Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Eten]

It's things like this that prompt the serious discussion of changing "Neutral" stages to "Random" Stages.

I use the term neutrality just to refer to the grouping of neutral, not the actual definition of something being "neutral". Used as a random set, the issue that comes up is the possible influence of the "luck" factor, so you need to make that random set as consistent and simple as possible.

 

[Corner-Trap]

To get this whole neutral stage thing sorted out, we first must change the name to something people won't misunderstand, like starter stages. Second we need to have a clear guideline as to what a starter stage is. I propose that we should define it as the most simple stages with the least amount of variance. As long as a stage contains non of the traits I'm going to list then it should be a starter stage:

Movement- stage moves among locations
Hazards- stage can cause harm to the players
Walls- stage has walls
Walk off ledges- stage has walk off ledges
Water- stage has water
Transformations- stage transforms
Destructible environment- stage can be destroyed
Various effects- other effects including low traction, gravity, etc.
Passable bottom platform- bottom platform can be passed through
Adverse effects- stage is deemed too detrimental or random
Infinite stalling- players can runaway indefinitely in a loop

With these traits in mind there are only five starter stages including:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Lylat Cruise
Yoshi's Island (Brawl version)

I hope this can clear up all future debates over this subject.

 

[Mic_128]

The spikes? The cart?

They aren't a problem. the spikes are up in the air and stationary, and the cart's easy enough to avoid.

 

[PK-ow!]

I have come to report something on Castle Siege.

The stage sometimes damages you. Flaming shrapnel or something flies out and burns for small damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULOt1VSki24
Very beginning of this vid, MK takes 3%.

I know there are other, more flagrant (haha?) issues with the stage, but information is information.

With that out of the way,

Also Lylat Cuise isn't debatable, is simply is neutral. It doesn't tilt, thats just the background playing tricks on you.

It seems I must finally assemble my attempt. Howsoever much it is taken for granted, and that it is joked in the manner of Thinkaman...

Hey guys, time for a list. Introductions suck.

Neutral-And-If-You-Disagree-Quit-Smash:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Smashville
Yoshi's Island (New)
Lylat Cruise

These are all obvious.

... I must make the case that Lylat Cruise be removed from neutral status. Please hear me out.

I ask that Lylat Cruise be banned for just the same reason as Spear Pillar be. I know.
Really, I know.
Allow me to explain the reason. Consider, if Spear Pillar didn't have beams of death, would people still play it? Probably not, because of the stage-inversion illusion. That really screws with people's perception, and no one should be asked to acquire game skills that can't assume "left is left, up is up" is an invariant feature of the task. To elaborate, becoming good here may very well be a challenge that is not up to anyone's skill or effort, but rather however it happens that their brains learn how the game physics work. If your mind closely attends to the fact that game-up is screen-top, then it's going to encode the relevant skills in your repertoire as though it were assuming that is true. Sorry the language is cumbersome, I'm trying to avoid saying things that cognitive psychology knows is false.

It is widely accepted, that the lag phenomenon is unfair on Wifi. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to say you can 'cope' with the lag. You'd be learning to play *with* the lag; you'd be *learning* to have your timing all wrong in a non-laggy game. Again, subtle things that aren't up to the rational part of us, just our brains. We aren't responsible for the implicit things our brains do when we learn.
Do you all agree?

All I'm saying is to account for anyone out there in the world who is thrown by Lylat Cruise, because it's no fault of their own. I can't lie and say this doesn't have to do with how I am one of those people, because of course, I wouldn't know there were any such people without discovering it was true for myself. But if I am doing this just for me or genuinely for everyone in my position, does it matter?

To make things a little clearer - It so happens that I possess unusual spatial abilities, such that, while they as a matter of fact allow me to cope intuitively with Spear Pillar (just for example), they actually work against me on Lylat Cruise. The subtle rotation of that stage (and it *does* rotate; the fact that people don't believe it only means their brains are correctly coping, which is just what I'm saying), is not able to be recognized by me (read: my perceptual system) as actually changing the 'up' direction. I will think of the topside of the *ship* as up, and misalign everything.
I plead with you that it is just the same way many of you can't, and should not have to, deal with Spear Pillar.

My reason, then, I think is clear. I think if we are going to afford people the case that screwing with perception - via the stage, and not by player choice, of course - reduces the ability of a match to measure skill, it should be the same for any person, whether their cognitive disaffect is commonplace or rare.

I am as unhappy as anyone to see a plain, flat stage, with platforms, be discarded; but if no one else will argue this case, I have to at least elicit dialectic concerning it.

If I have the whole mindset of stage legality wrong, please don't flame me (too much). Just, say something to what I have said. Dismiss one of the premises - maybe screwing with perception is alright, or maybe those with the rare illusion-susceptibility really do matter less than the common problem.
I simply had to try my case here, for me and whoever else is in my position.

Just give me credit for having to make the uphill argument.

 

[Corner-Trap]

PK-ow!

Spear Pillar isn't just banned for it's adverse effects but also because it allows infinite stalling. Also Lylat Cruise shouldn't be taken off of neutral because it slightly tips which is negligible to the vast majority of players.

 

[YoungMoney702]

i'll give you credit

 

[YoungMoney702]

i hate spear pillar cuz it kills you quick

 

[Patinator]

Sigh...

