Official Stage Legality Discussion

[infomon]

What's funny is the history of it. Brawl came out, and the world was in absolute chaos. The boards were bombarded with spam, and all the Melee hardcores (and a billion thought-they-were-hardcores-but-were-just-local-scrubs) thought they were so pro at Brawl (mind you, they were surrounded by total n00bs). Noone wanted to actually compete on the "weird" stages, everyone had all kinds of crazy preconceived notions about which stages to ban or not, all because tournaments were being thrown around right off the bat.

IMO, it was largely the Melee hardcores who decided Brawl sucked, that MK was too ueber, and that we should ban all but the "normal-looking" stages. Furthermore, the SBR was receiving crazy-mad criticism from everywhere; there were a billion claims from established TOs that "if Pictochat's not banned I give up all hope on the SBR and will not follow their ruleset ever" and other such nonsense, and TOs everywhere were using their own nutjob local rulesets.

The SBR has slowly slowly been building up credibility, as a lot of ppl left the community (the Wii-n00bs who simply never had a clue, as well as the smashers who just don't like Brawl). But in the meantime, the SBR had been "peer-pressured" into banning stuff before we even understood some essential game mechanics -- not to say it's just peer pressure, but there were (and are) a ton of scrubs in the SBR. But it was sad to watch the swarms of people in the stage-discussion threads who were saying "just ban all these stages, we can always unban them later". Some SBR members kept saying "No! There's no such thing as unbanning a stage; once the metagame has given up on a stage, there's no bringing it back!!" but noone really cared.

We're still pretty torn; the SBR's ruleset has too many outright bans where they simply don't belong (for severe lack-of-proof-of-brokenness), but the SBR discussions are also still private so the community at-large had been pretty well shafted from this process anyway. A lot of regions still outright disregard the SBR's ruleset anyway, and proceed to ban a ton more stuff than even the SBR.... I've never heard of any region using a ruleset more relaxed than the SBR's, even though IMO that's where the community belongs.

siiiiiiigh.........duck



This is just IMO and I'm rly not the best person for this; it would be cool if AA or some cool SBR'ers could comment on the history of the SBR's stagebans?

 

[Linkshot]

More like Smash Mafia.

"Kenny. What's da problem, son?"
"Oh, it was terrible, boss! A car came out of nowhere and put me into Sonic's killrange!"
"Into Sonic's kill range, you say? This clearly has gotten out of hand. This stage will be dealt with appropriately." *arms Masked Dedede Hammer*

 

[buenob]

lol you guys all got it wrong

in that diagram p2 has an incredible advantage, because you're forgetting something important... who is currently ahead by %'s and stocks...

if I'm at KO percents, and my opponent is at 0% (lets just assume p1 just died) should I attempt to "fight" him at the center of the level, I'm going to be one "knockback move" away from dying, and he is going to be not even close... if I choose to run over to the edge, I am still one knockback move away from dying, but now so is player 1... I've completely negated his % advantage, and abused my stock advantage...

good players are not predictable!! this I am throwing in here because someone is going to say it's really hard to land a grab... well it doesn't have to be a grab does it? if I call his approach and roll behind him, now he's between me and the blast zone... there are many, many options available to someone who is ahead by stock, at high percents, and near the edge...

my point: walkoffs should be universally banned imo

 

[sunshade]

if I'm at KO percents, and my opponent is at 0% (lets just assume p1 just died) should I attempt to "fight" him at the center of the level, I'm going to be one "knockback move" away from dying, and he is going to be not even close... if I choose to run over to the edge, I am still one knockback move away from dying, but now so is player 1... I've completely negated his % advantage, and abused my stock advantage...

Thank you for bringing up the topic of Percents which I admit to completely forgetting. I think we can both agree that there is no advantage to going so close to the walk off death zone unless we are at very high percentages. However the level to which these percents need to be for the best option to be running to the far sides is much higher than I think we are giving it credit for. In a fight between M2K and Ally (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7EQzOahzhQ) we can see Ally surviving to 222% If Ally was standing even an inch close to the edge he would have died at many points during the fight which would have resulted in his loss. With proper DI, killing an opponent from the center can be very difficult but if you choose to stand at the far edge, you can be better than M2k and Ally combined when it comes to DI but you wont survive a blow that close to the blast zone. Now lets say you are at some absurd percent and even with perfect DI you will be killed at the center of the stage (200+). First of all this scenario is rare because it would require you to have been doing amazing DI but making it even more rare is how we deal with the stress of being at a high percentage. I know that when I am at a very high percent I want to be as close to the center of the stage as possible and as far away from the blast zone as possible, because of the fear of death. Personally I would avoid the far sides of the stage like the plague but then again I am in no ways a pro player. Now besides the fear of death stopping me from wanting to commit to such a risky strategy (compared to staying in the middle and trying to rack damage for next stock) I also have to make a choice to give up all ability to save myself should I make a mistake and many players even those more risky than me don't often decide to take a path which leaves no possible options to save themselves should a mistake be made. If a player makes the choice to commit to such a high risk tactic and pulls it off I think the player deserves the benefits of pulling it off however chances are that the player will have a difficult time pulling of this tactic due to moves typically used for poking your opponent being capable of killing.

Lets take a moment to return to the diagram I made before.

death zone
l
l 222% 0%
l__P2___P1_____stage________

P2 3 stock P1 2 stock

As we can see player two is on the verge of death with his back to the wall and a fresh opponent staring him down. This looks very bad for player two and is very bad for player two although not quite as bad as it would be on a stage without walk offs.

