Objetive Systems for Subjectively Judging Stages for Competitive Play

[Alias Tex]

With Ultimate coming up, we're all itching to play some quality matches in a competitive format. The problem, of course, is that we need stages to play on! While we already have a thread for discussing what a finalized ruleset for stage selection may look like, this thread has the specific objective of creating and listing proposals for systems that provide standards by which stages preferred for competitive play can be distinguished from stages that are less-than-ideal. These systems would ideally provide reasoning advocating for or against all stages in the base game or that the community will one day consider after DLC. This way, the Smash community can be guided on a level fundamentally higher than a subjective stage-by-stage basis.

While none of this is official, I recommend that we follow this general conduct for the best possible discussion:

To publish a proposal, here are some suggested general guidelines:

• First, title your system/methodology/philosophy with "WIP", "Completed" or "Last Updated: x." Avoid posting multiple systems - we don't want to bury other systems or drown out feedback.
• These systems are primarily concerned with separating "good competitive stages" from "not good competitive stages," so you don't have to include a system for stage selection during a competitive set - that topic probably warrants its own thread and would be hard to develop without having our legal stages down first.
• Establish what principles guide the design of the system/methodology/philosophy that you have developed. Show how your system differs from other systems that have been posted, or describe how your system is very liberal/quality focused/flexible ect.
• Get into the details of how your system actually works. What criteria are used to say what stage is acceptable or not? Does your system work for doubles? Use spoilers to condense technical or convoluted aspects of your system.
• Show what results your system creates. Are they widely accepted? Are they controversial, but well-founded? Is your system an example of how we shouldn't choose?
• Summarize how your result is desirable

There we go! How you actually want your system to work is completely your choice! Making your own system can help you to contribute to the current stage discussions, figure out what stages you prefer casually, or can just be a fun exercise! But of course, we are not only here to make ideas; it is also important to discuss them!

Feel free to post your opinions on other systems or about preferences in general! For the sake of good discussion, however, let's follow these guidelines:

• When replying to a specific system, please be respectful and kind! Remember, we are basically people squabbling over movie opinions; it is subjective. Don't sound like an offended politician!
• Try to identify common ground/principles that most of us can agree upon! The closer we get to sharing standards, the stronger a stagelist we can develop!
• Show reasons for/against areas that lack consensus. Should a stage be disqualified if it allows sharking? Must the stage always be static? How much hazard is too much hazard? Can aspects generally sided against (such as walkoffs) be worth putting up with due to a stage's other strengths? What is the ideal stage count?
• Ideas about stage selection within a competitive set or posting about a specific stage is beyond the scope of this thread. I would recommend the "Discussion of Stage Legality in Super Smash Bros Ultimate" thread for that. That thread is also better overall for a more free-flow, less structured & more specific discussion. We are talking about general standards for hypothetical systems here, with less emphasis on any specifics stage.

There we go! Analysis time!

 

[Alias Tex]

WIP - Example System

Ultimately, stages come in more depth than simply "competitive" or "anti-competitive." Therefore, this example system judges each stage by checking to see if they have any "offenses," with a specific definition and severity given for each offense. From there, we can choose how high we want for our standard to be to decide how many stages get in. This system requires agreed upon definitions and tolerance levels for each offense in order to rank stages properly, and doesn't answer the question of "Which stages are competitive?" until someone sets a standard of how little offense is required to qualify. It does, however, explain why Battlefield and FD are almost universally accepted while stages such as Halberd are contentious.

Spoiler: List of Offenses, Definitions, & Severities

Minor Offenses


Destructible Stage: -1
Occurs whenever a solid section of stage is breakable by a character. All possible combinations of destructed and non-destructed stage will be checked for potential violations in addition to the "Destructible Stage" violation. (EG: Skyworld)

Labored Movement: -2 (1 offense per instance per character)
Occurs when any character in the roster is unable to reach an area (such as a platform) from another separate area without expending their last aerial jump or their special attack. (EG: Duck Hunt Tree)

Minor Camping Ability: -3 (1 offense per cyclical instance)
Occurs when a stage transformation or movement results in the stage discouraging players from approaching one another for a brief period of time (max 45 seconds) (EG: Bridge of Eldin, when the center is destroyed and players can be left on opposite sides)

Obstructive Barriers: -1 (Undesirable, 1 offense per instance)
Portions of the stage such as walls, obstructive platforms, ect. that obstruct access to safe areas on-stage without jumping or otherwise spending movement options (EG: Rainbow Cruise wall, Brinstar Depths obstructions)

Poor Footing: -2 (Undesirable)
The stage has ground areas that are uneven surfaces. This can be lumpy ground or excessive ground slopes. (EG: Brinstar)

Warned Transformation Stretchering: -1 (1 offense per cyclical instance)
The result of a changing stage layout that occurs at regular intervals or with signified warning, but still has the potential to kill a player during the process. (EG: Town and City stretchering, Halberd takeoff)


Moderate Offenses


Interrupting Hazards: -10 (1 offense per cyclical instance if cyclical)
The stage features an area or entity that exists statically or enters the stage randomly/cyclically and is capable of directly dealing damage to or removing a player's stock. (EG: Great Cave Offensive Lava, Palkia at Spear Pillar)

Moderately Campable Defensive Positioning: -7
The stage features a nonhazardous section which incentivizes the occupant to not approach the opponent while disincentivizing the opponent from approaching.

