Official Stage Legality Discussion

[buenob]

lol, as ROB, I actually have options... any character with projectiles ends up having options...

I do think that a character like ZSS / MK / GW end up having the same amount of an advantage on most of the characters, same as Pirate ship, on Norfair... and then other characters (ness/lucas/MK) end up having a crazy advantage on ps2...

--
on the note of other games having a pure 'anti ban' stance, that's because the games were _designed_ with competitive play in mind... when the guys making smash were making levels, their thought process wasn't "is this level fair to everyone" it was, "**** you know what would be an awesome level??"... if we want to take this game seriously, we _need_ to attempt to eliminate unfair/random situations...

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Developer intent doesn't matter. Sometimes other fighters have things that need to be banned (extremely broken boss characters, glitches that remove characters from the field or freeze them indefinitely, etc.), but the point is that they're as conservative as possible in what they remove (that is, they allow as much as possible) assuming, probably correctly, that in the end the game with the most left in it will be the game with the most depth to explore.

I think you're dramatically overestimating the advantages on stages like Norfair, and your PS2 assessment isn't even accurate. Why would Lucas ever CP there? It doesn't help Lucas at all. It's not really anything that special for the other two either...

 

[bowsersauce]

i hope they don't ban bowser he's awesome

 

[CR4SH]

I played a bunch of custom stages overswarm made while I was in cincinnati last night. Dude, this needs to be looked into by everyone. Start putting them into tournaments. It was like I was playing a whole new game.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic_acid]

LOL! mario bros. All we need is FD and smashville.

This wouldn't be a bad idea.

Then again, people would ***** about top tiers having their way.

Yeah, list is fine as it is. We don't need anyone adding even STUPIDER stages. Hell, I believe that japes shouldn't be a CP due to the crocodile centralizing the game. Japes is also a mad ******** CP for jiggs. I swear that stage makes him/her 10x better than what he/she normally is.

 

[buenob]

lol, lucas loves long-flat platforms... he also loves the transformations... I've played enough lucas's to fear him if he can continually get distance on me...

Developer intent doesn't matter.

10completely disagree's

I will never play a tourney match on the level with the crabs/1-hit-turtles and the pow block because the developers wanted to make a level with the central focus being the enemies... that was their intent, and it absolutely does not follow our competitive mentality.... I have no doubt that the "better player" would still win on that level, but that is not the competitive brawl...

the same holds true for onnett, to me... the developers put in "every x seconds, you gotta deal with a car"... whatever, it's just a random obstruction, and even though I think it should be banned for more reasons, that alone is enough to ban it because it completely disrupts the play...

why don't i think the same way about the balloons on SV, or pictochat's changes? (yeah i think PC should be CP) Because you gotta judge their intent, and decide if it's enough to make you not want to play it... If PictoChat had only one hazard, I would want it banned... I find it's the randomness which makes it unique, and the randomness does not break the gameplay... if it were a static hazard, it would just be a stupider version of FD...

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Developer intent doesn't matter. Sometimes other fighters have things that need to be banned (extremely broken boss characters, glitches that remove characters from the field or freeze them indefinitely, etc.), but the point is that they're as conservative as possible in what they remove (that is, they allow as much as possible) assuming, probably correctly, that in the end the game with the most left in it will be the game with the most depth to explore.

I think you're dramatically overestimating the advantages on stages like Norfair, and your PS2 assessment isn't even accurate. Why would Lucas ever CP there? It doesn't help Lucas at all. It's not really anything that special for the other two either...

I'd really like to know why you think pirate ship is so ban worthy, I've played a good G&W there and i still don't see it.

edit: and what can mk do that makes it so unwinable?

 

[Linkshot]

It's unwinnable because if G&W/MK get a percent lead, they run to the water and just start UpB-ing from the water to the ledge. The kicker is they're invincible this whole time.

 

[infomon]

Controversial stages should not be banned.

- This, I have a bit of a problem with... As you point out with pirate ship, certain levels lead to rediculous situations. There's a bunch of levels (some of you which named) which I believe fall under the same category...

The reason controversial stages should not be banned, is because they're still controversial. That is, high-level intelligent smashers can reasonably disagree about the stage's ban-worthiness. Which might mean that an "unbeatable" tactic isn't actually working, or people are blaming wins on randomness where there are still reasonable claims that it is the better player who is in fact winning. In any case, we should be able to accumulate some video evidence of the brokenness of the stage, from high-level tournament play, so that we can resolve the controversy in a concrete and open manner. No speculation, or people abusing their "fame" to swing the decisions of TOs.

