I'd love is it has all Pinball and Arcade Music.
To be fair, the various DLC stages aren't all competitively viable. Spiral Mountain is okay... till the spirals makes people dizzy. Mementos is a bit better, though I forget why it wasn't good for that. Hero's stage has a lot of moving parts, though I can say I legitimately don't remember the competitive opinion on that. Terry's stage is fine, if not fairly good outside of walk-offs. Byleth's is actually reasonably good, but similar issues to Terry's.
I don't think he's going straight for that either. Just that they're a fun, unique, and represents the series well.
To be fair, the various DLC stages aren't all competitively viable. Spiral Mountain is okay... till the spirals makes people dizzy. Mementos is a bit better, though I forget why it wasn't good for that. Hero's stage has a lot of moving parts, though I can say I legitimately don't remember the competitive opinion on that. Terry's stage is fine, if not fairly good outside of walk-offs. Byleth's is actually reasonably good, but similar issues to Terry's.
I don't think he's going straight for that either. Just that they're a fun, unique, and represents the series well.
I think Byleth's stage being Walk off friendly keeps it from being viable. The Battlefield and Omega forms are banned in Tourney because the ceiling is lower.
Also, I think Mementos is because of the stage layout being unorthodox or something like that.
I meant as their own stages, but sure, why not? I mean, we have crazy stuff like The Great Cave Offensive, so. Though to be fair, that one's... pretty bad too. Cool idea, mostly annoying to deal with.
Plus, we have multiple arcade stages(Mario Bros., 75m), and Pinball is the same spirit in general for the concept. If not multiple forms, you could have multiple BG's. It could be random or based upon how many of a franchise you actually use. It'll be RNG-based normally, but based upon the characters chosen, the "odd one out" or "most"(technically can be the same thing) it leans towards for the BG.
Also, Sonic Spinball. Cause yes. What I'd love is it has all Pinball and Arcade Music.
It could also influence or be influenced by the music track that plays. As far as functioning goes though I think it'd be a super fun casual stage so long as the platform layout isn't awkward (which I suppose is a possibility). I'd make it a giant fight club area where bumpers don't do any damage, but launch players around, and they can activate hazards while they're still flying. The only way to get KOed is to get enough downward knockback to crash through the floor.
To be fair, the various DLC stages aren't all competitively viable. Spiral Mountain is okay... till the spirals makes people dizzy. Mementos is a bit better, though I forget why it wasn't good for that. Hero's stage has a lot of moving parts, though I can say I legitimately don't remember the competitive opinion on that. Terry's stage is fine, if not fairly good outside of walk-offs. Byleth's is actually reasonably good, but similar issues to Terry's.
I don't think he's going straight for that either. Just that they're a fun, unique, and represents the series well.
To my knowledge, none of the DLC stages are seen as competitively viable:
Momentos is too large, asymmetrical, and has a slope.
I think Yggdrasil's Altar was deemed too similar to Final Destination due to the long pauses between platforms. (Though this was early on so I don't know if that's the reason nowadays, I just know that it's not used.)
Spiral Mountain has a platform below the main platform that allows you to just spam Up Tilt, Up Aerial, or the like for an easy, campy win. Also it has a wall.
King of Fighters Stadium has walls, and no off stage play.
Gerreg Mach Monastery has walls and walk-offs.
EDIT: With how conservative competitive stagelists are I think it's safe to assume that literally none of the DLC stages will be competitively viable.
Competitive community: plays only on Battlefield and Final Destination forms of most stages
Also competitive community: bans a stage for being too similar for Final Destination?
Man, just let the ****ers play on the training stage and make all the other stages wacky ****. They can't be pleased.
Banning a stage for being too similar for another one makes sense in the context of the pick-ban system, though. You can prevent your opponent from picking one stage that they have an advantage on, making them choose another. But if they do well on Final Destination, and there's basically two stages like it, then you can't really ban it, can you? Imagine trying to prevent your opponent from being able to use their Fox on Final Destination, except there's Final Destination 2: The Destinationing.
