Official Stage Discussion

[Player -0]

I think 3.5 Norfair is a valid CP. Spicing up the background or making the stage pop out more would be nice though. Interesting concept for sure.

3.02 Norfair was definitely interesting but the way it worked was pretty broken.

I think a change in pace or a redo of the lava would be good for this stage.

 

[GFooChombey]

This is the most heated stage discussion yet.

 

[Cubelarooso]

a prevalent misinterpretation of the meaning of "competitive,"

casuals

hazards.

This is the problem. Every stage has some hazards. They're called blastzones, and the game would be unplayable without them. There's also hoop damage, stage spikes, lips, ledges, and platforms. This whole series is about manipulating your opponent into an unfavorable position.
The a priori grouping of vastly different yet superficially similar stage elements into ill-defined categories of "casual" and "competitive" pointlessly limits the engine's potential, and has led to the unfocused mishmash of stages that currently litter the SSS. Stages should be considered based on how they play out in practice, in themselves and in relation to the rest.
This engine has a lot of potential, and we should make the most of that. Test new things, try to renovate old broken things, and see what sticks. We have the option of tweaking the elements that don't work out, unlike other games where they can only ban the whole stage forever. If something is truly unsalvageable then that would become apparent over time, but we're doing ourselves a disservice to not even give it a shot.

One should be playing on any stage because they like it, and because their opponent doesn't specifically dislike it. Personally, I'd like to experiment with what's possible. There are a lot of things that could be done in Smash, things that we'll never get anywhere else, and a major reason I like PM is that it does a much better job of attempting them. Hence, I would play on any of my proposed stages in order to see what they do. If they do bad, then we've learned something.

Brinstar has its own problems, and an acid floor is not the same as a lava wall.
Also, flipless Orpheon.

Returning to the ideal of a basic "core" of starters, I do think it may be good use of the Alternate Stage Loader to create stages functionally identical to core stages, but using the aesthetics of another series. Stages could alternate-load as the core stage that's at the bottom of their column on the SSS, with some side-columns for stages with unique alts.

 

[Nefnoj]

This is the problem. Every stage has some hazards. They're called blastzones, and the game would be unplayable without them. There's also hoop damage, stage spikes, lips, ledges, and platforms. This whole series is about manipulating your opponent into an unfavorable position.
The a priori grouping of vastly different yet superficially similar stage elements into ill-defined categories of "casual" and "competitive" pointlessly limits the engine's potential, and has led to the unfocused mishmash of stages that currently litter the SSS. Stages should be considered based on how they play out in practice, in themselves and in relation to the rest.
This engine has a lot of potential, and we should make the most of that. Test new things, try to renovate old broken things, and see what sticks. We have the option of tweaking the elements that don't work out, unlike other games where they can only ban the whole stage forever. If something is truly unsalvageable then that would become apparent over time, but we're doing ourselves a disservice to not even give it a shot.

One should be playing on any stage because they like it, and because their opponent doesn't specifically dislike it. Personally, I'd like to experiment with what's possible. There are a lot of things that could be done in Smash, things that we'll never get anywhere else, and a major reason I like PM is that it does a much better job of attempting them. Hence, I would play on any of my proposed stages in order to see what they do. If they do bad, then we've learned something.

Brinstar has its own problems, and an acid floor is not the same as a lava wall.
Also, flipless Orpheon.

Returning to the ideal of a basic "core" of starters, I do think it may be good use of the Alternate Stage Loader to create stages functionally identical to core stages, but using the aesthetics of another series. Stages could alternate-load as the core stage that's at the bottom of their column on the SSS, with some side-columns for stages with unique alts.

That was inspiring.

 

[JOE!]

Oh neat, Norfair stuff! Lets dispell some myths:

1) Norfair is average sized, being the 9th largest of the 16 "competitive" stages found on page 1.

As you can see here, the green area represents the averages of all 16 blast zones across the map. Norfair is slightly above average horizontally, but has a low ceiling.

In terms of the platforms making things unusable? Battlefield's is still taller, and it's ceiling is also much higher.

