Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Linkshot]

Port Town :O Awesome.

 

[bobson]

Port Town :O Awesome.

Port Town was a counter/banned in the original list, wasn't it? Most people just ignore it regardless.

 

[deepseadiva]

Bah.

I still hate this "Kinda banned, but not really" Counter/Banned list.

And there was no need to ban Onett.

 

[Linkshot]

At least there were a few people there that looked into Rumble Falls.

 

[Ryusuta]

At least there were a few people there that looked into Rumble Falls.

I'm still of the opinion the RF should be at least in the CP/Banned category. I feel bad that I haven't gotten all of my information added for this discussion, but Jesus... people need to actually get off their OWN ****ing ***es and do some research for a change instead of just throwing out wild guesses as to what might or might not be banned.

 

[Linkshot]

There are three ledges on Hanenbow.

I plan to test Rumble Falls (and maybe Distant Planet) with the local community tonight. I'm bringing my cousin (read: D3 main), too.

 

[Ryusuta]

There are three ledges on Hanenbow.

I've never been able to catch a ledge in Hanenbow... Which ones are actually grabbable?

I plan to test Rumble Falls (and maybe Distant Planet) with the local community tonight. I'm bringing my cousin (read: D3 main), too.

In the meantime... I desperately hope to get my Dazzle working for a change so I can show some of my findings. I'm still compiling a list of everything relevant to the outcomes of each of the sample matches I played, and I'll get them posted soon. (No, I'm not just saying that. )

 

[Nidtendofreak]

*celebrates about Pirate Ship*

It even got one less vote for being banned. XD

Cornera shouldn't of been banned in IMO though.

 

[MysticKenji]

I've never been able to catch a ledge in Hanenbow... Which ones are actually grabbable?

the circled ones

 

[Ryusuta]

*celebrates about Pirate Ship*

It even got one less vote for being banned. XD

Cornera shouldn't of been banned in IMO though.

Anyone that thinks voting for stuff on Smash is a good idea is a total freaking moron. A stupid, illogical opinion isn't any less stupid or illogical because 14 different people have it.

God, I ****ing hate this voting bull****.

 

[fkacyan]

Anyone that thinks voting for stuff on Smash is a good idea is a total freaking moron. A stupid, illogical opinion isn't any less stupid or illogical because 14 different people have it.

God, I ****ing hate this voting bull****.

Just because their opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean the opinion is illogical. A lot of us conservative people are too lazy to actually provide evidence for what we say because of any combination of the following:

1) We already know it, and thus find it pointless to make other people know because we are arrogant.
2) We gain nothing by convincing you.
3) We are lazy.

Maybe at some point I will substantiate all of my claims about the stages I want banned; this, however, will wait for me to be done with progression raiding in Ulduar, out of high school, and once I have a job lined up for this summer.

You have to keep in mind how much I don't really care, though; I'll almost certainly never play in your regions, and broken stages being enabled only helps people who can abuse them, so getting them banned would be to my, and others', disadvantage in the event that I did.

Also: Lawl, would fascism be a better method of stage ban status? If you think you're smarter than the people in the SBR, apply next time the apps are opened, get in, and prove people wrong about stuff so they vote with you.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

port town is on the list? *fears*

 

[fkacyan]

port town is on the list? *fears*

It's on CP / Banned, which means that every TO will ban it, most likely.

 

[Ryusuta]

Just because their opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean the opinion is illogical.

Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.

Don't believe me? Then where is their research? How many times have they actually sat down and played seriously on these stages? For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.

That's NOT the scientific method! That's not a way to arrive at a proper consensus! That's hanging out a shingle and claiming to know things. It's stupid.

A lot of us conservative people are too lazy to actually provide evidence for what we say because of any combination of the following:

1) We already know it, and thus find it pointless to make other people know because we are arrogant.

Ah, yes. The "I just know," argument. Tell me... what methodology of data analysis does that apply to again? If you "know" something is the case, you should be able to explain it, or at least give a viable synopsis.

Say you go to the doctor, and without running any tests whatsoever, he says to you, "You've got a stomach ulcer." When you ask how he knows, he says "I just know." The guy is either psychic or a ****ing whack job.

The EXACT SAME THING applies here. Don't hand me "I just know," because that's just another way of saying "I really WANT this to be true, but I can't back it up, so please stop asking challenging questions."