About Lylat Cruise being banned: are you KIDDING?!

The tilt is rather minimal, and, throughout my extensive play on that stage, being my favorite, I have never been killed due to not being able to recover.

And I use Wolf most of the time, Mr. Unwieldy-at-times Recovery.

Besides, it doesn't even tilt that much.

My two cents on Lylat Cruise.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

... I must make the case that Lylat Cruise be removed from neutral status. Please hear me out.

I ask that Lylat Cruise be banned for just the same reason as Spear Pillar be. I know.
Really, I know.
Allow me to explain the reason. Consider, if Spear Pillar didn't have beams of death, would people still play it? Probably not, because of the stage-inversion illusion. That really screws with people's perception, and no one should be asked to acquire game skills that can't assume "left is left, up is up" is an invariant feature of the task. To elaborate, becoming good here may very well be a challenge that is not up to anyone's skill or effort, but rather however it happens that their brains learn how the game physics work. If your mind closely attends to the fact that game-up is screen-top, then it's going to encode the relevant skills in your repertoire as though it were assuming that is true. Sorry the language is cumbersome, I'm trying to avoid saying things that cognitive psychology knows is false.

It is widely accepted, that the lag phenomenon is unfair on Wifi. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to say you can 'cope' with the lag. You'd be learning to play *with* the lag; you'd be *learning* to have your timing all wrong in a non-laggy game. Again, subtle things that aren't up to the rational part of us, just our brains. We aren't responsible for the implicit things our brains do when we learn.
Do you all agree?

All I'm saying is to account for anyone out there in the world who is thrown by Lylat Cruise, because it's no fault of their own. I can't lie and say this doesn't have to do with how I am one of those people, because of course, I wouldn't know there were any such people without discovering it was true for myself. But if I am doing this just for me or genuinely for everyone in my position, does it matter?

To make things a little clearer - It so happens that I possess unusual spatial abilities, such that, while they as a matter of fact allow me to cope intuitively with Spear Pillar (just for example), they actually work against me on Lylat Cruise. The subtle rotation of that stage (and it *does* rotate; the fact that people don't believe it only means their brains are correctly coping, which is just what I'm saying), is not able to be recognized by me (read: my perceptual system) as actually changing the 'up' direction. I will think of the topside of the *ship* as up, and misalign everything.
I plead with you that it is just the same way many of you can't, and should not have to, deal with Spear Pillar.

My reason, then, I think is clear. I think if we are going to afford people the case that screwing with perception - via the stage, and not by player choice, of course - reduces the ability of a match to measure skill, it should be the same for any person, whether their cognitive disaffect is commonplace or rare.

I am as unhappy as anyone to see a plain, flat stage, with platforms, be discarded; but if no one else will argue this case, I have to at least elicit dialectic concerning it.

If I have the whole mindset of stage legality wrong, please don't flame me (too much). Just, say something to what I have said. Dismiss one of the premises - maybe screwing with perception is alright, or maybe those with the rare illusion-susceptibility really do matter less than the common problem.
I simply had to try my case here, for me and whoever else is in my position.

Just give me credit for having to make the uphill argument.

This is probably the loftiest john that I have ever seen in all my time on SWF.

The key phrase here is: "All I'm saying is to account for anyone out there in the world who is thrown by Lylat Cruise, because it's no fault of their own."

Yes, it is their own fault, as far as the game is concerned. It's not an optical illusion. It's not an incongruity between action and reaction.

Lylat is fine.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

I have come to report something on Castle Siege.

The stage sometimes damages you. Flaming shrapnel or something flies out and burns for small damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULOt1VSki24
Very beginning of this vid, MK takes 3%.

Erm... if you look a bit closer at Fox... you can see him shoot is laser as he falls through the platform. No flaming shrapnel as far as I can see. Sorry.

 

[PK-ow!]

@Patinator: Sadly, no, I am not kidding. I do not make posts pushing five hundred words to 'kid'.

This is probably the loftiest john that I have ever seen in all my time on SWF.

The key phrase here is: "All I'm saying is to account for anyone out there in the world who is thrown by Lylat Cruise, because it's no fault of their own."

Yes, it is their own fault, as far as the game is concerned. It's not an optical illusion. It's not an incongruity between action and reaction.

Lylat is fine.

What is a john and what is going on idiomatically when you say one is lofty?

I wasn't saying it was an optical illusion. An optical illusion would be if the ship was not actually tilting, but the background made most people think it was. An optical illusion would be if the ship was tilting, but people did not perceive it to do so.

I'm saying the ship does tilt, and that I perceive it to do so, but this perception doesn't penetrate into my conceptual experience of the stage, so I cannot play as though I know that true up has diverged from the topside of the ship. I can report on that, and if I consciously override I can attend to this detail, but this mental act of course is also overriding a lot of the procedural ability ("skill") for the game that I have.

So it's not an optical illusion.
Now, even putting aside whether we do or do not agree on that, I'm not clear on the steps from "It's not an optical illusion" to "It's their fault." I don't know all of what does and does not count as someone's fault in the relevant sense for competition - I want to figure it out by the end of this discussion.