 

[himemiya]

I think norfair is a solid cp, no complaints, as for frigate although would prefer the 1st phase to be a slope reversion'd of 2nd phase with the moving platform realigned with the non moving one its fine the way it is tbh. The stage flip hazard is no different from dealing with the easy to avoid hazards halberd has, just tap the x/y button when you hear the siren go off.

 

[Player -0]

The size of the platform and how it gets higher makes a big difference.

 

[call2brawl7000]

I think Norfair is definitely fine for competitive play, but it's a bit boring. I don't want hazards in it by any means, but I just don't see it as being different enough. It seems to be more fun in doubles, since you end up getting these multi-level fights when the platforms are high, but other than that it just doesn't seem to have much flair.

 

[GFooChombey]

Doubles

Yes I agree. This stage is great in doubles.

 

[Narpas_sword]

This is the problem. Every stage has some hazards. They're called blastzones.

You can't seriously think that's what people mean when they say stage hazards, can you?
It's pretty damn obvious that it means things like hitboxes coming onto the stage and hurting players. in the form of lava, Mario karts, Arwings, Bonzai Bills, etc.

If i could post a rolleyes emote as big as my screen i would.

 

[Nefnoj]

It's pretty damn obvious that it means things like hitboxes coming onto the stage and hurting players. in the form of lava, Mario karts, Arwings, Bonzai Bills, etc.

In that case, absolutely nothing is wrong with Mushroomy Kingdom, Frigate Orpheon, Rumble falls... There aren't any hitboxes going on the stage there now, are there?

 

[Narpas_sword]

No, those aren't usually referred to as 'hazards' they do have walls onstage though. and it's also generally accepted that stages with vertical walls onstage aren't used in competitive play...

but what's your point? what do they have to do with wanting to make norfair terrible?

 

[Cubelarooso]

I worry that repeatedly rephrasing myself in the hopes that more than the first half-paragraph gets read may be a waste of time, so I'll try some pictures:

More alike than different.​

In brief: New stage elements should actually be examined for competitive merit. Old elements that have not worked out should be reexamined for why, and new implementations invented to try to distill the merit they may contain from the stuff that holds them back. They should not be met with knee-jerk rejection.

I have not said that anyone else means to include blastzones when they say "hazard." I have said that blastzones are hazards. Blastzones are different from other hazards in that they are required for a stage to function. But when the strategy for dealing with them is the same, just how important is that difference?
It's pretty obvious that the one thing in the game that can kill is fairly hazardous, yet we put them on every stage and just try to avoid them while trying to knock the opponent into them. But if something has an effect other than killing outright? "Oh no, now it's a hazard! I don't want to just try to avoid something while trying to knock my opponent into it!"
On that note, enemy characters are fairly hazardous, too. They come onto the stage and hurt players, yet to object to their existence is ridiculous. The obvious reason is that they are human-controlled: their actions are determined by a player's choices. Of course, stage selection is also a player choice; any effect that a stage may have on the match is the result of one player accepting that effect and the other not forbidding it. Certain stage elements might even have ways for a player to influence them once the match proper begins, which makes objections to such elements all the more flimsy.
That's not to say every stage is tourney-viable. Stages could still support boring campy play, they could still be polarizing in certain matchups, they could still be centralized around a single element, they could still completely redefine the game, and they could still cause RNG to have a major influence on the outcome. But then the campable/polarizing/centralizing/weird/RNG parts are the problem, and those likely aren't intrinsic to any element. One should see if such parts can be excised before axing the elements altogether. When I propose an idea, I try to do just that.

It'd be really nice if they could appear in some deterministic, not-time-based manner… Like, if there's two consecutive deaths on the same side of the stage then lava appears from that side

(Please do not assert that I claimed characters are stage hazards. If something requires clarification, just ask.)