2) We gain nothing by convincing you.

If you have knowledge and you keep it to yourself, your knowledge profits no one, including yourself. If you share your wisdom, everyone benefits. You could even learn something new yourself.

3) We are lazy.

I'll buy this one.

Also: Lawl, would fascism be a better method of stage ban status?

What the hell does this even mean? If you get a hundred people to vote that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't make it any more logical. People are voting based off of ignorance and laziness, as you yourself admitted. Their votes are therefore invalidated in my eyes.

If you think you're smarter than the people in the SBR, apply next time the apps are opened, get in, and prove people wrong about stuff so they vote with you.

Oh, bull. SBRB already knows who they will and won't allow into their club. And I have no respect whatsoever for their standing as authority figures in Brawl. They have not presented me with one iota of evidence that their knowledge of the metagame is any more impressive than that of non-members. And the fact that they keep all discussions behind closed doors where no one else can correct their mistakes or make observations is a testament to this.

If they think the unwashed masses are going to be a distraction, why not have their discussions be read-only for non-members? That way we can look at them and say whether or not the conclusions they arrive at make any sense. Otherwise, I have absolutely, positively NO reason to accept their opinions as any more valid than my own. They haven't proven themselves. They haven't demonstrated anything other than shameless grandstanding. They're not the Brawl authority figures, and I do not acknowledge their decisions as carrying any extra weight.

 

[fkacyan]

Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.

Don't believe me? Then where is their research? How many times have they actually sat down and played seriously on these stages? For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.

They have not presented me with one iota of evidence that their knowledge of the metagame is any more impressive than that of non-members. And the fact that they keep all discussions behind closed doors where no one else can correct their mistakes or make observations is a testament to this.

Quoting for massive irony. You're criticizing their methods but yet you don't even know what they are.

Ah, yes. The "I just know," argument. Tell me... what methodology of data analysis does that apply to again? If you "know" something is the case, you should be able to explain it, or at least give a viable synopsis.

Say you go to the doctor, and without running any tests whatsoever, he says to you, "You've got a stomach ulcer." When you ask how he knows, he says "I just know." The guy is either psychic or a ****ing whack job.

The EXACT SAME THING applies here. Don't hand me "I just know," because that's just another way of saying "I really WANT this to be true, but I can't back it up, so please stop asking challenging questions."

I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.

If you have knowledge and you keep it to yourself, your knowledge profits no one, including yourself. If you share your wisdom, everyone benefits. You could even learn something new yourself.

It's benefitting the people who already know what I'm talking about, and doing so rather nicely, might I add.

What the hell does this even mean? If you get a hundred people to vote that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't make it any more logical. People are voting based off of ignorance and laziness, as you yourself admitted. Their votes are therefore invalidated in my eyes.

As shown above, you can't prove this. In fact, it's extremely ironic contrasted with your response to my first reason. Hypocrisy's a *****.

I don't like the SBR much either, but then I don't really use their stageset. Their ruleset is pretty baseline, though.

 

[bobson]

I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.

This is the equivalent of going into a debate club, stating "God does exist; I have proof," and then when asked for the proof, saying "Well, I don't care enough to justify it to you; I know, and that's all that matters." And then proceeding to hang around the club and interject your claim wherever you can fit it in while still never proving it.

Do not post in a stage legality discussion if you can't be bothered to back up your claims to the people in the discussion.

 

[Ryusuta]

Quoting for massive irony. You're criticizing their methods but yet you don't even know what they are.

You're right. I haven't posted my findings yet. I know it's an excuse, but I'm having technical problems that prevent me from doing so. As such, until I can actually provide the videos, accounts, and data I've been documenting - specifically regarding Rumble Falls - I have no choice but to concede this specific part of what you say. As of this moment, I don't have anything more concrete to show than they do.

There's one big difference, though: I'm not given any extra undeserved credence for my opinions, and they are.

I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.

Yeah, and I've got a million dollars in my house, but I'd rather not show it to you. You can simply take my word for it that it's there, though.

It's benefitting the people who already know what I'm talking about, and doing so rather nicely, might I add.

In other words, the people that agree with you. Got it.

As shown above, you can't prove this. In fact, it's extremely ironic contrasted with your response to my first reason. Hypocrisy's a *****.