So let the controversy rage until we achieve truth.

If a reasonable person who understands the game could disagree over whether it should be banned, there's a 99% chance it should not be (Pirate Ship, a stage that as far as I can tell is totally degenerate if a particular side of most matchups plays to win, is my 1% exception).

Then leave some time for the tournaments to prove this. If people aren't playing to win, then it's their own fault when they lose where they could've won. Even though the rest of your post was made of win, you're not off the hook

lol, lucas loves long-flat platforms... he also loves the transformations... I've played enough lucas's to fear him if he can continually get distance on me...

So? You're not claiming Lucas is unbeatable/degenerate on PS2 (I hope ) so this is irrelevant. It's a perfectly valid stage until proven otherwise. Enable the stage, and we'll reconsider this when Lucas gets any tournament results.... liek honestly

I will never play a tourney match on the level with the crabs/1-hit-turtles and the pow block because the developers wanted to make a level with the central focus being the enemies... that was their intent, and it absolutely does not follow our competitive mentality.... I have no doubt that the "better player" would still win on that level, but that is not the competitive brawl...

What are you talking about? If the better player is winning, then that is competitive brawl. I get the impression that you went into this game with a preconceived idea about what it is, and now you're banning things which don't fit with that vision. It's not the same type of battle you'd have on FD, but if it's competitive, and it's in Brawl, then it's a part of competitive Brawl.

None of this matters because the stage enables circle-camping, so we don't even have to think about what else may or may not be broken about it.

the same holds true for onnett, to me... the developers put in "every x seconds, you gotta deal with a car"... whatever, it's just a random obstruction, and even though I think it should be banned for more reasons, that alone is enough to ban it because it completely disrupts the play...

If the cars come every x seconds, then it's not random. If you're easily capable of avoiding the cars 100% in the absence of your opponent, then I don't see how they disrupt play. They're a component of the stage, and manipulating the stage really matters. THIS is Brawl!

why don't i think the same way about the balloons on SV, or pictochat's changes? (yeah i think PC should be CP) Because you gotta judge their intent, and decide if it's enough to make you not want to play it... If PictoChat had only one hazard, I would want it banned... I find it's the randomness which makes it unique, and the randomness does not break the gameplay... if it were a static hazard, it would just be a stupider version of FD...

The intent doesn't matter. I'll admit: what I know of the intent of the developers of this game fundamentally pisses me off. But it doesn't matter, because I like what Brawl actually is (irrespective of their intent), and I want to play Brawl competitively. This means I eliminate the minimum required for Brawl to be competitive. Alternatively, I guess you want to play a fighting game within the subset of Brawl which you think makes a good fighting game. It's a subtle but fundamental difference, and although I respect a lot of the decisions you make within that (like allowing Pictochat because it's unique), I think the idea that a stage needs to prove itself to be unique and worthwhile to be "included" is the wrong mindset to take. "Wrong" in that it's incompatible with (my) idea of playing Brawl-the-way-it-actually-is---but-competitively.

If Pictochat was just FD with a fireball, then it would still be a unique stage that enables different types of fighting styles. Sigh.

sorry to always pick on you buenob

Linkshot: Has it been proven that there are 0 frames of vulnerability when an MK / G&W does this tactic? Because I'm not convinced

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The thing with Pirate Ship is that you get a lead, enter the water, and never leave. Just short hop out over and over again, and if anyone tries to approach you, use Fire's invincibility to plow right through then. Then, depending on context, you can either key into the water or land on the ship, run to the other side, and start stalling in the other water. I do want to be clear, though, that I'd much rather see Pirate Ship legal along with many other stages legal than Pirate Ship banned with many other stages banned. I mean, I main G&W, and I'm happy to exploit it (too bad I'm only desperate enough for Pirate Ship against MKs most of the time).