"Because hazards" is not a complete criterion for a stage to be nonviable. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable should come not from reductive absolutes (in fact it doesn't in rulesets for other Smashes), but from how something actually affects the game.
A thing causes damage? Then why is the player touching it? If it's unpredictable, then it needs changing. If it's unreactable, then it needs changing. If the opponent forced them, then they were out-played. If the player is ignoring it, then they are bad and would encounter problems on any stage.
A thing blocked a kill? Wall-techs, Randall, pure distance, and one's own projectiles all can too. If that thing isn't predictable and reactable, then it needs changing. If it is, don't try to kill through it.


On the topic of onstage walls:
It's another category for which "generally accepted" is not the same as "true." Most stages with walls were at some point legal, and when one was banned it was not "because walls," but because of how the walls (and often some other elements) happen to effect the game on that stage. Walls are prone to allowing infinites, promoting camping, and prolonging stocks. Infinites themselves shouldn't exist (and ones requiring walls have not been found in PM), and camping can be made unfavorable by other stage elements. Living forever by wall-teching is a real problem, though, which would require something big to solve outright. But camping and teching can become interesting in moderation, and would not necessarily be problematic if only temporary. For that reason I think it's worth exploring what can be done to make a wall work.
Not really the exact same topic, but it fits in with the confused understanding of stage viability.

 

[trash?]

I preferred old norfair, but I also play meta knight so maybe I just hate it when my opponent has fun

 

[Soft Serve]

It's a nice stage. I'd like the stage or the background to change color schemes though, I always ban norfair because I struggle to actually see the stage and characters sometimes.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I worry that repeatedly rephrasing myself in the hopes that more than the first half-paragraph gets read may be a waste of time, so I'll try some pictures:

More alike than different.​

In brief: New stage elements should actually be examined for competitive merit. Old elements that have not worked out should be reexamined for why, and new implementations invented to try to distill the merit they may contain from the stuff that holds them back. They should not be met with knee-jerk rejection.

I have not said that anyone else means to include blastzones when they say "hazard." I have said that blastzones are hazards. Blastzones are different from other hazards in that they are required for a stage to function. But when the strategy for dealing with them is the same, just how important is that difference?
It's pretty obvious that the one thing in the game that can kill is fairly hazardous, yet we put them on every stage and just try to avoid them while trying to knock the opponent into them. But if something has an effect other than killing outright? "Oh no, now it's a hazard! I don't want to just try to avoid something while trying to knock my opponent into it!"
On that note, enemy characters are fairly hazardous, too. They come onto the stage and hurt players, yet to object to their existence is ridiculous. The obvious reason is that they are human-controlled: their actions are determined by a player's choices. Of course, stage selection is also a player choice; any effect that a stage may have on the match is the result of one player accepting that effect and the other not forbidding it. Certain stage elements might even have ways for a player to influence them once the match proper begins, which makes objections to such elements all the more flimsy.
That's not to say every stage is tourney-viable. Stages could still support boring campy play, they could still be polarizing in certain matchups, they could still be centralized around a single element, they could still completely redefine the game, and they could still cause RNG to have a major influence on the outcome. But then the campable/polarizing/centralizing/weird/RNG parts are the problem, and those likely aren't intrinsic to any element. One should see if such parts can be excised before axing the elements altogether. When I propose an idea, I try to do just that.

(Please do not assert that I claimed characters are stage hazards. If something requires clarification, just ask.)

"Because hazards" is not a complete criterion for a stage to be nonviable. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable should come not from reductive absolutes (in fact it doesn't in rulesets for other Smashes), but from how something actually affects the game.
A thing causes damage? Then why is the player touching it? If it's unpredictable, then it needs changing. If it's unreactable, then it needs changing. If the opponent forced them, then they were out-played. If the player is ignoring it, then they are bad and would encounter problems on any stage.
A thing blocked a kill? Wall-techs, Randall, pure distance, and one's own projectiles all can too. If that thing isn't predictable and reactable, then it needs changing. If it is, don't try to kill through it.