In your rush to hurl meaningless insults, you've completely missed the crux of my argument. The only thing we know is that they voted on the stages. We don't know what methods they had to arriving at their votes, we only know that the actual process of voting was used to arrive at these decisions.

My example was a way to demonstrate that the method itself is flawed without the use of of oversights.

I don't like the SBR much either, but then I don't really use their stageset. Their ruleset is pretty baseline, though.

Perhaps, but I'm not taking issue with their rule set. You can go through the wrong process and stumble upon correct answers from time to time just the same.

 

[Linkshot]

You put "We're at a disadvantage" as a "valid" reason? Shameful!

You're at a disadvantage because your "distaste" is outweighing the common sense of getting better on the level so you're not at the disadvantage. That's like saying "We should ban Meta Knight because I don't like him as a character and thusly never have him used on my Wii. If people use him in a tournament, I'm at a disadvantage for not knowing how he works."

That's the concept I got. Correct me, please.

 

[fkacyan]

You put "We're at a disadvantage" as a "valid" reason? Shameful!

You're at a disadvantage because your "distaste" is outweighing the common sense of getting better on the level so you're not at the disadvantage. That's like saying "We should ban Meta Knight because I don't like him as a character and thusly never have him used on my Wii. If people use him in a tournament, I'm at a disadvantage for not knowing how he works."

That's the concept I got. Correct me, please.

I never said I was bad on the levels.

Way to misinterpret the argument I've made til now?

Tomorrow I'll retype and revise and make clear what I'm saying. it's late now and honestly forming coherent sentences is almost beyond me. @_@

 

[Linkshot]

I actually did testing on Rumble Falls tonight with multiple people.

MK's uThrow kills ~50% at the minimum.
D3 can chaingrab when it's not in Speed Up.
Infinites on the last stock are likely to cause an Overtime Stock.
uThrowing into the Death Spike can cause weird knockback trajectories. (I got hit upward by it weakly)
About 50% of the time people hit the Death Spike, they died. Others were techs or momentum cancelling with jabs.
Every character can make the only ledge.
Generally only floaty characters can avoid the choking point.
D3 covers vertical ground very slowly, which can make setting up the chaingrab very tricky.
When the row of spikes is at the top of the screen, they generally kill ~90%.
You can circle camp very slightly, but when the screen shifts to the right slowly, any opponent can catch up to you, as you have nowhere to safely run.

Lastly, the stage offered lackluster intensity. It's not a broken stage (MK's uThrow does not entirely dominate the game, as it has to be set up properly, and the opponent has to put themselves in a bad position), but the matches did kind of drag on a minute or so longer than they needed to.

Overall, I'd say Luigi's Mansion is actually on par with Rumble Falls (in terms of "broken").

My verdict: CP/B at best.

 

[fkacyan]

This is something I realized as I mulled it over waking up this morning

Linkshot and myself have been the only ones to actually play people on the stages we've been arguing about in the course of this thread, and aside from that, no 'concrete' evidence has been provided. I doubt you'd take my arguments any more seriously if I brought percent data and stage timers with me; hell, I know I haven't taken YOUR theorycrafting any more seriously as a result of it.

The entire thread has totally lacked concrete evidence for either side. The closest it's come is probably Linkshot's last thread and the matches Avarice and I had, but arguably even those are circumstantial evidence at best, and all anybody's been doing is throwing "I just know" around with varying degrees of fluff surrounding it.

Essentially, we've been arguing philosophies; I believe a stage is banned before it is counterpick before it is neutral, and many of you believe the opposite. So until we can get some videos flying around for people to actually SEE what's happening, I'm not sure this thread has any relevance.

On a side note, huzzah! Another supporter for Rumble Falls ban.

 

[Linkshot]

I know a local person that doesn't believe in "starters", and that every legal stage should be available during the stage striking process.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Ryusuta]

This is something I realized as I mulled it over waking up this morning

Linkshot and myself have been the only ones to actually play people on the stages we've been arguing about in the course of this thread

No. God, what a gigantic ego.

 

[clowsui]

Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.

Don't believe me? Then where is their research? How many times have they actually sat down and played seriously on these stages? For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRiPDcgWIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHAHhsm88cg&feature=channel_page

OS and Kel testing things.

Watch what you say when you say they, because that means ALL of them.