Lastly, what do you mean by 'reaction' when you say it isn't incongruous with action?

 

[Corner-Trap]

PK-ow!

A John is basically an excuse, so a lofty John means that it's a lofty excuse, which is basically what you're giving us. The tilting on Lylat Cruise is so insignificant that it's unreasonable to ban it over something so minuet.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I'm saying the ship does tilt, and that I perceive it to do so, but this perception doesn't penetrate into my conceptual experience of the stage, so I cannot play as though I know that true up has diverged from the topside of the ship. I can report on that, and if I consciously override I can attend to this detail, but this mental act of course is also overriding a lot of the procedural ability ("skill") for the game that I have.

A john is an excuse, specifically an attempt to deflect responsibility for a shortcoming, from oneself to external factors, which is how I view your argument, no offense intended.

What I'm saying is, that's YOUR problem that the tilting doesn't "penetrate into your experience of the stage," and it is unreasonable to make an accomodation for you or anyone for that reason. That's part of what "skill" is, to put it another way. If you want to make the case that that is not what we 'should' test, then go ahead, but the burden of proof is on you.

 

[FakeKraid]

It seems to be true on the face of it, but only Battlefield and FD are 100% "inert." FoD has variable height platforms, DL64 has wind, YS has Randall and shyguys, PS has stageforms.

I concede; my argument was certainly flawed in that detail, but it does not affect my point. Actually, I was simply making a distinguo, not a full-fledged argument. I never suggested which definition of "Neutral" would be better. I haven't the authority to do so. I apologize if I was unclear.

You are correct that there is no such thing as a truly neutral stage in practice, only in theory. I and others before me have considered eliminating the random stage select altogether (why add randomness in a way that adds no depth to the game?), so neither is really appropriate. "Starter" or something, as one person suggested, is better.

As for that...well, I don't know what to say to the first point. It seems like a decent enough idea, unless you have two players in a tournament who won't agree on a first stage. Giving a selection of reasonably fair stages to be chosen at random provides a quick solution to any such gridlock. Then again, it is true that it adds an element of randomness (however small) to the first match in a tournament set, since, as you admitted, there is no "true neutral" stage in Smash. So I don't really know what would be best.

As far as the DDD CG goes, on any stage, I don't think it is reasonable to ban it or the stage until the majority of evidence shows that it is MORE "broken" than Wobbling was in Melee, which about 90% of the SBR voted should be legal. There's just no way that that much tourney evidence can exist at this point.

Finally, as far as comparisons to Wobbles goes, we tread dangerous territory there. granted, it is certainly true that Wobbles was not banned in tournaments in Melee. But, in all honesty, could it have been anyway? It was not dependent on the stage; it could be done anywhere (on legal stages, anyway). To ban it would lead to all sorts of...well, legal messes during tournaments, what with accusations and the impossibility of verification and all. In addition, the offensive possibilities in Melee were so much greater than they are in Brawl (at least at this point) that if you did get caught in Wobbles, it was arguably your fault. But in Brawl, if you fight Dedede, you are going to get grabbed sometime. It simply will happen. I know, because I routinely fight a Dedede who is nearly perfect at performing the CG and has a very, very good grab game. And so do I. And if you get grabbed on a stage with a static wall when Dedede is facing the right direction...well, there goes your stock, at least for over 60% of the cast. And since a player can only ban one stage during a set, if stages with static walls are not banned automatically, then Dedede is guaranteed at least one victory every set, no matter what the skill of his opponent is.
That being said, stages with temporary walls, such as Delfino, PS1 and 2, and Rainbow Cruise are very different. If you get wall chained on one of those stages, it is your own fault for playing stupidly, or because the Dedede is so much in control of the match that he would have won anyway. Also, the stage is likely to shift again before he can kill you with it, unless he sets it up immediately, in which case refer to the previous sentence.
Incidentally, you can replace the word "wall" with the words "walk-off edge" everywhere in that entire argument and it remains the same; think of Castle Siege, for instance.

Anyway, isn't Shine infiniting a better comparison than Wobbles anyway, since it required a wall too, and was the reason stages like Onett were banned in tournaments?

 

[PK-ow!]

The tilting on Lylat Cruise is so insignificant that it's unreasonable to ban it over something so minuet.

What I'm saying is, that's YOUR problem that the tilting doesn't "penetrate into your experience of the stage," and it is unreasonable to make an accomodation for you or anyone for that reason. That's part of what "skill" is, to put it another way. If you want to make the case that that is not what we 'should' test, then go ahead, but the burden of proof is on you.

. . . okay.

I guess that works. I'm just not the kind of person to give up before trying, especially when persuasive writing is involved.

Back to Castle Siege: I could've sworn I checked for Fox's blaster, but I didn't see anything purple in the video. Lousy blurring.

 

[Eten]

ough:

I like the idea of going to "starter set" over "neutral stages".

 

[Firestorm88]

Here's an argument I'm going to paste for Lylat on Counterpick rather than Neutral. Not mine, a friend's in the BC Thread:

Lylat - you may say "Well the stage tilts for everyone so it ends up being neutral".

