Official Stage Q&A and Discussion

[Translucent]

I like GHZ as a starter most of the time. The only differences between it and the average starter is the moving platform (but SV has one), and the copious amounts of wall on each side of the stage. It also seems kind of small, but I think that's just me for the most part.

 

[bubbaking]

I personally think GHZ is strong CP material. It's somewhat like FD, but smaller, and the lack of platforms isn't neutral in the slightest. The copious amounts of wall on both sides buff certain chars' offstage games tremendously, and that one moving platform certainly doesn't help 'neutralize' things. The only things 'neutral-ish' about GHZ are the main stage's size and the blastzones.

I'm also starting to think that the group CP system is the only feasible way to allow a lot of stages while maintaining fairness and speedy tourney running. Otherwise, we're going to have to greatly cut down the number of stages allowed.

Spacies don't have bad stages, only stages that change how a MU affects them - a good strategy in CP striking for a spacie main would be to get rid of the stages that would be bad for the current MU, then strike to get a stage for personal taste.
Not every character is like this, that's true. The worse the character the more/harder the CPs are. But our goal by establishing rules isn't necessarily to 'balance' out the game, especially in order to make bad characters more viable.

This is specific to spacees and maybe only a couple other characters, such as Sheik. Actually, we should be aiming to level out the playing field for all chars. That's the point of CPs in the first place. If we weren't aiming to do that, then we'd just be sticking to neutrals only the way Japan does for vBrawl. If we allowed CPs for 1st game striking, then the spacees and those few other chars would just eliminate the few stages that would favor anyone else, as well as most of the fair stages, and then just gun for whatever stages will favor them (and there will be a lot more of that than the opposite).

In addition, Project M brings in a unique situation where, in my opinion, there are a bunch of stages that are borderline neutral and CP (ie, Norfair, Smashville, FoD, Melee Yoshi's, etc).

I couldn't disagree with you more on Smashville. SV is probably one of the most neutral stages available in P:M right now and is most often the stage where the 1st match is set to take place, alongside BF. Many, many people will probably agree with me on this one. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if a ruleset were to be put in place for a tourney I attend where it is required for the 1st match to be played out on SV (and/or BF).

 

[thespymachine]

Small questions:

What do you guys think of GHZ as a starter? and assuming that all of the stages on the first page were fair game, how many bans would be allowed? I've only ever used the group ban system.

1) Green Hill Zone:
I personally don't like it as a starter - because of how small it is, similar patterns and colors in the foreground and background, and the swinging platform - but wouldn't mind it being considered a neutral since it has similar properties to other stages I don't mind that are considered neutral; I consider it a Soft/Light Counterpick Stage (as I do with Smashville, both Yoshi's stages, Norfair, etc), where Hard/Strong CPs would be PS1, RC, Hyrule Castle, etc.

2) # of stage bans:
Best of 3
- 3 bans each players

Best of 5
- 7 to 8 stages legal: 1 ban (each player)
- 9 to 11 stages: 2 bans
- 12 and up: 3 bans

Best of 7
- Less than 9 stages: no bans
- 9 to 11 stages: 1 ban
- 12 and up: 2 bans

As a general rule, I think 2 bans will be good, until we think there should be a necessary rule change, or if we start realizing some stages should (not) be legal.

- - - - - -

This is specific to spacees and maybe only a couple other characters, such as Sheik. Actually, we should be aiming to level out the playing field for all chars. That's the point of CPs in the first place. If we weren't aiming to do that, then we'd just be sticking to neutrals only the way Japan does for vBrawl. If we allowed CPs for 1st game striking, then the spacees and those few other chars would just eliminate the few stages that would favor anyone else, as well as most of the fair stages, and then just gun for whatever stages will favor them (and there will be a lot more of that than the opposite).

I always take the same vantage point with stages as I do with items, stocks, and time-limit; my goal is to figure out what is the most conducive to a competitive environment - in this case: no items, 4 stocks, and 8 minutes on the timer.
Applying that to stages, 'random' or 'player-hindering' elements should not be allowed or very limited. For example, Halberd's claw/laser/bomb in Brawl was player-hindering and random, because not only did the player have to fight against their opponent, but evade the elements - that chose them at random - trying to kill them too. But, since things like DL's wind, SV's platform, and Randall are not random (aka: can be predicted before hand, and is constant), they don't necessarily form bannable status.