Player one on the other hand is looking good right now. He has his foe cornered at high percentages with no worry of DI saving his foe should he use a kill move. In addition to that he should be able to tell that his foe is obviously going for a way to kill him at a low percentage (stage throw/roll punish/ other attack). A bit of cautious play is all that is needed for player one to prevail in this scenario.

walkoffs should be universally banned

Now I will agree that MOST walk offs are very bad and cause the game play to become a trivial chain grab/jab lock/lazer lock/ any other lock party. But walk offs on Onett don't suffer from jab locks/lazer locks/ chain grabs nearly as bad as other stages do due to the cars stopping most of these short. The walk offs on Onett also have the nice advantage of allowing characters with a bad vertical recovery to survive better due to stage gimps (I am looking at you falco chain grab) no longer being a threat.

 

[Linkshot]

They consider walkoff play "degenerate".

I think they just don't want deviation from the standard :/

 

[sunshade]

They consider walkoff play "degenerate".

I have to say that walkoff's while normally terrible do provide positive elements to the game.

Pros:

1. Planking can no longer occur.
2. Allows characters with poor recovery to be more competitive.
3. Players who have a weak air game can return to the center of the stage by land instead of air.
4.

Cons:

1. Chain grabs, jab locks/other locks.
2. Low percent kills at edges
3. causes game play to become degenerate*
4.

This is left with open slots because I want to try and create as large a list possible to compare the marginal benefits of playing on a walk off stage to the marginal costs.

*Has there been any formal definition for what "degenerate" means? If not what is the communities most common assumption of its meaning?

 

[Linkshot]

They call anything that deviates from beating each other up "degenerate"

Basically, if you're not killing at a kill percent, it is apparently "degenerate gameplay".

My philosophy is that if it's in Brawl, put up with it. It's a strategy, and if it runs the timer, just shorten the **** thing.


"OH NO SONIC CAN WIN BY CIRCLE CAMPING"

HM Maybe this is what was intended all along!

 

[professor mgw]

Sonic is just a bunch of cheese anyways.

 

[deepseadiva]

if I'm at KO percents, and my opponent is at 0% (lets just assume p1 just died) should I attempt to "fight" him at the center of the level, I'm going to be one "knockback move" away from dying, and he is going to be not even close... if I choose to run over to the edge, I am still one knockback move away from dying, but now so is player 1... I've completely negated his % advantage, and abused my stock advantage...

This is persuasive.

But to mildly counter your argument, let me add one letter - putting the same argument in a different, yet very similar, context.

if I'm at KO percents, and my opponent is at 0% (lets just assume p1 just died) should I attempt to "fight" him at the center of the level, I'm going to be one "knockback move" away from dying, and he is going to be not even close... if I choose to run over to the ledge, I am still one knockback move away from dying, but now so is player 1... I've completely negated his % advantage, and abused my stock advantage...

 

[Linkshot]

:O Except there's no "get-the-****-away-from-the-side-barrier" cancels like Meteor Cancelling.

 

[sunshade]

:O Except there's no "get-the-****-away-from-the-side-barrier" cancels like Meteor Cancelling.

Meteor canceling is useless to any character with a bad recovery. If you are playing a character with a bad recovery then being meteor smashed is the same death sentence as a low percent grab on the edge of a walk off would be. Both walk off stages and regular stages suffer from low percent gimps however one stage favors certain gimps over others. If I am playing a character with no meteor smash or an ineffective recovery for saving myself after a Meteor cancel then a regular stage puts me at a disadvantage compared to a walk off stage. Walk off stages have no chance at being called neutral stages, however they make perfect counter picks due to them allowing players with no meteor smash or a bad recovery to abuse their stock advantage in the same way other characters do on a regular stages all the time.

skip to 3:10 in the video for the gimp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2CAv2gun1g&feature=PlayList&p=A6B890628308A4DF&index=1

In the video we can see a gimp followed by edge hog that causes a loss for Mr.Eh. If a walk off stage was being played then the abuse of Bowser's weak recovery would not be a concern of the player in the match as well as allowing Bowser to have the ability to gimp when he normally cannot. Walk offs are just like regular stages in that they have bias towards characters with certain qualities in this case it allows weaker recoveries and a lack of a meteor to be less important factors which can be exactly the type of support a character needs when counter picking after a defeat.

Imo stage variety is needed and walk offs provide variety to the stage list. (note* I am not trying to say that walk offs are more fair than regular stages I am just trying to get at the idea that they are an aspect of the game that can be used for competitive play in a non degenerate way)

*edit found a video supporting my statement*

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

At high percentages (unless they're really high as in 200%+), you want to be in the center of the level since you might actually survive being hit. Going to the edges (or the walk-offs as it may be) puts you in a dangerous situation where you are far more likely to die, including by things that aren't really kill moves (like random ftilts).

Fundamentally, walk-off camping is an unsound strategy. If you are losing, you cannot force an approach. If you are winning, you have inevitability on your side. By this I mean that if the match continues evenly forever, eventually you will win anyway. Because of that, you generally are going to favor more conservative play when ahead. After all, if everything goes in a cut and dry manner, you win. The opponent wants risky situations; sure they may lose badly, but the high risk situations give them a chance to really turn things around. If I'm losing and you start walk-off camping me, I'm happy because you are giving me a high risk situation for free. That's very likely just what I need to get back in the game.