But here's the deal with that stage. Choose metaknight and try to walk off the edge for an edgehog. Eazy peezy lemon squeezy right? Now try it with Marth... No? Diddy? No? There are a bunch of characters who have trouble grabbing the edge on this stage. It's clearly a good counterpick against those characters showing good knowledge of character-stage weaknesses.

and Pokemon Stadium

PS1 - You may say "Well, the lip affects everybody's recovery and the Windmill is gay to everyone".

So here's whats up with that stage. The lip way more greatly hinders people with certain recoveries. I'm not going to do all the research here but I'll give some examples:

Wolf's side + b becomes way harder to do.
Wolf/Fox/Falco will have a harder time up+b'ing straight up to the ledge.
Sheik/Zelda have a harder time up+b'ing diagonally to sweetspot.

Not only that, but the lip favours other characters as well as hurting the previously mentioned characters. Examples:

Kirby: Get stuck at the lip on your up+b? No worries, just DI towards it.
Bowser: Same
DK: Same

Also, the windmill is a bit more minor but it favours smaller characters who can more easily pass through it. It also gives good opportunities for characters like P.Trainer and Zelda to safely transform.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I concede; my argument was certainly flawed in that detail, but it does not affect my point. Actually, I was simply making a distinguo, not a full-fledged argument. I never suggested which definition of "Neutral" would be better. I haven't the authority to do so. I apologize if I was unclear.

Don't worry I understood what you meant, I just wanted to show what follows from that definition.

As for that...well, I don't know what to say to the first point. It seems like a decent enough idea, unless you have two players in a tournament who won't agree on a first stage. Giving a selection of reasonably fair stages to be chosen at random provides a quick solution to any such gridlock. Then again, it is true that it adds an element of randomness (however small) to the first match in a tournament set, since, as you admitted, there is no "true neutral" stage in Smash. So I don't really know what would be best.

The idea is that instead of a random stage, there would be 5 "starter" (or whatever) stages, and each player would strike 2, and the leftover would be the first match of the game. I propose to call this "Odd Stage In."

Finally, as far as comparisons to Wobbles goes, we tread dangerous territory there. granted, it is certainly true that Wobbles was not banned in tournaments in Melee. But, in all honesty, could it have been anyway? It was not dependent on the stage; it could be done anywhere (on legal stages, anyway). To ban it would lead to all sorts of...well, legal messes during tournaments, what with accusations and the impossibility of verification and all. In addition, the offensive possibilities in Melee were so much greater than they are in Brawl (at least at this point) that if you did get caught in Wobbles, it was arguably your fault. But in Brawl, if you fight Dedede, you are going to get grabbed sometime. It simply will happen. I know, because I routinely fight a Dedede who is nearly perfect at performing the CG and has a very, very good grab game. And so do I. And if you get grabbed on a stage with a static wall when Dedede is facing the right direction...well, there goes your stock, at least for over 60% of the cast. And since a player can only ban one stage during a set, if stages with static walls are not banned automatically, then Dedede is guaranteed at least one victory every set, no matter what the skill of his opponent is.
That being said, stages with temporary walls, such as Delfino, PS1 and 2, and Rainbow Cruise are very different. If you get wall chained on one of those stages, it is your own fault for playing stupidly, or because the Dedede is so much in control of the match that he would have won anyway. Also, the stage is likely to shift again before he can kill you with it, unless he sets it up immediately, in which case refer to the previous sentence.
Incidentally, you can replace the word "wall" with the words "walk-off edge" everywhere in that entire argument and it remains the same; think of Castle Siege, for instance.

You're right about the problems regarding the actual BANNING of it, but I think that we can still gauge how powerful a trick it is separately from that. It's just something to keep in mind for comparison when the tourney results start coming in. And I'm sorry but while your experiences may convince you that the CG is too powerful, I don't think we can just go on anecdotal evidence. We should see this DDD auto-win firsthand in a tournament before we ban it. If it's such a great tactic, then it will become apparent soon. We just have to allow the tourney metagame to have a chance to respond. I'm not saying that we should NEVER ban it, I just want solid evidence.

Anyway, isn't Shine infiniting a better comparison than Wobbles anyway, since it required a wall too, and was the reason stages like Onett were banned in tournaments?

Hmm, actually it may be, because it applies to walkoffs AND edges. In any case, no stages in Melee were banned SOLELY for either of those reasons. It just happened that all of those stages had a bunch of other problems with them additionally. If Bridge of Eldin were a stage in Melee, I wouldn't vote to ban it, for example. I also want to make the point that you have the option of picking a character that doesn't get CG'd (like you have the option of picking one that doesn't get waveshined in Melee).

Firestorm88:

I don't think it's any different than learning to not get edge-screwed on Battlefield in Melee (though I personally liked to counterpick it because I knew that other people had problems with it). And "neutral" doesn't mean -neutral-...man we really have to make sure we get that misnomer abolished haha. Anyway, in the Odd One In stage scheme, they could just eliminate Lylat anyway.

PK-ow!:

Good try. ^_^

 

[Mic_128]

Firestorm88: By that logic, we'll also be putting Final D on counterpick.

Nothing's wrong with the stages, just a few characters need to be careful when grabbing the edge. Same with Battlefield in Melee.

 

[IceEmblem]

Poky doesnt deserve to be banned TT_TT.

 

[Empy]

Err, dunno if you knew, but a purple name indicates a memeber of the SBR.

