Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Linkshot]

LOL

Infzy, you never cease to amuse me.

The problem with not throwing some "wacky" stages into the striking:

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

is pretty much a conclusive argument why 5 stage striking is not competitively sound if you consider fairness an important aspect of the rules (unless you use a non-standard list I guess). Now we just need to convince all the TOs...

 

[sunshade]

Alright so just the other day I was playing some friendlies and I suggested to my friends we play only banned stages (it was a why not kind of a moment). During this chain grab off the edge fest a friend chose to play as ice climbers (he can only ice block lock/ forward throw chain well) and I was messing around with D3 and the others just swapped around with low tiers for the hell of it. the stage onett popped up and it made me wonder why its banned. I was only able to chain grab people for about as long as it takes me to running chain grab across FD and than we would be hit by a car stopping the chain grab and making me think that the chain grabs were almost not worth using at times.

TL:DR why is onett banned?

 

[deepseadiva]

TL:DR why is onett banned?

Basically, "because it's janky."

Wow, wait. I keep thinking Onett's still in Counter-Banned. It's actually totally banned now. >___>

I would also like an answer to this question.

Someday I will face you in tournament, and this is how it will go down.

You better practice up; because I will.

I will bring my jumbo chalk.

 

[sunshade]

Basically, "because it's janky."

Have there been any actual reasons for its banning besides general dislike?

 

[Linkshot]

No. High-level smashers can be very arrogant.

 

[Sucumbio]

Onett's got walk off play areas and fairly high damaging hazards making it less likely to be considered tournament worthy, and more of a fun stage. Too many character's moves, combos and ATs are difficult to setup here, due to the obstacle layout. Hell even Ness and Lucas can get rocked here if the opponent is smart and camps in the right spots.

 

[Linkshot]

I have no problem playing on Onett with money on the line.

 

[Sucumbio]

I suppose I wouldn't not participate if it was allowed but I dunno, I wouldn't wanna risk playing on any stage that has a walk off cause it'd be too tempting to battle there. could just as easily use 75m and battle at the far upper right except it'd be easier cause no cars.

 

[Linkshot]

Uh. Just use a personal ban on Onett if you hate it that much.

Otherwise, learn how to avoid the camping.

 

[Kinzer]

Link is right on Onett.

The only reason Onett is banned because of distaste, and anybody who is to say anything bad about the stage doesn't play it correctly/has too little experience on the stage to avoid the hazards/abuse the hazards him/herself.

 

[deepseadiva]

I dunno, Onett was overall pretty unanimously banned (0-3-14). I'm somewhat willing to give the SBR the benefit of the doubt - maybe we're missing something?

But you know, most of this would be avoided if they explained anything. T___T

 

[sunshade]

Onett's got walk off play areas

I suggest you learn D3's chain grabs if you have not already (It will only take about 10 mins on the D3 boards and 20 mins in game at most to learn) and play againts a level 9 computer and just try to chain grab them off the edges. you will notice that even the terrible computer players have a hard time placing themselves horribly enough to get walked off let alone a human of any moderate skill level allowing themselves to be in such a bad position.

and fairly high damaging hazards

A loud beeping noise and a red exclamation mark pops up telling you to move. If you get hit by the cars not only was it easy to see/hear coming but you deserve to be hit by it for missing such an obvious sign.

Too many character's moves, combos and ATs are difficult to setup here, due to the obstacle layout.

Which moves, combos and ATs are made overly difficult to preform here? I personally cannot think of any ATs this stage stops that stages such as rainbow cruise for example do not.

*edit for minor typo*

 

[Linkshot]

The only john I'm hearing is
"I'M TOO LAZY TO LEARN NEW STAGES BAN IT SO I DON'T LOOK WORSE"

 

[sunshade]

The only john I'm hearing is
"I'M TOO LAZY TO LEARN NEW STAGES BAN IT SO I DON'T LOOK WORSE"

While I think that this is the case simply saying saying that other players are lazy and don't want to learn does nothing to prove this stage is playable and as a result does nothing to help make a should-be-legal stage legal.

 

[Linkshot]

The fact that there is no reason to support their claims seems to rise up.

"High-level" players see walls. They see a walkoff. They look no deeper.

