U guys next should do tests on Onett, Skyworld, and hanenbow. cuz i was testing those stages out myself and i see nothing wrong with them that completely makes MUs unplayable.
Onett was actually talked about a bit, but ultimately too few people supported it to go further. You can honestly expect we'll be internally looking into Onett more in the future; whether it is ever legal in a BBR rule set obviously depends on the results of that. That's not a matter of the immediate future in any case.
Skyworld saw a lot of play early in the game's lifespan by us, enough to make it a pretty easy decision not to pursue further. It's a complex stage though so it could potentially warrant new and invigorated testing in the future, but obviously such should wait until the community settles down on the current list. I don't have a lot of hope for this stage, but more investigation could never hurt.
Hanenbow is pretty clear. We actually did have a discussion in the BBR about Hanenbow due to the doubles legality it enjoyed in the rule set 2.0 (which you will note is revoked for 3.0). It was an absolutely overwhelming consensus that the stage is broken on multiple levels, especially with the power of infinite run-away.
If your post was legitimate, this is a legitimate answer that I hope makes you happy. If you were being sarcastic with bad intent, you should be ashamed.
I tested Big blue by myself and I see nothing wrong with this stage if the stage is known. Every hazard or smacking on the track can be avoided (srsly), if you hit the track on the right site you survive 95% of the time, you shouldn't hit the track on the left side at all.
and some thousand pages before some BBR Member posted reasons for ban of the banned stages but didn't include big blue. o:
Big Blue has been looked at carefully by a few of us in the past. It has several concerning issues. You have run-away on the upper platforms which is very hard for much of the cast to catch, you have shield pushback forced KOs which make blocking unreasonably dangerous, and you have a general stage structure which is very skewed in a great number of match-ups. We can't claim to have reached a total conclusion on it, but Big Blue is exactly the kind of risk that we weren't taking with this rule set.
What some people don't understand is that we actually feel decently confident with the stages we presented as legal here. We put them under the lens and didn't find serious problems that didn't have clear answers. We, of course, always welcome the greater community doing that (which in 117 pages no one has done here), but we hope you understand that we actually did give the banned stages a good look as well as the stages we recommend as legal. Not every member agrees with every decision, but overall we did actually consider all these banned stages people are bringing up (I suspect some of which are with bad intentions, but whatever).
---
For the people complaining about Meta Knight, I want your honest opinion about what the balance implications of the following suggestion are. If you ignore me, I'll just take it as evidence that you have bad intentions and are just looking to cause trouble:
What if we banned Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar but kept all the rest of these stages?
I suspect that by anyone's analysis this would be worse for Meta Knight than EC 12 stage rules or our current rules. Ground based characters then ban Norfair with their personal ban and have to fight MK on... what? Distant Planet? It seems obviously worse for Meta Knight than any status quo. If you support making the rule set to intentionally limit Meta Knight, why don't you support this?