 

[Ryusuta]

OS and Kel testing things.

Watch what you say when you say they, because that means ALL of them.

No, it doesn't. "They" is a general term. Just because you show me the exceptions that prove the rule doesn't make my observation less valid.

 

[clowsui]

/shrug

We also did playtesting for PTAD by having a mini tournament for it ALL the way back last year.

Just one match from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u0YL9hXrrk

Others are in there too, on OS' acct.

I'm pretty sure people don't bother to playtest in control environments...they just play in tournaments a lot and experience that stages first hand. That's why there's no real "concrete" evidence - they're likely to have experienced the stages and all its facets dozens of times w/out needing a control environment. IMO the environment seems necessary only when testing specific aspects of the stage -- and I'm pretty sure, scattered around in many sbr members' posts on the boards, there's a lot of misc. data that they've posted based on experiments done by members. I think there's not an actual collection of the information posted publicly.

 

[fkacyan]

No. God, what a gigantic ego.

Really? So far me and Linkshot are the only people I've seen who've played matches and then reported about how they went.

I'll go and dredge up the posts if you'd like. Other than that, all I've seen is percent data and theorycraft.

EDIT: Yes, I have a huge ego, mostly built up by the fact that I'm usually right.

 

[buenob]

so for those who don't know, LS and I are in the same city... I played him on bramble music level, and I have spent countless hours testing these levels, both with LS and the other said local who thinks every level should be legal... dude also freaking loves sirlin... anyways...

For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.

there's a point where one specific feature (walls, walkoff ledges, being able to travel in a circle) have been proven to be so broken (if permanently available) that no matter what the other redeeming features, it just isn't ever going to be worth it

 

[Linkshot]

For walls and walkoffs, I would base it off of:

* Are they permanent? Do they disappear eventually/do they get interrupted?
* Are they avoidable? Are there aspects of the stage that can put the possible victim in a safe position to avoid them?
* Are they easy? Can the person doing the infinites set them up in any and every situation?

If all 3 support the infinite, instantly banned.
If 2 support the infinite, CP/B, but recommended to ban.
If 1 supports the infinite, CP/B, recommended to CP.
If none support the infinite, CP.

Circle camping becomes completely unavoidable and thusly is truly unbeatable.

 

[Kamikaze*]

I know a local person that doesn't believe in "starters", and that every legal stage should be available during the stage striking process.

Thoughts on this?

Two words:

HELL NO

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

On the note of Distant Planet and Overswarm's page, I found some tournament matches on there on his channel. Perhaps they'll be interesting to those discussing it.

1. Overswarm (Meta Knight) vs Tactical (Lucario)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsmOHyg6eac

This is over the air, and I think that was Tactical who said in the middle of the match something to the effect of "this stage is weird; what do I do?". Regardless, it wasn't particularly lopsided, and it showed off how the rain and pellets affect gameplay a lot. The last death was really goofy; how that happens might merit being looked into.

2. Overswarm (Meta Knight) vs Domo (Meta Knight)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tqtxapGwc0

This was the third game of loser's finals at the last Midwest Championships. It showcases a lot of the under the stage stuff you can get away with here and one under the stage thing you very much can't get away with.

3. Overswarm (Meta Knight) vs Q (Toon Link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CekRpvD6Nc

This was in grand finals even. Toon Link's first death was really early off the left side, but it seemed like it was all around his fault for walking into that. Toon Link's last death is actually him being eaten by the Bulborb, but he did seem to be really asking for it...

Those are the only three on the first 20 pages, but they're interesting enough. I think they're all acceptable quality games, but it would be worth discussing. Anyone have any thoughts on those matches?

Also, to look at that Onett video, it really sounded like Overswarm was endorsing the stage as legal, and he was pretty convincing with what seemed like a pretty definitive proof that King Dedede does not have a broken advantage on Marth there. I assume he was one of the three SBR members who voted for Onett as a counterpick. Anyway, I was thinking that that only proves how things are for Marth, but then I realized that a lot of characters don't even have to go to as great of lengths as he did there. Just going down Ankoku's current list, the list representative of which characters are actually used, here's what we find...

S Rank:

not chainthrown by King Dedede
Snake can throw grenades, Nikitas, and C4 downward, defeating the kind of camping shown in the video.