I will throw in the caveat that sometimes weight discrepancies can make small "leads", well, misleading, and in some matchups it's so hard for one side to approach that the risk is somewhat mitigated (mostly Olimar matchups). It's still far from gamebreaking even in those cases, but those are the only times I'd consider even attempting it.

 

[sunshade]

I agree with what AA said due to what he said being a shorter more direct version of my post on the last page.

 

[buenob]

meno - true, but in all there really isn't very much danger from playing aggressively against a player at the ledge of the map at low percents when the enemy is at high percents... no character can reliably gimp you at low percents
edit [addition]: if I am at really, really high percents, I do actually go over to the edge of the level when my opponent dies so that I can get a few hits from the ledge in...

AA - you do bring up a point, but I would very much like to amend my first post to just disregard any reference to stock advantage... it doesn't matter if you're winning or losing... if I am at KO percents, and you are at 0, I have neutralized that difference by going over to the edge... I was wrong on that point in my first post

i completely disagree with you though, and I see walkoff camping as incredibly broken... if I am a better player than my opponent, which is the case if I'm winning, I should be able to outwit them near the edge, just as good as if we're in the center... if I'm losing, this is indeed a desperate tactic that probably won't work since my opponent is better than me (hence why i mentioned the stocks in the first one)... (but this is relatively moot)

to use us as an example, lets say you and I were fighting... I play rob and I get juggled by GnW pretty easily... we're both at 165% and I get a ko on you... now, I could stay near the center of the map, but chances are you will hit me before I can do +30 damage to you, and GnW can easily get me up to over 60 from zero... if you hit me with a KO move, obviously it will be evened up... if you hit me with bair or turtle (for example) I will either be KO'd or sent upwards, which is terrible for me because of how few options I have... I would way rather go near the edge of the stage, projectile spam you into approaching, and then go for a gimp since i hit you at 0% I'll probably be able to get a grab in there, or at least rack up extra damage since you need to avoid the grab... (walkoff level, no way GnW is getting gimped on a regular level)

i'm not saying I would beat you, I'm just saying I have neutralized my disadvantage, since we now have relatively equal chances of losing the next stock...

also, I'm kinda insulted that people just assume that I don't know about relative KO percents... of course thats an absolutely huge part of evaluating the situation... my post was already large, I didn't think I had to explain that too...

if you're snake, and you're at 200%, you're not at KO percent yet lolz (actually he is but it's a joke)... you cant just apply a "this character can do this" because it's going to vary for every character, and every matchup, but the fact remains that once you _are_ at KO percents, you can get over to the edge and then you have absolute advantage from the stage... if you're at high percents, it still offers you a large advantage due to the fact that the opponent would have many situations which will either KO you, or almost (leading to ledge guarding situations, which are bad)...

to say that "you have inevitability on your side" is extremely arrogant... a close match will remain close as things progress... if I can get a situation to go from "50-50, and if I win i get a ~30% advantage" to "50-50, and if I win im' up a stock" then that in itself is broken...

 

[infomon]

So all that does is help out some characters in the matchups where they can outcamp the opponent and doing so yields superior odds than trying to fight "normally", despite the extreme danger of putting yourself so close to the killzone, in the times in which you are at much higher % than your opponent.

That sounds a lot more situational than "degenerate". I mean, seems like the type of thing that will come up now and then in some matchups, sorta like planking. Are there any vids of good players putting this into practice?

 

[Linkshot]

Planking is more degenerate than sidecamping, for one reason:

Planking stalls the timer, and time is very precious to tournaments.

 

[buenob]

lol LS, poetic, but not really...

to clarify - I believe that for every character, for every matchup, there will be a point where it will be extremely beneficial for them to side-camp

anyways, I'm glad I was able to contribute to the discussion again I don't think I'm going to change anyone's opinion, and I think I've said everything I can without just repeating myself... back to lurking this thread until I disagree with stuff again lol

 

[adumbrodeus]

Planking is more degenerate than sidecamping, for one reason:

Planking stalls the timer, and time is very precious to tournaments.

Except it doesn't when used properly, the proper response to a planker is:

1. If you're behind in percents, approach. You're probably approaching at a disadvantage because if you're not, why would they plank?


2. If you're ahead in percents, look at them like they've gone bat-**** insane and let them give you a free match. This is obviously a very stupid way to use planking.

 

[Sucumbio]

so for fun we got together and played a bunch of matchups on various stages...

the general idea was this:

by banning too many stages you're limiting the number of character matchups.
by limiting the number of character matchups you're also limiting the number of characters in use.
brawl becomes a new game! status quo brawl and ... I think someone alluded to this already here or somewhere else on the forum but it's true! How can the so called metagame even be that if you've eliminated so much?

no johns means that. no complaining that "oh well you won cause kirby's better on that stage than olimar"

"ok, but then you'll get nothing but kirby's coming out and picking that stage any time an olimar shows up."

"ok, well then the olimar needs to learn more than 1 character."

basically the elimination of stages = the elimination for any real reason to learn the best characters for each matchup on each stage, only the best characters for each matchup on some stages, and this = an incomplete metagame.

When the board got rolled all that time ago and Brawl launched there was already damage done.

