Official Stage Legality Discussion: Stage Specific

[ADHD]

And........

u r also a n00b.

 

[-Vocal-]

It''s irrelevant.

Aww ADHD replied before I had a chance I still agree with what he said due to your beliefs about wifi

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah, semi-changed my mind about wi-fi. It's not 100%perfect, but it's not like 3-minute lag delay.

Maybe I adjusted to lag so much that I don't notice it any more...

 

[-Vocal-]

Yeah, semi-changed my mind about wi-fi. It's not 100%perfect, but it's not like 3-minute lag delay.

Maybe I adjusted to lag so much that I don't notice it any more...

That happens. You really notice the difference when you go to irl events.

 

[UberMario]

You'll really notice the difference if you try chaingrabbng with the Ice Climbers, offline I can make it so that it combos [Popo: F-Throw > Nana: F-Smash [w/ no knockback on the grabbed foe] > Grab Release > Nana: Grab + Pummel > Grab release > Popo: DThrow to Nana: FAir [+ the icicle lock if they didn't tech]] fairly easily , but I have yet to do it while online.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Unless the argument is about WiFi, Dark Horse's opinions over WiFi are irrelevant. It's a common but very bad mistake to consider who is making an argument in evaluating an argument. The claims of random ike guy and any top pro are of equal merit in a debate about something like stage policy; the only thing that matters is who makes a better case (one would really hope the top pro would make a better case, but sometimes, you just don't know what is going to happen).

 

[WindMajor]

Changing the topic slightly here.

What do you guys think of adding certain banned levels to the counterpick section in doubles events?

As you guys know, doubles can be pretty chaotic compared to singles events, and it's often considered a completely different game compared to 1v1s. Adding a partner to your team opens the door for a whole bunch of new and techniques and creative strategies. I understand that we ban stages in singles events for X reasons, but I think doubles is different enough from singles to have it's own stage list.

I'm using Hanenbow as an example. The reason why it's banned in singles is because of circle camping. Would circle camping be that much of a problem in this stage with the inclusion of two more players? The way I see it, having a partner could open up so many possible strategies on this stage to counter stalling and circle camping that it should be considered a legal stage, because all that is left is a stage that has different, but no broken properties in it (moving platforms). If your opponent is trying to run away, now you have two people that can chase him. You can try to cut your opponent off if he's trying to circle camp. If both of your opponents are on the opposite side of the stage, you can work with your partner to approach/camp. The stage is fairly big too, which means that it could suit a match with more people just fine. If I remember correctly, there are also no walls, and no walkoffs (there are platforms close to the boundaries, but we have those in RC, and that's legal), so that's a plus as well.

One of the reasons why Corneria is banned is because of the permanent wall. Would the inclusion of a partner alleviate the issue of infinites enough to legalize the stage? What about walk-offs?

---

Do you guys get where I'm going with this? Anyways, I'm asking this because I'm planning on making a dedicated doubles stage list, and I want your input on this.

Here are my thoughts on the banned levels in a doubles event. There are some stages that I'm leaving blank because I don't really have an opinion on them.

-75m

-Big Blue

I don't know much about this stage and how stalling works, but I love this stage and I want to see it legal.

-Bridge of Eldin

I still think that the double walk-offs could overcentralize, but having a partner near you could break the chaingrabs/jab locks/etc. I'd like to see a video on this stage.

-Corneria (Melee)

I could see this working. There's only one permanent wall. It shouldn't be that difficult for your partner to interrupt a wall infinite.

-Flat Zone 2

-Green Hill Zone

-Hanenbow

I already stated my opinions in the example.

-Mario Bros.

Don't think it will work.

-Mario Circuit

-Mushroomy Kingdom (1-1 and 1-2)

-New Pork City

The level is quite gay, but I'm pretty sure that the camping/stalling would be alleviated in doubles.

-Onett (Melee)

I think it'll work.

-Rumble Falls

-Shadow Moses Island

The stage is small enough so that wall infinites can be interrupted in a timely manner. It might work.

-Skyworld

Don't really understand why this stage is so bad in the first place.

-Spear Pillar

-Summit

It can work here.

-Temple (Melee)

-WarioWare, Inc.

No.

-Custom Stages

Depends on the custom stage, but I think it'll work.

Thoughts?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Aww I was late to the Pictochat party.

I'll default to my usual argument - does this occurrence really affect more matches than the ghost on Yoshi's Island?

