Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Amazing Ampharos]

The term scrub is thrown around a lot, and different people mean different things by it. Some people just mean "players who are terrible at the game", but that's not quite accurate to the "true" definition. Generally, a scrub is someone who is not only awful at the game in question but awful specifically because he has a bad mindset. Usually it refers to players who have the belief that certain tactics are "cheap" or "gay" or whatever term you prefer that is a way of saying "that is really good at winning games but you shouldn't do it anyway!". Being a scrub is bad because, with few exceptions, scrubs never improve. Improving means changing how you do things usually, and scrubs refuse to change.

Typically among fighting game communities, the term scrub is put on people who want to either forbid or disapprove of things. Like, people who complain about fireball spamming or who think certain characters shouldn't be used or that sort of thing. Yes, I know Akuma is banned in Street Fighter Super Turbo, but the term "scrub" isn't what you'd use to refer to someone who wants to allow him. "Misinformed" would be a better label since Akuma completely destroys that game. It's really ironic that some Smash Bros players have taken to calling players who want to allow assorted things (widely disliked stages, items, Meta Knight's IDC, etc.) as "scrubs" though it's somewhat understandable; I've seen a lot of arguments that degenerate somewhat along these lines:

New Person: No stages should be banned!
Older Person: Stages like the Temple obviously have to be banned.
New Person: I love the Temple! Why?
Older Person: Among other reasons, faster characters can run forever from slower characters, forcing a win by time if they have the lead (which is easy for a fast character like Fox to attain with his laser).

The argument sometimes goes off on a tangent here about not using a timer alongside the stock matches, but that leads into matches that never end. Eventually you get to this point:

New Person: You shouldn't just run anyway. [This is said in a variety of ways]
Older Person: Why not?
New Person: It's not fun/it's not what was intended/it's cheap/etc.
Older Person: Sure, but in a tournament with money on the line, you do what it takes to win. The tournament would be a joke if that were running forever on the Temple, so we ban the Temple.

At this point, the New Person is really unpredictable, but they very often propose rules that are in reality far more restrictive on the players than just banning the Temple. Even though they initially proposed looking at a wider array of things in the game (misinformed perhaps, but not scrubby), they ended up acting like scrubs when the broken tactics were proposed.

I'm not going to judge you personally since I really don't know you, but if you're like the countless people I've seen post things very much like you did, you probably just don't know a lot about how smash bros develops at higher levels. Like, items are really not something you can just allow; even item standard play (a niche movement of players who want to use items) turns off about half of the items and puts the spawn rate on low. This game isn't really a decent competitive game unless you at the very least really restrict items (like ISP does), and really, it's best if you just turn them off altogether (which is easy to justify since restricting them heavily was already necessary). The thing is, it's only clear how items make the game really inconsistent once you're good enough to be consistent without them. Likewise with certain stages like the Temple, I think most players who favor those sorts of stages just don't think about doing the various things that ruin the level. The biggest thing about getting better is finding the best tactics so it's understandable that players who have not begun to walk the path of getting legitimately better would miss things, but the fact remains that it needs to be banned and the argument won't go well for people who can't understand why.

To be friendly, I'll offer you the friendly advice that you might want to lurk for a bit (not post much but read a lot) to pick up on some things. Just learn about the game and try to understand why a lot of things are the way they are (some of the way things are done is historical with little real logic behind it, but a lot more is based on contemporary realities). Like, try to understand why people want items off and why even the people like me who want to allow as many stages as possible agree that some stages need to be banned. Getting engaged in the community is always great, but you want to make sure you don't argue about things you don't understand.

About Luigi's Mansion, I'm not sure why people get hit by these ceiling things so much. You can shield the Mach Tornado, and most of the stage is not under a ceiling. My games there against Meta Knight suggested to me that you just don't stand under the ceilings more than you have to, and you can just shield the Mach Tornado to either totally negate the damage or at least greatly reduce it (only getting hit by the last few hits is not a big deal). I'm of course only a product of my own experiences, but just plain not taking huge risks and actually stopping to think about mansion destruction even when under pressure and actually being stubborn about not chasing people under roofs seems to really abate the course. Luigi's Mansion is pretty much always allowed in my region, and we just don't have problems with it (though it's a popular target of personal player bans and definitely has a big crowd that just plain doesn't like it). Ceiling stuff happens sure, but it's not like it happens without the victim making a mistake or two first.

 

[Ryusuta]

While you made some decent points, Ampharos, the overall tone of your post was extremely condescending and patronizing. And although you dressed it up to make it sound pretty, you actually flat-out said "LURK MOAR" to the guy.

 

[fkacyan]

Ceiling stuff happens sure, but it's not like it happens without the victim making a mistake or two first.

If you end up tornado-ing a shield, you just move away, rinse, repeat. Once they're in the tornado, you can move under a ceiling fairly easily.