So much discussion went into what if anything needs to be banned to have competitive play. I guess it started with items, and I understand the necessity to disable at least some of them. Sheik. Haha, my wife used to play Sheik in Melee a lot and then it seemed like she may be banned at tourney so she switched to Dr. Mario and won anyway haha but I guess the danger in banning stuff is it really doesn't ever end. Is it too late? Has it been too long since the game launched to expect all those TO players to start learning more characters and playing on more stages? Or will the consensus be hey I just got 4th at such-n-such and that's the best i've ever done and i've been using this 1 character since 2004 so I'm not learning nothin' new! I dunno... I don't go to TO but I participate in online tourney and the stage picking systems can definitely be

 

[buenob]

^this == not true (wow I can't believe how fast that happened)

many, MANY of the "fringe" stages benefit the top-tier characters way more than the lower tiers... it seems to be a large factor in why the pro's don't like them (MK on norfai / Mansion)

this = an incomplete metagame

any 'setting' we choose will alter the metagame... % display on/off? new metagame... items set to not spawn, but all on? new metagame... think before you type...

this = not the game I want to play... <-- fixed for accuracy

 

[Linkshot]

Sadly, due to Brawl's intensely diverse nature, we all want to play a different style.

I would actually prefer Items simply set to not spawn, but still on.

 

[Sucumbio]

^this == not true (wow I can't believe how fast that happened)

many, MANY of the "fringe" stages benefit the top-tier characters way more than the lower tiers... it seems to be a large factor in why the pro's don't like them (MK on norfai / Mansion)


any 'setting' we choose will alter the metagame... % display on/off? new metagame... items set to not spawn, but all on? new metagame... think before you type...

this = not the game I want to play... <-- fixed for accuracy

Right, but the metagame we currently are working towards here at smash boards is ultimately going to eliminate too many options for too many characters. Although we've personally went ahead and looked for suggestions on which stages and settings to use, the "default" game (items on/medium, 2 min FFA, all stages) wasn't ever that far from what we use (items off/none, 3-5 Stock match, time limit or no time limit) and with the following stages banned (taking into account not ALL stages are fit for 1vs1 and we don't play just 1vs1 but also TB):

New Pork City: hurts the eyes way too badly, can barely see the foreground action.

Every other stage we find technically viable. When we decide to ban NPC (really just shut it off so it doesn't come up in random) it's nothing to do with the mechanics or johns of the stage, just the graphics. I mean unless a TO expects ppl to play blindfolded I think we can agree it's a poorly drawn stage, though an excellently drawn graphic, just not great for fighting on.

This brings me back to what infzy said. TO's are only concerned with head count and are paranoid that if they hold one allowing so many banned stages that no one will come.

Well I say that's a poor trend indeed. Who knows how awesome some of the other characters in brawl could be if we allowed them to be played on many stages, not just a handful. And the argument that low tiers DON'T have an advantage on a fringe stage, I don't follow...

Condensed Version of current SBR tier list:

S: Meta Knight, Snake, Wario, Falco, Diddy Kong, King Dedede
A: Marth, Mr. Game & Watch, Pikachu, Olimar, Ice Climbers, R.O.B., Kirby
B: Lucario, Zero Suit Samus, Toon Link, Pit, Donkey Kong
C: Peach, Luigi, Fox, Wolf, Sonic, Sheik
D: Bowser, Zelda, Pokémon Trainer, Ike
E: Lucas, Mario, Ness, Yoshi, Samus
F: Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon, Link, Ganondorf

Fringe Stages (counter/banned) vs "low tiers" (D-F tier) I'll list the characters that don't necessarily have a disadvantage in the stage, but rather an advantage regardless of the opponent.

Norfair (0-16-10)
-Ness/Lucas (E tier) both have neat setups here though I have better luck with Ness than Lucas here but that's just because I play ness much more than lucas, I'm sure.

Luigi's Mansion (0-11-8)
-Lucas (E tier) has a wide array of options due to its large size.

Distant Planet (0-15-11)
-Samus (E tier) has a great zone right at the ledge from the walk off where she can pretty much dictate the match. Zelda (D tier) also.

Green Greens (0-6-9)
-Jigglypuff (F tier -thatsucks-) though the movement options seem limited, this stage has many things going for it that benefit small characters with a good recovery, not just Kirby, but any of them.

Yoshi's Island [Melee] (0-10-19)
-Zelda (D tier)/Sheik (C tier -really? good-) a personal favorite this stage, Sheik can absolutely **** here but since she's higher tier than she was a few months ago I suppose this example isn't 100% useful

Port Town Aero Dive (0-12-23)
-Mario (E tier) though light the continual presence of a damage zone keeps mario in the air to avoid damage while also hindering his more grounded opponents.

These aren't all there is, of course, just all the ones I could readily think of that I have experienced personally.

For outright banned stages, not fringe, it's important to note just who's low tier now anyway: (in order followed by banned stage that could benefit them/give them an advantage)

Bowser
Zelda
Pokémon Trainer
Ike
Lucas
Mario
Ness
Yoshi
Samus
Jigglypuff
Captain Falcon
Link
Ganondorf

Hanenbow (0-5-16)
Mario Circuit (0-5-19)
Onett (0-3-14)
Corneria (0-3-15)
Big Blue (0-3-17)
75m (2-2-24)
Green Hill Zone (0-3-19)
New Pork City (2-1-20)
Rumble Falls (0-3-21)
Shadow Moses Island (1-1-20)
Summit (0-2-20)
Mario Bros. (2-0-22)
Flat Zone 2 (1-1-22)
Bridge of Eldin (0-2-25)
WarioWare Inc. (0-2-33)
Spear Pillar (1-0-31)
Skyworld (0-0-16)
Temple (0-0-16)
Mushroomy Kingdom 1-1 (0-0-19)
Mushroomy Kingdom 1-2 (0-0-21)

Now I won't say I know enough about all these stages and characters to know which ones benefit from which, but there it is, the low tiers and the banned stages that may help them in the metagame.