Maybe you should explain our "competitive mentality" because you seem to think it's something very strange and definitely not what I think it is. My competitive mentality is to be the best at the game "Super Smash Brothers Brawl". Brawl is what Brawl is; if dodging hazards is what's in the game, then dodging hazards is what my competitive mentality tells me I need to do. I don't care why the developers put in the things they did; what I care about is what I need to do to win. Even more, if they intended me to have to do things like dodge hazards, then using that as justification not to play on those stages is especially bizarre. Are you telling me you don't want to play the game the developers were making? Why are you even playing at all? I DO want to play the game they were making, and while some settings such as items have to go a certain way and while some things like Temple just have to be banned, I certainly am going to fight to remove as absolutely little as possible so I can claim with complete honesty that the game I play is competitive Super Smash Brothers Brawl not competitive Smashboards Brawl. That extends to stages; stages are one of the most important aspects of the game's design, and I'm certainly going to respect what each one adds to the game by fighting to allow as many as fairness allows (which is a lot). I'm also not going to glaze over the systemic biases in favor of characters like Falco and Ice Climbers that some "conservative" people want to introduce to stage lists, particularly starter lists, but that's somewhat of a different issue.

If I were using Lucas, I'd be CPing Castle Siege and PictoChat way before PS2, but then again, I wouldn't really use Lucas... Color me skeptical that PS2's transformations, other than the obvious ice, are helpful for Lucas. I definitely doubt that Lucas can perform here in any way so powerful that the stage justifies banning at all. Likewise for Ness and Meta Knight. It is definitely a decent Ness CP, but a broken Ness CP? Meta Knight has one particularly good form that's easy to play around (flying); I'm not seeing the broken here. Of course, people also think Meta Knight is broken on Norfair when it's not even good for him in a lot of matchups (G&W, Jigglypuff are very obvious examples as both will CP Norfair against Meta Knight all day) so this may just be Meta Knight continuing to be portrayed as a more towering figure than he really is.

EDIT: wow, infzy and I are on the same page. We wrote a lot of the same stuff at the same time.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

The thing with Pirate Ship is that you get a lead, enter the water, and never leave. Just short hop out over and over again, and if anyone tries to approach you, use Fire's invincibility to plow right through then. Then, depending on context, you can either key into the water or land on the ship, run to the other side, and start stalling in the other water. I do want to be clear, though, that I'd much rather see Pirate Ship legal along with many other stages legal than Pirate Ship banned with many other stages banned. I mean, I main G&W, and I'm happy to exploit it (too bad I'm only desperate enough for Pirate Ship against MKs most of the time).

Maybe you should explain our "competitive mentality" because you seem to think it's something very strange and definitely not what I think it is. My competitive mentality is to be the best at the game "Super Smash Brothers Brawl". Brawl is what Brawl is; if dodging hazards is what's in the game, then dodging hazards is what my competitive mentality tells me I need to do. I don't care why the developers put in the things they did; what I care about is what I need to do to win. Even more, if they intended me to have to do things like dodge hazards, then using that as justification not to play on those stages is especially bizarre. Are you telling me you don't want to play the game the developers were making? Why are you even playing at all? I DO want to play the game they were making, and while some settings such as items have to go a certain way and while some things like Temple just have to be banned, I certainly am going to fight to remove as absolutely little as possible so I can claim with complete honesty that the game I play is competitive Super Smash Brothers Brawl not competitive Smashboards Brawl. That extends to stages; stages are one of the most important aspects of the game's design, and I'm certainly going to respect what each one adds to the game by fighting to allow as many as fairness allows (which is a lot). I'm also not going to glaze over the systemic biases in favor of characters like Falco and Ice Climbers that some "conservative" people want to introduce to stage lists, particularly starter lists, but that's somewhat of a different issue.

If I were using Lucas, I'd be CPing Castle Siege and PictoChat way before PS2, but then again, I wouldn't really use Lucas... Color me skeptical that PS2's transformations, other than the obvious ice, are helpful for Lucas. I definitely doubt that Lucas can perform here in any way so powerful that the stage justifies banning at all. Likewise for Ness and Meta Knight. It is definitely a decent Ness CP, but a broken Ness CP? Meta Knight has one particularly good form that's easy to play around (flying); I'm not seeing the broken here. Of course, people also think Meta Knight is broken on Norfair when it's not even good for him in a lot of matchups (G&W, Jigglypuff are very obvious examples as both will CP Norfair against Meta Knight all day) so this may just be Meta Knight continuing to be portrayed as a more towering figure than he really is.

EDIT: wow, infzy and I are on the same page. We wrote a lot of the same stuff at the same time.

IIRC G&W's up B only has invincibility on frames 4-9 or somewhere around there.