Banning a stage for being too similar for another one makes sense in the context of the pick-ban system, though. You can prevent your opponent from picking one stage that they have an advantage on, making them choose another. But if they do well on Final Destination, and there's basically two stages like it, then you can't really ban it, can you? Imagine trying to prevent your opponent from being able to use their Fox on Final Destination, except there's Final Destination 2: The Destinationing.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
I suppose that the problem of having stages giving advantages to certain characters is that they could bring up potential exploits which would unbalance the matchups to extreme points.
And I guess the competitive scene wants to prevent as many of those possible exploits as possible.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
What if you're just as good as they are, but they always have stage advantage? Are you just a worse player because there's two versions of the stage their character is good on but only one of yours? Why isn't sizing up your opponent and using advantage of your matchup knowledge on specific stages counted as being a good player? There's more to competitive play than just "be better than other man in every case". The best matches come from when these small factors do matter.
Banning a stage for being too similar for another one makes sense in the context of the pick-ban system, though. You can prevent your opponent from picking one stage that they have an advantage on, making them choose another. But if they do well on Final Destination, and there's basically two stages like it, then you can't really ban it, can you? Imagine trying to prevent your opponent from being able to use their Fox on Final Destination, except there's Final Destination 2: The Destinationing.
I'll add to this by saying that with the exception of Little Mac, characters who favor Final Destination, also favor other legal stages such as Kalos Pokémon League and Town & City for similar reasons. Yggdrasil's Altar would make that even worse. Also some people find that the background distracting, and certain pallet swaps lack enough contrast with the background.
EDIT: And the only reason Little Mac is an exception is because now you can platform camp him.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
That's kinda like saying "if you're the better boxer than you should be able to beat me with a protective helmet on while you have extra cushy boxing gloves". Competitive players can (and sometimes do) beat characters on a stage that favors them and/or puts their character at a disadvantage, but they shouldn't be forced to.
I think the whole thought process behind the system is flimsy. If you're really better than the other guy, then you'll beat them in a stage where they have the advantage.
Not necessarily. The pick-ban system exists to prevent exploitation and an unfair advantage to characters that benefit more from certain stage layouts. It's meant to give an equal playing field to everyone and make sure stages are cycled around. Mario for example benefits heavily from battlefield due to it's platforms and he's capable of pulling off ladder combos because of it.
That's kinda like saying "if you're the better boxer than you should be able to beat me with a protective helmet on while you have extra cushy boxing gloves". Competitive players can (and sometimes do) beat characters on a stage that favors them and/or puts their character at a disadvantage, but they shouldn't be forced to.
I disagree -- that would be an absolute disadvantage, not a situational disadvantage. The winner of game 1 doesn't get a 50% handicap or anything close to that.
A more appropriate analogy would be Boxer A beating Boxer B in a fight, and in their next bout Boxer B demands they fight in a larger ring, as 'B' has more endurance than 'A' and wants to tire him out more. Therefore Boxer A is forced to deal with one of his weaknesses, whereas before Boxer B had to deal with his weaknesses.
Stage bans aren't about giving one player an objective advantage, they're about making one player deal with the weaknesses of their character. No stageban system results in a more polarized metagame -- making it so Mario can't always go to battlefield or the Belmonts can't always go to FD means that those characters don't always get to press their advantages.
I disagree -- that would be an objective handicap, not a situational disadvantage. The winner of game 1 doesn't get a 50% handicap or anything close to that.
A more appropriate analogy would be Boxer A beating Boxer B in a fight, and in their next bout Boxer B demands they fight in a larger ring, as 'B' has more endurance than 'A' and wants to tire him out more.
Stage bans aren't about giving one player an objective advantage, they're about making one player deal with the weaknesses of their character. No stageban system results in a more polarized metagame -- look at how dominant Little Mac and projectile spammers were in for glory, when you always went to FD.
But we're getting off topic here, and this is a topic I could see droning on for quite a while due to strong opinions so we should probably nip it in the bud before everyone comes back. So um...Got any DLC stage ideas? Returning stages? Stages tied to a fighter you want?