 

[infomon]

^this == not true (wow I can't believe how fast that happened)

many, MANY of the "fringe" stages benefit the top-tier characters way more than the lower tiers... it seems to be a large factor in why the pro's don't like them (MK on norfai / Mansion)

And yet ppl keep telling me that Olimar and DK are also both "overpowered" on Mansion. And that Jigglypuff is unbeatable on Norfair.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows how they'll pan out in the long run. Theorycrafting that MK is overpowered on Green Greens, for example, really doesn't get us anywhere. There's no reason to preemptively shut down the metagame.

And yes, we're talking about the metagame of competitive brawl, not "items on" brawl or some other variant.... there's an unmistakeable difference.

 

[Katakiri]

Sadly, due to Brawl's intensely diverse nature, we all want to play a different style.

lol I wish Brawl was diverse.
I was bored at a tourney recently and decided to map out the basic catagories of characters in Brawl. It turned out to be pretty sad.

Campers (Air & Projectile Sub)
Grabbers (CGers, Tech Chasers, & Jugglers Sub)
Close Combat (Air & Ground Sub)
Ranged Combat (Air, Ground, & Projectile Sub)
Hit & Run (Air & Ground Sub)

Every character fits in at least 1 of those catagories. (Many fit into 2 or more though)

I've secondaried every character at least once & I gotta say, Melee seems a little more diverse than Brawl even having less characters.

But this is a stage discussion so... /rant




Infzy, I agree with you, and I'm gonna let you finish. But, Castle Siege is the best stage OF ALL TIME!

But seriously, here in Ohio, just about anything that's borderline CP is legal here.

Green Greens
Yoshi's Island (Pipes) *coughwhyshugowinscough*
Port Town
Pirate Ship
Luigi's Mansion (Pipes)

All that good stuff. And I gotta say, it all seems pretty balanced here. Aside from a few people saying that Sonic's unbeatable on Yoshi Pipes, no one seems to complain about the stages.

Hell, I'd go as far to say that it's a little more balanced here because of it.

 

[Linkshot]

Sonic does have amazing approach options on Yoshi's Island (Melee).

I have a bBrawl replay of my just camping Level 9 Snake the whole match. If he approached from above, I ran across to the other side. If he approached from below, I spinshotted to the other end.

 

[buenob]

norfair and GG (and other fringe levels):

the concept of "helping" characters is rediculous... basically, you are just slapping your opponent in the face with "I don't respect you as an opponent" when you talk like that...

inherently, I'm pretty sure we all agree that if a strategy is universally "unbeatable" (mk infinite cape) that it should be banned... the only reason NOT to ban a lot of those stages is that the so-called "best strategies" can be beat... but what is incredibly detrimental is that the skill involved in exploiting the stage does not transfer over to any of the other stages... by choosing one of these levels, you're basically saying "I can exploit this map... you're not good enough to deal with it, but I know deep down this strategy can be beat..."

then there are two options... one -- give the opponent the win on their CP and then go for gusto on another level ... or... two -- pratice beating their crazy tactic (good luck if you don't main a character that can deal with it) // [this requires less work] learn to do the crazy tactic yourself...

so then this is how those levels will go..

i cp questionable level x
- I cp character [a, b, c, d..]
- as the losing player, main isn't [a, b, c, d..] I will also cp character [a, b, c, d..] because I have practiced with that one character on this level to abuse it, just like you have!.. (ignore CP character if main is in said set)

we have a battle that is completely unrelated to the rest of brawl...

gg no re...

 

[Kinzer]

the concept of "helping" characters is rediculous... basically, you are just slapping your opponent in the face with "I don't respect you as an opponent" when you talk like that...

You look past all your morals and have no mercy in competitive gaming.

 

[stealthwarrior17]

Currently, I hate Lylat as a neutral.

 

[Linkshot]

Money = Life

At tournaments, you are pretty much fighting for your life, so you kill other people if you have to.

gg no re Learn the matchup. This is Brawl. It has a thing called "stage diversity". Deal with it.

 

[Kinzer]

Currently, I hate Lylat as a neutral.

Lylat, as a neutral?

Not many regions have it that way (maybe Burger King 'cause they let you have it your way).

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The thing is that stage is a huge factor in every matchup. Let's say we play ICs vs G&W on Final Destination. You know what, G&W is really getting screwed. If he wants to win that, he has to be really good at a very narrow range of options that he has on such a completely flat stage while the ICs player doesn't have to worry about most of the usual counters to their tactics. Talking about stage specific strategies is silly since characters are all about what range of options they have in different situations, and you have different types of characters like this. Some characters (Ice Climbers, Falco) are only strong in a few situations, but in those situations, they are really powerful. Others (G&W is my best example, MK is also like this) rely on flexibility. This goes all the way down the tier list too; you have guys like Yoshi who are more rigid and guys like Pokemon Trainer who are really flexible lower down (don't know Yoshi's stage preferences very well since he's, well, Yoshi, but I know all around he's a pretty rigid character).

The thing with stage specific tactics is that, if you want to truly claim to be a master of this game, you need to know some of those on every stage for your character. I didn't say every tournament legal stage either; I said every stage. I know G&W tricks on every stage from Smashville to 75m and actually have some pretty good stuff on some stages that are always banned (you really don't want to play me on Summit), and quite literally no matter what the stage list at a tournament, I'm ready for what anyone can throw at me. I'll CP my best stages (Norfair and Green Greens are my favorite two, though lately TOs keep banning Green Greens on me), and I'm ready to deal with your CPs. I always ban Final Destination because it is not only IMO G&W's worst stage, but it gives me the least to work with. I am more than happy to outfox you on your own counterpick; feel free to take me to Luigi's Mansion only to discover I know that stage better than you do and won't ever give up no matter what tricks you pull out.