Honestly I think PS is a stage that punishes camping. With everything going on you can only camp for I'd say half a minute then the hazards or other things will leave you with out options. Ike seems like a pretty good match against G&W to me. If your camping like you are all you do is wait for the bombs to come by and then when your forced to dodge one you punish. If you manage to do it with aether then thats the last of your stock.

I also think that aether could work if you try to up b through him Super armor up b > aether spike > stock.

But I have the same ideas as you with stages. I don't like JJ but i'd rather see it legal than PS picto and rainbow banned.

 

[Linkshot]

As much as I explain to newcomers about "degenerate" strategies, all this talk about "SSBB" is fleshing out my liberal side.

I'm starting to get a bigger philosophy that "If it's in Brawl, put up with it or play something else."

1) All strategies in Brawl are valid. If somebody wants to take you to Mario Bros, he's playing the "Manipulate Enemies" strategy. They move so slowly that this strategy does come down to pure skill. They're easily powershielded.
1b) Circle camping. Yes, it usually results in a time-out, but if you want to take the risk of tripping and then getting punished, or not even getting the % lead in the first place, that's your problem.
1c) WarioWare. "Minigame" strategy. You've practiced the minigames for hours on end, practiced avoid invincible opponents, weighing your options in certain minigames, etc. You counterpick WarioWare on your opponent. He has no clue what's going on, and gets killed by hazards. Did the stage kill him? No. He just didn't bother with the stage. It's like not learning the MK matchup because you despise MK as a character and refuse to let him be played.

First, open your mind.
Then think this through.

Items, however, have no place due to them appearing without valid reaction time.

 

[infomon]

Heheh.

I'm starting to get a bigger philosophy that "If it's in Brawl, put up with it or play something else."

Not quite, though. I know you want to play it competitively. It's the age-old challenge: we both love a sport, so we compete to see who's better... and in doing so, pursue excellence at the game. If the game is tossing a fair coin, then it is no game at all. For the sake of competition, it is reasonable for us to restrict ourselves to the subset of the game that is competitive. But yes, I'm interested in competing for who's-the-best-at-that-largest-possible-competitive-subset-of-Brawl; the player who is best at that can be most legitimately claimed "the best at Brawl".

I don't know if you were joking or not, but I will take your arguments as serious:

1) All strategies in Brawl are valid. If somebody wants to take you to Mario Bros, he's playing the "Manipulate Enemies" strategy. They move so slowly that this strategy does come down to pure skill. They're easily powershielded.

And this would be fine; "the best at Brawl" should be "the best at a fair 'mini-game'".... if it's fair. The real problem is circle-camping. If that were resolved, we could look at the fairness of the random elements of the stage, weighted by their impact in deciding the outcome of a match relative to skill level of the players.

1b) Circle camping. Yes, it usually results in a time-out, but if you want to take the risk of tripping and then getting punished, or not even getting the % lead in the first place, that's your problem.

On some stages (ex. Hyrule, New Pork City), tripping in many (most?) matchups won't allow sufficient time for the opponent to catch up. Secondly, you can avoid tripping by hopping around (more feasible with some chars than others; but then we'll just come down to figuring out the set of matchups which enable circle-camping, and concluding it's stupid.)

Unless you want to go ahead and make the argument that "if the game comes down to first-damage-then-exhaust-the-timer, so be it, that's the game". The problem is that then, you'll need an enormous # of matches to determine who is the better player, which is the point of playing it competitively. So it is not competitive.

1c) WarioWare. "Minigame" strategy. You've practiced the minigames for hours on end, practiced avoid invincible opponents, weighing your options in certain minigames, etc.

But that's the problem -- go ahead and weigh your options in the minigames. You can win the minigame, and maybe you'll get something that will give you an easy win. Or maybe it will kill you. You're welcome to make that choice, whether or not you think the risk is worth the reward....... but if you're playing competitively, you can't afford to make a choice for which a possible random penalty is death; that's giving up. And you can't afford to allow your opponent a choice for which his possible result is an instant win. Letting a toincoss decide the outcome of a match removes the competition from happening.

If the minigames were balanced, it could be fine. Actually, this stage might be fine if it can be demonstrated that: the better player should always be able to either prevent his opponent from winning any mini-game, OR at avoiding every possible result of the mini-game should the opponent succeed (but where you have not played it). But I doubt this is possible.... then again, we've never tried at a high level.

Items, however, have no place due to them appearing without valid reaction time.