A Rank:

King Dedede is forced to approach like Marth, but given that this is a mirror match, I suspect it works out to be fair in the end. Also, on normal stages he can infinite himself against a ledge so we should already expect extra output from chaingrabs in this matchup.
Diddy Kong can throw banana peels downward, defeating camping.
Wario nominally can throw the bike and bike parts downward but is probably going to mostly want to actually approach. Logically, he should do as well or better than Marth though; Wario mains are pretty adamant about the whole "Wario is hard to grab" thing.
not chainthrown by King Dedede

B Rank:

Covered by Overswarm's video in detail.
R.O.B. can throw gyros downward, defeating that style of camping.
If you can kill the Ice Climbers with chainthrows, you deserve a medal.
not chainthrown by King Dedede
not chainthrown by King Dedede
not chainthrown by King Dedede
not chainthrown by King Dedede
not chainthrown by King Dedede
Lucario potentially would have trouble dealing with that camping tactic.
Luigi would potentially have trouble dealing with that camping tactic, but Luigi already had to expect enhanced damage from chainthrows so the potential negative isn't as big as you'd think.

C Rank:

DK has to jump down like Marth, but on most stages DK's stock is gone whenever he gets grabbed so Onett can only be an improvement.
Squirtle can't be chaingrabbed, but it's a potential problem for the other two. However, if King Dedede is camping down there, you could always just switch to Squirtle who is the best Pokemon anyway.
Pit can curve his arrows to hit down there, defeating the camping.
Sonic can rain springs on King Dedede, defeating the camping (seriously).
Toon Link's bombs and boomerang should be able to pepper King Dedede safely should he choose to camp those areas.
Pk Thunder makes hardcore camping down there ultimately losing, even if it is Lucas's slow version of it.
Peach can throw turnips down there, defeating the camping.
:shiek: Neither of them are chainthrown by King Dedede.

D Rank:

not chainthrown by King Dedede
Yoshi could potentially have trouble with that camping tactic.
Wolf could potentially have trouble with that camping tactic, but Wolf was already caught in an infinite on the ledge on normal stages so this doesn't have the potential to be as bad as it seems.
not chainthrown by King Dedede
The faster version of Pk Thunder should easily defeat any King Dedede who just hangs out down there and refuses to come up.

E Rank:

Ganondorf could potentially have trouble with that camping tactic.
Link's bombs should defeat that camping tactic.
Ike could potentially have trouble with that camping tactic.
Samus would potentially have trouble dealing with that camping tactic, but Samus already had to expect enhanced damage from chainthrows so the potential negative isn't as big as you'd think.
Mario would potentially have trouble dealing with that camping tactic, but Mario already had to expect enhanced damage from chainthrows so the potential negative isn't as big as you'd think.
Bowser would potentially have trouble dealing with that camping tactic, but Bowser already had to expect extremely enhanced damage from chainthrows so the potential negative isn't as big as you'd think.
Captain Falcon could potentially have trouble with that camping tactic.

To tally it up, the number of characters who were only afflicted by the normal chainthrow who don't have something about them that puts them in a better situation than Marth (who was shown to be able to handle it) is five. The rank distribution of them (remembering this is usage) is 1 in B rank, 1 in D rank, and 3 in E rank. Additionally, six characters who were subject to enchanced but not always infinite chainthrows are subject to some concern. The rank distribution is 1 in A rank (note: King Dedede himself!), 1 in B rank, 1 in D rank, and 3 in E rank. The point of this is that the evidence seems to be that most of the cast, with current knowledge, can handle King Dedede's camping tactics here, and of those who plausibly cannot, they are largely among the rarest characters in tournaments already (over half of them are in E rank!) and largely already had abnormally big problems with King Dedede's chaingrab, meaning the difference between their situation on other courses when grabbed and extreme risk of being walked off the side isn't as big as you'd think.

As a last note, that Rumble Falls stuff Linkshot posted is in line with my earlier experiences and is generally good stuff. Yeah, it seems about right; Rumble Falls is not obviously broken or even broken upon light inspection, but it's probably not worth fighting over when people want to ban so many other stages that are easier to argue in favor of and of more merit.

 

[Kamikaze*]

People in this thread are too dependent on stage strategies to win

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

All strategies are stage strategies. Name one strategy that works 100% independently of the stage.

