Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Mr. Escalator]

(which I am pretty sure anyone with a plunging down aerial can do, not just Mr. Game & Watch)

Yeah, it's not limited to G&W, and it's not even limited to just plunging down aerials. There are several specials that can get far enough down to reach the rudder. Pikachu's UpB and Zelda/Sheik's DownB are what best comes to my mind.

 

[bobson]

I've gotten under there with Metaknight's down B once.

 

[deepseadiva]

So what's wrong with Onett?

Yes, walkoffs. Oh noes. My opinion was always that the cars saved the stage. >_>

 

[Kamikaze*]

So what's wrong with Onett?

A lot of stuff.

Cars don't save the stage. They just get in they way more. And IIRC it's similar to RC in the aspect that people can be KO'd too early off the sides

 

[Linkshot]

This is no such thing as being KO'd too early. Being KO'd earlier is actually a good thing, since it gives more time for other events in a tourney.

The cars do save the stage. Didn't you watch Overswarm's video?

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

So what's wrong with Onett?

Yes, walkoffs. Oh noes. My opinion was always that the cars saved the stage. >_>

*Insert Dedede wall CG infinite rant here*

 

[bobson]

*Insert Dedede wall CG infinite rant here*

To properly rant about Dedede wall infinites on Onett you have to interrupt your rant with "VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" every twenty words.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Didn't you watch Overswarm's video?

Uh...nope.

 

[deepseadiva]

To properly rant about Dedede wall infinites on Onett you have to interrupt your rant with "VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" every twenty words.

Yes, that with many lols.

Chaingrabs on Onett don't work due to the cars interrupting periodically.

And Kamikaze, the sides may be close (hell I dunno), but close blastzones aren't a factor. I mean look at Green Greens or Corneria, no one argued for their banishment because the "sides where to close." In fact, Corneria's close sides were a legitimate reason in keeping it a CP in the first stage list.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRiPDcgWIo

 

[Linkshot]

As stated before, there's only one very small area that you can get infinite'd on, so it is entirely your fault if you get caught in it; not the stage's fault.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Being KO'd earlier is actually a good thing, since it gives more time for other events in a tourney.

No.

(I'm going to basically copy AlphaZealot's words now).

If you're planning a tournament hoping that some of the matches end early, you're doing it wrong.

You should plan a tournament assuming every single match can play out the longest it can; that way, the chances of the tournament running late and having to go to some random guy's apartment/basement/garage is very slim. This also, realistically, gives you time to end early, which means people are less restrained. You should never assume if matches are going to end early; if you have a venue that doesn't allow for maximum possible time, find a new venue.

Matches lasting longer on Luigi's Mansion is not a valid argument to ban it. Matches lasting shorter on Onett is not a valid argument to ban it.

./minirant

Onett gives certain characters (particularly D3, although other characters with wall infinites get a big buff here too) an insane advantage. While one character doesn't have to worry about stepping anywhere bad, the other essentially can't touch the ground in fear of being CGd by D3. Even if you never step in a bad zone where you can get CGd, you become much more predictable, and D3 can easily pressure you in bad situations.

Cars are a pretty bad counter to this. The majority of the time, if you get grabbed or infinited against the wall, you have maybe 5-15 seconds before the next car comes, which is more than enough time to get you to solid kill percentage and kill you. The infinite can't be interrupted frequently enough for the cars to do much.

Plus, while the cars may interrupt the infinite, they are a hazard. I'll have to test exact damage and knockback later, but the cars hit both opponents and you can't avoid it when you're trapped in an infinite. The cars are just as much of a hazard. If the D3 or whoever really wants, they can keep you in the lock until the car comes, and then you get hit for being infinited (which really helps the person performing the infinite, because it's extra damage on you).

Onett should be banned.

 

[deepseadiva]

No one is saying Onett doesn't give wall-abusers an advantage. The key difference is that it's no longer a broken advantage, but simply a great advantage. We only ban stages due to broken mechanics - the cars on Onett prevent that from happening.

While you might the say "the cars aren't enough", I say it's "just enough." A player threatened by a Dedede can simply wait for a car to proceed with his offensive processes. The worst that'll happen if he keeps to that strategy is he'll get trapped in a temporary infinite, thanks to the cars. We can't ban stages due to "good" advantages. Might as well throw Jungle Japes and Final Destination in there as well.

I believe the cars come by on a thirty second schedule...? Someone should quickly clarify. Otherwise, they have predetermined knockback incapable of KOing.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

practically everyone wants japes banned anyway. poor JJs

 

[deepseadiva]

SBR Votes:

Starter-Counter-Banned
Jungle Japes (0-14-1)
Onett (0-3-14)

Jungle Japes is pretty unanimously a Counter - with absolutely good reason.

