Official Stage Discussion

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

We have a Facebook group going with TOs from nearly every region made almost specifically for this, we're letting regions develop the game and mess around with the stages for a few months before we get together and see if we can agree on a ruleset
no promises but there's plans

That sounds great, I hope you guys have some luck with that. I hope that most TOs will not simply look at stage popularity but will consider balance, character archetypes, and variety when trying to construct an ideal ruleset & stagelist.

 

[GFooChombey]

The stage is alright. I don't imagine it being on many TO's counter pick list, but it works as a middle ground for casual and competitive play. I do miss the hand though.. Is it possible to add a target or something so it can be easily dodged?

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

If it was just the second part(in the air part), I'd play it. It would be fun for characters with good up b's.

 

[Sandfall]

Hey all, sorry for being late with this. Finals have been taking up most of my time recently. In light of that, we'll be discussing Final Destination this week!

 

[JOE!]

FD should be a CP due to lack of platforms

 

[shapular]

FD should be reverted to its much-better-looking Brawl form, minus the bad ledges. Currently I have to use my old Brawl+ FD file to have a pretty Final Destination. You guys borrowed some of B+'s other stage changes; why couldn't you have gone with that one?

 

[Nefnoj]

FD should be reverted to its much-better-looking Brawl form, minus the bad ledges. Currently I have to use my old Brawl+ FD file to have a pretty Final Destination. You guys borrowed some of B+'s other stage changes; why couldn't you have gone with that one?

B+?

And I kinda like the Melee final destination, funner shape, pretty, and it's a good representation of Project M.

 

[GFooChombey]

At first, I was off put when everyone agreed to use FD as a counterpick, but it makes more sense now that I've gotten used to that idea. I think this stage does its job well and has ever since the underside was fixed.

To add to shapular's idea, it would be cool to have an alternate stage loading code for it, but there are plenty of other stages that would benefit from a purely cosmetic change like that also. For example the N64 HDs with their original counter parts or Corneria alternating its background to the one from N64.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

I prefer to the Melee FD look.
I think the stage is kinda boring but it has to exist(I may only feel this way due to Smash 4 for glory.)

 

[InfinityCollision]

I don't particularly enjoy playing on FD, but the stagelist would be incomplete without a no-platform stage. Counterpick status is a good thing.

 

[shapular]

Tbh, I would put FD as a starter, but maybe I'm just weird since I'd probably have Yoshi's Story and/or PS2 as CP's.

 

[Pwnz0rz Man]

I can't think of much to possibly improve FD, though could always give it the changing rainbow colors of the version in the 20XX pack. It's not much, but eh.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

FD is much better as a counterpick than as a starter. It has dramatic effects on so many characters and matchups, so it really is way better as a counterpick, and I think almost all informed PM players probably think so too. Obviously, FD plays fine and doesn't need to be changed.

However, I have something kind of crazy to say about FD, and I hope people give this some thought rather than dismissing it immediately.

Out of the best and most popular legal stages in PM, there are 4 stages that can be defined as "big": FD, Dreamland, Distant Planet, and PS2. These are the biggest stages because FD, Distant Planet, and PS2 are the 3 longest stages by far (in terms of the width of the main platform) and Dreamland is still very long (only slightly shorter in width than Norfair and Lylat, which are much less wide than the other 3 big stages), but Dreamland has super far blastzones, high platforms, and a high ceiling, so it's still massive overall. (Skyworld has big blastzones and ceiling heights as well, but the main platform is so tiny--one of the tiniest of all stages, in fact--so Skyworld is more of a medium stage in comparison to the 4 big stages I just mentioned).

Out of PM's 4 big stages, PS2 is obviously one of the most popular and neutral stages in PM, so every stagelist should contain it. Likewise, Dreamland is more unique than Distant Planet and FD because it has the farthest blastzones and highest ceiling of any stage, so it's a really good inclusion to any stagelist. In order to maintain balance, there absolutely shouldn't be more than 3 big stages in a stagelist. So, assuming that PS2 and Dreamland are in every stagelist, then it comes down to FD and Distant Planet, and most stagelists pick FD. However, I think that Distant Planet is a better choice. Let me explain.