Legality is only skin-deep to them :/

They refuse to accept that maybe the infinites aren't truly infinite. Maybe they aren't easily set up.

The truth is this. They are completely avoidable. This is a very unique and viable stage. If you get caught in any infinite, you deserved the loss, regardless.

 

[sunshade]

"High-level" players see walls. They see a walkoff. They look no deeper.

When I first saw Onett I thought without even playing it twice that it should be banned. I have since then gone back and tested the stage again and I no longer hold that opinion. Other people however may not go back and test it themselves at any point simply because they wrote it off a long time ago. This then leaves us with the job of creating proof that onett should be legal using evidence that can convince someone that has only played the stage maybe 2-3 times.

The truth is this. They are completely avoidable. This is a very unique and viable stage. If you get caught in any infinite, you deserved the loss, regardless.

Well then we are in agreement but proof is still needed so that we are saying fact and not opinion.

 

[infomon]

But you know, most of this would be avoided if they explained anything. T___T

This right here is a huge problem that should not be tolerated by the smash community at-large. If they don't provide adequate reasoning / transparency, then we have no choice but to assume they are a bunch of scrubs who don't understand how the game actually works. Especially since this has been demonstrated multiple times, of many of the SBR members.

The sad reality is that so many TOs are even worse than the SBR; they'll ban anything that anyone wants them to, because ppl are less willing to show up for a tournament with too few bans than too many. And TOs only rly care about getting the most ppl, not about the best interest of Brawl's metagame and future.

 

[Linkshot]

The problem is that Overswarm HAS put up evidence that if you do get caught in the chaingrab, the cars will save you.

People prolly just went "lolghey b&" when they saw D3 ****** Marth against a wall.

Spoiler

They need to learn that Marth will always be the submissive end of anything

 

[sunshade]

The problem is that Overswarm HAS put up evidence that if you do get caught in the chaingrab, the cars will save you.

People prolly just went "lolghey b&" when they saw D3 ****** Marth against a wall.

Spoiler

They need to learn that Marth will always be the submissive end of anything

Could you link me to what Overswarm posted?

 

[infomon]

Anoninfzy delivers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRiPDcgWIo

Edit: This Pipes discussion is cool too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulp3CnuHMWc

 

[sunshade]

Thanks for the links infzy.

Both of those videos were very intersting and made me feel even more strongly that both stages should be played more often. However a single 10 minute video is not enough to convince those who share a different bias than myself. I think that if we could do some more testing of this ((recorded Wifi matchs on onett/ friendlies in which one player (D3) tries to camp) and try to accumulate as many videos showing why camping the edges to abuse walk offs/infinites is a possible but not plausible/practical tactic of the stage than we could mabye bump this stage to counter/banned.

 

[infomon]

Really we just need to promote competition between good players to take place on these stages, and record videos to demonstrate their legitimacy.

When someone says "D3 is overpowered on Green Greens", for example, challenge them to take their D3 there, and see if you get 3-0'd -- and if you do, how much it's your own fault.

I wonder if we could get pots going for MMs between pros on these "broken" stages; for example, I'd gladly donate $5 to see a Bo5 set between, say, M2K and Ally to take place where the only permissible stages are Green Greens / Distant Planet / Pokemon Stadium 2 / Onett / Pipes. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

Also, we just need TOs to not be scrubs.

 

[Linkshot]

omg those chaingrabs are so overpowered :OOO

LOOK AT HOW D3 SUICIDES AFTER THEM OMG THAT'S BROKEN

:V

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Also, we just need TOs to not be scrubs.

Move to Texas.

 

[Linkshot]

Final Verdict:

Why the hell is Pipes even considered bannable?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Final Verdict:

Why the hell is Pipes even considered bannable?

Answer: TO's are lazy.

 

[Linkshot]

I hosted a bBrawl tournament, and wrote up in pen by hand the legality of every single stage in the game, including formes.

I even came up with my own little bonus section: softbans.

The moral: No johns, TOs. Only scrubs will not come to your tourney because of a stage list. Scrubs are not acceptable in tournaments, anyway.

 

[infomon]

Move to Texas.

Oh right, where MK is banned.

 

[Linkshot]

lolmkbans

Idiots.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

He's only banned sometimes in Houston.