Honestly that probably has to do with them abusing lag more than anything else. Otherwise I still see plenty of laggy Samuses and Ganondorf as the Mac replacement, every single day.
Still agree that "Lol just beat him on any stage 4Head" is dumb though lol.
Whoa, that got a lot of responses. Keep in mind that it was just me ranting about how I think the whole concept of competitive Smash is dumb because it's filled with arbitrary rules about what constitutes skill and what doesn't.
Personally, I don't see how being able to pick-ban Final Destination because the other guy's character has an advantage in it is any different from being able to pick TGCO because you've practiced in it and know the layout. I think people who pretend like Smash isn't this hyper-random game are deluding themselves, the items have random elements, the stages have random elements, the characters themselves have random elements, and the cherry picking of which random things are tolerable and which aren't is just annoying to me. It's like if people wanted to play competitive Mario Party and started to ban certain strategies. It's just not your game, man.
That's kinda like saying "if you're the better boxer than you should be able to beat me with a protective helmet on while you have extra cushy boxing gloves". Competitive players can (and sometimes do) beat characters on a stage that favors them and/or puts their character at a disadvantage, but they shouldn't be forced to.
That's a terrible comparison. Every boxing match is played in the same conditions. If you wanted to replicate that, you'd just have to play every fight in the same stage, with the same characters, so that the only variation is player skill.
Competitive playing has to allow for players to choose between different characters, but since some characters are better in certain stages (maybe because Smash isn't designed with competitive in mind?) they have to make up rules to counter that.
I suppose that the problem of having stages giving advantages to certain characters is that they could bring up potential exploits which would unbalance the matchups to extreme points.
And I guess the competitive scene wants to prevent as many of those possible exploits as possible.
It is a cool design though. If the Mii Fighters are ever dropped (I kinda expect them to not exist on the next console) I hope their costumes are replaced by character costumes like this.
It is a cool design though. If the Mii Fighters are ever dropped (I kinda expect them to not exist on the next console) I hope their costumes are replaced by character costumes like this.
Eh, Miis already barely exist on the Switch and they were kept. Honestly the Mii Fighters are barely representing the actual concept of Miis and the games they appear in, they're more like just the Nintendo version of the create-a-character. If the next console phases them out I honestly think we'll just have the Mii Maker within Smash.
Whoa, that got a lot of responses. Keep in mind that it was just me ranting about how I think the whole concept of competitive Smash is dumb because it's filled with arbitrary rules about what constitutes skill and what doesn't.
I'm pretty sure all the restrictions in competitive Smash are based on what's fair and what's not, rather than what's skill and what's not.
For example, there's definitely skill in utilizing items well, but since fast characters have a huge advantage in getting a hold of them, slow characters would be completely invalidated because items tend to be so much more powerful than a character's base moveset.
'Random' stages -- or rather stages with powerful hazards -- are banned because getting hit by a hazard once can basically mean loss, or hazards can be so deadly and obstructive that they stop the players from actually playing the game (looking at you yellow devil).
The match is played in Stock mode instead of time because in a time battle the first player to get a kill is encouraged to just stall for the rest of the match.
The list goes on. All of those things would definitely require some degree of skill to exploit, but that wouldn't make them fair -- or fun, for that matter. I play with these rules 99.99% of the time because they're what's most fun to me, as oes literally everyone else I know over the age of 7 (or 8 idk, my cousins grow up fast).
You must not know many people. Pretty much everyone I know has different house rules. Some play by the official tourney rules but some make up their own rules with varying degrees of competetiveness vs chaos. Some have hazards off no items, but still allow any stage that isn't scrolling. Some play with a small selection of items (that they think is fair). I know one person who only plays on the Omega and Battlefield forms but has Final Smash meter on.
I think it's crazy that people restrict themselves to this dichotomy of gameplay. There are so many ways to experience Smash. And I think it's immature to assume anyone who doesn't play by your rules isn't a grown up.
Tournaments that have money on the line really do need to have the most controlled and balaced Smash experience. But otherwise you're missing out if you only ever play that way.