I knew, I didn't even look at who I was talking to I guess, my bad.

Well, if simplicity were of utmost concern we'd ONLY play the "neutral" stages. If we're not interested in "over-complicating things" why even have this thread open? There's no point in not exploring the full theory of it. Regarding SMI, you say DDD is imbalanced by giving him SMI? Maybe I say you're gimping him by taking it away. The point is that I cannot abide banning the stage until it's proven broken in a TOURNEY setting. Win a set for free here with DDD (only if he's not your main) and then tell me it's broken. Your following paragraphs reasoning for its ban are just theorycraft. There's no point in just throwing theory at one another. We have to test it in a tournament. There is no other way.

About the over-complicating, yeah that came out wrong, I was just trying to say, we can just argue that stages change the game too much and have that as reason to ban stages, because it would include all the other reasons and add to it. But anyway, I agree that as long as someone has a valid point, it should be discussed.

About SMI, I can see your point on DDD, but I still think SMI will be banned eventually, simply because of all the teching, anyway, I'll agree to let it be a counterpick for now, as most people seem to disagree with me.

Well personally I believe that if you allowed Corneria in Melee, there was NO reason not to allow Princess Peach's Castle, which is probably MORE balanced.

Well like I said I've played with Corneria banned. I've also played with Castle as counter, but after many protest in my region, it was put down as banned again.

The problem is that they come down at practically random times (though they only come down if some blocks have been broken), which just kill (or save!) people at their will. Also, if you get Fox on one of the far platforms, his laser goes -just- over the middle platform. He can stand there and laser and have it go all the way across the stage. Not that this by itself matters, it's just an example of the stage stunting approaches.

Well I still think Green Greens deserves the change, the bomb blocks can kill or save people, but it is pretty rare to have a big effect on the match. Also, the camping get's less annoying because the blocks are in the way of mos projectiles. The game is also a bit slower then Melee, making it easier to avoid spammed stuff by campers. Fox his laser might be an exception, but I don't see how we should ban Green Greens because of Fox, certainly since he's not that great anymore.

The spikes? The cart?

The spikes can be airdogded or you can just drop inbetween. If someone tries to wait for you between 2 spikes, just go for the edge, they don't really last long anyway. Also, you can land on top of the cart and then just jump away from it, it's also high enough for most characters to be able to shorthop without risking a hit from it so.

Sure it is, Mic and I are both in the SBR and we like to hear people's arguments.

Allrighty, it's up to you 2 then.

Sort of but I wouldn't word it like that. Playing on those stages -is- a legitimate metagame, it's just "too different" from the metagame everywhere else. Of course note that what constitutes "too different" is a matter of opinion.

Wait, that's what I said right? Well it is what I meant anyway. And too different in my opinion, is when having skill can't compensate for the change anymore. In example, when you are playing Ike and a Sonic is running away from you on New Pork city, no matter how skilled you are, you won't catch up, he's just faster.

I don't think it's too complicated. If you don't like 2 lists, then we can have just a list of all stages, and next to the stage would be the options for the stage.

Sounds good to me, but let's put one option as "recommended" and the other as "optional". How does the following list look to you?

Battlefield Recommended: Random Starter
Final Destination Recommended: Random Starter
Smashville Recommended: Random Starter
Yoshi's Island/Brawl Recommended: Random Starter
Lylate Cruise Recommended: Random Starter Optional: Counterpick

Delfino Plaza Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Random Starter
Frigate Orpheon Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Random Starter
Halberd Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Random Starter
Bridge of Eldin Recommended: Counterpick
Brinstar Recommended: Counterpick
Castle Seige Recommended: Counterpick
Hanenbow Recommended: Counterpick
Jungle Japes Recommended: Counterpick
Luigi's Mansion Recommended: Counterpick
Mario Circuit Recommended: Counterpick
Norfair Recommended: Counterpick
Onett Recommended: Counterpick
Pirate Ship Recommended: Counterpick
Pokemon Stadium Recommended: Counterpick
Pokemon Stadium 2 Recommended: Counterpick
Rainbow Cruise Recommended: Counterpick
Corneria Recommended: Counterpick Optional:Banned
Distant Planet Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
Green Greens Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
Green Hill Zone Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
PictoChat Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
Port Town Aero Dive Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
Shadow Moses Island Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned
Skyworld Recommended: Counterpick Optional:Banned
Yoshi's Island/Melee Recommended: Counterpick Optional: Banned

Mushroomy Kingdom Recommended: Banned Optional: Counterpick
Rumble Falls Recommended: Banned Optional: Counterpick
Spear Pillar Recommended: Banned Optional: Counterpick
Summit Recommended: Banned Optional: Counterpick
75m Recommended: Banned
Big Blue Recommended: Banned
Flat Zone 2 Recommended: Banned
Hyrule Temple Recommended: Banned
Mario Bros. Recommended: Banned
New Pork City Recommended: Banned
WarioWare inc. Recommended: Banned

Please note that it is probably not all too accurate on recommendations and optional choices, though I did my best, this is just to show the format. Also, I've ordered stages first for their recommendation and then on alphabetic order.

