Official Stage Q&A and Discussion

[DMG]

Is there even any reason for the upper platforms on WW? They basically serve as "free hit" platters to people with platform tech chase/combo games lol.

Biggest problem with Skyloft is the size, not the edges. The edges being janky is one of the worst arguments for why a stage is bad: especially when it's *one* edge that still lets you grab onto it just fine. I never understood that argument for MC in particular.

 

[bubbaking]

WW's top plats let me run away sometimes when I'm using a very mobile character. They also help with some recoveries. I'd imagine Sonic can use them for both of these applications fairly well.

Skyloft's size is honestly no worse than DC's, DL64's, or KJ64's.

 

[DMG]

And those stages have their own questions based on size or layout as well. People, for whatever reason, seem a lot more comfortable with big spacious stages in PM and I dunno why when you have people like Sonic and Pit added lool.


Raise your hand if you want to see Pit vs Jiggs on Rumble Falls. Like, no sir lol.

 

[bubbaking]

So do you think they should be neutrals, CPs, or neither (banworthy)?

I think many people like large stages because it universally improves survivability and brings the edgeguarding game more into play, adding to the potential complexity of the game. Some people get to show off how good they are at recovering while others get to show off how good they are at gimping. Of course, conversely, large stages also add to the potential simplicity of the game because of many chars' predisposition towards camping on them.

 

[thespymachine]

I wouldn't mind seeing Rumble Falls go to Doubles Only.

I personally like larger stages because it gives me more movement expression for options and mixups.

 

[bubbaking]

I wouldn't mind seeing Rumble Falls go to Doubles Only.

I could support that.

I personally like larger stages because it gives me more movement expression for options and mixups.

My point exactly.

 

[bubbaking]

How did you change your post # like that? (O_o)

 

[DMG]

So do you think they should be neutrals, CPs, or neither (banworthy)?

I think many people like large stages because it universally improves survivability and brings the edgeguarding game more into play, adding to the potential complexity of the game. Some people get to show off how good they are at recovering while others get to show off how good they are at gimping. Of course, conversely, large stages also add to the potential simplicity of the game because of many chars' predisposition towards camping on them.

Dream Land for neutral (only CP if you flood the starters with other stages)
Skyloft walks the line of CP and banned imo
DK64 is kinda janky CP mode


Larger stages are ok, but for every moment that you want to space around with Peach, a Fox/Pit/Sonic laugh as you can't catch them.

 

[bubbaking]

I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree then (which is the bane of this thread ).

IMO, if DL64 is a starter, there's no reason not to have YS and/or FoD. One is large with large blastzones, the other(s) is small with small blastzones. Wind = Randall = moving plats. There are very usable walls on all of them.

Yeah, I can see what you're saying. Ban Sonic, Pit, and Fox.

 

[Kink-Link5]

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.

No; they are not. The stages are banned and both players have to deal with the consequences of that.

HB taken off my list until the recovery crippling sides are fixed or unless other stages seem to indicate worse imbalance than HB

NF is staying for now, and I'll be trying out MC in place of HB some more to see if it fits in.

Oh and of course I still have to work out a Doubles list as well.

 

[DMG]

Norfair is likely to have camping problems because of how huge the top platform is. I'd probably ban the crap out of it if my character is a bit slow on maneuvering, like Ganon or Link. There's no way I'd include it as a starter based off that issue.

Metal Cavern is arguably more neutral than some of the stages in most players starter lists: no hazards and the terrain/layout doesn't seem to promote camping. I like the stage, and if you're willing to accept that it doesn't fit the mold of the traditional "3 platform" stage layout, it fits the definition of starter material hands down.

 

[thespymachine]

How did you change your post # like that? (O_o)

Who are you talking to? lol

Dream Land for neutral (only CP if you flood the starters with other stages)
Skyloft walks the line of CP and banned imo
DK64 is kinda janky CP mode

Larger stages are ok, but for every moment that you want to space around with Peach, a Fox/Pit/Sonic laugh as you can't catch them.

I'm with you on Skyloft and DK64.
DL could be a starter for me if we were trying to create a certain limit of starters, like 5 or 7; or if the wind was gone.