People ban it on me on the AiB ladder now because it's really a free win for MK. People just quit out most of the time if I end up picking it.

If you think you are somehow a "superior" gamer because you play Brawl exclusively offline, I hate you.

Exclusively offline is better than exclusively online, but the best players master both.

 

[Isaac Brawler]

Could BLUE Spear Pillar be moved to the Counterpick/Banned section?

IMO, I think the only problem of that stage is camping. As I'm saying, I just intend the Blue version of the stage to be allowed (Dialga & Cresselia), because no inverted controls happen.

 

[Ryusuta]

Even if it could, it's not like you can choose which version of Spear Pillar you go to (unless something changed that I wasn't aware of).

 

[Isaac Brawler]

There's not a straight way to do it, but you can just cancel the match if it comes Pink

 

[Ryusuta]

That would unnecessarily delay the game. It's easier just to leave the stage out completely, especially since it's fairly banworthy in all of its forms, anyway.

 

[Morrigan]

Fight the player, not the stage.

Fin.

Spear Pillar has a cave of immortality, and the only decent Pokemon is the one with the blades...the other ones just plain suck (reverse control/screen, super low gravity, etc).

 

[Ryusuta]

Fight the player, not the stage.

Fin.

Good argument! We should NEVER have to think about the stage at all when we're playing Brawl!

Here's a gigantic news flash: you will ALWAYS have to fight the stage in one form or another. Even absolute neutrals require you to take into account the stage placement and everything that can and can't be done on them. Final D is a CG and camp fest. Battlefield's platforms are pretty-much tailor-made to protect Snake. This bull**** idea of "fight the player, not the stage" is oversimplified nonsense that hasn't been realistically considered since the early days of Melee.

Stages are banned not because you "fight the stage," (as vague of a term as that is) but because they either emphasize too much on luck and unpredictable factors and/or because they favor one character/play style so thoroughly that it simply can't be realistically overcome.

Next time actually put some rationale behind your words and stop oversimplifying everything, dood.

 

[Morrigan]

You clearly understood what I meant, I think you are just trying to be an ***, with all due respect. I was talking about Rumble Falls (didn't you drag me here 'cause of it?). It's a stupid stage where, CLEARLY, you are FIGHTING the stage! There's no other way to put it really.
It MOVES constantly at random speed, for ****s sake. It would make a really stupid counterpick...it gives room to stalling, for instance. Character with crap jumps + recovery get swallowed by the stage when it goes at 9000000 km/h. The ladders can mess up your flow (an utilt or usmash will get you on it instead of attacking) and yeah, even though you can tech those spikes, how much damage do they deal anyway? Don't they have the same strenght as Fzero cars?

What kind of argument do you need against it? Want me to write an essay about it? That would be a total waste of time.

 

[deepseadiva]

There are a couple flaws with that perspective Dekuu.

The moving speed has warnings, and the ladders are easy enough to avoid, as is the one spike.

The stalling thing is interesting though...

Point is, Brumble Falls isn't that clear cut - it really isn't an obvious a ban as Wario Ware for instance.

 

[Ryusuta]

You clearly understood what I meant, I think you are just trying to be an ***, with all due respect. I was talking about Rumble Falls

I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. I was just using your faulty, oversimplified, and totally impractical logic against you.

(didn't you drag me here 'cause of it?).

I did no such thing.

It's a stupid stage where, CLEARLY, you are FIGHTING the stage! There's no other way to put it really.

Well, you're IN the stage, and you're fighting. I suppose that's SORT of like what you said.

It MOVES constantly at random speed, for ****s sake.

First of all, the speed-ups are fairly evenly paced throughout the level. Secondly, you get a HUGE 5-second warning before the speed-ups. It's not like it comes out of nowhere.

It would make a really stupid counterpick...it gives room to stalling, for instance. Character with crap jumps + recovery get swallowed by the stage when it goes at 9000000 km/h.

And you're basing this on... WHAT, exactly? Rumble Falls is actually EASIER to negotiate for heavier characters, giving them an edge.

And Rumble Falls is also about as ANTI-camping as a stage can get. So much so that I actually can't BELIEVE that you'd bring that up as an argument against it.

The ladders can mess up your flow (an utilt or usmash will get you on it instead of attacking) and yeah, even though you can tech those spikes, how much damage do they deal anyway? Don't they have the same strenght as Fzero cars?

F-Zero cars take up entire portions of the screen and are virtually impossible to avoid. The spike takes up just a miniscule segment of the screen and you'd have to be blind to miss it.

What kind of argument do you need against it?

A good one based on actual experience and research instead of blind guesswork on your part would be a nice place to begin.

Want me to write an essay about it? That would be a total waste of time.

If you say so.

