Official Stage Legality Discussion

[Kamikaze*]

you could also just not hang around that area at that time

I wasn't. I was THROWN into the water. god ****it.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

I wasn't. I was THROWN into the water. god ****it.

you mean hit?

unless its wolf or DDD theres very few throws that toss you that low to be hit by toothy

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

It sounds like your opponent skillfully put you in a bad position. Jungle Japes didn't do anything to you. It was either you boneheadedly throwing yourself into it or your opponent manipulating you into it. The stage geography enabled it, but then again, it also enabled you getting hit by a stage spike while on the ledge (you won't see that happen on Mario Circuit!).

Stage positioning always dictates punishment from attacks. If you get hit by my fsmash near and toward the blast zone, you die ridiculously lower than if I fsmash you across the whole stage. If you get thrown downward near the croc as it appears, you die ridiculously lower than otherwise. It's all the same, and it's all fair.

I don't really understand the whole idea of being killed by the stage. Not even Mario Bros. is truly so dangerous that you are at any risk there except insofar as your opponent's skillful play forces you into dangerous positions (or I suppose your own extremely unskillful play causes you to be harmed by the hazards unprovoked, but we needn't consider such a low level of play). Now, Mario Bros. is a broken stage on a lot of levels so don't misunderstand, but if even there there is no such thing as "the stage killed me", then I propose there is not such a thing on any stage.

 

[Linkshot]

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. When people point out "Oh, gay stage aspect" I immediately counterpoint the many ways to avoid it, how easy reaction is, etc.

Thank you, AA.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Think of it this way:

When are you usually put under the ledge on any other stage? Unless your DI is horrible, not that often. In fact, the only times you're really successfully there is if a character like MK or Jiggs is in the process of gimping you, or a character like Ness or Falco spikes you down. A lot of the time when you get spiked you die regardless, but on this stage, you can live so long as you don't get spiked to the left of the left platform. The only thing that can make you die otherwise is if you get spiked into a klaptrap, but that's random and doesn't often happen.

My policy for banning stages has been, "If it gives a character a near auto-win against a lot of characters, it should be banned" (my reasoning for Luigi's Mansion warranting a ban). The main two problems for the stage have been Kirby and Falco. With Kirby, you can simply avoid his swallow in the first place, and just not risk it at all if he's camping on the left side. And as aforementioned, Falco's CG WILL NOT kill you unless you're on the left platform or you get spikes into a claptrap. Falco seems good regardless on the stage just because of the stage layout, but not good enough to really get an autowin, from my experience (although I could be proven wrong).

As of now though, Japes should be counterpick.

 

[Kamikaze*]

It sounds like your opponent skillfully put you in a bad position. Jungle Japes didn't do anything to you. It was either you boneheadedly throwing yourself into it or your opponent manipulating you into it. The stage geography enabled it, but then again, it also enabled you getting hit by a stage spike while on the ledge (you won't see that happen on Mario Circuit!).

Stage positioning always dictates punishment from attacks. If you get hit by my fsmash near and toward the blast zone, you die ridiculously lower than if I fsmash you across the whole stage. If you get thrown downward near the croc as it appears, you die ridiculously lower than otherwise. It's all the same, and it's all fair.

I don't really understand the whole idea of being killed by the stage. Not even Mario Bros. is truly so dangerous that you are at any risk there except insofar as your opponent's skillful play forces you into dangerous positions (or I suppose your own extremely unskillful play causes you to be harmed by the hazards unprovoked, but we needn't consider such a low level of play). Now, Mario Bros. is a broken stage on a lot of levels so don't misunderstand, but if even there there is no such thing as "the stage killed me", then I propose there is not such a thing on any stage.

Maybe you'll understand if you were gayed by a stage at a large tourney.

Or any other type of highly competitive match for that matter.

 

[Linkshot]

He wouldn't be gayed, though, because he knows how the stages work.

 

[AurebeshX]

Primary Concern:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what separates a neutral stage from a counter pick? I mean to ask what core principles a neutral stage has that a counter pick doesn't. I do not want to know the difference between the two at tournaments.