It seems that CPs were created in order to disguise the currently 'playable' stages between static and dynamic. From there it would only be natural to only stage strike the 'static' stages, since they are generally deemed more competitive friendly. This then made 'dynamic' stages only available for counterpicking. And thus, you get unsymmetrical, changing stages catering to certain characters overtime. I don't think CPs were intended, at first, for the purpose to give less optimal characters a better chance overall - they were just distinguished from the stages more accepted as 'competitive.'

If we decide as a community that we need a list of CP stages in order to help 'balance' the MUs, how many helpful stages should each character have? If it's just one, then it would be very easy to ban away that viable stage for bad characters.
And does this imply that Bowser's 'best' stage isn't Falco's 'best' stage as well? What happens when that's the case? Strategically create/demand a stage that hinders Falco but not Bowser in every way, I suppose. But then, why don't we let the developers do their work at making Bowser more viable instead of creating stages around his current specs? And does thinking that we can make Bowser viable via stages or spec changes imply that we think that every 'type' of character can be viable? Perhaps, huge, short-limbed characters are just doomed.
I'm just very scared that the process of making bad characters viable, in such a dynamic game, will make PM feel ridiculous like Brawl -/+.

I couldn't disagree with you more on Smashville. SV is probably one of the most neutral stages available in P:M right now and is most often the stage where the 1st match is set to take place, alongside BF. Many, many people will probably agree with me on this one. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if a ruleset were to be put in place for a tourney I attend where it is required for the 1st match to be played out on SV (and/or BF).

I just think the moving platform is too much, and can change a game since it ****s how to recover/edgeguard constantly. I think I like Norfair more because it's platforms are constantly outside/over the ledge, keeping a constant recovery/edgeguard game.

 

[DMG]

I

I'm also starting to think that the group CP


I couldn't disagree with you more on Smashville. SV is probably one of the most neutral stages available in P:M right now and is most often the stage where the 1st match is set to take place, alongside BF. Many, many people will probably agree with me on this one. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if a ruleset were to be put in place for a tourney I attend where it is required for the 1st match to be played out on SV (and/or BF).

The only aspect about GHZ that is strong CP material is the double wall. Everything else is not a strong feature: the platform is almost ignorable at times. Is the main platform smaller than FD? That would definitely be a plus against camping. GHZ may well be CP material, but it leans a lot closer to Neutral than "strong" CP.

SV is a very neutral stage as well, and will act like a smaller FD with additional options granted through the moving platform. It can add a lot for approaching and recovering, and it's predictable (will always swing back and forth the same once it starts). The only thing about the stage that feels janky, are sticky techs on the platform. It looks weird lol.


GHZ and SV are candidates for Neutral. I'd honestly rather see them as a Neutral than Dracula Castle. Also question: why do most people list Metal Cavern as a strong CP or obvious CP? I wouldn't list it as a Neutral, if only because we have better options, but people list Metal Cavern like it's RC or Brinstar or something possibly lame. Do people hate slopes and the irregularities of the stage? I feel like there's not much wrong with it: size isn't bad, both sides have a small wall for walljumping/recovery, has a platform in the middle. I don't see people camping much on it, so I'm just curious why people hate it. Maybe the slopes and dips making combos harder or different? Then again I play Marth a lootttttt on this stage and he's not affected at all by the stage so I might be biased.

 

[thespymachine]

GHZ and SV are candidates for Neutral. I'd honestly rather see them as a Neutral than Dracula Castle. Also question: why do most people list Metal Cavern as a strong CP or obvious CP? I wouldn't list it as a Neutral, if only because we have better options, but people list Metal Cavern like it's RC or Brinstar or something possibly lame. Do people hate slopes and the irregularities of the stage? I feel like there's not much wrong with it: size isn't bad, both sides have a small wall for walljumping/recovery, has a platform in the middle. I don't see people camping much on it, so I'm just curious why people hate it. Maybe the slopes and dips making combos harder or different? Then again I play Marth a lootttttt on this stage and he's not affected at all by the stage so I might be biased.

If RC and Brinstar are brought into the mix, then I conceive them as 'hyper' CPs.
Actually, there could be a tier list of competivity/neutrality of stages:

S: BF, PS2
A: FoD, SV, YS, DL, FD, Norfair
B: GHZ, YI, Jungle, Dracula's Castle, Rumble Falls, Lylat, WarioWare
C: Metal Cavern, Hyrule Castle, PS1, Castle Siege, Skyloft
D: Rainbow Cruise, Pictochat, Halberd, Brinstar, ...

From this list (though I'm forgetting/leaving stages out on accident/purpose), I would totally fine with tiers S-B being Neutrals, and C being CPs.