 

[bobson]

It's a stupid stage where, CLEARLY, you are FIGHTING the stage! There's no other way to put it really.

Before you explain why you have to fight a stage too much for it to be allowed, you have to explain why "fighting" the stage is inherently a bad thing that will inevitably degenerate competition.

And before Kamikaze shows up to regurgitate his worthless opinion once more, "Because that's how fighting games SHOULD be" is not a valid reason.

F-Zero cars take up entire portions of the screen and are virtually impossible to avoid. The spike takes up just a miniscule segment of the screen and you'd have to be blind to miss it.

Have you played on Port Town more than once? They're really not difficult at all to avoid.

 

[fkacyan]

Here's a gigantic news flash: you will ALWAYS have to fight the stage in one form or another. Even absolute neutrals require you to take into account the stage placement and everything that can and can't be done on them. Final D is a CG and camp fest. Battlefield's platforms are pretty-much tailor-made to protect Snake. This bull**** idea of "fight the player, not the stage" is oversimplified nonsense that hasn't been realistically considered since the early days of Melee.

You clearly don't know what that phrase means, so acting like you do is kinda irrelevant.

You seem to be interpreting that as "OH lol street fighter." Of course you need to think about spacing. Keep in mind, though, that's thinking about your opponent in regards to the stage. Any stage that ever requires you to think about the stage and ignore your opponent for whatever reason is at least a counterpick, if not banned.

Look at it this way: If you were the ONLY person on that stage, could you die randomly? How often can that happen? Does this happen to some characters more than others? Depending on the answers to those, you can tell whether or not "fighting the stage" is a criterion worth banning for on a stage-per-stage basis.

 

[bobson]

Look at it this way: If you were the ONLY person on that stage, could you die randomly? How often can that happen? Does this happen to some characters more than others? Depending on the answers to those, you can tell whether or not "fighting the stage" is a criterion worth banning for on a stage-per-stage basis.

So... a stage should never be banned for that reason, then? Because even the obnoxious stages like Flat Zone 2 don't fall under that criteria.

Keeping track of the stage is very easy (Yes, this applies to when you're fighting your opponent, too.). It takes two games at most to get accustomed to any stage. The primary reason people are tripped up by stage hazards is because they've grown accustomed to paying no attention to the stage at all by playing mainly on safe stages. (The secondary reason is that they suck.)

Keeping mind of the stage while fighting your opponent is something to be expected by every player, and if they die because they didn't, it's their fault, not the stage's.

 

[Ryusuta]

You clearly don't know what that phrase means, so acting like you do is kinda irrelevant.

Oh, I get it. You don't have a relevant counterpoint, so you resort to ad hom garbage.

You seem to be interpreting that as "OH lol street fighter." Of course you need to think about spacing. Keep in mind, though, that's thinking about your opponent in regards to the stage. Any stage that ever requires you to think about the stage and ignore your opponent for whatever reason is at least a counterpick, if not banned.

So, I guess that eliminates Pokemon Stadium 2, Rainbow Cruise, Halberd, Pictochat, Brinstar Depths, Delfino Plaza, Norfair, and Frigate Orpheon. Thanks for clearing THAT one up!

Look at it this way: If you were the ONLY person on that stage, could you die randomly?

Using this logic, NONE of the stages should be banned. No one on a competitive level of play is going to just randomly die on ANY stage with ANY character. Their opponent might do something to CAUSE them to die, but it's not going to happen on its own.

Does this happen to some characters more than others?

Again, this part is relevant with every single stage in the game, including neutrals.

Depending on the answers to those, you can tell whether or not "fighting the stage" is a criterion worth banning for on a stage-per-stage basis.

Your rationale is poor.

I'm going to explain to YOU what fighting the stage means. What "fighting the stage" means is that the stage won't realistically allow you to reach your opponent to do battle with him if he's playing evasively, OR that the stage's hazards are so severe as to be the main focal point of the match-up. So far, you've done absolutely NOTHING to convince me that either of these things are the case with Rumble Falls, and the more I keep reading this, the more I'm convinced that Link has been onto something all along. He's actually doing research and experimentation. You guys are just randomly guessing.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

And you're basing this on... WHAT, exactly? Rumble Falls is actually EASIER to negotiate for heavier characters, giving them an edge.

And Rumble Falls is also about as ANTI-camping as a stage can get. So much so that I actually can't BELIEVE that you'd bring that up as an argument against it.

If you remember Barges "lol stages" online tournament, I was up against bunnyma, who plays snake. I tried counterpicking rumble falls. It was actually very much in Snake's favor an I got *****. He flew up as high as possible using the cypher and was able to set up tons of pressure with grenades, mine, and the whole 9 yards on me as I tried to reach him. It was a nightmare. So, perhaps it would stop a Wolf or Falco from camping, but not a Snake.