Secondary Concern:
Also, aren't there strategies for every stage? Camping, spamming, or the like could be used anywhere, to varying degrees of effectiveness. Just because one player can pull it off better than another on a certain stage doesn't mean that is an impossible to beat strategy. Instead of complaining about how a certain technique is unbeatable, why not go show the world how to beat it?

Anyone else agree with that?

 

[SuSa]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=7681691#post7681691

LAWL. This is too good.

 

[Kwyjibo]

I'm new to Smashboards (this is my first post) so I guess I'm a little late to the punch but...

Corneria - Corneria really shouldn't have been banned. I've heard people say it should have been banned because of the laser. To be quite honest, you'd either have to be a complete idiot to get hit by that laser, or get spiked into it (which would have probably KO'd you anyway). Others say it should be banned because it has a permanent wall, allowing you to get infinite chain grabbed against a wall. In this case, I think we should ban the tactic, not the stage. Infinite grabbing is an incredibly cheap tactic (I'm both a Meta Knight main and a Jew, so when I say something's cheap, it must be incredibly cheap). Infinite wall grabbing, or using an excessively large grab chain is unsportsmanlike, and shows that you can only win by using a broken tactic and NOT by your own skill.

Skyworld - The fact that you can be spiked through the clouds makes it a counterpick, not a ban. It gives characters with good spikes an advantage over those with not-so-good spikes and/or bad recoveries, but it doesn't completely break the game, especially if you stay on the top.

Rumble Falls - This stage is RIGHTFULLY banned. Characters with terrible jumps, like Link or Ganondorf can keep up with the scrolling, but in order to do so, the have to focus on keeping up with the scrolling and not their opponent. This means fighting the stage and not the opponent, which is one of the exact parameters by which a stage is banned.

Hanenbow - Could somebody explain to me why Hanenbow is banned? There are no real hazards to fight on this stage except for the ledges getting angled. Sure, it's a large stage (I only guess this as a reason for banning because it's allowed in doubles), and projectile spammers can have a good advantage on it, and there can be some circle camping, but these all just contribute to having a strategy. The stage is really just a collection of tilting ledges, and the tilting is caused by the players.

Green Greens - Just a quick question: Aside from D3's chain grab (which, as I explained earlier, should be banned, not the stage), why is there even a movement to have it banned outside of personal stage preference? Yes, there are bomb blocks, but they can be used to both hurt you and help you if you know what you're doing.

Also, as far as walk-off KO's go, I personally think that they only put a stage up for bannination if they happen on BOTH sides of the screen, keeping you from staying on one side for safety. This is why I support the bans on Onett, Bridge of Eldin, Flatzone 2 and Mario Circuit, but will always defend Distant Planet and Yoshi's Island (Pipes).

 

[deepseadiva]

Kwyjibo, awesome name. xD
My replies in blue, with my targets in lime.

I'm new to Smashboards (this is my first post) so I guess I'm a little late to the punch but...

Corneria - Corneria really shouldn't have been banned. I've heard people say it should have been banned because of the laser. To be quite honest, you'd either have to be a complete idiot to get hit by that laser, or get spiked into it (which would have probably KO'd you anyway). Others say it should be banned because it has a permanent wall, allowing you to get infinite chain grabbed against a wall. In this case, I think we should ban the tactic, not the stage. Infinite grabbing is an incredibly cheap tactic (I'm both a Meta Knight main and a Jew, so when I say something's cheap, it must be incredibly cheap). Infinite wall grabbing, or using an excessively large grab chain is unsportsmanlike, and shows that you can only win by using a broken tactic and NOT by your own skill.

We ban Corneria due to the wall - and we hugely prefer banning stages over tactics. It's much easier to just tell people to "never play on Corneria" rather than "never do this on Corneria". It's much more applicable that way.

Rumble Falls - This stage is RIGHTFULLY banned. Characters with terrible jumps, like Link or Ganondorf can keep up with the scrolling, but in order to do so, the have to focus on keeping up with the scrolling and not their opponent. This means fighting the stage and not the opponent, which is one of the exact parameters by which a stage is banned.