You must not know many people. Pretty much everyone I know has different house rules. Some play by the official tourney rules but some make up their own rules with varying degrees of competetiveness vs chaos. Some have hazards off no items, but still allow any stage that isn't scrolling. Some play with a small selection of items (that they think is fair). I know one person who only plays on the Omega and Battlefield forms but has Final Smash meter on.
I think it's crazy that people restrict themselves to this dichotomy of gameplay. There are so many ways to experience Smash. And I think it's immature to assume anyone who doesn't play by your rules isn't a grown up.
I never said everyone I knew played with the same rules -- just the general ones of Stock match, no items, and no ridiculous stages (ex. one of my friends only plays battlefield, but I have some controversial stages like Spear Pillar, KoF arena, and Dracula's Castle in my rotation)
I also never said that everyone who plays with items is a child -- only that the only people I know who prefer to play with items are children.
You're phrase "grows up fast" implies that choosing to play with items off is a part of growing up. Maybe I misinterpreted it and you didn't mean to make it sound that way. But then... why even bother saying that? Everyone here is having a conversation about why the rules are the way they are and then, for some reason, you bring up that the only people you know who don't play that way are young children.
You're phrase "grows up fast" implies that choosing to play with items off is a part of growing up. Maybe I misinterpreted it and you didn't mean to make it sound that way. But then... why even bother saying that? Everyone here is having a conversation about why the rules are the way they are and then, for some reason, you bring up that the only people you know who don't play that way are young children.
Whoa, that got a lot of responses. Keep in mind that it was just me ranting about how I think the whole concept of competitive Smash is dumb because it's filled with arbitrary rules about what constitutes skill and what doesn't.
Personally, I don't see how being able to pick-ban Final Destination because the other guy's character has an advantage in it is any different from being able to pick TGCO because you've practiced in it and know the layout. I think people who pretend like Smash isn't this hyper-random game are deluding themselves, the items have random elements, the stages have random elements, the characters themselves have random elements, and the cherry picking of which random things are tolerable and which aren't is just annoying to me. It's like if people wanted to play competitive Mario Party and started to ban certain strategies. It's just not your game, man.
Mario Party is an awful comparison since it has inherent random elements in its very core gameplay. You start off with a dice roll, and at the end of every turn you get a random mini-game, many of which usually involve a ton of random factors as well, not to mention other jank stuff like hidden blocks and what not. The difference is that Mario Party is exclusively a party game due to its very core design, while Smash can be whatever you want it to be. The only part of Smash that has inherent random elements in it which can't be turned off are some of the characters, and even then they were extremely mild cases until Hero showed up, hence why he was so controversial in the competitive community.
I always hate this discussion of casual vs competitive, because it's only rooted in people not being able to deal with others liking to play the game differently than themselves, so the only thing it's actually about are people's egos. It's a waste, because part of the charm of Smash is that you can play it whichever way suits you best, the fact that it can be both a chaotic party game as well as an intense competitive game is what makes it so unique amongst its contemporaries. I've been lucky enough that I've been able to experience both parts of it, and while I'm pretty much exclusively on the competitive side these days, I do still hold fond memories of the many, many FFAs I played with friends in Melee and Brawl.
I definitely see the point that's so often made that competitive players don't get to enjoy the full extents of the game's content with how many stages and items they neglect, sometimes I do miss playing on Rainbow Cruise and spiking people with a Pitfall, but then on the other hand competitive players get to appreciate the finer design of their characters more than your average casual player by diving into stuff like hitboxes, hurtboxes, frame data, tech, and how to make the most of those on a character-by-character basis. There's a similar satisfaction to killing two of your friends with a reverse Warlock Punch on KoF Stadium and bragging about it for the rest of the day as there is to overcoming a difficult 1v1 matchup thanks to that one ledge trap that you have been practicing in training.
Anyway, I went on a bit of a tangent there, the only part of my post that's actually a direct response to yours is the first paragraph.