Neither do the fireballs on Mario Bros. IIRC, but at least they're at fixed spots.

Random items are just dumb.

 

[Linkshot]

It's actually possible to lose every minigame while only taking at most 1 damage (**** rain!) so that you don't have to take a risk. All the hazards (except the rain!) can be shielded, and it counts as being hit by them.

Basically, in WarioWare, everybody has a Judgment Hammer.

 

[buenob]

lolz, i wouldn't post here if I didn't enjoy a good debate and I also would stop posting here if I wasn't able to take constructive criticism (I make a point of it to note the un-constructive ones lol)

mostly, yeah, my definition of competitive brawl is _very_ different from my definition of "for fun" brawl... to me, it's the mental challenge of outsmarting my opponent... we've both been handed the same tools (we can pick our own characters so we technically have the _exact_ same starting position... characterless) and I enjoy the process of beating my opponent... any mini-game, I find intrusive... how intrusive is completely subjective, but to illustrate my point, i would _never_ play on the mario bro's level, even if "circle camping" was a non-issue

it's not the battle of wits that I want... i don't care if on that level that we have the same tools and such because the game on that level does not interest me... it's very different from the rest of brawl, even though it may still be "fair"

There are a lot of levels I play on for fun, but when I'm playing on them, I really _feel_ like I'm playing a completely different game... the mario-kart level is a great example... the constant cars, while fair, just demand so much attention and zone the battle... I don't really care if I win there or not (I have fun playing there) and that's the feeling I'm talking about...

the most hotly contested levels I find are the ones which still _feel_ like the rest of brawl, but have aspects which under certain circumstances turns the fight into a "mini-game" scenario... basically the same as playing against a really good ice-climbers (the "game" is dont-get-grabbed)...

each of us has a different 'game' we want to play... mine includes level layout... I love how the length of ps1/FD effects the match... I love how the 2 platforms on ps1 change the dynamic of the level compared to FD a tonne!.. how slanted floors / no ledge / able to go under the level / drop through vs. solid platforms affect the strengths and weaknesses of each character...

what I don't like is the ability to "narrow" the scope of the fight... and don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of proper zoning, leaving my opponent with few, if any, good options... it's the "can you hit me in my 2 frames of invincibility between the water and the ledge on pirate ship" and the "you must fight here, then here, then here, then here etc.." which I am just completely fine with cutting out, as I don't believe it adds anything worthwhile and detracts a lot from the game I want to play...

/rant :D

edit: i don't know if there are actually 2 frames of invincibility, for all I know there could be 8, or none! it was just an abstract example based on what people were just talking about

 

[Linkshot]

I'm pretty sure you said 2 simply because of the DK Planking that goes on in this area

 

[Lore]

1c) WarioWare. "Minigame" strategy. You've practiced the minigames for hours on end, practiced avoid invincible opponents, weighing your options in certain minigames, etc. You counterpick WarioWare on your opponent. He has no clue what's going on, and gets killed by hazards. Did the stage kill him? No. He just didn't bother with the stage. It's like not learning the MK matchup because you despise MK as a character and refuse to let him be played.

First, open your mind.
Then think this through.

My mind is open. However, it does not matter about how open it is if you use reason.

The problem with warioware is that it makes the win condition not skill, but relying on a random factor. The minigames aren't THAT big an issue, but the rewards are. One person may get a star, and the other may get a super mushroom. Who's more likely to get the most damage to the other person?

It just leaves winning up to chance instead of relying on skill, which is the point of banning stages to begin with. If we start letting random factors into competitive play, we might as well flip a coin instead of playing.

 

[Linkshot]

Yeah, I dunno what I was thinking XDD

But it can boil down to weighing options. You have some control. It's possible to avoid winning every single minigame.

Oh well. WarioWare would've been viable if it didn't award invincibility.

 

[Ninja Kirby Nick!]

Yeah, I dunno what I was thinking XDD

But it can boil down to weighing options. You have some control. It's possible to avoid winning every single minigame.

Oh well. WarioWare would've been viable if it didn't award invincibility.

What about the super mushroom? It has its obvious uses, only with the giant disadvantage of being so big, that you're juggled ._.

 

[Lore]

But it can boil down to weighing options. You have some control. It's possible to avoid winning every single minigame.

Oh well. WarioWare would've been viable if it didn't award invincibility.