And honestly: the people who go to those tournaments for the most part say they have more fun then in MK legal tournaments. Heck, the first HOBO with MK banned got Prixas to come all the way down to just to play in a MK banned tournament.

That, and in the official SBR's MK ban conclusion topic thing, OP encourages such tournaments. It could have been to save face, but the point still stands.

It's not a constant, it brings in money, and Xyro isn't afraid to be different. *shrugs*

 

[Sucumbio]

I suggest you learn D3's chain grabs if you have not already (It will only take about 10 mins on the D3 boards and 20 mins in game at most to learn) and play againts a level 9 computer and just try to chain grab them off the edges. you will notice that even the terrible computer players have a hard time placing themselves horribly enough to get walked off let alone a human of any moderate skill level allowing themselves to be in such a bad position.

? lol this is funny. anyway I know D3's cg, and no I wouldn't practice it against a CPU to prove why walk-offs are bad cause it wouldn't. Walk-offs aren't really a bad idea due to CG anyway because of what you pointed out among other things. The reason they're bad however is due to the proximity of the KO zone. In the list of Starter and Starter/CP stages the KO zone on the left/right plane is at least 2 jumps + special out for most characters... a walk off provides far less, as you can... walk... right up to the KO zone. Even a simple grap, not just a cg, but a back grab at low percents can still KO and is too risky to allow in tournament play. BTW I don't even go to TOs so I was just pointing out the supposed logic of the decision makers behind the ban. I didn't even vote in the original poll or anything, but as meno points out there's little explanation for the reasoning behind the decisions, so we're left with surmising our own.

A loud beeping noise and a red exclamation mark pops up telling you to move. If you get hit by the cars not only was it easy to see/hear coming but you deserve to be hit by it for missing such an obvious sign.

Lets change your title to Smash Sarcasmo . neway >< yes, thank you there are warnings that the obstacle is coming. it's not about there not being forwarning. it's a timed event, so that's not even a worthy excuse. the problem is that if they do hit, it's fairly high in damage (compare fair w/ZSS suit pieces) that may or may not have even been the will of the opponent. a stage obstacle in other words, should not be allowed to determine the winner, and even the potential for this to happen was obviously too risky to be ignored.

Which moves, combos and ATs are made overly difficult to preform here? I personally cannot think of any ATs this stage stops that stages such as rainbow cruise for example do not.

Just comes with experience I guess... I've not any specific trouble here either, I'm with letting be playable in tourny, I was really interested in poking the fires a bit to see if some true reasoning could be shed on -why- the ban other than what I've already noticed. Is there REALLY an AT or two that can't be done? I dunno, lol I don't have any trouble doing any of my mains moves there, but I only use like, 6 characters. I'm betting on the side of caution here and going to say that more than likely there are going to be characters that don't perform well here, more so than the non-banned stages at this time.

 

[Linkshot]

bThrows usually have low BKB simply for that reason. fThrows have high BKB to punish bubble-blast campers.

It's a losing strategy.

 

[sunshade]

Even a simple grap, not just a cg, but a back grab at low percents can still KO and is too risky to allow in tournament play

To kill someone with a back throw at low percentages requires you to be between your opponent and the death zone. Most opponents will notice this and understand that a throw may be enough to kill them, however they also understand that the player waiting for the back throw is in a fundamentally worse position due to the close proximity to the death zone.

death zone
l
l
l__P2___P1_____stage________

Now while player two may be able to throw player one to his death player, two is still in a very poor spot to be in that has a very high chance of death should he miss his grab/trip/fall for a mind game.

Over all "it's a losing strategy."

the problem is that if they do hit, it's fairly high in damage (compare fair w/ZSS suit pieces) that may or may not have even been the will of the opponent. a stage obstacle in other words, should not be allowed to determine the winner, and even the potential for this to happen was obviously too risky to be ignored.

you mention the stage obstacle causing death may or may not be the opponents doing but instead implied that this element is so intrusive to the game that it determines who lives and dies. I think the best response to this is to first consider how fair it is if the opponent intended you to be hit or it happens by accident. If the opponent intended for you to be hit (threw you into the car, knocked you down, pressured you to stay on the ground) than the opponent is using a tool that you both have available to you to his advantage better than you are and thus is using his skill to out play you. If the player is hit by the cars without his opponent's intent than the player by some form of personal mistake failed to see a red blinking/beeping light and was then punished for his avoidable mistake and deserves to take damage or if he is at some terribly high percent deserves to lose a stock.