On the topic of onstage walls:
It's another category for which "generally accepted" is not the same as "true." Most stages with walls were at some point legal, and when one was banned it was not "because walls," but because of how the walls (and often some other elements) happen to effect the game on that stage. Walls are prone to allowing infinites, promoting camping, and prolonging stocks. Infinites themselves shouldn't exist (and ones requiring walls have not been found in PM), and camping can be made unfavorable by other stage elements. Living forever by wall-teching is a real problem, though, which would require something big to solve outright. But camping and teching can become interesting in moderation, and would not necessarily be problematic if only temporary. For that reason I think it's worth exploring what can be done to make a wall work.
Not really the exact same topic, but it fits in with the confused understanding of stage viability.

Shhh, Shhh, it's over. Don't worry, it's all over.

See :

We aren't gonna add hazards back to Norfair guys, don't worry

Now stop trying to convince people that norfair should be terrible like every other metroid map.

 

[Draco_The]

My main problem with the stage is that if it wasn't because of the name and the music that plays in the stage almost no one could tell that it's a Metroid stage. The only things that would help a little would be the "bubbles" and the doors from the background, but otherwise it's sooo... generic.

IMO it's just asking for a Crocomire skeleton to be put somewhere. Maybe floating on the lava.

 

[GFooChombey]

@ Cubelarooso What if that lava idea was used on a different stage? It seems like a decent idea for a casual stage, but think about how picky PM players have become with CPs. Counter picking has become picking stages with slightly bigger blastzones and higher platforms while others are banned just because the floor isn't flat. With that established, even Pokemon Stadium is no longer used after surviving 2 games as a CP. Adding any hazards would immediately push it off any TOs stage list and defeat the purpose of a redesign.

I'm not sticking up for the general stage consensus because I think it can get boring without a little jank, but that opinion is the minority. We should strive to accept transforming/moving stages before we get into why lava is a good idea. Plus we could put that idea on Brinstar or use it on a new stage entirely.

 

[Player -0]

Could the cycle for Norfair be increased slightly? I think a full rotation should go a lot faster than it currently is (I believe it takes ~2.5 minutes for a full rotation?)

 

[JOE!]

It is 9600 frames. Approximately every 1200 a platform locks into a position for ~800 frames, then takes ~400 to move.

 

[Player -0]

Maybe so the platforms "lock" in place for a shorter amount of time then move about the same speed as Dracula's Castle when they're moving.

 

[Comeback Kid]

I will echo the sentiment that the background for Norfair is a searing red that should either be toned down or completely changed to something else.

Battlefield's red sunset was changed to gold when that appears for a fraction of the stage's time. Might as well be consistent with what visual elements will be tolerated.

 

[himemiya]

I guess this calls for a stage texture hack if the bg is the main problem since I'm guessing alot of the pm players seem to be color blind I'm guessing?

 

[Narpas_sword]

If it's a texture change, give it an ice background and call it phendrana.

 

[himemiya]

If it's a texture change, give it an ice background and call it phendrana.

But we already have an ice stage.

 

[GFooChombey]

I'd rather it be the Tallon overworld if any of this is being truly considered. But what'd be really neat is to get the alternate stage loader working.

 

[Player -0]

If anything I'd still like a fiery aspect just not to the point it is now (lava flowing everywhere). I could get behind a frigate orpheon type thing though.

 

[himemiya]

We have an ice theme stage and 2 jungle/forest theme stages. Yeah I don't think norfair needs and complete bg design change and what will happen to the empty stage slot if they were to import frigate's designs?

 

[Cubelarooso]

@ GFooChombey
That was the implication in using Skyloft in the illustration. (It's the next most likely place to find lava walls, right? ) Norfair is never mentioned for a reason. I'm trying to explain why the common attitude towards stage elements is, frankly, scrubby, and has led to the motley assortment of unrefined stages now available.
The designers try their best to do something different solely using size, blastzones, and platforms, yet it just ends up polarizing and redundant and eventually banned. On the other hand, the idea of a "casual" stage is what brought about such monstrosities as Castle Siege's walkoff, and what impedes the perfection of stages like Orpheon.
The discussions in Umbreon's recent thread illustrate just how faulty the current collection is, and how difficult it is to work with. They also illustrate a need to change Norfair (again). My opinion on how it should change is just one piece of the complete overhaul I think PM stages need. It's like how PM defaults to stock+time: This is a new game being built for a new purpose - to serve the community rather than satisfy Sakurai - so problems should be fixed from inside the game, not from the TO's desk as other Smashes must.