 

[Linkshot]

The logic behind "All legal stages should be part of stage striking" is so that characters with major disadvantages on the current starters can just get rid of them, which is a lot of what the tier list is based off of (I think).

Another way to look at it is that the starter list is supposed to, overall, have the most balance, but it's really only necessary if the first match is Random Starter. Otherwise, I think the Counterpicks should qualify into Stage Striking (since it's basically a negotiation of which stage the start on, eventually coming down to the stage that is most equal for the matchup, which not every starter can provide.)

 

[AvaricePanda]

@Sir Orion: How do you think SBR debates on stages? Why do you think they just write off stages that are controversial as banned without any testing? How do you know any of this when you aren't even in the SBR yourself? You can't say, "Oh that's just an exception" to that video when that's the ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE showing how members of the SBR debate stages.

Nice finds AA, but that's not the only type of camping that D3 can do, and D3 isn't the only one with wall-infinites or walk-offs. Quite a bit of characters have dtilt, CG, or other wall-infinites and walk-offs, and at least 11 characters would all have trouble with them (potentially more, depending on certain characters). Many fights would just be camping to not get grabbed or whatever near a wall, and I'm sure the characters that can perform the wall-infinites themselves have feasible ways of getting characters down.

I have to agree with LinkShot about Rumble Falls. It's CP/B at best (IMO, it's B). While there is no definitive game-breaking strategy, there are a ton of other things that don't help the stage. The somewhat-ability to circle camp, the easier ability to run, abusing chokepoints and side blast-zones, walk-off CGs to get to said blast-zones and kill with an fthrow or something, the spike(s) of death, MK and Kirby's Uthrows to death...etc.

I still think Distant Planet should definitely be a CP though, for reasons I've already mentioned. I've played more matches on it and seen those matches AA posted, and there are no gamebreaking or overpowering strategies here, and I don't think anyone's refuted my points about it. I still need information about walk-off CGs like D3s or Yoshi's here, but as of now it seems CP.

edit: And yeah. Linkshot Thio, AA, and I seem to be the few people in this thread who are actually testing things and not basing off assumptions.

editedit: Okay, while I still think Mansion should be banned, I'm not sure about Norfair. The only characters with OPd things here seem to be Jiggs and kind of MK, but I haven't seen videos and could only rely on Thios word and demomstration. Granted, I'll probably change my mind about those two characters once I actually see videos, but I just want to see them.

The problem I saw with Mansion was that quite a lot of characters had utilt or usmash or whatever combos because of the ceiling, some characters didn't even have to try (MK and tornado) and they'd completely wreck half the cast, and there's the problem with living long and skewing kills and such because a high percent person can camp near rooms and DI/tech (or just DI and probably not die) into ceilings instead of going into the blast zone.

However, Norfair, other than Jiggs and MK, yields interesting strategies, that as far as I've seen, aren't broken (Thio if you have that video of Spammerer's Puff at Norfair, I want to see it @_@).

 

[Kain6th]

It seems to me that probably the easiest way to unban a few of these banned stages is to just ban CG.

Is this something people can't live without? Does it really change people's playstyle? I guess if you're dedede and Falco and you use CG on a regular to frequent basis, but if its something you only use seldomly and still kick *** with these character's than who care's if CG is banned?

You ban CG then suddenly a few more stages can be used. People who depend on using CG will just need to practice using other viable strategies.

Also, I'm guessing this has been presented before, but if there's a thread on the issue of banning CG can someone post the link?

 

[AvaricePanda]

You can't ban chaingrabs. None of them warrant a ban (except maybe D3s standing infinite, but that's debatable and the ban isn't enforcable). You don't ban something just because you want something else like more stages, or you want a character to use more strategies. Banning CGs would also make ICs horrible and would make D3 drop quite a bit.

And even if CGs were somehow warranting a ban (which they don't come close to) enforcing it would be impossible. We don't have a judge for each TV at tournaments to DQ someone when they chaingrab. It's not enforcable, it's not warranted, and it's not specific (how much is a chaingrab? Does 2 count? Does a grab to guarranteed hit count? Do tech chases or other things where you grab multiple times in succession even though it's escapable count?)