 

[M.K]

The Summit. BANNED? THIS IS MADNESS!
This.
Isn't
FUNNY!
Care to explain, this is absurd. Counterpick at it's finest. And don't talk about the fish, he is incredibly easy to dodge, you just don't know how easy.

 

[Mic_128]

You can't dodge what randomly appears with no warning other than *chomp*, especially when it's a "miss and you're dead" hazard.

 

[FakeKraid]

[QUOTEHyugaRicdeau;4=333275]The idea is that instead of a random stage, there would be 5 "starter" (or whatever) stages, and each player would strike 2, and the leftover would be the first match of the game. I propose to call this "Odd Stage In."[/QUOTE]

Ah. I see. Yes, that certainly sounds workable.

You're right about the problems regarding the actual BANNING of it, but I think that we can still gauge how powerful a trick it is separately from that. It's just something to keep in mind for comparison when the tourney results start coming in. And I'm sorry but while your experiences may convince you that the CG is too powerful, I don't think we can just go on anecdotal evidence. We should see this DDD auto-win firsthand in a tournament before we ban it. If it's such a great tactic, then it will become apparent soon. We just have to allow the tourney metagame to have a chance to respond. I'm not saying that we should NEVER ban it, I just want solid evidence.

There I actually do have a little something on you. I not only have played the Dedede I mentioned in my last post on Corneria and never won, even though I beat that Dedede with Lucario on a regular basis (and Lucario can be chain grabbed, of course), I have also seen Chillindude three-stock people on the same stage during Travis's Critical Hit. Notably, after losing to G-Reg's Kirby, he counterpicked that stage. It was painful to watch; all he had to do was camp on the right and throw Waddles, and whenever G-Reg (who played Snake that match, possibly for demonstration purposes, but also possibly for the projectiles) went down after him, Chillin' simply grabbed him and it was over.
I know that my word only counts for so much, but it may mean a little more that Team Arlington agreed that Corneria should be banned after that tournament.

Firestorm88:

I don't think it's any different than learning to not get edge-screwed on Battlefield in Melee (though I personally liked to counterpick it because I knew that other people had problems with it). And "neutral" doesn't mean -neutral-...man we really have to make sure we get that misnomer abolished haha. Anyway, in the Odd One In stage scheme, they could just eliminate Lylat anyway.

I completely agree with you about the various Battlefield-style edges in Brawl. As a matter of fact, now that I am used to them, I don't even have problems with them anymore. No stage should be banned or even taken off the Starter list because of that. All you need is some knowledge of which direction your character is going to go when you press up-B, and the new warping and auto-sweet-spotting mechanics take care of the rest. Actually, a more reasonable justification for eliminating Lylat Cruise (I mean by a player during a tournament, not permanently) is that people with sight problems (like my aforementioned friend the Dedede main, who is colorblind and has a stigmatism) can't play right on it, just like with Fountain of Dreams in Melee.

And, by the way, HyugaRicdeau, you are awesome to talk to. I thought I'd mention that. I just hope that I have dispelled any misleading ideas that the Smash N00b label under my name might have caused.

 

[FakeKraid]

You can't dodge what randomly appears with no warning other than *chomp*, especially when it's a "miss and you're dead" hazard.

Actually, the deadly and widely feared fish is not random. It simply appears a set, and short, period of time after someone enters the water during the third phase of the stage. I have only gotten chomped once by the fish, and I have even used it to kill unsuspecting players who were in pursuit mode by jumping in the water and then immediately jumping out.
Not that I think Summit should be tournament legal. The entire stage is made of ice, there are no grabbable edges, it has infinite stalling potential (at least theoretically), and it is set up perfectly for unreasonable camping. I just don't think the fish in particular is any reason why it should be banned.

 

[Empy]

The Summit. BANNED? THIS IS MADNESS!
This.
Isn't
FUNNY!
Care to explain, this is absurd. Counterpick at it's finest. And don't talk about the fish, he is incredibly easy to dodge, you just don't know how easy.

Since I can't talk about the fish, I'd say it's because of the polar bear on the background. Everyone keeps looking at his cool sunglasses making it impossible to play, as both players will be virtually blind.

Anyway, I did ask to say reply on the form of the list, not on it's content.

Actually, the deadly and widely feared fish is not random. It simply appears a set, and short, period of time after someone enters the water during the third phase of the stage. I have only gotten chomped once by the fish, and I have even used it to kill unsuspecting players who were in pursuit mode by jumping in the water and then immediately jumping out.
Not that I think Summit should be tournament legal. The entire stage is made of ice, there are no grabbable edges, it has infinite stalling potential (at least theoretically), and it is set up perfectly for unreasonable camping. I just don't think the fish in particular is any reason why it should be banned.

Well the fish comes out so quickly, it can be done within one grab attack, you could even backthrow someone into the water, when swimming, the only way to dodge the fish would be to jump out (you'll still get hit by it, even though not instant KO), but jumping over someone to spike them down or block their path i.e. edgeguard.

Edit: also, Mic, what do you think about the list thing, do you like the idea of having a list with suggestions so T.O. can pick their own list of bans/counters etc..?

 

[FakeKraid]

Well the fish comes out so quickly, it can be done within one grab attack, you could even backthrow someone into the water, when swimming, the only way to dodge the fish would be to jump out (you'll still get hit by it, even though not instant KO), but jumping over someone to spike them down or block their path i.e. edgeguard.