I don't expect every player to make mastering the entire stage list such a big part of their personal style like I did, but I do expect them to be relatively prepared to play on every stage. I still remember early in Brawl's life someone counterpicked me to Green Greens (!!!) thinking it was Dreamland 64 from melee. I was just blown away someone would enter a tournament without knowing the options like that. I think a big problem is that people don't play friendlies on enough stages; some particularly unwise players on play friendlies on starter stages (usually a 5 starter list even!), and they are left just totally unprepared for a greater diversity of stages. Then they act like there's a problem with the rules when they get surprised by a weird drawing on PictoChat when really their whole approach to the game from the start was flawed. I play friendlies on a really diverse set of stages (a liberal stage list's starter and counterpick list on random, no complaining how bad the stage is in any matchup since it's just a friendly), and I'd advise everyone to do the same.

As a note about Lylat, there is nothing even remotely unfair about that stage. I am continually blown away that people actually think it should be anything but a starter; it gets my vote for the closest thing Brawl has to a matchup neutral stage (it's not truly matchup neutral, but it's a lot closer than FD/BF/SV/YI/PS1 for sure).

 

[infomon]

the concept of "helping" characters is rediculous...

I absolutely agree, and I will not cite "helping the low tiers" as a reason for enabling a stage.

I will cite "you better darn-well prove that <character x> is broken on that stage before claiming it's a reason to ban the stage", though. And when someone tells me that DK, Olimar, or Jigglypuff are "overpowered" so a stage is worth banning, I laugh. and then I cry.

I will also say that preemptively banning a stage is helping the characters who don't do well on the stage; which is dumb. For example, I was in a discussion with Inui where he was johning that the lava on Norfair was too hard to avoid. QQ, you're a Snake main, and if one of Snake's natural disadvantages is you can't escape the lava (wait what??), then so be it; it's called a counterpick.

Not that you (buenob) have used this reason; I'm just saying, I agree, character balance is not a reason to allow nor ban a stage. Truly degenerate tactics, or sufficiently random outcomes, are valid reasons.

inherently, I'm pretty sure we all agree that if a strategy is universally "unbeatable" (mk infinite cape) that it should be banned... the only reason NOT to ban a lot of those stages is that the so-called "best strategies" can be beat... but what is incredibly detrimental is that the skill involved in exploiting the stage does not transfer over to any of the other stages... by choosing one of these levels, you're basically saying "I can exploit this map... you're not good enough to deal with it, but I know deep down this strategy can be beat..."

Why should lack-of-stage-knowledge be considered a valid reason for competition to not take place? I don't buy the "does-not-transfer" argument. Sure not all stages have water.... but not all stages don't have water; why should one count over the other, in the absence of any metric to say which is "truer" to the game? Why should you be called the Best at Brawl if you only know how to play Brawl-without-water? I think that's dumb.

If you don't know how to not get repeatedly chaingrabbed across the length of FD, then you deserve to lose. If you don't know how to deal with water-camping, then you deserve to lose.

then there are two options... one -- give the opponent the win on their CP and then go for gusto on another level ... or... two -- pratice beating their crazy tactic (good luck if you don't main a character that can deal with it) // [this requires less work] learn to do the crazy tactic yourself...

Is it "giving the Ice Climbers a win" if you let them take you to FD? No, you learn how to avoid their crazy tactic.
As for the bolded part..... wait, I thought that character balance wasn't a reason to ban stages? Right then, there is character imbalance in Brawl, and we just deal with it. Otherwise, we should ban the stages where there's nothing to stop D3's infinite on DK; goodbye crazy tactic!

we have a battle that is completely unrelated to the rest of brawl...

Either it's degenerate, or it's not. If it's not degenerate, then it's not completely unrelated to the rest of Brawl, because it's part of a legitimate Brawl strategy involving your character having a reasonable fight against the opponent. If it is degenerate, then the stage should be banned. Planking, water camping, the supposed "safety spot" on Distant Planet, and the close walk-offs of Pipes all have yet to be proven degenerate.

Just IMO.

Edit: ergh, + everything AA said, I shoulda refreshed the page before I posted lol

 

[buenob]

Why should lack-of-stage-knowledge be considered a valid reason for competition to not take place?

that's not what I said at all... I specifically state that both people have [perfect] stage knowledge (if you want to even think about winning on the level)... it's the degenerate nature of the bias of the levels towards a single tactic...

as for the "bolded part" I never said it was impossible, I was saying in an extremely sarcastic manner that it was incredibly difficult, to imply that most people will take the other option...

there is no reason to ban a level because of character balance... there IS however a reason to ban the level if the only way to have a close match is to do a single tactic better than an opponent, regardless of character... if JP can plank better than MK on norfair, to me that's still degenerate because you're just doing the one strategy better than the opponent... it's not who wins, but what's going on in the match...
(sorry that it wasn't clear in my prev. post)

as for IC's... well... you yourself said that they can be dealt with... basically, don't get grabbed... how you execute that plan is entirely up to you... and how they mindgames you into getting grabbed is different for each IC's main... if there was a single "oh you do this and then you grab them" then I'm sure the IC's infinite grabs should be banned... there's always a tonne of variety

AA - I had a huge rant typed out but realized I was in the process of making the same mistake you did... I will assume your comment of -- "make mastering the entire stage list such a big part of their personal style like I did" meant to say "make mastering the entire stage list such a big part of their personal style like I strive to do, because I feel it is incredibly important to what brawl is"

you say that i should be prepared for _everything_... but why should I?? You yourself have said that you have broken summit... I believe you! I don't need to do it myself... if a tournament that I _really_ want to go to has summit legal, I will ban it, but more than likely I will not go to that tournament (which is the "problem" with the smash scene right?)