Honestly, I'm terrified of Pit on large stages. Never has there been a character that could camp, force you to approach, run away, and be quick and aggressive to such an extent, imo. Not that I'm saying Pit is S tier (high B or better), I'm just scared.
Anyways... ha ha

Norfair is likely to have camping problems because of how huge the top platform is. I'd probably ban the crap out of it if my character is a bit slow on maneuvering, like Ganon or Link. There's no way I'd include it as a starter based off that issue.

Metal Cavern is arguably more neutral than some of the stages in most players starter lists: no hazards and the terrain/layout doesn't seem to promote camping. I like the stage, and if you're willing to accept that it doesn't fit the mold of the traditional "3 platform" stage layout, it fits the definition of starter material hands down.

I think MC is a better starter than DL and YS. If the kill-zones were a bit smaller I wouldn't mind it being so.
Norfair is going to be a MU changer like FD & DL.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Norfair is likely to have camping problems because of how huge the top platform is. I'd probably ban the crap out of it if my character is a bit slow on maneuvering, like Ganon or Link. There's no way I'd include it as a starter based off that issue.

Metal Cavern is arguably more neutral than some of the stages in most players starter lists: no hazards and the terrain/layout doesn't seem to promote camping. I like the stage, and if you're willing to accept that it doesn't fit the mold of the traditional "3 platform" stage layout, it fits the definition of starter material hands down.

Recall my list is made to account for certain characters/strategies being dominant and that is why 4 permanent stage bans are made after the match 1 characters are selected. There are plenty of matchups that do just fine with Norfair legal, even if not a starter outright. I do agree it can be campy, but when both players are using campy characters or neither are, that problem doesn't present itself in the fairness of the matchup.

Unless it's super degenerative campy like Delfino or RF or Kongo 64.

Agreed on MC. It is a very fair stage in spite of its uniqueness.

Singles list being tried at the moment:

BF, FD, MC, YS, WW, PS1, PS2, DL64, FoD, NF, SV, GHZ, DC

And an alpha Doubles list:

BF, FD, YI:B, RF, PS1, PS2, DL64, HB, NF, DC, RF, SL, SW

 

[thespymachine]

Singles list being tried at the moment:

BF, FD, MC, YS, WW, PS1, PS2, DL64, FoD, NF, SV, GHZ, DC

And an alpha Doubles list:

BF, FD, YI:B, RF, PS1, PS2, DL64, HB, NF, DC, RF, SL, SW

Are these lists of starters or all legal stages?
I want to know your reasons for keeping PS1, regardless of what list it is.

 

[DMG]

That would be my question then: camping degenerative on DK64 but not on Norfair? I'd easily put them in the same boat, if not Norfair being worse. Like the top platform feels out of place: remove it and the stage looks much better competitively.

 

[bubbaking]

Yeah, there's no way KJ64 is campier than Norfair.

No; they are not. The stages are banned and both players have to deal with the consequences of that.

I'm fairly certain that when one player bans a stage, he only stops his opponent from choosing it but he can still pick it if he so chooses. I'd have to check to be sure, though.

Edit: So I just checked the MBR's recommended ruleset, which is what I base my P:M/Melee rules knowledge off of for the most part, and they actually don't clarify what it means to 'ban' a stage. However, I've honestly attended tournaments where it was legal for one player to ban a stage, thus preventing his opponent from ever choosing it, but then whip it out whenver he felt like it.

Norfair is likely to have camping problems because of how huge the top platform is. I'd probably ban the crap out of it if my character is a bit slow on maneuvering, like Ganon or Link. There's no way I'd include it as a starter based off that issue.

Yep! Been saying this since day -10.

Metal Cavern is arguably more neutral than some of the stages in most players starter lists: no hazards and the terrain/layout doesn't seem to promote camping. I like the stage, and if you're willing to accept that it doesn't fit the mold of the traditional "3 platform" stage layout, it fits the definition of starter material hands down.

You're giving Bowser one of his ultimate CPs as a starter. Super small space, EVERYTHING is within reach. Ledges are always accessible for Fortress. With the large blastzones, his survivability is greatly increased while he still has little trouble killing his opponent due to great power or gimping. This is honestly worse, imo, than giving YS to Sheik and Marth or DL64 to Jiggs and Peach.