Well, there's that, then there are various other hazards that can and probably will kill you, or arbitrarily put you in a terrible position... That alone is probably a good reason, but then there are all the other hazards... Maybe it is fair to say "keep to a safe zone", but the stage just feels shockingly inconsistent.
Perhaps one big difference is that the yoshi's island randomness isn't 100% in your face all the time... Plus...
ADHD! COME ON MAN! YOU KEEP TELLING ME THE GHOSTS ARE ON A TMER! ****ING YOSHI'S ISLAND HOW DO THEY WORK! YOU'RE BREAKIN' MAH BALLS!

Looks that randomly killing is more powerful than randomly let someone survive, but meh. Stage itself don't give any kind advantage to characters, but it's a huge advantage for players that knows the stage agains people that doesn't.
I don't see any problem in the stage.


As for the legality discussion, only Onett is fairly plausible, imo, since cars interrupts any kind of infinites and camping.

Agree on Onett, but I just can't stand the inconsistency on Picto.

Pictochat has the same randomness as stages like PS1 or PS2. It doesn't change the game and are avoidable and and reward the player who knows the stage greatly.

WHAAAAAAT? Okay, let's compare:
-1 or 2 seconds vs. 7-10 seconds
-27 transformations vs. 4 transformations
-10+ different transformations per match vs. 4 different transformations, some repeat, during a match
-Transformations that can and probably will kill or save you vs. Transformations that almost never do either

Nice comparison.

I was referring to BPC.

Oh I don't support it either.

EDIT: The justification against a different doubles stagelist has always been "sooner or later it becomes 1v1". I don't like that at all.

 

[WindMajor]

EDIT: The justification against a different doubles stagelist has always been "sooner or later it becomes 1v1". I don't like that at all.

Wouldn't that only be a temporary change once it becomes 1v1?

 

[-Vocal-]

Things I did not read, no offense to the poster.

Twinkie, the thing about creating "doubles only" stages is that every doubles game will become a 2v1 or a 1v1 at some point, at which point the same problems arise.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I actually think that 2v2-only stages could be explored.
Theorycrafting isn't enough.

 

[-Vocal-]

I actually think that 2v2-only stages could be explored.
Theorycrafting isn't enough.

Where's the theory crafting? Doubles games end as 2v1 or 1v1 battles - period. Show me five that don't.

Once we accept that each game will boil down to 2v1 at least, with a chance of 1v1 as well, we see that it's not enough to say "oh there are two players on each team" because at the end of that match there won't be.

 

[T-block]

While I don't think I agree with it, the general consensus is that 2v2's can become 1v1's, so any stage that is bannable in singles is bannable in doubles.

Well, there's that, then there are various other hazards that can and probably will kill you, or arbitrarily put you in a terrible position... That alone is probably a good reason, but then there are all the other hazards... Maybe it is fair to say "keep to a safe zone", but the stage just feels shockingly inconsistent.
Perhaps one big difference is that the yoshi's island randomness isn't 100% in your face all the time... Plus...
ADHD! COME ON MAN! YOU KEEP TELLING ME THE GHOSTS ARE ON A TMER! ****ING YOSHI'S ISLAND HOW DO THEY WORK! YOU'RE BREAKIN' MAH BALLS!

The ghosts are definitely not on a predictable timer. They are completely random with respect to location and time as far as any player is concerned. They save stocks where a gimp should have occurred, and they can mess with recoveries to lead to a death where one shouldn't have occurred. They often CHANGE THE STOCK COUNT of the match, and that can happen at pretty much any percent.

I don't have objective data on the frequency, but I'd wager that Pictochat does not affect matches like this much more than Yoshi's Island does. Only six transformations out of twenty-seven have active hitboxes. Of those six, one is Fire, and shouldn't do more than 5% alone, even if it catches you off-guard. One is Cart, which gives you plenty of time (more than most others) to react while it's drawing, and the positioning of the hitbox means it probably won't surprise **** you. So really, of those six, only four could really change the match with any sort of regularity. These four are Arrows, Plant, Spikes (which can kill at higher percents), and Missiles (which have SET knockback, but do 25% damage, which is pretty significant). Now, add Diagonal Line killing people, and you really only have five out of twenty-seven that could "regularly" significantly affect the match.

A five minute game only sees around fifteen transformations out of those twenty-seven. That means on average you'll see two or three drawings that could affect the match like this. And when those drawings come up, you have to be in a specific bad position, or your opponent has to be in a great one. And for the ones that kill, you have to be at a high percent for it to significantly affect anything.