Not exactly. By that definition, Halberd, PS1, anything with a hazard would be "fighting the stage." Even FD, with it's massive lean toward projectiles can be considered "fighting the stage." This is Smash, you're always "fighting the stage" - I believe only when it becomes overbearing that a stage is banned. A good example would be Brumble Falls.

Hanenbow - Could somebody explain to me why Hanenbow is banned? There are no real hazards to fight on this stage except for the ledges getting angled. Sure, it's a large stage (I only guess this as a reason for banning because it's allowed in doubles), and projectile spammers can have a good advantage on it, and there can be some circle camping, but these all just contribute to having a strategy. The stage is really just a collection of tilting ledges, and the tilting is caused by the players.

Circle camping is enough to warrant a ban.

Green Greens - Just a quick question: Aside from D3's chain grab (which, as I explained earlier, should be banned, not the stage), why is there even a movement to have it banned outside of personal stage preference? Yes, there are bomb blocks, but they can be used to both hurt you and help you if you know what you're doing.

The walls are a pretty important part of it's current ban status, and as I explained above we ban stages before we can tactics.

Also, as far as walk-off KO's go, I personally think that they only put a stage up for bannination if they happen on BOTH sides of the screen, keeping you from staying on one side for safety. This is why I support the bans on Onett, Bridge of Eldin, Flatzone 2 and Mario Circuit, but will always defend Distant Planet and Yoshi's Island (Pipes).

Wow, I agree with this - though Onett is a special case.

 

[Kwyjibo]

Thank you for enjoying my name. I promise to only make references to the first 8 seasons.

"We ban Corneria due to the wall - and we hugely prefer banning stages over tactics. It's much easier to just tell people to "never play on Corneria" rather than "never do this on Corneria". It's much more applicable that way."

I'm not saying that we should say "Never do an infinite chain grab against a wall on Coneria." I'm saying that we should say "Never do an infinite chain grab against a wall. Ever." I personally think that we should ban grab chains beyond a specified number of grabs (I'm not going to throw out a number, since the limit is the point of my argument, not what the limit is).

Also, as far as Corneria's wall is concerned, avoiding the wall is as simple as staying on the left side of the stage. As far as Green Greens' wall goes... it can be destroyed

 

[deepseadiva]

Thank you for enjoying my name. I promise to only make references to the first 8 seasons.

Thank Jeebus.

I'm not saying that we should say "Never do an infinite chain grab against a wall on Coneria." I'm saying that we should say "Never do an infinite chain grab against a wall. Ever."

Or... we can just ban Corneria! There's only a few stages with walls, and like I said it's much easier to implement a stage ban than a tactical ban. Just tell people not to play there and the whole issue is averted, meanwhile if we install a tactical ban, we always have to have a judge present to go "ah ah ah!"

It's generally well acknowledged that we ban the stage first, and the tactic second.

Also, on Green Greens, the wall can be destroyed.

Which is why I'm pro-Green Greens. :D

 

[Kwyjibo]

I think that, on a stage with one wall which can be avoided by sticking to the other side of the stage (and there's a nice amount of real estate over there), it should really be more of a CP. If you're facing a D3, and you know he's going to try to chain grab at the wall, you can either avoid the wall, or use the stage as your ban.

On the subject of Luigi's Mansion: everybody complains about how a Meta Knight can just tornado spam inside the house. There's actually a pretty good way to avoid that, and since this is a stage based on a horror game (I use that term lightly), it's as simple as... GET OUT OF THE HOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUSE. Meta Knight can't tornado spam you off the room ceilings of the house if you're on the roof.

Also, if circle camping is the issue on Hanenbow, then why is it allowed for doubles?

 

[fkacyan]

Meta Knight can't tornado spam you off the room ceilings of the house if you're on the roof.

Aside from just discussing tactics, if MK has a percent / stock advantage you are forced to approach him.

Also, if circle camping is the issue on Hanenbow, then why is it allowed for doubles?

Ever try running away from somebody, alone, around a big table?

How well would that work with one person blocking one way?

 

[infomon]

Well, the argument is that if/when a 2v2 eventually reduces to a 1v1, dumb circle-camping becomes the dominant, degenerate strategy. Why is it tolerable in this case?