Banning a stage for being too similar for another one makes sense in the context of the pick-ban system, though. You can prevent your opponent from picking one stage that they have an advantage on, making them choose another. But if they do well on Final Destination, and there's basically two stages like it, then you can't really ban it, can you? Imagine trying to prevent your opponent from being able to use their Fox on Final Destination, except there's Final Destination 2: The Destinationing.
You fix that by making FD and Battlefied mode the default stage picks instead of the actual FD and battlefield.
I will say in general I think the smash competitive community is way too conservative and rigid. There are way more viable stages and counterpicks than are being used which is a darn shame since it really does show we don’t know who the actual best is at the whole competitive game because there’s no one who’s had to master all the good stages as well. They literally cut out a chunk of the depth because they fear change and adaptation. I’d say more characters become competitively viable too with more options to less linear picks that favor the standard liked characters in the smash community, it literally has no downsides.
This is due to the fact that he's the most vanilla of the ARMS cast, simultaneously being the best character to represent ARMS in a nutshell (something a conglomerate character would ruin), and the least popular character. He's not bad as a mascot, but what makes him so good as as a gateway to the series also makes him uninteresting in comparison to the rest of the cast. It's also worth noting that this character's shtick becomes incredibly unique once the horizons broaden. In Super Smash Bros., he'll be an incredibly unique character that can show off what ARMS has to offer without slapping another gimmick on top of that. That's why Spring Man without any other characters forcing their mechanics on him is the best possible choice for an ARMS character even though it means that no one else can be added unless they're making them all into a sort of custom character, or adding a few others as Echo Fighters.
To be honest, I couldn't care about uniquity. Any character from ARMs would be considered unique. It comes down to the character himself. Does Springman hold up as a character (whether in a vacuum or in context). I don't think Springman holds up in either. Even if every other Arms character was a typical fighting character and lacked stretchable arms, I'd still think Springman is a weak character design that lacks an interesting personality. I mean he has a gimmick sure, but that still doesn't keep in from seeming bland. When the arms team worked on springman, I get the notion that they didn't iterate enough on springman before settling on a design. The issue I have with the character is that I do believe he doesn't work as a mascot. I find both his design and personality to be weak.
In the end, the issue I have with the uniquity argument is that being unique isn't restricted to the initial design of a character but rather the implementation. I could easily make a strong case for how Tom Nook could be the most unique fighter in smash. What is left then is the character itself. And its in my opinion that Springman is a lame character. Granted this is all conjecture, it all comes down to opinion. The main point of topic I was focusing on is that I think opinions should be opnions and if I don't get why people allow the relevancy or likelihood being the deciding factor on which character they support. If you want Springman because you like the character, cool. I personally think the character would be a lame addition, gimmick or not.
Oh and this will get me bashed, but whatever. The whole Arms cast's special abilities hardly matter in the grand scheme of things. The small differences between the cast hardly defines them apart from one another in ARMS. If Sakurai included any of the cast (outside maybe Helix or Dr. Coyle) without their signature ability in smash, it would hardly be as noticeable as some of the other revisions smash characters have recieved over the years. These abilities could show up in the announced character or not. Or we could get a situation where Springman comes to smash with Min Min airborne kick....it would be no different than Simon's implementation.
New game, make up potential code names for the ARMS character. Caveat: can’t reuse any FROM ARMS. see tcrf for the codenames ARMS used, some of them were for fighters that were never realized
mine:
If Spring Man: fighter_kind_boing
If Ribbon Girl: fighter_kind_idol
If Min Min: fighter_kind_ramen
If Twintelle: fighter_kind_limelight
If Mechanica: fighter_kind_scrapyard
If Lola Pop: fighter_kind_pierrot
If Ninjara: fighter_kind_academy
If Max Brass: fighter_kind_champion
If Dr. Coyle: fighter_kind_genius
I don’t particularly see Master Mummy, Springtron, Byte & Barq, Kid Cobra, Misango or Helix as likely so I ain’t making code names for them. I feel the same for Spring Man as he’s already an AT but I made a code name for him anyway as an exception and a “just in case”.