 

[Ryusuta]

I wasn't around for that. Sounds pretty interesting. Who were you using?

 

[AvaricePanda]

So stages like Flat Zone 2, Blue Spear Pillar, etc., should all be legal because it's possible to be wary of the stage and fight your opponent?

Again with my unanswered question, how much is too much? Compare Halberd to WarioWare. Halberd has hazards that give warnings, and it's quite easy to avoid said hazards without changing your actual playstyle. You aren't going to be jumping around, dodging, evading, etc., just to avoid a claw, very slow bomb, or laser (that you can SDI out of).

With Warioware, it too has hazards that give warnings, and it's quite easy to avoid said hazards, However, doing so often changes your playstyle so drastically that your focused on evading the hazards instead of fighting normally. For the falling arrows, you're going to have to either sheild, spot or rolldodge, or run to the side. These are all lose-lose situations. If you get hit...well, you get hit. Lose. If you try to evade the arrows, your opponent can punish your going to the side (walk off CG or fsmash), and your roll/spotdodging, and then you get punished and quite possibly get injured from the hazard anyway. Lose. The same goes for many of the hazards in WarioWare, and that's only the hazards (not even counting the whole large and starman bonuses the stage gives).

Stop giving your own opinions to subjective words and saying that it's all that's right. Fighting the stage (which is a bad phrase anyway because you aren't actually fighting the stage) is fighting the stage. It's just how much is too much? Halberd's fighting the stage is fine because you can still fight normally, while Flat Zone 2 or Rumble Falls (I'll get to this later) is not.

This is just ONE of the reasons why a stage is considered for a ban. If you're too engaged or worried about the stage to the point where you can't give your opponent your full attention, it's a reason to ban a stage, as well as layouts that favour certain characters like walk-offs or walls. If there are tons of these reasons, a stage gets banned. WarioWare isn't banned because of the walk-off during events, HOWEVER that's taken into a consideration to ban the stage because it's a reason that stacks with the hazards and arbitrary reward system.

Now with Rumble Falls. Keep in mind, all of these reasons stack on top of each other.

Walk-offs. There's only one true walk-off, and that's been proven. That doesn't mean that's the only place where you can die because of walk-off CGs. D3 and Falco can easily just forward throw/downthrow to whatever other attack they have to kill you from the edge of the stage in the parts where the stage doesn't go all the way off the blast-zone. There are quite a bit of places where you can die from walk-off CGs.

Walls. This reason is really, really minor, but the fact still remains that there are walls.

General Stage Movement - Uthrow can be a kill for MK and Kirby during certain parts of the stage. The stage constantly moves vertically and speeds up at random points, which turns a lot of the gameplay at this point to be focused on keep moving up while trying to get a gimp on your opponent. People with bad vertical recoveries or very strictly vertical recoveries (Ike, Falco, Bowser, etc) can get really gayed by this part, usually from the part to the helicopter until the stage restarts again.

Also, the spike. This thing can kill at 10% and while easy to avoid in itself, is harder when you're actually fighting an opponent. And the fact still remains that it's the stage killing you. Yes, you CAN tech it, but it's hardly equal to die for missing a tech.

When I was playing my older brother on this stage, a lot of gameplay degenerated to putting your opponent in bad positions in the stage (spike, near as possible to the blast-zone), which was especially accented when we played characters like Falco, MK, etc., in which you'd basically lose a stock if you stepped the wrong way. During the part where the stage speeds up, it can easily mean a stock lost if your opponent is a good, gimping aerial character like MK, Kirby, Puff, etc.

Plus, I'm going to ask the same question (as an honest question) that I did for Yoshi's Island Melee. What new things does this stage bring to the table? The main thing is the benefit for aerial characters and an aerial game, but Rainbow Cruise already brings that to the stage list, and Rainbow Cruise doesn't have nearly as many hazards.

All of these reasons stack on top of each other. Rumble Falls should be banned regardless, but we really don't need the stage. At least arguable stages like Distant Planet and Norfair have something different that existing stages don't have...I don't feel that Rumble Falls has this, and if it does, it's not enough to offset the hazards it has.

 

[Linkshot]

I definitely would like to know how any character couldn't outspeed Snake vertically.

I've been playing on Rumble Falls more and more, and it definitely isn't a good D3 stage. He covers vertical ground very slowly, and even if he were able to grab his opponent, the slowest of speeds will push his opponent above and out of his grab range.

Before you starting johning about the narrow tunnel part, I did this today:

As Toon Link, I went off to the left side of the map, wall jumped, and ended up at the platform above the exit ground (read: not the fallthrough exit), safely.

As a bonus, every switch, the rock wall, and the boxes will restore stale moves.

You can stand on top of the death spike, making it hard for your opponent to approach (but you don't nearly have enough time to stall with it).