(just curious; tbh I really wish hanenbow was playable)

 

[AvaricePanda]

Luigi's Mansion is just stupid for a LOT of characters.

DK can quite literally live to 999% by just DIing into the ceiling and spamming upB.

Olimar's ground game gets a huge buff because in many places of the stage, you can't get around it. Usmash spam just *****.

I remember seeing somewhere on the Falco boards that described some type of boost pivot CG that works because of the ceiling.

But I know most about MKs gayness on the stage, so I'll talk about that first.

MK can spam tornado. We know that. If you get caught, bye 50% damage at least (if you get out, they're doing it wrong). If you destroy the stage to the first floor, MK can just ledgecamp for 20 seconds until the mansion spawns again. When the mansion is full, MK can camp behind a pillar, and what can the opponent do? All projectiles are completely nullified because of the pillar. All the opponent can do is

1) Try to approach through the pillar.
2) Try to destroy the top pillar to make the bottom one eventually destroyed.
3) Try to approach from the top.

MK has range; he can dtilt/ftilt/tornado against approaches from the bottom. 2 and 3 are similar in placement; he can just uair, tornado to beat out most character's options.

 

[Kwyjibo]

Luigi's Mansion is just stupid for a LOT of characters.

DK can quite literally live to 999% by just DIing into the ceiling and spamming upB.

Olimar's ground game gets a huge buff because in many places of the stage, you can't get around it. Usmash spam just *****.

I remember seeing somewhere on the Falco boards that described some type of boost pivot CG that works because of the ceiling.

But I know most about MKs gayness on the stage, so I'll talk about that first.

MK can spam tornado. We know that. If you get caught, bye 50% damage at least (if you get out, they're doing it wrong). If you destroy the stage to the first floor, MK can just ledgecamp for 20 seconds until the mansion spawns again. When the mansion is full, MK can camp behind a pillar, and what can the opponent do? All projectiles are completely nullified because of the pillar. All the opponent can do is

1) Try to approach through the pillar.
2) Try to destroy the top pillar to make the bottom one eventually destroyed.
3) Try to approach from the top.

MK has range; he can dtilt/ftilt/tornado against approaches from the bottom. 2 and 3 are similar in placement; he can just uair, tornado to beat out most character's options.

So you're saying that the stage gives a large advantage to 3 characters? I'd say that makes it a CP. You can give it your personal ban against an opponent who uses DK, Oli or MK. I don't think stages should be banned just because 1 or 2 (or 3) characters can **** on it. To me, that makes it a CP for mains of those characters to try to use against you. If you're worried about an Oli or MK CPing it against you, pick up DK as a secondary and live to 999%, or just use your personal ban on that stage against the player.

And about the pillars stopping the projectiles... that seems like the definition of a counterpick to me. One of my closest Brawl-playing friends is a Pikachu main and he loves to projectile spam, so LM is a PERFECT counterpick against him.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

theres more than just those though, like Zelda, that was just a sample of what mansion is like.....

 

[infomon]

Right, it's crazy for a whole ton of characters. Perhaps every character can use this stage to their advantage. If they know what they're doing.

Sounds like a good CP to me. Nothing broken, just different -- and in fact, unexplored potential.

 

[AurebeshX]

Although I have a post up there, somewhere, I suppose it was skimmed over.... so I ask again....

What exactly separates neutrals, CPs, and banned stages? Is it that banned stages help one character, CPs help a few, and neutrals help almost all? Or is more of a single instance sort of thing, like the grabs against the wall on Corneria?

 

[AvaricePanda]

They're kind of a mixture of both.

Neutral stages are stages with the very least outside influence on a match. There aren't hazards or random occurences (usually), and each stage fits a standard normal stage with two ledges, decent-sized blastzones, and possibly platforms.

Counterpick stages don't necessarily give a couple characters a big advantage--neutrals can do that for some matchups--they're more of stages that have something different, like a hazard or short blast-zone or nonlinear stage design. They also often give the advantage to a character depending on the MU, and it's more obvious. For example, Halberd is a counterpick stage because it has hazards (avoidable, but still present) and it also has a low ceiling. Characters that kill off the top, like Snake or Fox, get a better advantage as compared to a "neutral" stage. Same as Rainbow Cruise; the stage favors aerial characters more. MK and Jigglypuff have a better advantage on that stage than more ground based characters, or characters with bad jump heights, such as Snake or Ganondorf.

