Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
And yet, for some reason, we are able to make it into a fighting game without actually banning anything. Imagine that. Just not a very good one. So we then go forwards and we ban what we absolutely have to. I'm not that much of a purist. I recognize that it is possible to make the game better by banning things. The game is a better game (presuming the way we play it; stock, timer, 1v1, no items) if you ban certain stages like Temple, due to skill-mitigating factors that make the learning curve necessary to win on those stages next to non-existent, and it is not only better, but it is better by a ridiculous margin. It's like banning Akuma in SF2T-the game is not playable the way we play it with this element legal, but without this and a few other elements (also all stages), it becomes a legitimate and very fun game. And I don't think anyone here is going to follow the purist creed of "if you have to edit it so much to make it competitive, find a better game", mostly because, well, we really, really like smash. There are no other games that even remotely fill the niche smash fills, unlike fighters like street fighter or tekken, where they're all pretty much the same basic concept; if street fighter 5 turns out to be a total flop, you can either just go back to super street fighter 4, wait for Super Street Fighter 5 where they fix the issues, or play a completely different and yet shockingly similar fighter like Guilty Gear, Blazblue, or Tekken. We do not have that option, so we ban what we absolutely have to. Let's talk about that.
The difference between turning something off and banning it is essentially the difference between flipping a switch and hacking the game to remove the item in question. There is a switch built in to the game to decide which items are on, when, if at all. There is no switch built into the game that will stop you from selecting 75m. We could hack one in, but it's changing the game. Items are not banned, they are off. It's like saying time and coin mode are banned. No, they're just not on. Stock is. It's an in-game setting, and the designer wanted us to be able to play it that way.
I read the whole thing, but I'm only tackling these really quickly.
I don't want to seem like I didn't read it all I did, but basically what you're saying then is:
[About the cars]
Yoshi's Island? Walkoff?
I will want to see this vid. I am very interested in the status of Onett.
Whoa whoa whoa.
Someone should probably link to the Big Blue thread.
The platforms can be broken to screw over your opponents, resulting in gameplay being more about platform control than directly killing the opponent (since a ceiling spike with no solid platforms on the bottom can be a sure-fire ko against most characters if done right). Also, I've found it reasonably easy to stall using the ceiling, it's almost as usable as the interior of Temple or Spear Pillar.
Cars:
To be honest, I think that's competitive play. Being able to control the stage to win, imo, is something that doesn't at all seem game-breaking, nor does it seem like a bad part of competitive play.
Alas, being able to control the stage is exactly why Bridge of Eldin, Mario Circuit, Green Hill Zone, Onett, Corneria, and Big Blue are banned. The first few because chaingrabbing and camping, the last one because most kos are easiest by sending someone onto the floor plus the occasional low ceiling that occurs. (They can survive if they land feet first, but if they fall on their back they're dead meat)
While true, there is an extremely blurry line of when it goes from being dynamic while requiring skill to win or bing dyamic while requiring luck to win. *cough*WarioWare assist luck*cough*
75m has more issues than just moving objects, the game goes out of it's way to cause your opponent to grab the ladders (even when you don't want to), there is a walkoff, and generally the stage is too large. Skyworld is arguably one the most frustrating stages of the "near-legal" banned stage.
Luigi's Mansion used to be legal, but there are a couple of infinites involving the low ceilings. Yoshi's Island's walkoff doesn't really merit being banned imo. Most characters can't camp up there *cough*Star Fox*cough* and chaingrab walkoffs only effectively work if you stay to the right of that character. A stage I'd really like to see become legal is Hanenbow, it's a great stage, but I don't understand why most of my friends don't even want to play on it during CASUALS, yet they'll choose Mario Bros and Spear Pillar just fine in the same series of matches. >_> Distant Planet is my 2nd most wanted legalization, followed by Mario Circuit and Big Blue.
While I agree, most people would rather have the former outweigh the latter, which I agree more with.
The speed is what killed this stage's viability, the spikes just put the nail in the coffin. *pun intended*
Easily.
One character isn't enough to ban a stage, especially when you aren't forced to go a cg'able character. You'd have to find other problems.
Did you buffer shield or dolphin slash? I don't think Dedede's Down throw -> Down air is a true combo against the wall. I am unaware of how large the cars hitboxes are but you may have been able to SDI out of that.
Not really an issue. No stage element is in and of itself an issue, it's what effect or strategies it has/enables. In most cases, walkoffs enable DDD 0-death CGs and walkoff camping with grabs. Yoshi's Island enables DDD's 0-deaths only for 6 characters. 3 Are low/bottom tier, making them irrelevant-DDD will **** in their faces on any stage he counterpicks. 1 is DK, see the other 3. One is wario, and if he's getting grabbed, he's doing **** wrong. The only one who really matters is Lucario, and that's what a stage ban is for.
I don't see anything wrong with having to go MK to counter the wall infinite, why is that a problem again? Character availability isn't anything to consider about stage legalization.
One of the main criteria usually used is if the stages reduces character viability to a very small sub-set of characters who have a near 100% win rate on the stage. This alone is not a huge problem in and of itself, but coupled with the terrain features, Onett becomes almost completely focused on the walls, and the dominant strategy of wall-locks, and who can or can't avoid them. The tactic of abusing the walls is in my opinion, too strong. There is virtually no way to avoid them, and the cost for one mistake is in my opinion, too high. It's different from the cars on PTAD in that the stage is moving, and there are safe spots. Onett is static, and the cars don't do enough to alleviate the problem.
Onett is a green greens without the potential to be gimped and center camping. I see nothing wrong with this stage. DDD does not gain a near 100% chance of winning even if you are cg'able, just as rainbow does not. You can avoid the wall infinite by going over to the bottom of the left/right walls, forcing him into a disadvantaged position if he is to approach.
If one of the players is Ness in the original game, Saffron City goes from being a counterpick to banned, though it's because of Ness' inability to recover there [in between the skyscrapers] rather than overpoweredness.
your first statement is beyond wrong.
meteor spike mostly.