But you can't just say as a rule "LOSE EVERY MINIGAME". SOmetimes you do it accidentally. There's no real way to enforce it.

And it would have been viable if you could simply turn off the awards. Maybe.

 

[Linkshot]

Without Invincibility, Giant would be a truly double-edged sword. You kill easier, but take more damage.

But because of invincibility, you're basically stabbing yourself repeatedly when giant.

 

[Lore]

Without Invincibility, Giant would be a truly double-edged sword. You kill easier, but take more damage.

But because of invincibility, you're basically stabbing yourself repeatedly when giant.

It's still too random for warioware to be cp if only giant was on. It's just making you do the minigames to win, which goes against the main mechanics. If it gets in the way of the core of the mechanics, it will be banned.

Competitive brawl isn't about how well you do a minigame. It's how well you play BRAWL.

 

[LordshadowRagnarok]

Possibly extending the time limit for stock matches on that stage by 2-4 minutes and mandating that all minigame victory rewards other than the 4% healing be waited out would result in the stage being playable. The stage hazards are no more deadly than the pictochat stage hazards.

 

[Lore]

Possibly extending the time limit for stock matches on that stage by 2-4 minutes and mandating that all minigame victory rewards other than the 4% healing be waited out would result in the stage being playable. The stage hazards are no more deadly than the pictochat stage hazards.

And why would you do that?

Waiting out each reward would needlessly stall the matches, and would make it very tough for to's running on set time.

Besides, it's annoying as hell.

 

[kingcobra9]

mutual truces mid match just isn't a good idea

 

[LordshadowRagnarok]

And why would you do that?

Waiting out each reward would needlessly stall the matches, and would make it very tough for to's running on set time.

Besides, it's annoying as hell.

mutual truces mid match just isn't a good idea

I didn't say it was a GOOD idea, simply that it was a possible idea. Personally, I say dig around in the code till you can find the little bit that decides the minigame rewards, set it to only do 4% healed or remove it entirely, and then profit.

 

[Linkshot]

Not available yet. You can't really dig into the stages

 

[Lore]

I didn't say it was a GOOD idea, simply that it was a possible idea. Personally, I say dig around in the code till you can find the little bit that decides the minigame rewards, set it to only do 4% healed or remove it entirely, and then profit.

Well, that COULD work, but it definitely wouldn't become tournament standard. It would be cool, though.

 

[infomon]

Yeah, let's not even discuss Wario Ware; I don't think anyone's actually arguing for its legality.

Now as for Norfair, Distant Planet, Pictochat, Pokémon Stadium 2, Luigi's Mansion.... you'd be crazy to ban them. Absolutely nothing has been demonstrated to be broken about any of them.



10brokenrecords

 

[buenob]

infzy, you lie!! (ninja-edit: lol sorry, I know infzy fairly well, so I sometimes am not as proper as I should be with him... I'm not actually a ****! i swear)

just because ally can beat MK's on mansion doesn't mean it's not rediculously in his favour lol...

on a side note! I just realised, mansion is the _only_ level with a "solid" platform above the main platform that is considered for legality... sure you can get rid of it but to actively demolish the house is fairly impractical during an epic fight... this is kind of why I threw out the idea of discussing features instead of levels... is a solid platform detrimental to the game to the point of it should be banned??

if yes, then mansion should not be allowed in... if no, then I really see no other characteristic of the stage other than "it's really ****ed big" (which may be another criteria for a ban... would a giant level just be not fair?)... if we can answer those questions, we may be able to come to some kind of agreement..

ps. i find it odd I agree with half your list

 

[Linkshot]

Having an Olimar main for a cousin, I'm 100% biased against Mansion and want it banned XDD
Pokemon Stadium 2, I find offers nothing useful to the table...just annoying things.
PictoChat has no reason to be banned, seriously.
Norfair is an amazing stage, IMO, but maybe that's because I'm just great with lava combos XD
I'm on the fence with Distant Planet. It's not the walkoff. It's the severe camping point.

 

[deepseadiva]

I have yet to see anything remotely convincing toward the banning of PS2 and Pictochat. Otherwise:

Norfair: severe ledge camping
Luigi's Mansion: light circling
Distant Planet: light circling

For Norfair, the ledge-grab rule many tournaments are implementing seems to be remedying the situation somewhat - but the multiple ledges offers a seemingly broken strategy. You're not just dealing with planking, you're dealing with planking where the planker can choose to go upwards or downwards a level at any moment. I dunno.