Talking about stage specific strategies is silly since characters are all about what range of options they have in different situations

if by analyzing stage specific strategies it comes out that characters don't have multiple options, that's what I call degenerate...

I think a big problem is that people don't play friendlies on enough stages

I think "people" have played on these other stages, and have come to a different opinion than you... neither of our statements benefit a healthy discussion...

[addition edit:]

You look past all your morals and have no mercy in competitive gaming.

infzy did a great job of elaborating on my point

 

[infomon]

Right, we both do agree that a truly degenerate tactic can cause a stage to be ban-worthy.
So even if a stage has "gimmicks", if those gimmicks are only useful against a player who doesn't know how to get around them, then they're not a problem. Right?

Now the task is to determine which tactics are degenerate.

Planking has not been proven degenerate. MK vs. Jiggs on Norfair is not Plank vs. Plank in the current metagame.

Also, in most matchups, planking doesn't reduce either characters' options to nil. It reduces them to a situation in which it is still winnable on both sides. At least as far as anyone's demonstrated, anyway.

So now the question is...... what degenerate tactics exist for Mansion, Distant Planet, PS2, Pipes, etc. -- and proof of their degeneracy. Since this thread is full of skeptics, but the world is full of ban-happy ppl, and yet we're here begging for evidence which is never provided......

 

[deepseadiva]

For Distant Planet, I actually have a pretty ridiculous video of me JV four stocking a Ness.

...of course it was the nublet of my little brother, but it illustrates how DP's light circle can be abused. I'll see if I can record it with my Mac-Cam sometime soon.

 

[buenob]

i don't see how jiggs vs. MK isn't plank vs plank on norfair... either one ends up winning, then starts planking... both have ridiculously good planking options, and the only way to stop it would be to go for the ledges (which is the root of planking...) then a fight might ensue under the level, and then it goes back to planking...

 

[Linkshot]

You are under the impression planking has 100% Intangibility frames. It does not.

Here is my outlook on stages and why I ***** at conservation:

To me, each stage is a character. It's a character we fight ON. If we're banning stages due to degenerate strategies, why isn't D3 banned? He is one character that ruins over 10 stages.

If people are going to complain about "unbeatable strategies", you ban the character:stage matchup.

The problem is that people only apply "degenerate bans" to stages. Stages with permanent walls are banned because of D3's infinite. Then why is the D3 vs DK matchup allowed? There's an infinite right there.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I was talking about being a master of the game, which is what I feel the real goal here should be, not just winning tournaments. The two are not the same at all! Things that are degenerate need to be banned, but even banned things are still a part of the game. As a player seeking mastery of the game, you should be prepared to handle those banned things and understand them as aspects of the game or even exploit them should they foolishly be allowed.

A parallel situation might be looking at someone who wants to master Street Fighter 2 Super Turbo. In that game, Akuma is obviously so broken that he has to be banned no question. Winning with him in matchups that are not an Akuma ditto in which the players are of even close to equal skill is trivial. If you just want to win tournaments, you can pretty much pretend he's not in the game. However, if you want to be a master of the game, I would expect you to spend the (honestly fairly trivial) time necessary to be ready to exploit him if ever given the chance. At some point it's definitely true that you can't learn the whole cast (which is another way of saying you cannot ever 100% master a game), but learning how to use the broken character in non-ditto matchups is well within the realm of reasonable.

Learning to play on every stage is very reasonable, and learning to exploit that which is broken is perhaps the most important of all. After all, if you don't believe you can win on something broken if you are trying to exploit it and the opponent is not, what basis do you really have to want it banned? I know the Summit very well, and I know the sorts of things that are good there and the sorts of things that are broken there. I feel as though I could call myself a master of the Summit, and I feel qualified to say the stage should be banned (also qualified to say it's a shame because there are a lot of cool things about the stage). Decisions about banning an aspect of a game should flow from mastery, but sadly, it seems more common that people who are inexperienced on certain aspects are the ones who want them banned. I obviously can't know your experiences so I can't talk about you personally, but I see so often people lose on some weird stage, call it "gay", and then decide it should be banned which is just so... backward. The terrible loss suffered proves a lack of mastery there if anything; the player needs to learn precisely what can be done to do the same thing to some other poor sap before wanting to ban the stage.

I got off on a tangent, but I suppose I really am wanting to stand behind a principle of mastering a game, not just winning tournaments. Winning tournaments is great; I heavily endorse it, but you cheapen the game and define your own ability by the politics of smashboards if that's all you care about (obviously you personally are better under some rules than others, and it is politics that determines which rules are used). Also, it leads to a nasty trap. You do well at tournaments but are hurt by certain aspects. You get those aspects removed via rule changes and then do better at tournaments. You use your increased tournament performance to shift the rules even further in your favor. I'm not accusing anyone of malice like this, but the fact that such a model would be encouraged if all we valued were tournament results should be terrifying to everyone.