I'd still like to see what turned the SBR to completly ban Onett though. Are we missing something?

 

[Linkshot]

We're not missing anything. The SBR isn't composed of saints, as most people seem to think. They're regular humans that will base their votes on own preference if they so wish.

 

[Waffle Can]

No one is saying Onett doesn't give wall-abusers an advantage.... The key difference is that it's no longer a broken advantage, but simply a great advantage. We only ban stages due to broken mechanics - the cars on Onett prevent that from happening....

...We can't ban stages due to "good" advantages. Might as well throw Jungle Japes and Final Destination in there as well.

If I may... I'm going to tie this comment into another stage discussion.

Concerning Skyworld, what is it exactly that made it unanimously banned? Was there some aspect of the map that gave a broken advantage? If they're talking about "spiking" through the clouds, or getting level spiked off of the breakable platforms- its just that. Breakable platforms, which respawn at a set time.

If there is a point where you're worried that certain platforms overly gimp you somehow, get rid of them and operate within the set amount of time that it takes for them to reappear. If its the lack of the platforms that scare you about spiking through the clouds, i'd say that fits the same argument about D3 on Onett.

Yes, it gives an advantage. But it is neither broken or unbeatable. Yes, you will be forced into compromising circumstances/situations to face your opponent, but if anything thats just a great advantage for the other player. And if you ask me, that STILL doesn't match up to the cheese thats being infinited against a wall.

We're not missing anything. The SBR isn't composed of saints, as most people seem to think. They're regular humans that will base their votes on own preference if they so wish.

This is EXACTLY why Skyworld was voted to be unanimously banned. Personal bias and preference skewed the vote here. At least in my view.

 

[AvaricePanda]

The MK and Oli strategies of just tornado/using upsmash also carry over from Mansion to Skyworld (and I've already argued why this was just too stupid). Characters with poor recoveries get destroyed if their opponent just destroys the ledges and doesn't let them sweetspot a ledge.

I don't understand why you don't think Onett gives D3 a ridiculous advantage. The only places a character can feasibly stay without getting CGd are the roofs of the houses and the awnings that get destroyed anyway. D3 can easily predict where you're going to go and pressure you into bad situations. Plus, if you get grabbed against a wall, or if you're a running CGable character, anywhere, you're screwed. A CG for 7 seconds still gets the opponent into reasonable kill percentage, plus the hit from the car which also adds on percentage. Even though you break out of the CG because of the car, it's basically punishing you for getting grabbed.

This is a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE advantage for D3 and is still an insane advantage for any character with some type of wall infinite.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

If I understand this correctly

Yoshi's Island [Brawl] (37-0-0)
Battlefield (47-0-1)
Smashville (24-0-1)
Final Destination (26-2-1)


Starter/Counter

Lylat Cruise (16-9-0)
Halberd (18-16-0)
Pokémon Stadium 1 (16-14-2)

Counter
Castle Siege (5-9-0)
Delfino Plaza (6-20-0)
Brinstar (1-20-0)
Frigate Orpheon (1-29-0)
Rainbow Cruise (0-30-1)
Jungle Japes (0-14-1)
Pirate Ship (0-15-3)
PictoChat (0-25-9)
Pokémon Stadium 2 (0-24-11)
Norfair (0-16-10)
Luigi's Mansion (0-11-8)
Distant Planet (0-15-11)

 

[fkacyan]

Just because preference can influence a vote doesn't mean that a decision you didn't like was caused by that.

A unanimous ban almost certainly suggests that there is no chance that the votes all went that way because of that reason.

 

[Kage Me]

The MK and Oli strategies of just tornado/using upsmash also carry over from Mansion to Skyworld (and I've already argued why this was just too stupid). Characters with poor recoveries get destroyed if their opponent just destroys the ledges and doesn't let them sweetspot a ledge.

I don't understand why you don't think Onett gives D3 a ridiculous advantage. The only places a character can feasibly stay without getting CGd are the roofs of the houses and the awnings that get destroyed anyway. D3 can easily predict where you're going to go and pressure you into bad situations. Plus, if you get grabbed against a wall, or if you're a running CGable character, anywhere, you're screwed. A CG for 7 seconds still gets the opponent into reasonable kill percentage, plus the hit from the car which also adds on percentage. Even though you break out of the CG because of the car, it's basically punishing you for getting grabbed.

This is a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE advantage for D3 and is still an insane advantage for any character with some type of wall infinite.