Also, if Skyloft is weird because of slopes, then MC is also an offender. Those slopes can mess up so much spacing on their own. Why is Skyworld a serious offender again? I need a serious reminder, 'cause I forgot.

If we have a small stage with large blastzones in MC, why don't we have a large stage with relatively smaller blastzones?

Who are you talking to? lol

Oh, wow, SWF bugged out on me! (-_-) It literally showed one of your stage tier list posts, with different versions for different edits between those two of my posts. It honestly wasn't a double post when I did it. It also had a wierd post #.

 

[bubbaking]

Sorry, double post...

 

[Juushichi]

For RAIN, I went with this:

Singles | Starters [7 stages] (Three bans)
Smashville
(Frozen) Pokemon Stadium 2
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Yoshi's Story
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination

Singles | Counterpick: [9 stages]
Green Hill Zone
Dracula's Castle
Skyworld
Wario Ware
Yoshi's Island: Brawl
Pokemon Stadium 1
Skyloft
Rumble Falls
Battleship Halberd

I think by far the most I saw people CP at was Drac's, though Fizzle (Sheik) and Axis (Ike) went to Skyloft at some point during Grand Finals set 2.

Personally, I struck down to 3 different stages to start the set: SV (GnW vs Mario - Zinoto / GnW vs 'Dorf - Tubbs), BF (ROB vs Marth - Beegs / GnW vs Fox - Prince_Abu), Dreamland (GnW vs Snake - Ralph Cecil). Though, I ended up playing games on Dracula's Castle, PS2, YS, FD etc, etc.

There were a few combinations that I was surprised not to see: There were a lot of Sheiks/Marth and I didn't see much of YS for either and specifically in Marth's case, I was very surprised to not see Wario Ware (I banned it vs Beegs, personally). Still getting feedback about the stagelist.

 

[DMG]

Bubba, you don't have to have a "counter balance" for stages in the starter list lol. If we have MC as a starter, you don't have to also have the large stage with small boundaries. And if it's the best CP for a certain few characters, you can strike it vs them and they may have to strike FD/bigger stage against you.

As for Skyworld, I basically treat it like a slightly better Norfair. The only possible issue with the stage, is the size (pretty common theme it seems, big *** stages).

 

[Eaode]

I support the three starters BF SV and PS2

But some of the discussion in here is really reactionary. What happened to play to win? If something is overcentralizing (and that fact is DEMONSTRATED) then we should ban it. But there's a lot of talk of banning a lot of stages that would possibly be starter worthy in melee, and definitely CP worthy in P:M, and it's all based on theory crafting for the most part.

Rumble falls is an excellent stage, and the curvature of it can help you get around some camping (lasers). Until it is demonstrably shown that Toon Link or pit get a huge MU boost here beyond CP level, I see absolutely NO reason RF should be banned.

Same thing with Skyworld, Skyloft, etc.

As for the transforming stages:
Halberd is totally fine. The take off at the beginning DOES have a warning, and it's always the same length of time. You should know it by now. The walk offs aren't an issue because if you decide to be dumb and camp them, you set yourself up to be edgeguarded in five seconds. The hazzards on the landed section are strategic and able to be planned around (now that the stupid claw is gone.) There's no real reason for Halberd to not be CP...

Unless we're going by the "legal stages should never hurt characters" logic. Except, where did that come from? That conjecture literally just popped up here and no one asked "why not?" Stages don't hurt characters, they provide a strategic hazard that you force your opponent into. Until it is shown that these predictable and strategic hazards are a detriment to the competitive atmosphere, their existence shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier.

I think what's happening is people are confusing "unique" with "over centralizing"

Skyloft's layout is unique. Temple's is over centralizing. Halberd's hazards are unique, spear pillar's hazards are over centralizing.

We need to stop being allergic to things that are interesting. It is a testable and encouraged skill to be versatile and flexible in this game. Maybe we don't want to require players to memorize things like Rainbow Cruise (which you had to in melee, if you played someone smart enough to be able to CP it on you), but we should definitely all be able to adjust to a simple transformation, or a slightly larger stage, or a slightly different platform layout for Christ's sake.

 

[DMG]

Different platform layouts are fine. The size of some of these stages is something to take note, because larger stages are asking for trouble when it comes to camping. Like, badly.