FD has incredibly similar properties to PS2, whereas Distant Planet is way more unique and healthier to PM's metagame:

-The distance between FD's blastzones and the ledges is 161 on both sides, which is incredibly close to PS2's distance of 156. In comparison, Distant Planet's blastzone distances from the ledge are 148 on the left side and 149 on the right (Smashville, as a comparison, is 150 and 151). Distant Planet is very unique by being a very long stage with short blastzones, unlike every single other big stage.

-FD is also very similar to PS2 in that it has a low ceiling. PS2's ceiling is incredibly low (180) and FD's is nearly as low (188), but Distant Planet is more unique because it has a perfectly average ceiling height of 195. (Distant Planet, Smashville, Yoshi's Island Brawl, and Lylat all have ceiling heights of 195, and 195 is both the median and the mean [195.75] of the ceiling heights of all the stages in the bottom two rows of the css). Basically, both FD and PS2 are stages with very low ceilings, Dreamland is a big stage with a very high ceiling, and Distant Planet is a big stage with an average ceiling, making Distant Planet more unique than FD.

-Also, Distant Planet's platform layout is super unique, only being remotely similar to Lylat (which most stagelists omit anyway). Many people see FD as a necessary stage because of tradition and because it has zero platforms, but I think that FD's lack of platforms actually makes it super polarizing (which is why it was made a counterpick in the first place). Green Hill Zone, Norfair, and to a certain extent Smashville do a better job than FD in my opinion because they are only flat and platformless some of the time, rather than dramatically affecting almost every matchup like FD does. Plus, the only other stage that has 4 platforms like Distant Planet is Warioware, and those stages obviously have totally different platform layouts and are super different stages overall.

-Also, Distant Planet has vertical walls, which is great to have since tons of PM characters can do cool **** with walls.



There is no need for redundant stages in PM, especially when there are so many unique stages in the game, and since huge stagelists have historically been a problem in terms of balance and tournaments running late due to stage selection taking forever. FD has incredibly similar properties to PS2, but is a super polarizing stage due to its total lack of platforms. FD is no longer necessary since PM is not Melee and doesn't have a small number of legal stages. Distant Planet is new, PM-exclusive, and brings new stuff to the table, and I think Distant Planet would be healthier for PM's metagame.

In conclusion, I believe that Distant Planet should replace FD in 3.5 stagelists. I hope some TOs consider this possibility and try it out.

 

[Dapplegonger]

I get your point, but to say that FD is redundant then to go on and say that it is super polarizing to a bunch of matchups, well it seems a bit off. I am all for bigger stagelists, so I might be a bit biased here, but why not just have both. One can simply strike it during the counterpick process anyway. Though I'm not sure if you're asking for a ban on it, FD can't just make the jump from neutral to banned. I feel that before anything is banned, it at least has to go through a counterpick process before it actually gets banned.

Also, several stages in Brawl remained legal for years despite their polarization with the incredibly prevalent Meta Knight. Not saying this is right, but I feel like it is a good principle to wait to see how the metagame evolves with it.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

Though I'm not sure if you're asking for a ban on it, FD can't just make the jump from neutral to banned. I feel that before anything is banned, it at least has to go through a counterpick process before it actually gets banned.

FD is already a counterpick, and most stagelists use FD as a counterpick currently. It's terrible as a neutral and everyone knows it. Also, a "neutral" stage should be a stage that is basically equal for a matchup. That's why there are no true neutral stages. The most neutral stage in a matchup is decided through the stage striking process. Since FD has such polarizing matchups, it's incredibly far from being remotely neutral.

I get your point, but to say that FD is redundant then to go on and say that it is super polarizing to a bunch of matchups, well it seems a bit off.

Perhaps redundant was the wrong word, but it's properties are very similar to PS2. Honestly, the only significant difference between PS2 and FD is that FD has no platforms, and this single aspect skews a ton of matchups. FD does many of the same things that PS2 does, but FD is very polarizing.