Wouldn't say ridiculously huge. First of all, the cg is only going to last until a car comes, and probably won't start right after a car has passed. The time window is more limited than you might expect. Secondly, if a Dedede decides to wait down there, most characters can simply camp him back up. There's a few characters against whom he has a huge advantage on this stage, but that's why it's a counterpick. Nobody would bring their Ike to Jungle Japes, now would they?

 

[bobson]

D3 = auto win

I play a lot on this stage, and I am certainly gay enough CG into a wall infinite. It's really not as big of an advantage as you say.

 

[Waffle Can]

The MK and Oli strategies of just tornado/using upsmash also carry over from Mansion to Skyworld (and I've already argued why this was just too stupid). Characters with poor recoveries get destroyed if their opponent just destroys the ledges and doesn't let them sweetspot a ledge.

Both of these don't work nearly as well as they do on LM- Except for probably on the left side of the map, where the ceiling/floor is a lot closer together, as the rest of the stage has a considerable height distance between top and bottom. All it takes is a good DI or a well placed tech and you're out... Which is to say you need to have an even more perfect tech or DI to get out of such strategies on LM.

As for destroying the edge platforms used for recovering, I find it comparable to edge hogging which certainly isn't a bannable offense. If anything, its worse than an edgehog because of how many times you need to hit the platform before it breaks. Its all a matter of placement. And anyways, this would just be considered an "advantage" to characters who have the recovery to get around it. Its nothing broken. Like Kage said, taking an Ike to JJ would be a poor character selection... same applies for taking... lets a say, your bowser or possibly DK to Skyworld.

Just because preference can influence a vote doesn't mean that a decision you didn't like was caused by that.

A unanimous ban almost certainly suggests that there is no chance that the votes all went that way because of that reason.

Well, they certainly haven't come out with any solid descriptions as to why the stage was banned otherwise. Especially when the factors that seemingly make it broken/unplayable need only to be tested slightly more to get better, more accurate results.

If anything... it could point to my conclusion more so! (And with no word from the backroom to directly state it otherwise, I would say it was fair for me to say so.)

 

[deepseadiva]

This is a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE advantage for D3 and is still an insane advantage for any character with some type of wall infinite.

I honestly don't think it's that huge. It's a great advantage, it really is, but when every 30ish seconds that advantage is completly nullified, I wouldn't classify it as broken enough to warrant a ban on the stage.

Well, they certainly haven't come out with any solid descriptions as to why the stage was banned otherwise. Especially when the factors that seemingly make it broken/unplayable need only to be tested slightly more to get better, more accurate results.

Yea, the SBR aren't the most organized people ever. At least with the last list Overswarm provided us with some kinda of summary for each stage - with this list we get... nothing.

 

[Mythic02]

Speaking as a Dedede player I'm going to say how annoying it is to get someone into a wall infinite. People can camp on top of the houses and Dedede really can't do much about it other than approach. And Dedede can't even camp down there because the car will force him out. If someone is dumb enough to go down there for whatever reason, they are probably either really desperate, and idiot, or have the attention span of a flea.

 

[Linkshot]

You can shield the cars.

 

[Waffle Can]

^^^ Or sidestep...

 

[Phike]

i personally dont understand why some stages gotta be banned or not. all stages are good to use, some are more challenging to play on than others, which makes it a lot more fun to play on

 

[Mythic02]

They are all fun, and that's what they are designed for. But in a tourney setting it's got to be fair. Do you really want to pay $10 dollars for me to chaingrab you off of bridge of Eldin? Every stage has a fault. The ones with the biggest faults are eliminated.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Okay, in response to an inquiry by Meno about 7 starter stages, I'll just post my full arguments/recommendations (personal) about them here.

As a brief aside, I'll attempt to demonstrate why 5 starter stages is inadequate. The main reason is that, for several characters, the commonly accepted starter stages are their best stages, sometimes overwhelmingly positive stages. The Ice Climbers make it obvious. Their best three stages in the entire game, including banned everywhere stages probably, are Final Destination, Smashville, and Yoshi's Island (Brawl). In a tournament with 5 stage striking, the Ice Climbers player always strikes Battlefield and whatever the 5th stage on the list is. If they win the first match (likely since it's on one of their best stages, essentially they counterpick on you match 1), they are set. They likely lose on your counterpick/use a secondary and hope for the best. Anyway, match three Dave's Stupid Rule prevents them from picking one of those three stages, and if you are smart your personal ban blocks a second. Still though, they just pick the third. This isn't one "neutral" and a counterpick per each side. The Ice Climbers player gets two counterpicks while the other player gets only one. The Ice Climbers are the most obvious case, but you also have lots of cases across the tier list of such things. Mr. Game & Watch sees his worst stages in Final Destination and Yoshi's Island (Brawl) so it's likely that any matchup in which one of the remaining three starter stages is against his favor will cause the 5 stage striking to produce unfair results for him. All sorts of chaingrabs work best on stages that are non-interactive, and if you're on the losing end of one of those matchups, this is going to be pretty unfair to you.