As per the issue of depth on stages, you are close to what I feel is a good point, but I think you're trying to measure a less scientific parameter than you should. I have frequently said one of the two conditions under which a stage should be banned is that it introduces too much variance, variance being defined as the unpredictability in match results between players of similar but non-equal skill. There's obviously the case that the stage has excessive random elements such as WarioWare, but I was sure to phrase it more generally than that. If a stage such as Norfair truly were to come down to such a simplistic tactic as ledgestalling, we'd expect play between such similarly skilled players to have essentially random results on Norfair. Now, when you're sure to ignore players who obviously just don't understand Norfair and play stupidly on it (I'm sure we can agree that these players really don't matter when considering the legality question), I don't think this is true. Sometimes Norfair causes a player who would lose on some other stage to win on it because Norfair can be a pretty strong counterpick, and it's a stage that some players have put an exceptional amount of time into. However, I don't really see it making the game inconsistent once you move past the players who make dumb mistakes and get hit a lot by lava pillars (this includes some otherwise good players; it's a shame). If the game is still as consistent as ever, that suggests there is still plenty of depth on that stage, and therefore it is fine (assuming it also meets the non-broken character bias criterion). I think on some level we agree about something basic here, but I think you're going at it from a somewhat less effective angle.

As per Meta Knight and Jigglypuff being ridiculous on Norfair, I think it's really easy to overstate. I have decent experience with both here, and as per Meta Knight, I'm not even convinced he's good on Norfair (in a lot of matchups; he's obviously good here against characters like Ice Climbers who are naturally weak on Norfair). Sure he has a lot of ledges, and that's fun. However, the ledges are really quite indefensible. You can easily approach from any direction on Norfair, and given Meta Knight's typically solid game at preventing particular approach directions, this hurts him here. Also, consider that Meta Knight truly does have trash aerial mobility. His attack speed up there is phenomenal, but he's not moving around very quickly at all. On most stages, he can use his great ground speed to mitigate this, but on Norfair, that's not really practical. Especially when the hazards force him to move, this can really put him in disadvantaged situations. Of course he has good stuff here too, but he's a top tier character so he has good stuff everywhere. I don't think his good stuff here when compared to the bad things makes it a better counterpick for him than Rainbow Cruise in a lot of matchups, and honestly, given how Meta Knight works, stages like Smashville and Delfino Plaza really are solid CPs for him in a lot of matchups and compete with the merit of the more extreme stages you'd usually look to for counterpicks.

As per Jigglypuff, I will just say that while this stage helps her in a lot of ways, I do not feel she would be a top 10 character even if this were literally the only stage used in tournaments. On that basis, I find it really hard to claim it should be banned on her account. It's not like it dumbs her down either. On this stage, there's an incentive to have battles in the air. Jigglypuff is always in the air anyway due to the whole "you are in the air because you are Jigglypuff" thing; she's just finding a stage that gives incentive to have battles in the domain in which she's naturally strong. That's really the main thing she gains here; the ledges are more about refreshing jumps safely than "planking" for her.

An extreme case to consider is that many stages (such as Brinstar) are "broken" in the DK vs DDD matchup because they severely limit DDD's ability to do the infinite to DK. They might turn a matchup that might as well be 100-0 DDD wins (the number doesn't matter; the point is that it's not winnable for DK at even close to similar skill levels) into something like 45-55 DK wins. That is a really extreme advantage DK gains because of a difference in stage geography, but I would be really hard pressed to argue to ban Brinstar because of that and think everyone else would too. It's definitely the case that just because a character is low tier or otherwise generally disadvantaged we can't gloss over their abuses, but if even with a powerful counterpick on their side they're not truly elite, it seems unreasonable to implement a ban because of them.

To wrap up this long post, yes, I recognize that not everyone is going to agree with me. I am inclined to speak strongly from my own position because it's just implied that everything I say is my own opinion that stems from my own experiences, and I'm obviously not speaking for anyone but myself unless I claim to represent someone else (well, posting about rule enforcment as a moderator aside). Like with Norfair, all of my experiences on that stage tell me that it yields either games of similar overall quality to the other stages or poor games that completely stem from one side lacking stage knowledge (most of the poor games I've seen here involve boneheaded deaths to hazards). You mention Meta Knight and Jigglypuff being ridiculous and degenerate here, but as someone who has seen people who definitely play to win use both of those characters here, I can say that just totally violates my experiences of deep, diverse gameplay on this stage so I find it easier to believe that you're speaking largely from theory instead of having thoroughly explored Norfair like I have and come to a different conclusion. If you have indeed thoroughly explored it and come to a different conclusion, that's interesting, and then we have the much more difficult situation of not knowing whether the MK/Jigglypuff tactics local to me are inferior or whether the counter tactics in your area are inferior. I still have to favor a liberal decision here since these disagreements would be idealistically resolved by extensive high level play on this stage developing the "Norfair metagame" to a point where it's universally clear whether it's degenerate or deep. The fact that most people simply do not play friendlies on Norfair or stages like it (even if you do, that just puts you in the same boat as me as a rare case) definitely means the "Norfair metagame" is way behind, say, the "Smashville metagame" and means that you see distressingly much of the tournament play Norfair does see involve more exploration than application.

 

[Linkshot]

There is only one Norfair tactic I can see becoming unbeatable.

What about Caping from ledge to ledge with MK?

 

[Tesh]

Wouldn't that be less effective than normal ledge camping? Since you are just a few guesses away from someone edgehogging you to death?