64-esque wall combos are cool, fun, and perfectly competitive, and would likely be appreciated once tried. The existence of wall-teching means they can't be done with regular walls, but having some sort of knockback-dealing wall would work. Of course, implementing this needn't use Norfair per se; but then, what to do with Norfair?
We could just leave it terrible, but that's against the intent of renovation. There's been only fleeting discussion about using the "safe zones," but they could be pretty interesting elements. I kinda think they might become degenerate while they're open, but, if they can be made to be fall-through/ceilingless only at that time, then that would fix the camping if it ever does prove an issue. The real problem is that if that's all Norfair has then the stage would seem sorta gimmicky and centralized around it.
Brinstar's acid only comes from the floor, and I already feel like I'm postulating the impossible in modifying the lava/safe zones at all; flipping the acid just sounds right out (but it might be loads easier, idunno). Besides, Norfair also has a lava-floor available if we wanted to mess with that (although I think it's a lost cause). Honestly, I think it'd be best to try out lava walls+safe zones+another new layout for Norfair, and do something totally new to Brinstar, trying to make use of the zebetites, blocks, and even the acid if it can be contained. I don't know what, though… Except that I actually thought of something while typing this.
Back to Norfair, I agree with the "too high platforms" and "too monochrome" sentiments. There's some neat, less-searingly-orange stuff in the background, so moving it closer could help a lot. As for the platforms, I think something like this might be good:

Or it might permit circle camping…​

 

[Player -0]

I think the current iteration of Norfair is almost fine, the platforms could be made more like FoD (lower the platforms at all points) so the platforms don't get too high but instead are a little above Dreamland's first platforms and the low being ~3/4 of BF's first platforms height.

My random ideas:
- Increase cycle speed, maybe the speed they travel too.
- Lower platforms at all points so at the lowest point it would be 3/4 of BF's first platform and at highest it would be a tad higher than DL's.
- Possibly change the cycle so there are 3 points in the cycle. Each side is separate (or could be even I guess?) and the first point in the cycle it's BF's 1st platform height. 2nd point it would be 3/4's of BF's 1st platform height. 3rd point it would be tad higher than DL's 1st. This could act like PS1 where it randomly selects either the 2nd or 3rd point. After 30 seconds it has to go back to point 1 then after another 30 seconds it repeats.

 

[Guilu]

The issue with the platforms are their incredible size. They're as big as Smashville's, and that one doesn't come to bother you nearly as often. For a Marth player in particular, you generally get guaranteed up-airs when you throw someone on a platform, and when there are no platforms you get chaingrabs or up-tilt / up-air / forward-air followups. Here though, they're too large for up-air to cover all techs (for the record, this is the case in Melee on Battlefield). I don't agree with the conclusion that it's too big an advantage to be allowed, but that's the reasoning.

 

[Player -0]

That makes it a good CP. Probably still good for Marth though.

 

[GFooChombey]

The issue with the platforms are their incredible size. They're as big as Smashville's, and that one doesn't come to bother you nearly as often. For a Marth player in particular, you generally get guaranteed up-airs when you throw someone on a platform, and when there are no platforms you get chaingrabs or up-tilt / up-air / forward-air followups. Here though, they're too large for up-air to cover all techs (for the record, this is the case in Melee on Battlefield). I don't agree with the conclusion that it's too big an advantage to be allowed, but that's the reasoning.

So basically you're saying this stage is bad because Marth can't do Marth things? Sounds like it does its job as a counterpick then.

 

[himemiya]

The issue with the platforms are their incredible size. They're as big as Smashville's, and that one doesn't come to bother you nearly as often. For a Marth player in particular, you generally get guaranteed up-airs when you throw someone on a platform, and when there are no platforms you get chaingrabs or up-tilt / up-air / forward-air followups. Here though, they're too large for up-air to cover all techs (for the record, this is the case in Melee on Battlefield). I don't agree with the conclusion that it's too big an advantage to be allowed, but that's the reasoning.