Metal Cavern just messes with gameplay too much, perhaps. I can see Marth and Ike being really good on it, and the spacies, Sonic, and Zss having a difficult time.

 

[DMG]

Messes with gameplay how though? That's the question: the stage doesn't change and has nothing moving. It's not so massive that camping is a huge problem either. People list the stage as worse than PS1 or some of the super large stages (or would prefer 64 Hyrule). Stuff like that I don't understand, the stage is very mild.

 

[thespymachine]

It's better than both Hyrule Castle and PS1, imo.

The angle in the middle messes with l-canceling and attacks - and techchases.
For example, Zss side-b and Falco/Fox's lasers. *shrug*

You are right that it's not that bad.
I need to play on it more, get a better feel though.

 

[Kati]

I've never had trouble l-cancelling on that stage, but chain grabbing is more difficult.

 

[bubbaking]

Metal Cavern is often listed as a strong CP probably for two reasons. Firstly, for JC's group system, it ended up in group 5, the group with all the weird, janky stages. Second is the reason it was probably in that group to begin with. Metal Cavern directly favors the few characters who like small stages and large blastzones for survival and recovery. It's the smallest stage in the game but its blastzones are very large in every direction. Chars like Marth and Sheik would probably enjoy the small stage without the blastzones and chars like Samus and ROB would probably enjoy the large blastzones without the small stage. To me, it's a fairly strong CP but isn't even close to banworthy.

 

[cannedbread]

metal cavern is the go-to counter for non-confrontational matchups

it's so hard to camp there

 

[thespymachine]

Not bannable, imo.

I'd love to see Samus vs Jiggz there. lol

 

[cannedbread]

every try snake dittos on metal cavern? holy **** it's so stupid

or bowser dittos? omggg

 

[bubbaking]

Metal Cavern just messes with gameplay too much, perhaps. I can see Marth and Ike being really good on it, and the spacies, Sonic, and Zss having a difficult time.

I agree with you on Sonic, and maybe on ZSS, but I disagree about the spacees. I find them to still be good on that stage (like almost every other stage). There's almost no way to get away from Falco's pressure. That is one stage where a single successful hit could actually possibly lead to a 0-to-death. Both spacees also don't mind large blastzones too much because they have plenty of ways to kill that ignore them.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I'm just very scared that the process of making bad characters viable, in such a dynamic game, will make PM feel ridiculous like Brawl -/+.

Except Project M already is. If Project M took out all the ridiculous amazing things they've added that make the game feel "minusy", i probably wouldn't play it.

There were jokes way back about making a Melee Minus but PM beat us to it, and did a far better job than we could have.

 

[Kati]

I'm not sure if this actually happened on smashmods, but I recall that the op had a collection of stagelists and rulesets to go with them. Of course, the debates were still raging on, but having multiple versions, each having at least minimal degree of acceptance, posted on the op would help bring others into the discussion.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I know part of the reason my friends don't like metal cavern, but I do, is because I play characters who thoroughly enjoy being in your face (Wario, Bowser, and Lucario), and I wreck them there. It's size definitely makes resetting to neutral more difficult when you're getting smacked around, as there's not much room to get away.

And to address the whole "starters/neutrals vs cps" issue, I think the biggest issue with labeling certain stages as "neutral" is just plain silly. FD is a perfect example, because it's commonly labeled as "neutral", when it's actually one of the strongest counterpicks for a lot of characters. If we're gonna label stages as "neutral", they actually need to be neutral. Every MU in the game would need to be as unaffected as humanly possible by the fact that it's taking place on these stages, otherwise they're counterpicks. This would require MU discussions, and comparing how well X character does on Y stage vs Z character many many times. All while the game is still in beta, and anything is subject to change.

If you think that's a reasonable goal, I guess go for it. I would strongly discourage using stagelists from melee/brawl as a starting point.

 

[bubbaking]

SV and BF as two most neutral stages. Let's start there.

 

[DMG]

FD has been debated on starter or CP status for all games for awhile now. Assuming you take FD off the block, the remaining starters left in the usual Melee list are fairly similar to each other.

 

[bubbaking]

People have also debated Yoshi's and DL64 for size and blastzone-related issues and FoD for size and also for somewhat janky platforms. That's mainly why I suggested that we build up starting from the two most established starters, SV and BF. I also think that PS2 is a very neutral stage and should be included.

 

[thespymachine]

We'll lets discuss what we think is/are the most 'neutral' stage (s).

I think BF and PS2.

 

[thespymachine]

Double posting, lol.