I have successfully dodged both of the fish's attacks very frequently by jumping out of the water and air dodging back to the stage, through heavy enemy fire, but I basically agree that it is a very disruptive hazard.

And, for what it's worth, my opinion of the form of your list is this: too much possibility for gridlock. The less you can give people to argue about, the easier it will be to run tournaments. And since I will be holding the very first Salisbury Brawl tournament sometime in the next couple of months, that is very important to me.

Edit: Of course, you are right about the polar bear. In fact, I even lose some matches on other stages because I just can't...get...those shades...uhhh...what was I saying? Polar bear...

Oh yes, and good point in your signature. Kudos.

 

[Mic_128]

Edit: also, Mic, what do you think about the list thing, do you like the idea of having a list with suggestions so T.O. can pick their own list of bans/counters etc..?

Well generally, ant TO can use whatever ruleset they want. Pre to early brawl the sbroom released a list of SBR aprooved rulesets which were the general consensus, and the things that were generally close were put in an "either or" pile for TO's.

 

[Corner-Trap]

I would like to propose a new stage selection method.

1) First stage is chosen randomly amongst all the non-banned stages
2) Players pick their characters
3) Loser picks next stage
4) Winner picks character
5) Loser picks character

For step one we would simply use the random select function then exit out the stage. This would take about 20 seconds which is about as long as it would take to do the strike out system, so it wouldn't be time consuming. This will also help eliminate the hassle in creating a neutral/counter pick list.

 

[FakeKraid]

I would like to propose a new stage selection method.

1) First stage is chosen randomly amongst all the non-banned stages
2) Players pick their characters
3) Loser picks next stage
4) Winner picks character
5) Loser picks character

For step one we would simply use the random select function then exit out the stage. This would take about 20 seconds which is about as long as it would take to do the strike out system, so it wouldn't be time consuming. This will also help eliminate the hassle in creating a neutral/counter pick list.

I don't know...

It seems like that method doesn't give enough deference to the players. I understand that picking your characters after the stage selection makes it less completely unfair, but players have bad stages too, and you can't always ban all of them. Of course, the slight element of randomness in Smash is one of its charms, and I would never support eliminating all of it, but the starting stage of a match should probably be something no sensible player could possibly object to. Not the best argument I've ever made, but I guess we can go from there.

Edit: Oh, and I know that I'm just being negative without really offering any positive contribution to the discussion here. I'm not doing it to be a jerk or anything; it's just that most of the useful things I find to say right now happen to be objections to things other people say. No hard feelings, and as soon as I think of something positive, I promise I'll say it.

 

[Serris]

Reasons why Summit should be banned:

-No edges.
-Variable gravity.
-No edges.
-DOOM FISH!
-No edges?
-Sliding of the stage leads to low-percent KOs... by the stage. (Get caught under that glacier and you're dead.)
-NO EDGES!

Hm. I wonder if I forgot to mention the edges...

Seriously. You can edgeguard someone to death. Tether recoveries are screwed. Even if the fish misses, it can still smack you with its tail.

Need I go on?

 

[Corner-Trap]

I don't know...

It seems like that method doesn't give enough deference to the players. I understand that picking your characters after the stage selection makes it less completely unfair, but players have bad stages too, and you can't always ban all of them. Of course, the slight element of randomness in Smash is one of its charms, and I would never support eliminating all of it, but the starting stage of a match should probably be something no sensible player could possibly object to. Not the best argument I've ever made, but I guess we can go from there.

Edit: Oh, and I know that I'm just being negative without really offering any positive contribution to the discussion here. I'm not doing it to be a jerk or anything; it's just that most of the useful things I find to say right now happen to be objections to things other people say. No hard feelings, and as soon as I think of something positive, I promise I'll say it.

Players should know how to play on all the stages anyways, so saying that players have bad stages isn't a very solid statement. Since players will know what the stage is before they pick their characters that also erases the argument of randomness. All of the banned stages can simply be turned off in the random stage switch in the additional rules.

Reasons why Summit should be banned:

-No edges.
-Variable gravity.
-No edges.
-DOOM FISH!
-No edges?
-Sliding of the stage leads to low-percent KOs... by the stage. (Get caught under that glacier and you're dead.)
-NO EDGES!

Hm. I wonder if I forgot to mention the edges...

Seriously. You can edgeguard someone to death. Tether recoveries are screwed. Even if the fish misses, it can still smack you with its tail.

Need I go on?

Summit isn't random nor does it allow for infinite stalling. Those are the only two traits that have been proven to be broken thus far in competitive play, everything else needs to be tested out in a tournament setting.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

The summit:

-Has an infinent loop. You can certainly stall forever here. This loop is just like the one on temple, just like spear pillar.
-Is covered in ice. Your traction gets all screwed up, you slide around, and you're more likely to trip on ice. This changes the game's physics, and it affects players. A lot.
-Has no ledges. Tether recoverers lose their third jump at certain points on this stage, making them easy to edgegaurd for a K.O.
-Has a gravity change, which gives a slight advantage to characters with good ariels.
-Turns into big blue for an amount of time. When the iceburg slides down the mountain, if you are thrown off the stage, you will experience similar effects to those on big blue's road.
-The fish (And icecicles). At the part where the iceburg is floating in water, being at the bottom of the iceburg (The main fighting area) is dangerous. Icecicles can fall on you if you're on the left side, and then there's that fishie. He can get you wherever you stand on the bottom part of the stage. Maybe you can dodge his mouth, but that's only if you're almost expecting him. If you don't pay extremely close attention to the water (Which you won't be while playing a torunament match), you'll be eaten by him for a OHKO. Plus you cn get hit with his tail even if you dodge him.