Testing further, I suppose a really gay player could just run away at the top of the screen. But why would you take a character that couldn't catch up, anyway? You'd have to be Ganondorf to be unable to follow somebody vertically. Also, if they stay too high, the magnifying glass will deal damage and might actually ruin their percent lead. Oh right I just remembered. Running away won't get you very far. The plane only appears when it would be in the center of the screen.

I really enjoy this stage, and truly see nothing game-breaking in it.

This isn't Melee. You don't fall to your death because of a vertically moving camera. Heck, it's not even as fast as Infinite Glacier was.
----
EDIT: Avarice, they won't die. When you are not bound to the ground, you move with the camera.

What does this stage bring? It prevents every form of projectile camping imaginable. Rainbow Cruise fails to do this because of the horizontal movement that nearly all projectiles follow.

If you're fighting Falco, stay in the middle of the stage. Simple. He doesn't have enough time to CG to death. Besides, the upward movement of the camera pushes you upward and allows you to footstool him.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm going to explain to YOU what fighting the stage means. What "fighting the stage" means is that the stage won't realistically allow you to reach your opponent to do battle with him if he's playing evasively, OR that the stage's hazards are so severe as to be the main focal point of the match-up. So far, you've done absolutely NOTHING to convince me that either of these things are the case with Rumble Falls, and the more I keep reading this, the more I'm convinced that Link has been onto something all along. He's actually doing research and experimentation. You guys are just randomly guessing.

I explained it in my post. Maybe you should try reading, it helps.

I'm not going to waste my time testing a stage that will never be legal, especially given that any region it is played in probably will never be one I end up playing in.

And yes, you're an idiot. I don't care if it's rude or ad hominem. You've shown several times you're more interested in having showy gimmick stages than competitive ones, as evidenced by your many attempts at getting people to consider Warioware.

Plus, I'm going to ask the same question (as an honest question) that I did for Yoshi's Island Melee. What new things does this stage bring to the table? The main thing is the benefit for aerial characters and an aerial game, but Rainbow Cruise already brings that to the stage list, and Rainbow Cruise doesn't have nearly as many hazards.

And finally, somebody else starts realizing the true point of counterpicks! It's not like I've said this for, oh, I dunno, ten pages.

 

[bobson]

So stages like Flat Zone 2, Blue Spear Pillar, etc., should all be legal because it's possible to be wary of the stage and fight your opponent?

Flat Zone 2 should be banned because the omnipresent walkoff overpowers characters who can abuse it well to the point of being an automatic win and Spear Pillar should be banned because the timer will run out due to circle camping 95% of the time. If neither of them had those features, then no, they shouldn't be banned.

Again with my unanswered question, how much is too much? Compare Halberd to WarioWare. Halberd has hazards that give warnings, and it's quite easy to avoid said hazards without changing your actual playstyle. You aren't going to be jumping around, dodging, evading, etc., just to avoid a claw, very slow bomb, or laser (that you can SDI out of).

It's hard to define how much is too much because nothing in the game is too much. Here, I'll define this arbitrary line: If the hazards on a stage are so overpowering as to be hard to avoid when playing the stage without an opponent, a stage should be banned.

With Warioware, it too has hazards that give warnings, and it's quite easy to avoid said hazards, However, doing so often changes your playstyle so drastically that your focused on evading the hazards instead of fighting normally. For the falling arrows, you're going to have to either sheild, spot or rolldodge, or run to the side. These are all lose-lose situations. If you get hit...well, you get hit. Lose. If you try to evade the arrows, your opponent can punish your going to the side (walk off CG or fsmash), and your roll/spotdodging, and then you get punished and quite possibly get injured from the hazard anyway. Lose. The same goes for many of the hazards in WarioWare, and that's only the hazards (not even counting the whole large and starman bonuses the stage gives).

Why is forcing a change in playstyle bad? Assuredly I'd have to change up my playstyle from Final Destination to Rainbow Cruise, but neither of these should be banned because of that.
And your example was bad. Run to the side your opponent is not on. The arrows miss you, your opponent can't punish you, and you get a reward. Win.

This is just ONE of the reasons why a stage is considered for a ban. If you're too engaged or worried about the stage to the point where you can't give your opponent your full attention, it's a reason to ban a stage

None of the stages do this!
The only possible exception would be the reverse-control feature on Spear Pillar, and becoming accustomed to that is merely a matter of playing on the stage a lot.

Now with Rumble Falls. Keep in mind, all of these reasons stack on top of each other.

Walk-offs. There's only one true walk-off, and that's been proven. That doesn't mean that's the only place where you can die because of walk-off CGs. D3 and Falco can easily just forward throw/downthrow to whatever other attack they have to kill you from the edge of the stage in the parts where the stage doesn't go all the way off the blast-zone. There are quite a bit of places where you can die from walk-off CGs.