I've been playing Metal Cavern, and I don't think it's bad at all. Has large blastzones, but the stage itself can be used well and certain characters will have a needed advantage.

SV and BF as two most neutral stages. Let's start there.

We'll lets discuss what we think is/are the most 'neutral' stage (s).

I think BF and PS2.

So, BF with 2 vote, and SV & PS2 with 1 vote each.
Any other opinions?

 

[bubbaking]

That's mainly why I suggested that we build up starting from the two most established starters, SV and BF. I also think that PS2 is a very neutral stage and should be included.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[thespymachine]

Lol. Sorry.
If I had to vote for three, SV would be my third choice. But I just don't think it's as 'neutral' as the other two.

Let me form a terse argument against SV's 'most' neutral status: moving platform. I do think it's a great addition to the level, and helps create a neat, competitive diversity among the stages, but I think it's too much of a 'game changer' element (ie, Randall and DL wind) to be a top neutral [the game changing element isn't a lot, less than every other stage, imo, other than BF, FD, and PS2 - FD creates huge MU swings though].

That's just arguing for most neutral though. SV as one of three neutrals would be perfectly fine with me.

 

[bubbaking]

I can agree with that, I guess.

 

[thespymachine]

Where do we go from here? Ha ha.

Start listing off stages that are 'nearly neutral?' Create a sort of 'neutralness' tier list? I honestly love the idea, because it could help us find where stages are legal and not legal.
I used a tier list in one of my previous posts.

thespymachine's Stage Tier List v3.1
S: BF, PS2
A: SV

B: FD, Norfair, WarioWare, Rumble Falls, Dracula's Castle, Metal Cavern, GHZ
C+:Skyloft, Skyworld, DL
C: FoD, Picto, Lylat
C-: YS, YI, KJ64

D: PS1, Castle Siege
E: Safron City, Rainbow Cruise, Halberd, Brinstar, Frigate Orpheon
F: Jungle Japes, Pirate Ship, Mario Circuit, Fourside, Summit, Flatzone 2, Shadow Moses Island, Onett, Big Blue

Doubles Only: Jungle
Banned from Doubles: YS, Metal Cavern, GHZ, WarioWare, FoD

As far as this list goes, Tier D and lower would be illegal stages.
S=super neutral; A=nearly neutral; B=kinda neutral, some can be used for counters; C=barely neutral, odd/moving stage aspects; etc, etc
[v2: updated v1 after this post
v2.1: after this post
v2.5: after this post
v3: after this post]

 

[bubbaking]

YI-Melee is actually Yoshi's Story.

Here's my tier list of stages:
S: BF, PS2
A: SV

B: WW, FD, RF, GHZ, Norfair, DC, YS, YiB, DL64, Skyloft, FoD, Skyworld, PS1
C: MC, Lylat, CS, Pictochat, Halberd, KJ64
D: Brinstar, RC, Frigate
E: Custom stages

F: Saffron, Jungle Japes, Pirate Ship, Mario Circuit, Foursides, Summit, Flatzone 2, Shadow Moses, Onett, Big Blue

Doubles: SSE Jungle, Hyrule Castle

Neutral starters should be tiers S and A. Legal (for singles) CPs should be anything Tier C and higher. For more liberal stagelists, Tier D (and maybe E) could be considered. Tier F is just madness. The Doubles Tier is obviously the CPs that should be allowed for doubles only.

 

[thespymachine]

Mi mal. lol

S & A as the starters sounds good, and though I can see WW not being one of them I'd like to hear your case why is shouldn't.

I would agree with CPs being C and higher, if it was my C. lol
I just don't see any justification to put stages like Picto, Halberd, PS1, and KJ64 in the CPs when we have so many other viable stages that aren't ridiculous. If we needed stages to play on, I could go for some of them, but we don't have that problem.

I agree with your doubles only choices; Jungle and Hyrule are huge. I think Jungle would be a great doubles stage though.

 

[bubbaking]

WW is very small and the platforms have a weird and unorthodox arrangement. In addition, the walled sides are pretty strong for certain characters.

IMO, Lylat is just as janky as Pictochat, Halberd, PS1, and KJ64. I'm not sure if the stage still tips left and right (if it does, that's horrible), but the flatness of the ledges is also nonsensical. It's easy to end up 'Battlefielded' under the stage (referring to Melee BF, of course) and certain types of recoveries have a much harder time getting to the ledge than others. That and the weird blastzones, extremely low plats, and two slopes make the stage a pretty extreme CP for me. There's a reason Lylat has never been included on the major stagelist of any notable P:M tourney so far, and I believe it isn't on Page 1 either, meaning it's probably one of the more drastic stages.