Summit = BANNED

 

[FakeKraid]

Players should know how to play on all the stages anyways, so saying that players have bad stages isn't a very solid statement.

It's true that players should know how to play every single stage in the game. As a matter of fact, I almost always win on Summit, since I never get killed by the fish. I am not complaining about the stage or saying that it isn't good, only that it is too irregular a stage to be allowed in tournament matches. And, like I said, it's not the best argument I've ever made. But players don't want the first match of a tournament to take place on a stage that can gank you. If nothing else, it gives too much room for johns during a match.

Summit isn't random nor does it allow for infinite stalling. Those are the only two traits that have been proven to be broken thus far in competitive play, everything else needs to be tested out in a tournament setting.

It isn't random, but it does allow for infinite stalling. Any stage with two levels of platform that are completely solid allows for infinite stalling. It is harder to infinite stall on Summit than on Hyrule Temple because it is smaller and you have to react quicker, but it is still possible.

 

[Mic_128]

The summit:

-Is covered in ice. Your traction gets all screwed up, you slide around, and you're more likely to trip on ice. This changes the game's physics, and it affects players. A lot.
-Has a gravity change, which gives a slight advantage to characters with good ariels.

These 2 reasons are reasons for counterpick, not ban. The rest certainly are though.

 

[Empy]

I have successfully dodged both of the fish's attacks very frequently by jumping out of the water and air dodging back to the stage, through heavy enemy fire, but I basically agree that it is a very disruptive hazard.

And, for what it's worth, my opinion of the form of your list is this: too much possibility for gridlock. The less you can give people to argue about, the easier it will be to run tournaments. And since I will be holding the very first Salisbury Brawl tournament sometime in the next couple of months, that is very important to me.

Edit: Of course, you are right about the polar bear. In fact, I even lose some matches on other stages because I just can't...get...those shades...uhhh...what was I saying? Polar bear...

Oh yes, and good point in your signature. Kudos.

Well having to airdodge it's tail makes you an easy target most of the time and it requires you to be right on time, which is sometimes impossible, as you were already attacking and just used your jumps.

About that list, the thing is, HyugaRicdeau suggested having 2 lists, with 2 extremes, so TO's could pick anything inbetween. I pointed out the same thing as you did and he suggested having 1 list with several options for each stage. I thought it would be good to have 1 of those options as a recommendation and proceeded to make a list using this method. Of course, if you are a TO and people complain about the rules, just hit them, they know the rules up front, so.

Anyway, if the final list comes out in a format like this, any TO could just use the recommendations and see that as the official list. The optional stuff is just for them to work with.

Well generally, ant TO can use whatever ruleset they want. Pre to early brawl the sbroom released a list of SBR aprooved rulesets which were the general consensus, and the things that were generally close were put in an "either or" pile for TO's.

True, but most TO's do want the guidance the SBR provides with the stage legality list. Having this format could make it easier for them to vary on it though. Some regions just play slightly different than others but having a general guideline is always good. Just my 2 cents though.

 

[Corner-Trap]

Summit may be shaped in a loop, but there are so many factors that make stalling nigh impossible. The change in gravity during the decent, the rising water, the dropping icicle, and the breakable ice platform all make stalling very hard. You can stall but not for long, so you cannot label it as infinite stalling.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The problem with that argument against the Summit is that it has flat out factual inaccuracies. The fish cannot get you wherever you are on the bottom of the stage; that's simply false. I have a post earlier that explains the mechanics of the Summit in great detail:

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4306772&postcount=618

Also, tether recoveries really aren't something we should be worrying about so much. Zero Suit Samus's down + B lets her come back from most things on the Summit so that leaves just Olimar and Ivysaur. 2/39 characters who had laughably awful recoveries anyway lose their ability to use their triple jump to recover from beneath the stage in a game where you usually get hit above the stage anyway. That's a really flimsy reason to ban any stage. That's like banning Green Greens because the block areas can end up screwing Ness's recovery. You know this can happen from the moment you pick your character, and it's kinda silly to expect stage rules to help you out.

I also don't think the sliding of the stage is dangerous at all given the low gravity during that section. As long as you even have your double jump, it's very easy to ensure you aren't going to die to that at all.

 

[MysticKenji]

(Get caught under that glacier and you're dead.)

That's not what happens.

 

[IAMERROR]

I say ban everything other than Final Destination- oh and you can only play as Fox.
Seriously though some of these reasons are ridiculous- for example the point that Ampharos brought up. Most of the stage hazards mentioned can be avoided completely because there is almost ALWAYS a warning and a relatively easy way of avoiding the hazard completely.

I do agree with 75m, Hanenbow and Mario Bros stages because they SUUUCK.