Seven itself isn't a magic number; there's no particular reason nine or eleven stages couldn't also work. However, seven is politically more obtainable, and it works very well itself. The goal is to produce a set of seven stages which produce the consistently most fair results when stage striking is applied to them; the most common sets are as follows

Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Lylat Cruise
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 1
Delfino Plaza or Halberd

Most people seem to lean toward the Halberd these days, but Delfino Plaza works pretty well too. Really, short of going through a ton of matchups and showing how this turns up fair, I can only call on my own experience and say that in most matchups (all matchups?) this produces a good stage.

The only real criticism I've seen is that some stages basically always get struck and should be removed which is kinda nonsense itself (the result is what matters, not the process), but regardless it isn't even true. I have seen every single stage on that list (including each of the possible 7th stages) played in the first match; I think it happens more once people get more used to the extra stages and are more comfortable playing on them (which, if they like winning, they will grow to be).

Some people like to make silly, absolutists statements such as "stages with X feature should not be starters" with no real justification. I would just remind them that they do NOT have to actually play on any one of the seven starters at random. If one of the starters is particularly bad for them, they can just strike it. Things are great and fair unless four of the starters are particularly bad for them in any given matchup, and I haven't found any matchups in which that's true. If the stage isn't bad for them but they're just complaining for personal distaste, they still could strike the stages they don't like anyway, and it might be worth reminding them that they had to be ready for that stage to be counterpicked on them anyway so they were already expected to be able to play on it.

A last note about stage striking is sequence. Most tournaments use a 1-1-1-1-1-1 order for stage striking (that is, the two sides take turns striking). This is really bad; my hands were a tiny bit sore from playing so much rock-paper-scissors after a long tournament with this. A better sequence is 1-2-2-1. Going second in general is an advantage (they could strike a stage you were going to strike, freeing you up to strike something else); this balances it out by making the "lateness" of the picks not strictly in the favor of either player (it's the 1st, 4th, and 5th picks versus the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th; the other order is 1st, 3rd, and 5th versus 2nd, 4th, and 6th).

 

[deepseadiva]

A like it, though Lylat, Delfino, and Halberd seem interchangable.

And just throwing this out there: having each player have two stage bans. Thoughts?

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think delfinos more likely than halberd cause it has no "lol hazards"

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The hazards on the Halberd are so trivial that there's no real reason to worry about them for stage legality.

 

[fkacyan]

The hazards on the Halberd are so trivial that there's no real reason to worry about them for stage legality.

It has a constant low ceiling, the hazards are easy to abuse (i.e. they either encourage camping for their duration or can be used to earn a kill off of a throw, etc), and you can go through the bottom of the stage. All of these things give great advantages to the two top-tier characters.

Of course, I don't feel a 7-starter strike system is needed, but then I tend to disagree with the great majority of what is suggested in this thread.

 

[Linkshot]

Two bans is definitely better than one. Many characters have multiple stages that give them great advantages. Having only one ban increases the chances of this character winning all the time.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I may have to disagree with two bans.

While it seems that it makes it more even for the characters, counterpick stages are supposed to be just that, slightly more advantaged for one character. After I ban RC against MK, I can honestly deal with Brinstar/Delfino because they're slight advantages to him, the point of CP stages.

Plus, 2 bans can completely demolish ICs. Ban FD and SV, platform camp the rest of the neutrals, and you win, gg.

 

[bobson]

With two bans you might as well skip the hassle and just ban any strong counterpick.

 

[Kamikaze*]

A like it, though Lylat, Delfino, and Halberd seem interchangable.

And just throwing this out there: having each player have two stage bans. Thoughts?

Good Idea. I'd loooove to ban both norfair and RC.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

You main Meta Knight. Do you not like winning?

Anyway, I support 2 stage bans but only with a particularly liberal stage list. Like, the point of 2 stage bans is that you could allow Onett or other such stages with a lot less controversy. Just adding it to a mostly conservative list just ruins counterpicking.

 

[Kamikaze*]

You main Meta Knight. Do you not like winning?

Anyway, I support 2 stage bans but only with a particularly liberal stage list. Like, the point of 2 stage bans is that you could allow Onett or other such stages with a lot less controversy. Just adding it to a mostly conservative list just ruins counterpicking.

Why do you say that I don't like winning?

 

[Waffle Can]

On the current list of playable/non-bannable stages... going for two stage bans would technically limit the already minuscule number that are available...

Personally, I'd like to try it out but only if more stages were counterpickable/not banned.