On the other hand, Picto, Halberd, PS1, and KJ64 have all been legal in notable P:M tourneys at some point with all of them being legal at Melee-FC.

Pictochat is pretty much just another version of PS1 with more transformations and with its neutral transformation basically being FD with weird edges. Nothing on this stage hurts you directly and it actually promotes some pretty creative play. All the lines that were problematic before can be dropped through now.

Halberd, too, is mostly fine. The only random elements are the beam and exploding ball, which are easily avoided (or incorporated into strategies). The flying part of the stage takes off and lands at set times with clear indications. The stage is also on Page 1 so that says something since all the Page 1 stages are more or less competitively viable.

PS1 is even a CP by Melee standards and Melee's standards are strict. The stage can be a bit campy at times, but again, it promotes creative play and the neutral transformation is just as good as PS2. This stage is also on Page 1.

KJ64 is large but it's honestly no worse than RF. There is absolutely nothing random about this stage. If anything, it's just as legitimate a CP as MC.

CS also is fine now that the second form with the walk-offs has been eliminated, and I think the third form has been tweaked to better fit competitive play. IMO, stage transformations should not be an automatic reason to refuse a stage's competitive viability.

 

[No U]

Stages I think make the best neutrals:
Pokemon Stadium 2
Battlefield
Warioware
Smashville

Stages that are almost neutral-worthy but have notable pros/cons for certain characters:
Yoshi's Story
DL64
Final D
Green Hill Zone

Definite Counterpicks:
Norfair
Dracula's Castle
Rumble Falls
FoD
KJ64

Questionable Counterpicks:
Pokemon Stadium 1
Yoshi's Island
Metal Cavern
Skyloft

Very Questionable Counterpicks:
Pictochat
Halberd
Castle Seige
Skyworld
Lylat Cruise
SSE: Jungle (this one should only be a CP in teams, imo)

I personally am a fan of the top 3 groups plus Pokemon Stadium 1 (and maybe Yoshi's Island) being legal CPs, with players each getting 3 bans. That's how I've ran my tournaments at least.

Of course, I run with the regular 5 neutrals (no warioware, + FD and Yoshi's), I just think that Warioware is more neutral than those in general. If I had my way I'd probably leave FD a neutral and replace Yoshi's with warioware. That or replace FD and Yoshi's with Warioware and GHZ. Probably the latter.

Anyways I guess now I'll actually read the thread to see what people are even talking about >_>

 

[Kink-Link5]

My current, 13-stage, "All neutral" list; testing out Norfair at the moment.

BF
SV
PS1
PS2
GHZ
YS
FoD
DL
WW
DC
HB
NF
FD

After game 1 characters are selected, 4 stages are banned for the set in the order of player A, B, B, A. These four stages are gone for the remainder of the set.

The remaining 9 stages are selected from using stage striking in the order of player B, A, A, B, B, A, A, B

After game 1 is won, the winner can choose to strike two stages, the loser selects a stage from the remaining 7, the winner selects their character, and then the loser selects their character. Optionally, afterward, the loser may elect to select port priority. These two stages become un-stricken for game 3 and the winner of game 2 then strikes two stages.

 

[bubbaking]

Guys, if WW makes such a good neutral, then RF, Skyloft, and Skyworld should ALL be considered for that spot. WW has a ridiculously small main stage, ridiculously small blastzones, a ridiculous plat arrangement (compared to the standard 3-plat one), and a ridiculously blatant stage feature (walls all the way down). In that case, RF, Skyloft, and Skyworld are literally JUST as viable. RF is just the opposite of WW. Instead of really small, it's really big. There's literally nothing wrong with the stage other than what WW is guilty of (and RF doesn't even have walls as bad as what WW has). We should have a starter list that favors smaller stages because all it will take is for an opponent to strike PS2 and we're mostly left with two smaller stages. Skyloft is the same but it doesn't have walls at all. Skyworld is the same but it's blastzones are more 'neutral'. My point is that those stages are as 'neutral' as WW is.

 

[thespymachine]

On the other hand, Picto, Halberd, PS1, and KJ64 have all been legal in notable P:M tourneys at some point with all of them being legal at Melee-FC.

Pictochat is pretty much just another version of PS1 with more transformations and with its neutral transformation basically being FD with weird edges. Nothing on this stage hurts you directly and it actually promotes some pretty creative play. All the lines that were problematic before can be dropped through now.