Lets change your title to Smash Sarcasmo

I approve

 

[Linkshot]

I agree with sunshade.

The cars in Onett do set knockback that can never ever kill you, and you have, like 3 seconds of warning to jump ANYWHERE.

You might as well john that Warlock Punch is a character hazard.

 

[infomon]

You might as well john that Warlock Punch is a character hazard.

Quoted for

and sunshade's post was fantastic.

 

[Sucumbio]

To kill someone with a back throw at low percentages requires you to be between your opponent and the death zone. Most opponents will notice this and understand that a throw may be enough to kill them, however they also understand that the player waiting for the back throw is in a fundamentally worse position due to the close proximity to the death zone.

death zone
l
l
l__P2___P1_____stage________

Now while player two may be able to throw player one to his death player, two is still in a very poor spot to be in that has a very high chance of death should he miss his grab/trip/fall for a mind game.

Over all "it's a losing strategy."



you mention the stage obstacle causing death may or may not be the opponents doing but instead implied that this element is so intrusive to the game that it determines who lives and dies. I think the best response to this is to first consider how fair it is if the opponent intended you to be hit or it happens by accident. If the opponent intended for you to be hit (threw you into the car, knocked you down, pressured you to stay on the ground) than the opponent is using a tool that you both have available to you to his advantage better than you are and thus is using his skill to out play you. If the player is hit by the cars without his opponent's intent than the player by some form of personal mistake failed to see a red blinking/beeping light and was then punished for his avoidable mistake and deserves to take damage or if he is at some terribly high percent deserves to lose a stock.

Darn it you drew a schematic before me nah we both see the same angle but what you've pointed out here is exactly why I'm ? why it's banned vs not banned. If the obstacles aren't such a bad idea and the walk off aren't either then why is it banned? I refuse to believe it's because a select few don't like it, what's not to like? It's not ugly or hurts the eyes, it has great setups for a lot of my favorite characters, and can arguably be a good counterpick.

Why do I play devil's advocate so hard? Cause so long as the reasons I outlined (and you well refuted) are all there is in the discussion then there needs to be some changes methinks to what are so-called 'legal' stages. Not just these are good starters and these are good cp, no, there needs to be a new way of looking at the game as being more than a fight between 2 opponents, but a fight taking place on a stage of choice which adds or subtracts from each character's strengths and weaknesses.

I guess I just see the current picking system is dumbed down too much. It has to be more than "i don't like this stage" unless TOs are really that lame? I mean, like linkshot said, he'd play there if money was on the line. Using stages like this may also increase the number of characters making it to finals in TO because of good and diverse stage options.

Quoted for

and sunshade's post was fantastic.

it was, and this is why it's insufficient to say "it's not legal cause so-in-so doens't like it" if there's no true reason for it to be banned, then it shouldn't be, and if it isn't ban worthy, neither are other stages going to be that currently are.

 

[infomon]

Yes, our pros and our TOs are in fact that lame.

There has never been serious high-level play enough to prove a whole bunch of stages are ban-worthy, and yet they are near-universally banned.

It sucks. Plz complain more.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes, our pros and our TOs are in fact that lame.

There has never been serious high-level play enough to prove a whole bunch of stages are ban-worthy, and yet they are near-universally banned.

It sucks. Plz complain more.

haha definitely, this irks me no end. if I remember correctly there was a quick tourney run by nintendo right at launch that had like 4 regions and a finals, anyone know which stages THEY allowed? Maybe it was FD the whole time and that's why it's always FD on WA j/k ><;

but yeah, it does suck that a few speak for so many without first realizing the impact to having so few usable stages has on high level play. maybe as people get even better at the game they'll learn to feel more comfortable on wackier stages or something, but unless a TO tries it, it won't be done.

 

[Linkshot]

With walkoffs and walls, they see the opportunity for D3 to grab, no matter how improbable it is, and say "100:0 D3, must be banned".

It is not 100:0. You are not always in D3's grab range. Even then, there are raw 100:0 character matchups. Are we going to ban the characters that have 100:0s? No. So why ban the god**** stages?