I am all for bigger stagelists, so I might be a bit biased here, but why not just have both. One can simply strike it during the counterpick process anyway.

Big stagelists have caused problems in PM tournaments for years, which is why smaller ones (around 10-12 stages) are much more common now. When you have a stagelist with more than that, then you need to increase the number of bans so that the counterpicker can eliminate a large enough of a % of the stages in order for the counterpicking to actually matter at all. So, when you've got tons of stages to analyze and several bans, then the counterpicking process takes forever and PM tournaments have often gone late, which has been a problem. In order for bigger stagelists to work, there would need to be some sort of change in the ruleset such as the counterpicking process being redesigned in a way that speeds things up greatly, and I don't see such a massive change to the established PM ruleset becoming a thing (although I would fully support it if it did and it worked).

Also, several stages in Brawl remained legal for years despite their polarization with the incredibly prevalent Meta Knight.

The same is true for Melee. The thing with both Brawl and Melee is that there are a limited number of legal stages to choose from. PM has 14 stages (the bottom 2 rows of the css) that are all super good legal stages (including the best legal stages from all Smash games), and there are a few others such as Metal Cavern, Skyloft, PS1, etc. that would also be good legal stages. PM has the luxury of being able to pick the best possible stages for a stagelist, but there is definitely such a thing as having too many stages. The stagelist needs to be carefully balanced and optimized so that every character archetype has a fair shot of succeeding in tournaments, and the problem with FD is that it has such extreme effects on so many matchups that there are better, more exciting stages in PM's amazing selection to pick from. Ideally, a counterpick stage should give the counterpicking player a slight advantage, but not an overwhelming one so that it's still a battle of skill, and FD gives many characters overwhelming advantages, making it not as good as many other cp stages that create more dynamic interactions between the players.

I feel like it is a good principle to wait to see how the metagame evolves with it.

The metagame around FD is thoroughly developed. Distant Planet has been barely touched because TOs usually ban it in their stagelists since it's not very popular.

 

[shapular]

Big stagelists have caused problems in PM tournaments for years, which is why smaller ones (around 10-12 stages) are much more common now. When you have a stagelist with more than that, then you need to increase the number of bans so that the counterpicker can eliminate a large enough of a % of the stages in order for the counterpicking to actually matter at all. So, when you've got tons of stages to analyze and several bans, then the counterpicking process takes forever and PM tournaments have often gone late, which has been a problem. In order for bigger stagelists to work, there would need to be some sort of change in the ruleset such as the counterpicking process being redesigned in a way that speeds things up greatly, and I don't see such a massive change to the established PM ruleset becoming a thing (although I would fully support it if it did and it worked).

The reason you think stage selection has to take longer with more stages is because you assume there have to be more bans. There is no precedent for such a thing in any Smash game and it isn't necessary. Brawl and Melee didn't have multiple bans when they had 15+ legal stages, and those borderline stages were much more polarized than PM's "borderline" stages. PM doesn't need multiple bans for any amount of stages. If you add bans just because you increased the number of stages, you're screwing over the characters who weren't going to pick those stages by taking away the option to pick some of the good stages they could have picked before.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Always late…

Halberd is a fantastic example of a transforming stage, and even a stage in general. It gives a warning when its non-disruptive transition will begin, and it even adds a bit to the match while it happens (the "recovering from ground," and the low walls). I have heard mention of glitching through the floor, which is a legitimate complaint, although I've never seen it happen.
The stage makes good use of its forms to provide a contrast between them (so the stage is only ambiguously favorable in most matchups), a good number of elements, and some more-questionable elements (jump-through floor, random cannon) that are made reasonable by being temporary. Moreover, the forms' designs dampen the latter by providing a central platform to escape sharking, and plenty of room to escape the cannon's slow, predictable shots.
Overall, I think Halberd is perfect as is, and has not demonstrated any brokenness to warrant exclusion from any stage list. I would present a case against the symmetry, but I'm not sure anything could be done without sacrificing some of the visual integrity of the stage.