Banned stages either heavily tip the scales of the match to one or a couple character's favor, or they have too random of events. Pirate Ship and Corneria are banned because of the former; Toon Link can water camp on Pirate ship and get a huge advantage; an attempt to approach means getting spiked for many characters without a flexible projectile. Corneria has a wall and a really low ceiling, so a character like Dedede, who kills off the top well and has a wall infinite on every character, get really good on the stage. A stage like WarioWare is banned because it gives random rewards. If you succeed at the minigame, you could become giant or get invincibility, and it's chosen at random and could give you a huge advantage or disadvantage.

Also, the whole MK camping behind the pillar thing doesn't only stop projectiles. It forces an approach for ALL characters. MK outranges and outprioritizes many characters and their attacks, and if he doesn't, he can still tornado when the opponent gets under the ceiling.

 

[AurebeshX]

So things that are overly large (Hyrule) are banned since they help the quicker characters, or the ones who can spam like crazy, to the point of ridiculousness? Or am I missing something again?

 

[Cook Kirby]

Generally that's it. Stages that offer certain characters large advantages are banned, or sometimes, depending on the tournament, they are legal counter-picks. Most stages are often only Neutral, Counter-Pick or Banned, but tournament organisers have some freedom as to what stage is what legality.

 

[Linkshot]

Circle Camping, which at first sounds like a viable strategy that the fast low tiers need, is actually very degenerate. It is no longer Smash at that point. It's Sakurai Hit & Run.

 

[infomon]

Some stages, like Hyrule, allow "circle camping". Basically, get a % or stock lead on your opponent, and spend the entire rest of the match running away. Say you're fox -- you're very fast, and also have a laser. So every so often you can fire the laser at the opponent, and say "look I'm not stalling, I'm just camping!"

The game entirely degenerates to the equivalent of playing tag around a large car.

Edit: Blimey, linkshot beat me to it

 

[AurebeshX]

Hit and run? Sounds like me playing. But this is fine on a stage like FD or battlefield? That is where I play usually...

 

[Linkshot]

It's fine on FD/Battlefield because it's not a very good strategy there.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

There's a difference between "hit and run" and "run and no one can ever catch you". Skilled play can catch you as you run on Battlefield. The same isn't really true on Temple; no amount of skill lets the user of a slow character catch a fast character there.

The reason you weren't answered is that your point requires a detailed answer, and different people have different philosophies.

My philosophy is as such. The first line is to be drawn between banned stages and counterpick stages. I believe stages should be banned for only two reasons (that is, if either or both applies to a stage, it is banned):

1. The stage has extreme character biases to the point of making otherwise winnable matchups unwinable (like, Temple and Mushroomy Kingdom 1-2)
2. The stage introduces a large extent of variance in matches such that play between two similarly but non-equally skilled high level players will produce effectively a coinflip result (like WarioWare Inc.)

I don't like banning many stages, and I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty on all stages.

My distinction for starter is simple. I believe the purpose of having starter stages is to ensure both sides get the optimally "fair" outcome (least character biased stage) for the matchup. Therefore, I define the best starter list as the starter list that produces the overall average best set of outcomes, and being a starter stage is as simple as being a legal stage on that list (banned stages are obviously ineligible to be starters). I think the "least interference" philosophy is inconsistent at best (Halberd obviously "interferes" less than Yoshi's Island [Brawl] almost no matter how you handle the non-obvious at best defining of interference), and I think it introduces systemic biases in favor of characters like the Ice Climbers (not to mention against characters like Mr. Game & Watch) that are just plain unacceptable.

I could elaborate and explain that which I seek in a stage list, but there are a lot of elements that want something else entirely. I can only caution you to be cautious at what anyone tells you about stages that isn't obvious objective fact; there really are very different approaches to it on a fundamental level with any given side usually portraying its position as simple truth.