I just don't see how you can question Pictochat for its randomness, but completely overlook Yoshi's Island. I won't claim it's LESS random than YI, but it's not significantly MORE random.

I don't think it's a "fair" stage though, in that it does give some strong advantages... some characters (Diddy, Falco) are very strong on it.

 

[-Vocal-]

While I don't think I agree with it, the general consensus is that 2v2's can become 1v1's, so any stage that is bannable in singles is bannable in doubles.

I'm open to conversation on the matter. What would be your counter argument?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What vocal and t-block said.

A doubles match can end in 1vs1, meaning you're playing on a banned stage for the last part.

 

[Raziek]

It's really that simple. There a good chance that Sonic/MK vs. say..... Ike/MK (for the sake of argument) eventually becomes Sonic vs. Ike. Say there's a horrible plane crash involving two shuttle. (loops :D)

Say they were playing on Hanenbow, and now Sonic happens to be ahead.

He now has the option to circle camp Ike to death easily.

 

[ADHD]

Even in standard 2v2, playing on banned stages like Bridge of Eldin will completely unbalance the character cast. Just because your opponent can save you, does not mean it should come down to that by other means besides the players.

 

[WindMajor]

Even in standard 2v2, playing on banned stages like Bridge of Eldin will completely unbalance the character cast. Just because your opponent can save you, does not mean it should come down to that by other means besides the players.

Yeah, I was doubtful about this stage. Walls are no where near as dangerous as walk-offs are in doubles, since you only have a set timer to disrupt a chaingrab going into a walk-off, unlike walls in which your character will stay there forever.

Anyways, so you guys expressed how stages that allow circle camping shouldn't be allowed, but what about just stages with walls? Using Corneria as an example.

Would that single wall there overcentralize, considering that in 2v1 on any stage, two characters can just chain grab-releases together amongst themselves, and that the time in which that 2v1/1v1 is happening is only temporary?

I really really want to see new stages legal.

 

[Raziek]

That's..... debateable.
Honestly, if there's any that have a chance, it's probably Onett, Green Hill or Mario Circuit.
Maybe Skyworld.

Even I'm hesitant to allow those, and I've probably got one of the most liberal rulesets out there.

 

[T-block]

I'm open to conversation on the matter. What would be your counter argument?

That the game is still competitive for long enough... just that the time when victory is decided may be shifted to before the actual end of the game.

Each team still has six stocks. Let's say it's team 1 Fox/Ganondorf vs. team 2 Dedede/Bowser on Hanenbow. The moment team 2 is down to one person, if team 1 still has Fox alive, team 2 loses. I don't think that's necessarily a problem... people get so caught up with what happens AFTER team 2 is reduced to one person that they forget what happened BEFORE. Team 2 had plenty of time to prevent that situation from happening, and team 1 still had to work to get team 2 down to one person. The game is decided as soon as Bowser dies, but the way it was decided can still be competitive.

Meh... this is all kinda subjective, so I usually don't fight too hard for it. The 2v2 -> 1v1 argument does hold water as well.

 

[Tesh]

So as long as there is normal fighting for a couple of minutes before unbeatable circle camping, its perfectly fine for every game to end that way?

I guess its no different than putting an LGL so MK can't stall the ENTIRE game.

 

[WindMajor]

Exactly. You could argue that having a permanent wall for the end of a match would be the same as having a temporary wall in any 1v1 match, since you're limiting the amount of time that the infinite is truly effective for. It's also not any worse than getting stuck in a 2v1 grab release chain. Plus, you can do something about it in the beginning of the match by not dying so fast. It's not like in a 1v1 in which you're forced upon this wall and you must deal with it for 30 seconds.

I'm willing to give Corneria a shot for doubles. I don't quite remember the other stages and I have to leave soon so I'll consider the rest later.

 

[Raziek]

I disagree GREATLY with that.

A permanent wall at the end is NOT the same as a temporary wall, because you can't just wait it out for 15-20 seconds.

 

[Dre89]

Random question, why is Halberd legal?

On the FD part of the stage, I got grabbed by my opponent, and whilst he was pummleing me that claw thing hit me and KOd me at like 60% Essentially, by random luck, I just lost virtually half a stock because my opponent got a grab. How is that any different to my opponent randomly getting a bomb-omb and KOing me at 60%?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@Dre

Because you don't spend the entire time with the claw ready to kill you.

 

[WindMajor]

Halberd is legal because you can see the claw coming from a mile away. Next time you play on that stage, just pay attention to the claw and you'll see what I mean.