Not a fan of FD; I think it's too polarizing. Whether that means it should be a starter or counterpick depends on the TO's paradigm, but I'm not even sure it should be legal. While having no platforms is an interesting dynamic, it's much too strong of one. It overshadows other stage elements (not that FD has much to offer there, either) and centralizes both stage-selection and gameplay. As Luigi, it gives me a significant, unfair edge in several matchups that I'd be naive not to take, which is not how a good stage works. Especially with stages like GHZ, New Norfair, Dracula's, Pictochat, and even Infinite Glacier - as well as the enticing prospect of fixed Castle Siege, Port Town, or Brawl's PS2-Flying - to fill the "flat" hole in much more manageable manners, FD just doesn't seem necessary to me.
Brawl's version looked terrible, though. I'm glad it was changed.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

Brawl and Melee didn't have multiple bans when they had 15+ legal stages, and those borderline stages were much more polarized than PM's "borderline" stages

When Melee had 15+ legal stages, people didn't know what the **** they were doing. The Brawl metagame and gameplay is fundamentally different than PM and should not be used as an example of how PM should design its ruleset, since they're different games that are played differently and have a different metagame.

Again, PM has the largest and most fair selection of legal stages of any Smash game, so the standards for PM are totally different than in Brawl or Melee. For example, PS1 is a popular counterpick in Melee but is universally banned in PM, since there are now so many other stages to choose from that add more to a stagelist.

The reason you think stage selection has to take longer with more stages is because you assume there have to be more bans. There is no precedent for such a thing in any Smash game and it isn't necessary.

Actually there is precedent for multiple bans in a Smash game that has been developing for several years. It's called Project M.

If a stagelist has a very large number of stages, then only having 1 ban is basically pointless since the opponent will most likely still be able to pick a stage that they have a major advantage in. Much of PM's gameplay and metagame is developing as an extension to Melee, and we've borrowed Melee's practice of banning somewhere close to 15% of stages, which is why bans have traditionally scaled with stagelist size. A 10-12 stage ruleset with 2 bans is the most successful ruleset that PM has used in the several years that it has existed. If there is a better ruleset out there, then we should by all means use it, but this is the most optimal ruleset that's been found for PM so far.

 

[TreK]

FD is uglier and more polarizing than its clones
But it's fine as a CP. I mean that's why we have the CP system isn't it ? To switch matchups up and play on stages with 2001 graphics.

 

[MaxThunder]

I think FD is fine as a CP... and i also think it, along with battlefield, should be given a PM specific skin and some model changes that doesn't affect gameplay...

 

[Comprehend13]

If a stagelist has a very large number of stages, then only having 1 ban is basically pointless since the opponent will most likely still be able to pick a stage that they have a major advantage in.

Isn't the point of counterpicking to gain stage advantage...hence the word COUNTERpick?

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

Isn't the point of counterpicking to gain stage advantage...hence the word COUNTERpick?

Yes, the point of counterpicking is so that the loser of the previous match can play on a stage that they have a minor advantage in. And the point of banning is to make sure that the counterpicker doesn't have such a significant advantage that the match becomes completely lopsided. If players are allowed to play on their best possible stage(s) every time they counterpick due to a ruleset that doesn't have enough bans for the number of available stages, then the matches start being less about skill and are more affected by stage selection than they should be.

 

[Comprehend13]

Counterpicking and stages

Points in no specific order

• If a stage significantly affects the outcome of matchup(s), doesn't it beg the question of whether or not it should be in the stage rotation in the first place?
• You state that "the standards for PM are totally different than in Brawl or Melee", yet use Melee's stage ban percentage to justify banning a similar proportion in PM. The Melee stage select process was determined based on the stages available to them (and presumably how the availability of said stages influenced character matchups)...PM has different stages and different characters, so there is no real reason to scale the stage bans up from Melee.
• There is a precedent for multiple stage bans in PM, but this doesn't justify continuing in the same vein. Many tournaments in the past year utilized the APEX ruleset, which disproportionately features large stages (and consequently, characters which fare well on them).
• None of the commonly used tournament stages have random elements. Matches on any given stage are still going to be determined by "skill". Viable strategies, however, do vary depending on the stage. I assumed we play on different stages so the players have to utilize multiple strategies to win a set.