Walls. This reason is really, really minor, but the fact still remains that there are walls.

General Stage Movement - Uthrow can be a kill for MK and Kirby during certain parts of the stage. The stage constantly moves vertically and speeds up at random points, which turns a lot of the gameplay at this point to be focused on keep moving up while trying to get a gimp on your opponent. People with bad vertical recoveries or very strictly vertical recoveries (Ike, Falco, Bowser, etc) can get really gayed by this part, usually from the part to the helicopter until the stage restarts again.

I agree with you on all three points, but this stage simply doesn't have enough competitive action on it to know whether or not any of these would overpower a minority of characters. (Or underpower a majority of characters.)

Also, the spike. This thing can kill at 10% and while easy to avoid in itself, is harder when you're actually fighting an opponent. And the fact still remains that it's the stage killing you. Yes, you CAN tech it, but it's hardly equal to die for missing a tech.

I'll use my earlier analogy: if someone Warlock Punches you into a wall and you die, you did not die because you missed a tech. You died because you got hit by an incredibly obvious move. The spike is so glaringly obvious and briefly around that no one should ever be hit by it, opponent or not.

When I was playing my older brother on this stage, a lot of gameplay degenerated to putting your opponent in bad positions in the stage (spike, near as possible to the blast-zone), which was especially accented when we played characters like Falco, MK, etc., in which you'd basically lose a stock if you stepped the wrong way. During the part where the stage speeds up, it can easily mean a stock lost if your opponent is a good, gimping aerial character like MK, Kirby, Puff, etc.

This was one of my original concerns in allowing the stage. Not to dismiss your example, but we need a bigger pool of evidence before deciding whether this is big enough to be ban-worthy or not.

Plus, I'm going to ask the same question (as an honest question) that I did for Yoshi's Island Melee. What new things does this stage bring to the table? The main thing is the benefit for aerial characters and an aerial game, but Rainbow Cruise already brings that to the stage list, and Rainbow Cruise doesn't have nearly as many hazards.

Let me present this analogy: if there was a stage exactly like Final Destination, except with regular ledges, would either be banned? No. A stage doesn't need to bring anything new to the table (which Rumble Falls does, purely by the fact that its layout is unique) to be allowed.
Stages are allowed by default, not the other way around.

Before you starting johning about the narrow tunnel part, I did this today:

As Toon Link, I went off to the left side of the map, wall jumped, and ended up at the platform above the exit ground (read: not the fallthrough exit), safely.

Yeah, a decent amount of characters can go around the chokepoint, especially when the stage starts speeding up.

 

[fkacyan]

Stages are allowed by default, not the other way around.

This is your philosophy. In competition, I argue the opposite.

 

[Morrigan]

AvaricePanda, although I agree with you about banning Rumble Falls you make some points that are rather off. Delfino Plaza has walk-offs, walls, water and everything RF has (except the spikes) and it's still a counterpick. I don't think those are a problem since the stage's geometry changes throughout the match (it's not like they're always there). It's the scrolling that makes this a ****ty stage for competitive purposes, like someone said already, Kirby's and MK's Up throws are somewhat stupid in this stage and can be used to star-KO the opponent easily. OH, and don't forget those stupid platforms that move fast with the wind that goes upward right after the plane (I believe they're there), they can actually KO you. Aghh, why would people consider this stage viable? Come on...

Also lol @ whoever brought up WarioWare. The floor glitches between stage-minigame-stage transition and screws up recoveries, and that's one of the 920359520 reasons that exist against it.

 

[Ryusuta]

One minor thing, Linkshot... I've notice in my own minor experimentation that the narrow part where the stage bottle-necks just after the diagonal-right-facing spike (early in the stage), it's a really easy spot to wait out your opponent and footstool them (particularly if the stage is sped up at the time). What would you say to this?Dood.

 

[abhishekh]

The term scrub is thrown around a lot, and different people mean different things by it. Some people just mean "players who are terrible at the game", but that's not quite accurate to the "true" definition. Generally, a scrub is someone who is not only awful at the game in question but awful specifically because he has a bad mindset. Usually it refers to players who have the belief that certain tactics are "cheap" or "gay" or whatever term you prefer that is a way of saying "that is really good at winning games but you shouldn't do it anyway!". Being a scrub is bad because, with few exceptions, scrubs never improve. Improving means changing how you do things usually, and scrubs refuse to change.