Halberd, too, is mostly fine. The only random elements are the beam and exploding ball, which are easily avoided (or incorporated into strategies). The flying part of the stage takes off and lands at set times with clear indications. The stage is also on Page 1 so that says something since all the Page 1 stages are more or less competitively viable.

PS1 is even a CP by Melee standards and Melee's standards are strict. The stage can be a bit campy at times, but again, it promotes creative play and the neutral transformation is just as good as PS2. This stage is also on Page 1.

KJ64 is large but it's honestly no worse than RF. There is absolutely nothing random about this stage. If anything, it's just as legitimate a CP as MC.

CS also is fine now that the second form with the walk-offs has been eliminated, and I think the third form has been tweaked to better fit competitive play. IMO, stage transformations should not be an automatic reason to refuse a stage's competitive viability.

I agree with your sentiments regarding WW and Lylat.

I don't think FC-Legacy is a good example for a quality standard of stage selection. They had Mute City and Brinstar legal in Melee. lol But, it was still v2.1 then, and PM was/is still very young, it makes sense to have as many stages as possible.

The Melee stagelist isn't strict, imo. They're just down to the only stages that are at least somewhat competitively viable, considering every stage has something wrong about it (BF edges, FD MU killing, DL wind, YI Randall and shyguys, FoD platforms, PS1 transformations). BF is the only 'neutral' stage it has, the rest are counterpick status (as far as our standards are in this thread). So, I think our standards here are strict.

Picto & Halberd: I don't think any part of the stage should be able to do damage on the competitive level. For me, it has nothing to do with if it can be avoided (or that it being unavoidable is very rare) and that it can be used strategically - it's simply that I believe the most conducive stages to a competitive environment are ones that don't do damage to the characters.

Halberd & KJ64: Does Halberd's 'normal stage' have a weird ledge like KJ? KJ seems to hinder recoveries because you can go through the stage from the bottom. And Halberd has the same stage property too. The stage sort of changes the gameplay in a weird way.

Picto, Halberd, PS1, CS: I don't have a problem with stage transformations. I have a problem with how and what they transform into.
How - PS1 transforms the best. On the background screen it warns you quite a while before that it's going to change and what it changes to. And, it goes directly to that transformation (no in between like CS).
What - CS & Halberd have the best transformations. But the second form of CS tilts, like Lylat; and Halberd's first form has a walkoff and damage makers. However, compare this to PS1 that has near-the-edge stage problems and camping inducing transformations; or Picto that will quickly draw a deadly device right next to you.
The Ugly - Picto, Halberd, and CS all may be on timers, but is 'timekeeping' for drastic changes in gameplay a skill we want to test for in competitive Smash? If there was a warning, on stage, telling the players what's happening and when, I'd be down.
If all transformations didn't have an in-between (ie, CS) and transformed into competitive forms (ie, Halberd - minus damage makers), I'd be down.
But as far as we're concerned, there are no stages that are like that.

Guys, if WW makes such a good neutral, then RF, Skyloft, and Skyworld should ALL be considered for that spot. WW has a ridiculously small main stage, ridiculously small blastzones, a ridiculous plat arrangement (compared to the standard 3-plat one), and a ridiculously blatant stage feature (walls all the way down). In that case, RF, Skyloft, and Skyworld are literally JUST as viable. RF is just the opposite of WW. Instead of really small, it's really big. There's literally nothing wrong with the stage other than what WW is guilty of (and RF doesn't even have walls as bad as what WW has). We should have a starter list that favors smaller stages because all it will take is for an opponent to strike PS2 and we're mostly left with two smaller stages. Skyloft is the same but it doesn't have walls at all. Skyworld is the same but it's blastzones are more 'neutral'. My point is that those stages are as 'neutral' as WW is.

Yeah, I changed my mind on it.

My current, 13-stage, "All neutral" list; testing out Norfair at the moment.

BF, SV, PS1 ,PS2, GHZ, YS, FoD, DL, WW, DC, HB, NF, FD

While you're at it, test out PS1, HB, FoD, and YS. I consider them as bad or worse compared to Norfair.

 

[bubbaking]

I am really NOT a fan of banning stages for the entire set before the very first game. I see you have a Bowser, let me just ban YS and MC for good before the set even starts. Oh, you switched off Bowser for game 2? Well, I hope you don't mind if I pull those two stages out again.

Don't forget that people are allowed to pick stages that they banned.