Moderate Runaway Ability: -5
The stage has features which advantage a player in attempting to avoid harm when actively pursued by an opponent for any prolonged period. (EG: New Pork City's size)

Obstructed Blast Zone: -7 (1 offense per instance)
The stage contains features which prevent any of the four blast zones from being reachable unobstructed by a straight line drawn from a point within the viewable stage to the blast zone. (EG: Most Walkoff Stages)

Stalling Walkoffs: -10 (1 offense per instance)
The stage contains a walkoff which disincentivizes an approach from either player due to the threat of the nearby blast zones.

Temporary Cave of Life: -7 (1 offense per cyclical instance)
Occurs when a stage transformation has a "Cave of Life," allowing players to Tech to avoid dying off of the top or side blast zones.

Unwarned RNG Setbacks: -5 (1 offense per potential setback)
The stage contains elements that on a random basis have the potential to advantage one player over another without due warning, but doesn't directly deal damage or remove stocks. (EG: Pictochat)


Major Offenses

 

[Marmotbro]

WIP- Playtest system

first of all, Hazards should be off by default, mostly because it would take a lot of time switch them on and off between matches, and there would be few stages that benefit greatly from hazards.

second, we ban the obvious stages outright. Everyone knows how bad hannenbow, guar plain, and 75m are for example. Walkoffs should be banned, they are extra degenerate in ultimate because of the radar, having them will only lead to lame games. other obviously egregious stage elements like caves of life or camp islands ala Kongo Falls or Brinstar depths should be ruled out.

Everything else is fair game until we discover what this game's flavor of jank is. Things that were bad in the old games might not be bad in this one, i.e. there is no crazy OP Meta Knight to abuse Delfino. Start big and narrow it down as we go. I think we should be a little more lenient this time around (especially with counterpicks) considering you pick stage then your character, so there is less chance of absolute bully matchups like Melee Ganon vs Peach on Kongo falls.


tl;dr I propose we try as many stages as possible and learn as we go and the meta evolves.

 

[Eaode]

WIP- Playtest system

first of all, Hazards should be off by default, mostly because it would take a lot of time switch them on and off between matches, and there would be few stages that benefit greatly from hazards.

second, we ban the obvious stages outright. Everyone knows how bad hannenbow, guar plain, and 75m are for example. Walkoffs should be banned, they are extra degenerate in ultimate because of the radar, having them will only lead to lame games. other obviously egregious stage elements like caves of life or camp islands ala Kongo Falls or Brinstar depths should be ruled out.

Everything else is fair game until we discover what this game's flavor of jank is. Things that were bad in the old games might not be bad in this one, i.e. there is no crazy OP Meta Knight to abuse Delfino. Start big and narrow it down as we go. I think we should be a little more lenient this time around (especially with counterpicks) considering you pick stage then your character, so there is less chance of absolute bully matchups like Melee Ganon vs Peach on Kongo falls.


tl;dr I propose we try as many stages as possible and learn as we go and the meta evolves.

I agree with you on trying as many stages as possible and being open to stage features that were considered unfavorable in past games. But I think there's a lot of value in Tex's intention in this thread to create discrete and objective systems with which to articulate stage quality. Yes we all know obvious jank stages like 75m when we see them, but relying on that abstract idea of "common sense" at all is a little dangerous because there's always a grey area at the boundaries of it. I think it would be fantastic to have systems like the example one Tex posted that rank stages in a fairly objective manner, and in such systems, obviously broken stages should have really abysmal scores.

For example with Tex's system Hyrule Temple likely has a score of like -40 or similar. It's important to be able to cite objectively why a stage is bad beyond "we all know it's bad". It evolves the discourse around stage legality beyond blind opinion-throwing.

 

[Marmotbro]

I agree with you on trying as many stages as possible and being open to stage features that were considered unfavorable in past games. But I think there's a lot of value in Tex's intention in this thread to create discrete and objective systems with which to articulate stage quality. Yes we all know obvious jank stages like 75m when we see them, but relying on that abstract idea of "common sense" at all is a little dangerous because there's always a grey area at the boundaries of it. I think it would be fantastic to have systems like the example one Tex posted that rank stages in a fairly objective manner, and in such systems, obviously broken stages should have really abysmal scores.

For example with Tex's system Hyrule Temple likely has a score of like -40 or similar. It's important to be able to cite objectively why a stage is bad beyond "we all know it's bad". It evolves the discourse around stage legality beyond blind opinion-throwing.

Yeah I agree, My system was very generalized and I'm not opposed to doing that.