@Raziek I had a really lengthy reply to what you wrote, but someone closed my browser while I was away so it got lost.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I know it's easy to avoid the claw, but not when you're being held in a grab.

The same thing could have happened with the bombs, or even the lazer, which would probably kill even earlier.

I understand that the stage is mostly fair, but it's risk vs. reward. The stage has instances such as the once I explained where something completely unfair occurs, prematurely taking a stock. The reward that you get by keeping the stage legal is minimal (especially considering how many stages are legal), compared to the risk (that someone like Ally loses a tournament because of getting clawed out of a grab).

 

[WindMajor]

Getting held into the claw isn't unfair, it's strategy. The risk for getting hit by any of the hazards is the same for both players, the only difference is that he's the only one who got a reward out of it, because he put you in the position to get hit by it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

God ****ing dammit I hate these guys. Virtually everyone here at this smashfest thinks that general dislike is good reason to ban a stage. I ask why PS2 is banned and they say "because it's a ****ty stage" with no further reasoning. I ask why RC is banned, and they say "because of MK". I ask why, out of 3 starters, FD one is, and get laughed at for asking a stupid question. The people here at this smashfest are awesome, but don't even TRY to talk stages to them. Basically all my favorite counterpicks are banned, INCLUDING RC, and we have your typical stupid starterlist. FFFFF

 

[Dre89]

God ****ing dammit I hate these guys. Virtually everyone here at this smashfest thinks that general dislike is good reason to ban a stage.

Yeah they're absolute idiots for thinking that fun should be the priority in a video game...

 

[WindMajor]

Yeah they're absolute idiots for thinking that fun should be the priority in a video game being played in a competitive environment....

Fixed for you.

 

[Dre89]

But the game is only played competitively because it is perceived to be more fun that way.

The ultimate goal from the beginning is fun.

Competitiveness is sub-goal of the main goal, which is fun. You shouldn't be compromising your main goal, to achieve one of its sub goals.

Banning a few stages is not like putting items on, items removes competitiveness altogther, completely removing that subgoal. Banning certain stages maximises the achievement of the ultimate goal, without comprimising the sub goal of competitiveness.

 

[Life]

Items don't completely remove competitiveness. Bob-ombs do, Starmen do, etc. Food? Not so much. Arguably stuff like Beam Sword as well, but eh. Argument is irrelevant.

So, uh, BPC, let us know how that smashfest goes.

 

[Raziek]

But the game is only played competitively because it is perceived to be more fun that way.

The ultimate goal from the beginning is fun.

Competitiveness is sub-goal of the main goal, which is fun. You shouldn't be compromising your main goal, to achieve one of its sub goals.

Banning a few stages is not like putting items on, items removes competitiveness altogther, completely removing that subgoal. Banning certain stages maximises the achievement of the ultimate goal, without comprimising the sub goal of competitiveness.

You're kind of wrong. You should probably go read the "What do you think is the most competitive stage" topic.

Fun has **** all to do with banning a stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@infinity: thanks, currently in winner's bracket after a bye and two very solid wins (3-stocked an olimar twice, then beat a DK soundly twice in a row)... But not having any of my favorite counterpicks is going to start rearing it's ugly head; next round I'm either up against a lucas who WRECKED MY **** earlier today or one of the best Ikes in the regions (who also wrecked my ****).

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Obviously, of course, fun is subjective as well. My favorite stage fun-wise is Norfair. This is obviously not a common opinion, but it's there. What may be the biggest reason for the objective ban criteria some of us push for is the fact that fun is so subjective, and when you try to make populist rulesets designed to support the way one group of people want to play, you inevitably and very unfairly step on a lot of toes.

 

[Raziek]

^This.

Also, I will second your uncommon opinion on Norfair.

Playing against people who don't know the stage is delightfully enjoyable.

Fortunately, I FORCE people to learn, by either CP'ing it against them, or making them waste their stage bans on it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

^this

I agree with you guys, and watching (or playing) someone who doesn't know norfair is too good.

 

[WindMajor]

I'm trying to get Norfair and some other stages legal in my region, but some of them are being so **** difficult about it.

I think I might have to pull of a BPC with these guys, calling them all scrubs and writing a nice essay explaining why.

Oh well, here goes nothing... *hides into the darkness*

 

[ぱみゅ]

Make mexican people admit Norfair was a huge pain in the ***.
Even with that, PS2, Pirate Ship, Green Greens and several other good stages are banned here...