Picto & Halberd: I don't think any part of the stage should be able to do damage on the competitive level. For me, it has nothing to do with if it can be avoided (or that it being unavoidable is very rare) and that it can be used strategically - it's simply that I believe the most conducive stages to a competitive environment are ones that don't do damage to the characters.

You know that Pictochat doesn't feature parts of the stage that can hurt characters anymore, right? I've had it legal at all my tournaments. The mine cart no longer hurts (but you can still ride on it ). The same goes for the face that blows wind. The missiles and spikes don't even show up anymore.

I can agree with you on Halberd, though.

Halberd & KJ64: Does Halberd's 'normal stage' have a weird ledge like KJ? KJ seems to hinder recoveries because you can go through the stage from the bottom. And Halberd has the same stage property too. The stage sort of changes the gameplay in a weird way.

At the same time, these kinds of stages can help certain recoveries. Don't forget that now every character has the additional option of going through the bottom of the stage in addition to their regular options. Tbh, these stages don't actually "hinder" recoveries, because you can still grab their ledges in the same exact way that you grab other ledges; they just force you to be precise, a la Lylat. However, UNLIKE Lylat, you can go through the bottoms of these stages, so the required precision is balanced out by an additional option. I can see what you were saying before about Halberd attacking the players, but KJ64 should definitely be included as a CP, IMO.

How - PS1 transforms the best. On the background screen it warns you quite a while before that it's going to change and what it changes to. And, it goes directly to that transformation (no in between like CS).

Wait, how is this bad? The background screen minimizes the effect of the 'random aspect' by announcing the next transformation well ahead of time. In addition, the stage transforms slowly. It gives plenty of time to adjust. Or are you saying this is good?

What - CS & Halberd have the best transformations. But the second form of CS tilts, like Lylat; and Halberd's first form has a walkoff and damage makers. However, compare this to PS1 that has near-the-edge stage problems and camping inducing transformations; or Picto that will quickly draw a deadly device right next to you.

Alright, I could agree with you about CS, but again, Picto does NOT draw anything that hurts you. All those aspects were removed and all troublesome lines were made 'drop through-able'.

The Ugly - Picto, Halberd, and CS all may be on timers, but is 'timekeeping' for drastic changes in gameplay a skill we want to test for in competitive Smash? If there was a warning, on stage, telling the players what's happening and when, I'd be down.
If all transformations didn't have an in-between (ie, CS) and transformed into competitive forms (ie, Halberd - minus damage makers), I'd be down.
But as far as we're concerned, there are no stages that are like that.

Well, while the main stage is flying in the air, the stage actually gives very ample warning that it is going to descend on the ship (watch the background, just like you would for PS1). As for taking off in the beginning, and intermittently from the ship, there may not be a warning (and I really do hate how the floor just OPENS UP like that), but the stage gives plenty of time to get on the platform before it takes off.

Still, I'm all for removing CS and Halberd from the lineup. Picto should stay, imo, though.

 

[thespymachine]

You know that Pictochat doesn't feature parts of the stage that can hurt characters anymore, right? I've had it legal at all my tournaments. The mine cart no longer hurts (but you can still ride on it ). The same goes for the face that blows wind. The missiles and spikes don't even show up anymore.

Wow. My ignorance is out. Well, then I'll move if from banned then. lol

Tbh, these stages don't actually "hinder" recoveries, because you can still grab their ledges in the same exact way that you grab other ledges; they just force you to be precise, a la Lylat. However, UNLIKE Lylat, you can go through the bottoms of these stages, so the required precision is balanced out by an additional option. I can see what you were saying before about Halberd attacking the players, but KJ64 should definitely be included as a CP, IMO.

Yeah, it helps recoveries for sure. And I think if the stage was the only problem, I would accept it as a CP more. But, it also has those rotating platforms, angled platforms, angled stage, and a barrel (unless the barrel was removed, lol). It seems to be too much, especially with a high ceiling. I dunno.

Wait, how is this bad? The background screen minimizes the effect of the 'random aspect' by announcing the next transformation well ahead of time. In addition, the stage transforms slowly. It gives plenty of time to adjust. Or are you saying this is good?

Not bad, very good. Should have explained better.

Well, while the main stage is flying in the air, the stage actually gives very ample warning that it is going to descend on the ship (watch the background, just like you would for PS1). As for taking off in the beginning, and intermittently from the ship, there may not be a warning (and I really do hate how the floor just OPENS UP like that), but the stage gives plenty of time to get on the platform before it takes off.

Still, I'm all for removing CS and Halberd from the lineup. Picto should stay, imo, though.