Typically among fighting game communities, the term scrub is put on people who want to either forbid or disapprove of things. Like, people who complain about fireball spamming or who think certain characters shouldn't be used or that sort of thing. Yes, I know Akuma is banned in Street Fighter Super Turbo, but the term "scrub" isn't what you'd use to refer to someone who wants to allow him. "Misinformed" would be a better label since Akuma completely destroys that game. It's really ironic that some Smash Bros players have taken to calling players who want to allow assorted things (widely disliked stages, items, Meta Knight's IDC, etc.) as "scrubs" though it's somewhat understandable; I've seen a lot of arguments that degenerate somewhat along these lines:

New Person: No stages should be banned!
Older Person: Stages like the Temple obviously have to be banned.
New Person: I love the Temple! Why?
Older Person: Among other reasons, faster characters can run forever from slower characters, forcing a win by time if they have the lead (which is easy for a fast character like Fox to attain with his laser).

The argument sometimes goes off on a tangent here about not using a timer alongside the stock matches, but that leads into matches that never end. Eventually you get to this point:

New Person: You shouldn't just run anyway. [This is said in a variety of ways]
Older Person: Why not?
New Person: It's not fun/it's not what was intended/it's cheap/etc.
Older Person: Sure, but in a tournament with money on the line, you do what it takes to win. The tournament would be a joke if that were running forever on the Temple, so we ban the Temple.

At this point, the New Person is really unpredictable, but they very often propose rules that are in reality far more restrictive on the players than just banning the Temple. Even though they initially proposed looking at a wider array of things in the game (misinformed perhaps, but not scrubby), they ended up acting like scrubs when the broken tactics were proposed.

I'm not going to judge you personally since I really don't know you, but if you're like the countless people I've seen post things very much like you did, you probably just don't know a lot about how smash bros develops at higher levels. Like, items are really not something you can just allow; even item standard play (a niche movement of players who want to use items) turns off about half of the items and puts the spawn rate on low. This game isn't really a decent competitive game unless you at the very least really restrict items (like ISP does), and really, it's best if you just turn them off altogether (which is easy to justify since restricting them heavily was already necessary). The thing is, it's only clear how items make the game really inconsistent once you're good enough to be consistent without them. Likewise with certain stages like the Temple, I think most players who favor those sorts of stages just don't think about doing the various things that ruin the level. The biggest thing about getting better is finding the best tactics so it's understandable that players who have not begun to walk the path of getting legitimately better would miss things, but the fact remains that it needs to be banned and the argument won't go well for people who can't understand why.

To be friendly, I'll offer you the friendly advice that you might want to lurk for a bit (not post much but read a lot) to pick up on some things. Just learn about the game and try to understand why a lot of things are the way they are (some of the way things are done is historical with little real logic behind it, but a lot more is based on contemporary realities). Like, try to understand why people want items off and why even the people like me who want to allow as many stages as possible agree that some stages need to be banned. Getting engaged in the community is always great, but you want to make sure you don't argue about things you don't understand.

About Luigi's Mansion, I'm not sure why people get hit by these ceiling things so much. You can shield the Mach Tornado, and most of the stage is not under a ceiling. My games there against Meta Knight suggested to me that you just don't stand under the ceilings more than you have to, and you can just shield the Mach Tornado to either totally negate the damage or at least greatly reduce it (only getting hit by the last few hits is not a big deal). I'm of course only a product of my own experiences, but just plain not taking huge risks and actually stopping to think about mansion destruction even when under pressure and actually being stubborn about not chasing people under roofs seems to really abate the course. Luigi's Mansion is pretty much always allowed in my region, and we just don't have problems with it (though it's a popular target of personal player bans and definitely has a big crowd that just plain doesn't like it). Ceiling stuff happens sure, but it's not like it happens without the victim making a mistake or two first.

Mm sorry to bring up a post from the other page, but these forums are too active for me, its been less 12 hours and it's already on the other page.

A reason to why each stage was banned might be nice o.o

I can understand some of them, like the walk off stages...

But whats with stages like hanenbow and the Summit (I'm sure thats the ice climbers one)

Other than the water in Hanenbow, which used to confuse it me at first, I don't get whats wrong with it..

And you gotta be stupid to be swallowed by the fish in the Summit. The only other thing I can think off is the ledge, which you can't grab at one point. But I forget when you can't grab it...But whatever ><

And either way, it makes the game more fun.

And no, i'm not going to search through a gazillion pages just to find an answer, when I could just post. Its not like I care about post count, but it really is no reason for all of you to go all PMS on me like a lot of seem to do.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Mm sorry to bring up a post from the other page, but these forums are too active for me, its been less 12 hours and it's already on the other page.

A reason to why each stage was banned might be nice o.o

I can understand some of them, like the walk off stages...

But whats with stages like hanenbow and the Summit (I'm sure thats the ice climbers one)

Other than the water in Hanenbow, which used to confuse it me at first, I don't get whats wrong with it..

And you gotta be stupid to be swallowed by the fish in the Summit. The only other thing I can think off is the ledge, which you can't grab at one point. But I forget when you can't grab it...But whatever ><

And either way, it makes the game more fun.