Then ban/strike it at your tournies, it still doesn't stop it from being a solid cp.

 

[SOJ]

I'm not going to redesign the aesthetics of the stage because I'd like to keep it true to vBrawl. There was nothing wrong with it in either Brawl or Smash 4. If people want a background swap with Frigate I can probably do that.

Otherwise I'm hearing a lot of conflicting opinions about this stage and I'm not sure what the problem is for some of these people. I'm not going to speed up the platform cycle because that's what makes it different than Drac's. It's a slow calculated stage that dynamically changes over time. It has many elements that are like other stages, but it's unique enough to stand on its own.

That being said, Sandfall recently figured out how to manipulate lava so I might return to the design of 3.02 at some point and finish what I wanted to do with the stage. For 3.02's design, we were initially going to have the lava cover certain platforms of the stage, and I think that would be cool to try out. Probably not for the next patch, but eventually.

 

[SunJester]

For whatever its worth I think having more competitively casual stages (ala Infinite Glacier) would really benefit PM.

For Norfair it'd be super cool if we could have the lava walls and lava rising (you can choose whether or not they cover platforms). It'd be cool to do combos against them (especially the lava wall) by knocking your opponent into them.

I wouldn't like to see the giant lava wave or the jets of hot lava (that shoot from the back) come back, they're incredible intrusive.

Maybe we could port the current stage design over Brinstar and then make Norfair be a more casual/competitive stage.

 

[himemiya]

I leaning towards the "I don't want more metroid stages that are out to get you in any kind of way" party. So @ SOJ I'm cool with your idea as long as it doesn't deal damage or get in the way of gameplay.

 

[Nefnoj]

For whatever its worth I think having more competitively casual stages (ala Infinite Glacier) would really benefit PM.

Especially since they appeal to both casuals and competitives from what I've seen anyway.
Infinite Glacier is infinitely superior to Summit.

Otherwise I'm hearing a lot of conflicting opinions about this stage and I'm not sure what the problem is for some of these people. I'm not going to speed up the platform cycle because that's what makes it different than Drac's. It's a slow calculated stage that dynamically changes over time. It has many elements that are like other stages, but it's unique enough to stand on its own.

Personally, I love the speed of the platforms and design of the stage, far better than 3.02's, mostly because it makes it different from other stages that are similar, such as Fountain of Dreams. I know, the platforms have different animations, but they're kinda similar you get the idea.

That being said, Sandfall recently figured out how to manipulate lava so I might return to the design of 3.02 at some point and finish what I wanted to do with the stage. For 3.02's design, we were initially going to have the lava cover certain platforms of the stage, and I think that would be cool to try out. Probably not for the next patch, but eventually.

What?!
Wait
WHAT?!!

Casual hype has commenced. Hazards have now been bested by the gods.

 

[Sandfall]

That being said, Sandfall recently figured out how to manipulate lava

That was actually Mewtwo2000, I just toyed with it a bit

I leaning towards the "I don't want more metroid stages that are out to get you in any kind of way" party. So @ SOJ I'm cool with your idea as long as it doesn't deal damage or get in the way of gameplay.

Uh, I don't think it's possible to have lava that doesn't deal damage or get in the way of gameplay. It wouldn't be lava then.

What?!
Wait
WHAT?!!

Casual hype has commenced. Hazards have now been bested by the gods.

Nah. This sort of hazard manipulation has been known for quite a while. It's actually how I got the breakable platform for Infinite Glacier to work properly. There has been some new stuff discovered in the realm of stage hazards, but we can't manipulate them as much as we would like yet.

 

[Nefnoj]

Nah. This sort of hazard manipulation has been known for quite a while. It's actually how I got the breakable platform for Infinite Glacier to work properly.

Oh yeah! Mr. Mewtwo2000's done that a bit with some old stage recreations, with breakable blocks or something.

There has been some new stuff discovered.

Swoon...