The take off part is the problem I'm meaning. Yes, you can adjust to it before take off, but it comes up without warning. I think that's very disruptive.

Samezies. I'm still for keeping PS1 banned too.
Picto and KJ64 for low tier cp. For now.

Edit: I'm going to play-test Picto, Skyworld, and KJ64 for a bit. I'll try to be back soon with more informed opinions.

 

[bubbaking]

Yeah, it helps recoveries for sure. And I think if the stage was the only problem, I would accept it as a CP more. But, it also has those rotating platforms, angled platforms, angled stage, and a barrel (unless the barrel was removed, lol). It seems to be too much, especially with a high ceiling. I dunno.

IMO, via strict comparisons, it's not any worse than YiB. YiB has a plat that is constantly changing angles, the main stage is constantly sloped and has two pretty obnoxious slopes at the ledges, the ghosts randomly pop up and save the opponent, the walled sides are blatantly strong for certain characters, and the shy guys get in the way of attacks, adding hitlag and absorbing certain projectiles. KJ64's large blastzones fit the large stage, just like DL64's and DC's do. The barrel has been removed.

Well, I guess we'll talk more when you come back from your playtesting.

 

[thespymachine]

KJ64 is okay. Doing things from the edge onto the stage is strange. Recovering a little too high with Falco's sideb can kill you, same with Sheik's recovery (except upb has a large grab range, and grabs the ledge when you're in the stage). Love that the barrel is gone though.

Picto is much better now, but even in this short time I had two instances where the stage hindered me. 1, I was edgeguarding and a tree pops up and spoils my aerial. 2, I was going to punish an airdodge when a platform appeared and the cpu landed and was saved. Frustrating. Can't imagine that in tournament.

Skyworld I actually enjoy. The platforms are a bit obscure, so I have trouble edge cancelling and wavelanding on them.


Just played some doubles. I think YS, MC, GHZ, WW, and FoD should be banned from doubles. All too small.

 

[DMG]

Picto with some of the more minor transformations would be kinda cool. But it still sucks to be in the middle of something and now there's a ****in boat or wall or the giant face decides to shame you with his mighty gusts.

 

[No U]

Yeah WW does have pretty small blastzones but they're no smaller than YS and YS has randal who can pull some stupid shenanigans.

And idk how people can say they like skyworld, that stage's edges are like 5x worse than Battlefield's in Melee. I might be slightly more annoyed by it than the average person just because you have to be ultra careful not to donk your head with Lucas's double jump from the edge there.

I don't like Skyloft and MC that much because they have too many wonky angles and Skyloft has kinda gimpy edges, especially the right one.

In any case, I favor GHZ over FD for a neutral any day, even if YS vs WW is debatable.

 

[TheTTimeLives]

As a sort of base ground rule in the consideration of a stage into tournament legal, it shouldn't damage the character, it's edges should function normally and their should be no highly character specific advantages on account of a strong wall (Corneria) or death box (Temple) that polarizes play.

On the more conceptual and franchise friendly side, I would like each stage to be unique in it's layout and would like at least one stage from each franchise to be tourney friendly. I understand that will be difficult for franchises like F-Zero and LoZ but I would like to feel like I can actually use the stages the game has given me and still play ... you know ... with dignity.

 

[bubbaking]

Just so everyone remembers, we need an odd number of neutrals in order to facilitate stage striking. Along those lines, I support the three stages, BF, SV, and PS2, as starters. Striking would simply be P1 - P2.

Yeah WW does have pretty small blastzones but they're no smaller than YS and YS has randal who can pull some stupid shenanigans.

Yeah, that's why I'm saying neither should be a neutral.

And idk how people can say they like skyworld, that stage's edges are like 5x worse than Battlefield's in Melee. I might be slightly more annoyed by it than the average person just because you have to be ultra careful not to donk your head with Lucas's double jump from the edge there.

That just makes Skyworld CP material, not banworthy. Lylat is even worse; that stage is thinner and it tilts. Also, I don't think ANY stage's edges are as bad as Melee BF's were.

I don't like Skyloft and MC that much because they have too many wonky angles and Skyloft has kinda gimpy edges, especially the right one.

Again, CP material, not banworthy.

In any case, I favor GHZ over FD for a neutral any day, even if YS vs WW is debatable.

Huge walls and a completely flat stage except for a single moving plat which moves in a very unorthodox fashion kinda dictate that this stage is CP material. If this stage didn't have walls, then maybe I'd be a little more supportive of it being labelled as neutral.