 

[GFooChombey]

i also think it, along with battlefield, should be given a PM specific skin and some model changes that doesn't affect gameplay...

Though that sounds like a cool idea, I'd imagine people would be generally upset with the removal of Melee FD. They would have to tread carefully with that. Then again, I'm generally on board with the idea of each non-original change getting slight changes so we know it's PM and not something else. Nothing huge, but small cosmetic changes like a background change in FD or different textures for WarioWare.

Spoiler

Also Brawl Battlefield is the best looking IMO.

 

[MaxThunder]

Though that sounds like a cool idea, I'd imagine people would be generally upset with the removal of Melee FD. They would have to tread carefully with that. Then again, I'm generally on board with the idea of each non-original change getting slight changes so we know it's PM and not something else. Nothing huge, but small cosmetic changes like a background change in FD or different textures for WarioWare.

Spoiler

Also Brawl Battlefield is the best looking IMO.

yeah a complete redesign of FD could go not well with a lot of people... i'd imagine it would be well accepted if it was made to look upgraded somehow... like a bit different color scheme and some more fancy details to the model but keeping the same basic shape...
for the stages that are from specific series... i'd only wanna see changes to those if they were made to enhance the stage's conection to what game it's from... like warioware could have something going on in the background, if that's possible...

brawl battlefield does look good... would also be good if PM had it's own to distinguish itself, though...

 

[TreK]

I think they've shown they were capable of making pretty stages already, with PS2 and Dreamland notably

I'd trust them with making FD look good

 

[BananaBolts]

brawl battlefield does look good... would also be good if PM had it's own to distinguish itself, though...

I agree with this

I'd trust them with making FD look good

same here. I think they'd do a fine job.

 

[BBOY15]

I like FD the way it is, but I would be okay with a color change. What if we changed the outline color from that neon pink to red? The Melee FD shape is great, and the background is much less distracting than Brawl's FD. I want FD to be a neutral stage because it's flat, platformless, has no annoying edges, and hazordless. It's the simplest a stage can be, which makes for the purest of gameplay. But I understand why it's a counterpick stage.

I like Brawl's battlefield shape a little better than Melee's, but I vastly prefer Melee's cyberspace theme over Brawl's mountain theme. I would love to either change PM's theme to Melee's or make a new one entirely.

 

[MegaMissingno]

FD is an important piece of nostalgia. What's the point of redecorating when it's meant to based on Melee's?

 

[BananaBolts]

FD is an important piece of nostalgia. What's the point of redecorating when it's meant to based on Melee's?

PM doesn't have to live in Melee's shadow. A re-skin of FD would be a change that many PM players, including myself, would advocate. Heck, even Melee modders have changed the look of FD in the 20XX hack pack. I see no real argument against an FD re-skin. Nostalgia, a feeling invoked by something you wish to re-experience, isn't a good enough reason when Melee is still a thriving game.

 

[TreK]

The next stage that we would like to discuss is Skyworld!

I forgot to mention it last time, but I dislike the fact that it has asymmetrical spawn locations. Especially since they're random.
Same goes for Dreamland.

Am I the only one ?

 

[Kei_Takaro]

FD is good as it can get.
By default, I would have to lean towards counterpick status, albeit I have reservations when in regards to how the TO sets up the number of legal stages, number of bans and which stages are placed alongside FD in the same status.
So, I think by example would be:
12 legal stages = 5 starter + 7 CP. 2 strikes per player
FD could be a valid starter in this case.

Also, I think colors/aesthetics should probably be taken into consideration.
Only basis in this I believe is because of Snake's explosives.

 

[GFooChombey]

Just out of curiosity, is anyone extremely against a reskin of FD?

 

[Soft Serve]

If FD isn't identical to Melee I'll quit

 

[Sandfall]

If FD isn't identical to Melee I'll quit

It already isn't identical to Melee... The background is completely different.