Luigi's Mansion seems fine at first, but the solid walls dividing the upper and lower levels offers mini-circles. They can be destroyed of course, but the flat stage doesn't last long. I dunno.

Distant Planet again, has a mini-circle. The spongy platform is solid and can't be passed through. I dunno.

Everything else about the stages (the lava, the techable ceilings, the walkoff) are pretty much moot points, but the points I outlined against those three stages are the most convincing to me.

 

[buenob]

you can't drop down, but you can go upwards through it... that was what i meant by "solid" (I would call the platforms there semi-solid... plus they move lol)

 

[infomon]

just because ally can beat MK's on mansion doesn't mean it's not rediculously in his favour lol...

Reasonable counterpick is reasonable?
The vast majority of matchups have nothing reported near-gamebreaking about this stage. If it changes one or two matchups (without even making them unwinnable) then I don't see what the fuss is.

on a side note! I just realised, mansion is the _only_ level with a "solid" platform above the main platform that is considered for legality... sure you can get rid of it but to actively demolish the house is fairly impractical during an epic fight... this is kind of why I threw out the idea of discussing features instead of levels... is a solid platform detrimental to the game to the point of it should be banned??

How is it even detrimental to the game? It just adds to it

Having an Olimar main for a cousin, I'm 100% biased against Mansion and want it banned XDD

whaaaaaat
but what if it's perfectly beatable, just you haven't found a way around it (with your character(s))?

Pokemon Stadium 2, I find offers nothing useful to the table...just annoying things.

Wow, I'm surprised that you are making this argument...... it has a number of features that make it categorically unique without being degenerate, what more could you ask for in a counterpick?

I'm on the fence with Distant Planet. It's not the walkoff. It's the severe camping point.

Can I get vids of this?? I've never seen anyone actually pull it off.

Meno: Ledge-grab rules don't stop planking, and planking doesn't need to be limited anyway. Lots of characters have reasonable ways of dealing with it, particularly on Norfair afaict.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Distant Planet:

Dedede and Kirby can spit people into the big thing's mouth... That's kinda dumb. Other people can spike them in as well, with no chance of survival. Anyone with a bad recovery is completely screwed over if they get hit down-ish from the left or the middle.

 

[Linkshot]

Mansion feels like the definition of "fighting the stage", because your opponent has this INSANE advantage unless you ignore him and break the house..which is 100% impractical because he can just intercept you.

Distant Planet: The person that spawns on the left pretty much wins the match. The edge of the slope is one of the best camping spots in the game. It's immensely hard to get around it, and you pretty much have to put up with it until it starts raining. Even then, they can just camp the ledge until the rain stops.

I've never gotten a replay of it because it's so horribly degenerate that I feel it's the exact opposite of what earns a replay.

 

[infomon]

Mansion feels like the definition of "fighting the stage", because your opponent has this INSANE advantage unless you ignore him and break the house..which is 100% impractical because he can just intercept you.

But you also have this advantage.... right? So fighting here is a bit different than other places, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Really.

Which advantage are you talking about, anyway? Extending hitlag with the pillars? The light circle? Teching the ceiling to survive?

It seems like stuff that could be useful for any character.

Distant Planet: The person that spawns on the left pretty much wins the match. The edge of the slope is one of the best camping spots in the game. It's immensely hard to get around it, and you pretty much have to put up with it until it starts raining. Even then, they can just camp the ledge until the rain stops.

I really don't know how this is such a good camping spot. What about when the opponent has good projectiles, like Snake and Lucas? I can't imagine just sitting around in one spot. Which characters do you think are broken here?

I've never gotten a replay of it because it's so horribly degenerate that I feel it's the exact opposite of what earns a replay.

Then you have no argument at all. I don't believe you that it's so good.

<3

 

[kingcobra9]

why is spear pillar banned is it the hazards or like when the controls are reversed or the time slows down or a combination of all of them

 

[Linkshot]

Infzy. Go play against Harold on Distant Planet. Lucas can camp under the leaf forever. So can MK.

And I dislike Mansion because it destroys certain approaches, which are the only weaknesses of certain characters, making them theoretically perfect.

Spear Pillar is banned because you can run away forever to win a match.

 

[buenob]

get a percent lead, then run around in a circle (circle-camping)... it's impossible to win against that therefore it's banned...