And no, i'm not going to search through a gazillion pages just to find an answer, when I could just post. Its not like I care about post count, but it really is no reason for all of you to go all PMS on me like a lot of seem to do.

Why don't you go back to your 4 player free for alls on Pictochat with all items on high?

 

[bobson]

Mm sorry to bring up a post from the other page, but these forums are too active for me, its been less 12 hours and it's already on the other page.

A reason to why each stage was banned might be nice o.o

The SBR's official stage list and reasons why each are banned.
If you need elaboration on any of them, I'll play you in a competitive set on Wifi on them and I'm sure you'll get the gist of it around the third timeout or 3stock.

 

[Ryusuta]

Why don't you go back to your 4 player free for alls on Pictochat with all items on high?

Dude... totally uncalled-for, man. Either address what he's saying, or don't. Even if you THINK what he's saying is stupid, don't badmouth the actual person that's saying it. That's one of the biggest problems with Internet discussion.

 

[Linkshot]

I say to that that footstooling is far too avoidable. All you have to do is attack and you don't take the tumbling effect. If you predict your opponent will do this to you, character dependant, you have the option of going around the rock wall.

EDIT: Errrr...to this.

 

[Ryusuta]

I say to that that footstooling is far too avoidable. All you have to do is attack and you don't take the tumbling effect. If you predict your opponent will do this to you, character dependant, you have the option of going around the rock wall.

I'm mostly thinking of Yoshi and Ivysaur on this one.

 

[Linkshot]

Yoshi: Down+B from the ground. It makes enough vertical distance to make it past the platform, and since you're using a special, you can't be spiked by a footstool.

Ivysaur: nAir and/or bAir MIGHT outrange a footstool and allow you to pass safely. I don't know enough information about Ivysaur for this.

 

[Morrigan]

Mm sorry to bring up a post from the other page, but these forums are too active for me, its been less 12 hours and it's already on the other page.

A reason to why each stage was banned might be nice o.o

I can understand some of them, like the walk off stages...

But whats with stages like hanenbow and the Summit (I'm sure thats the ice climbers one)

Other than the water in Hanenbow, which used to confuse it me at first, I don't get whats wrong with it..

And you gotta be stupid to be swallowed by the fish in the Summit. The only other thing I can think off is the ledge, which you can't grab at one point. But I forget when you can't grab it...But whatever ><

And either way, it makes the game more fun.

And no, i'm not going to search through a gazillion pages just to find an answer, when I could just post. Its not like I care about post count, but it really is no reason for all of you to go all PMS on me like a lot of seem to do.

You can never grab the ledge, it doesn't change. The fish is actually random (please correct me if I'm mistaken), from what I've experienced it either eats your as soon as you touch the water or it waits a couple of seconds. While the stage falls the gravity goes down creating a PS2 wind-esque type of effect and there's also another hazard (that isn't random, so nevermind), oh, and how could I forget...the stage's ice floor! Ban hammer.

That's one of the biggest problems with Internet discussion.

Internet discussion is srs bsns.

 

[infomon]

I don't see how an ice floor merits a ban.... lol

Summit is banned because (ostensibly) it degenerates to circle-camping.

 

[Morrigan]

Ice floor = tripping rate doubled & sliding characters. And is that the ONLY reason why is it banned? Wow...

 

[Ryusuta]

I don't see how an ice floor merits a ban.... lol

It doesn't, or else PS2 would be banned.

 

[Morrigan]

Only difference is that PS2 = not on ice 24/7.

 

[Ryusuta]

He didn't say permanent ice floors, and the statement wasn't implied, either. Stop being so contradictory.

 

[infomon]

Ice floor = tripping rate doubled & sliding characters.

Sliding characters is no reason for a ban, it's just different lol. I actually didn't know that about the tripping; altho I think I musta heard it somewhere and then forgot. So, thanks. I'm not sure if, in that case, I'd consider an icey but otherwise neutral stage to be ban-worthy. I might

And is that the ONLY reason why is it banned? Wow...

That's all we need; a single solid reason. There's no point in pursuing the matter after that, and other little reasons are individually much more suspect.

 

[Morrigan]

It doesn't, or else PS2 would be banned.

Only difference is that PS2 = not on ice 24/7.

He didn't say permanent ice floors, and the statement wasn't implied, either. Stop being so contradictory.

Contradictory? Please show me where I contradicted myself O_o.
I was replying to you. You said PS2 would be banned because it has an icy floor and I disagreed, because its icy floor doesn't last forever unlike Summit's.

Imagine if PS2 was frozen (no pun intended) in its Ice form...would you consider it a good stage for competition?

That's all we need; a single solid reason. There's no point in pursuing the matter after that, and other little reasons are individually much more suspect.

It's alright, I agree with you.