 

[FrozenHobo]

From a purely objective perspective, regardless of stage lists and only looking at the available characters in a neutral environment, FD should be a counter pick. The major difference between smash and other "fighting games" (I know its not considered a true fighter. slow your roll), its a very vertical game based heavily on movement and aerial combat. FD by its very nature pulls the game back to a horizontal game, eliminating a lot of the primary strategies of a noticeable percentage of the cast while giving others an advantage. It eliminates escape options prevalent on stages such as BF and makes edge guarding much more predictable than other potential neutral options.

This is, of course, not taking into consideration the other stages on a potential tournament list, so take the opinion with however many grains of salt as you want.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Aren't most stagelists already running it as CP now?

 

[skellitorman]

It seems to me that several people have the idea that Final Destination should be a CP instead of a starter. Ridley is too small even suggested that it be replaced for Distant Planet. I disagree with certain things that Ridley has said in regards to FD, although certain points are undisputable such as blastzones and the similarity in size with PS2. I highly disagree with the notion that FD is redundant. I would argue that DP is redundant and that FD is in fact unique.

As FrozenHobo mentioned, FD is a stage that limits escape options. It therefore forces solid fundamental play. Concepts such as zoning and footsies, can be utilized at the highest level of tournament play with nothing to assist the player such as platforms. Mechanics (such as chain grabbing) and character design/balance (Sonic) should be called into question when a significant problem exists on such a stage.

In 3.02 it was more understandable to make FD a CP. There were several characters who were able to play the neutral game with tools that were too strong causing significant MU advantages on a stage with nothing to assist the opposing character but the player’s fundamental skills. In 3.5, where tools are significantly more fair overall, do I see FD becoming a much more neutral stage, as it should be.


Redundancy of Distant Planet:

Although PS2 is a good stage, it significantly strengthens the ability to avoid engagement due to the length of the stage combined with the use of the platforms. This means that certain characters with projectiles can run away while firing projectiles at you (like Fox and Samus) more easily, instead of having to engage in footsies like other characters have to. Unlike other neutral stages (Green Hill Zone, Smashville, Battlefield) PS2 is a particularly ideal stage to utilize such a strategy because of its length and platform placements. DP is similar to PS2 in this regard (length and platform placement), unlike FD’s unique stage situation that forces fundamental play at all times. So although FD does have similarities to PS2, players cannot interact with the stage the same way that they can on DP and PS2.


Stage polarization:

Comprehend13 brings up a good point that deserves to be discussed further. “If a stage significantly affects the outcome of matchup(s), doesn't it beg the question of whether or not it should be in the stage rotation in the first place?”

The really big stages and the really small stages I would argue are the most polarizing types of stages (of the ones that are in tournaments currently), and should have its legality debated.

For those who think you could just ban one set of stages, consider this: Theoretically a player can play a character who has really polarizing MUs on small stages, and the moment the small stages get banned, he could choose a character who has really polarizing MUs on big stages; thus forcing the opponent to play a really polarizing match.

In 3.5, I don’t see the polarization across a wide variety of MUs in FD, that people are being led to believe. For those who have not read this from the 3.5 ruleset thread, Strong Bad has stated the following which is relevant to the stage discussion and should be considered:

“Dreamland is polarizing in MANY more matchups than FD is. FD is almost exclusively polarizing in matchups involving space animals (and sometimes Falcon if the Uthrow CGer can CG him); for the remaining 37 characters it is usually fine and only grants a minor advantage/disadvantage depending on the matchup. You can also ban FD if your character is bad on it.”

 

[mimgrim]

Want an easy way to solve arbitrary starters and CP status for stages? Don't have a starter and CP system, instead just have a list of legal stages, has to be an odd number so something in the 9, 11, or 13 range would be good, and strike from all the legal stages round 1. Kablam problem solved and no need to deal with completely arbitrary assigning of starter/cp status to stages.

But tradition and stubbornness and yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Sandfall]

Time to (finally) change the stage!

This week (or so), we'll be discussing Frigate Orpheon! This stage received several changes in 3.5, mainly:

- adding a right ledge to first transformation

- making the right platform no longer rise above the stage

- raising the center platform of second transformation