These extra stages aren't necessities, they're just things that if they don't cut into core gameplay too much, they're nice to have. Trading off chaingrabs, a major part of some character's games, for a few extra stages, which aren't needed, isn't equal.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

That has been proposed in passing, but I don't think it has any dedicated thread. The problem is that that's a lot harder to enforce and a lot more practically limiting to the player. A chaingrab is just a grab that combos into a grab. Let's say we banned that. Now, what if I do a sequence of grabs in which you have 1 frame to escape? What if there's not a true chaingrab even possible with this sequence of grabs but it's really hard to escape anyway? What if there is a true chaingrab but I do the sequence of throws so slowly that it's not particularly hard to escape? Where is the line? Also, when you ban those sorts of things, you are imposing a continual restriction on the players that adds a far greater burden than banning a pre-match selection, and in order to enforce those rules, the games have to be monitored continually (someone could just chaingrab his opponent when no one is looking and then deny it). It's not a completely impossible direction to go, but I (and probably most other people in this thread and on smashboards in general) feel like it's a bad approach.

You may be a fan of a rule Australia used a while back in which several stages were legal counterpicks but if you picked them you weren't allowed to also select King Dedede (or something to that effect; it was basically a rule that meant you couldn't force your opponent to fight King Dedede on those stages). On an intuitive level that seems bad to me since it makes the rules more complicated and isn't particularly fair to King Dedede that his "advantage" of being able to abuse those stages actually results in him having fewer options. Maybe it's worth it though; it never really was explored beyond Australia and probably never will be.

 

[Kain6th]

You may be a fan of a rule Australia used a while back in which several stages were legal counterpicks but if you picked them you weren't allowed to also select King Dedede (or something to that effect; it was basically a rule that meant you couldn't force your opponent to fight King Dedede on those stages). On an intuitive level that seems bad to me since it makes the rules more complicated and isn't particularly fair to King Dedede that his "advantage" of being able to abuse those stages actually results in him having fewer options. Maybe it's worth it though; it never really was explored beyond Australia and probably never will be.

So basically I see these arguments:

1) If we outright banned CG (yeah i can see now that this isn't a good option so no on this)
+ More stages can be used for competitive play
- Characters like Dedede and IC will be disadvantaged since they are forced to alter their strategies which may never allow them to be as good as they were by allowing them to use CG and may drop in the tier list
- its impossible to enforce

2) If we kept CG and also unbanned some stages
+ Those stages can now be used in competitive play
- But they can give character's like Dedede and Falco incredible if not impossible to escape CG's

3) if we kept CG's and those stage's remain banned
- We can't use those stages in competitive play
+ CG's aren't as big of a threat with those stages banned

4) If we kept CG and unbanned certain stage's and also banned certain character's for certain stages (like Dedede)
+ Everyone except those few character's can play on those stages in competitive play
- those character's can't play on those stages making them a little disadvantaged when they are up for a counterpick stage

I think there's a contradiction here and its this: We can't use those stages in competitive play because Dedede, Falco, etc. become too overpowered due to their CG's, but if we allowed those stages and just banned those characters from counterpicking those stages then it (as you put it): "isn't particularly fair to King Dedede [or other CG characters] that his "advantage" of being able to abuse those stages actually results in him having fewer options."

So then why are these stages banned in the first place?

In conclusion I think we should consider these two options, either:
A) we just unban those stages regardless of CG character's so that they are advantageous options for counterpicks (and don't forget people have the option of banning 1 stage for a counterpick in tourney's) and just have people try their best not to be CG'd on those stages.
or
B) We unban those stages, but ban CG character's from counterpicking them in tourney's even though that may be a little unfair.

- Also Edit: People using other character's that aren't CG'ers can still choose those stage's against CG characters if they so wished. Don't know why they would want to except maybe for a great challenge and they want to try and impress people, lol (though that could easily fall on its head). So maybe someone reallly freakin good like Boss wanted to use his Mario against a semi-good D3 on Green Hill Zone; he could do that if he desired it.
- And if it was say Dedede vs Falco, then they could pick those stages if they want. (it would be like a game of 'who could CG who the fastest?')

The more im thinking about it the more I really like 'B.' I really think the SBR community should discuss it and hopefully consider it as an option in the future.

 

[chandy]

I dislike stage legality because it bans my 2 favourite stages... Mushroomy Kingdom and BoE. Just because they're walk-off stages... Why not ban DDD and Falco instead, then there are no problems