 

[Kwyjibo]

1. The stage has extreme character biases to the point of making otherwise winnable matchups unwinable (like, Temple and Mushroomy Kingdom 1-2)
2. The stage introduces a large extent of variance in matches such that play between two similarly but non-equally skilled high level players will produce effectively a coinflip result (like WarioWare Inc.)

So, by your definitions, which banned stages should not have been banned? I'd be very interested in hearing your explanations for which banned stages should not be banned

 

[Kamikaze*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB6ZKApeZqw&feature=channel_page

^^^^^That's why japes is ****ing ********. Anyone who disagrees only likes it because the crocodile ALWAYS gives them hopes of winning because sometimes they just know that they will never win otherwise. Oh my god, I can't believe how ****ing stupid this stage is. A couple days ago, I considered quitting brawl because of ******** stages like this, but I need a way to entertain myself during the summer.

 

[deepseadiva]

I like how it happened twice.

The Lucario was clearly an idiot.

 

[bobson]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

 

[AvaricePanda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB6ZKApeZqw&feature=channel_page

^^^^^That's why japes is ****ing ********. Anyone who disagrees only likes it because the crocodile ALWAYS gives them hopes of winning because sometimes they just know that they will never win otherwise. Oh my god, I can't believe how ****ing stupid this stage is. A couple days ago, I considered quitting brawl because of ******** stages like this, but I need a way to entertain myself during the summer.

ROFL.

Just rofl.

The first time it happened was less avoidable and was more surprising. The Lucario could have DId his dtilt in the first place, but probably wasn't expecting that to be happen. Hardly broken though, given that Lucario didn't have to have gotten dtilted in the first place.

The second time it happened was avoidable in so many ways. He would have been wary of dtilt, could have shieldgrabbed, could have DId his dtilts, missed his tech, AND could have recovered even after he got hit out of the klap-trap, but instead of actually timing a jump he was probably spamming B, why he died.

And honestly, when the stage is actually used more, people will be more wary of things like MKs and Marth's dtilt near the ledge and will avoid them, just as people will avoid Falco's CG to spike (which you won't die from anyway unless you're to the left of the left platform or you get spiked in a klap-trap).

 

[Linkshot]

I don't use it for the klaptrap. I camp like a ***** there. I jab my opponent at the 7, too, so they fall into the klaptrap.

It's my "**** you, I play to win" counterpick.

WAIT

Oh ****. I KNOW that Luc. He lives in RI. I'll have to talk to him x.x

 

[Kamikaze*]

ROFL.

Just rofl.

The first time it happened was less avoidable and was more surprising. The Lucario could have DId his dtilt in the first place, but probably wasn't expecting that to be happen. Hardly broken though, given that Lucario didn't have to have gotten dtilted in the first place.

The second time it happened was avoidable in so many ways. He would have been wary of dtilt, could have shieldgrabbed, could have DId his dtilts, missed his tech, AND could have recovered even after he got hit out of the klap-trap, but instead of actually timing a jump he was probably spamming B, why he died.

And honestly, when the stage is actually used more, people will be more wary of things like MKs and Marth's dtilt near the ledge and will avoid them, just as people will avoid Falco's CG to spike (which you won't die from anyway unless you're to the left of the left platform or you get spiked in a klap-trap).

Tch, whatever. I guess I'll just have to keep banning this stupid stage everytime I play.

Also, whatever happened to meno's idea of banning two stages?

 

[infomon]

Banning two stages makes sense if you allow all the stages that haven't been proven ban-worthy.

That is, if we're looking at the lists of AA or Linkshot.

That is, if we're not being scrubs.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Banning two stages makes sense if you allow all the stages that haven't been proven ban-worthy.

That is, if we're looking at the lists of AA or Linkshot.

That is, if we're not being scrubs.

Thing is, they haven't been proven counter-pick either.

Hell, banning three stages seems like a good idea.

 

[bobson]

Thing is, they haven't been proven counter-pick either.

Innocent until proven guilty.
We did not start off the game by banning everything in it until we decided which parts were lacking enough "gayness" to be acceptable.

 

[Linkshot]

We can't start the game by banning everything. Random Stage select forces one stage to be on at all times.