 

[Eaode]

My point is that we should look for and learn playstyles to beat camping, not make stage choices that prohibit it. Zoning and "camping" is a playstyle. And unless it is proven that a given stage promotes camping so much that it isn't feasibly beatable, it shouldn't be banned.

 

[Slashy]

I don't see why a lot of stages are bad, I really liked Luigi's Mansion+ and Wifi Waiting Room for being stages that prevent projectile spam. Delfino Plaza is a great stage for when you need to punish fast fallers.

Castle Siege is a pretty good stage for doubles

Fixed Frigate Orpheon (has a ledge in the first form) http://forums.kc-mm.com/Gallery/BrawlView.php?Number=29701

 

[Eaode]

delphino has numerous walk offs and water (has water been fixed/removed yet?)

What was luigi's mansion+, and did it still have fight club syndrome? That one seems more of a preference, and dracula's was put in over it so I don't see a big deal here. afaik this thread is for competitive discussion of the stages in P:M now. There's another thread for new stage suggestions.

 

[Slashy]

delphino has numerous walk offs and water (has water been fixed/removed yet?)

What was luigi's mansion+, and did it still have fight club syndrome? That one seems more of a preference, and dracula's was put in over it so I don't see a big deal here. afaik this thread is for competitive discussion of the stages in P:M now. There's another thread for new stage suggestions.

Luigi's Mansion+ is Luigi's Mansion with pass-through platforms

 

[Proteus]

Haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been suggested, but what about a rotating stagelist? The backroom or community as a whole could vote on 7 stages in some given period. From those stages players would each ban 1, then stagestrike for the first match. Standard counterpicking after that.

As much as I like a large stage selection I think it is cumbersome to have that work in practice. 7 seems like a good number to simplify the stagelist, let each player have a ban, and still allow for counterpicks.

Keep that stagelist for 3 months, half a year, or between big tournaments. Then either vote on a whole new stage or rotate a few of the stages out. This way a large number of stages could be used in any given year without having a bloated stagelist at any given time.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Drastically and constantly changing the stage list is dirrectly drastically and constantly changing the metagame (Or at least is similar to the early years of Melee where half the tournaments were 3-stock and the other were 5-stock). Getting a consistent stagelist should really be a consideration when you want a solid metagame to evolve. Changes should be at a slow rate and decided upon after serious discussion and contemplation.

 

[Proteus]

It depends on how you do it. I don't think rotating 2/7 stages every 6 months (as an example) could be considered either drastic or too frequent. I agree that changes should be carefully considered, but I don't like looking at a metagame as some absolute to strive for, more of a flash of a particular game's peak at a particular time. Letting it develop is fine, but there's nothing wrong with it changing, either because of periodic stage swaps, new strategies, or anything else.

I may be in the minority on that though, not really sure.

 

[thespymachine]

@Eaode: Platform organization/placement, in itself, hasn't been a focus. But that with the combination of platform size, stage size, and blastzones it has been a factor.
As for trying to 'balance out camping,' I don't see that as bad. First, 'camping' has been considered the bane of competition. The goal of the rules we create as a community has been to establish a game that rewards players that can play a smart, offensive game. Second, considering that PM is practically Melee mechanics, it's not too difficult to understand how characters will interact with the stages, so I think theory-crafting is a legitimate strategy to take; playing out every thinkable situation in game would be redundant.

 

[Eaode]

@Eaode: Platform organization/placement, in itself, hasn't been a focus. But that with the combination of platform size, stage size, and blastzones it has been a factor.
As for trying to 'balance out camping,' I don't see that as bad. First, 'camping' has been considered the bane of competition. The goal of the rules we create as a community has been to establish a game that rewards players that can play a smart, offensive game. Second, considering that PM is practically Melee mechanics, it's not too difficult to understand how characters will interact with the stages, so I think theory-crafting is a legitimate strategy to take; playing out every thinkable situation in game would be redundant.

Yeah I understand all that and believe me, I hate camping as much as anyone (Just ask KID Goggles).

But I don't think we should be so reactionary about it. For example the main culprits of camping and stage breaking in melee were the spacies, mostly fox. And if someone can theorycraft that Rumble Falls is too camping favorable, I'll theorycraft that the curved bottom helps you get around lasers.

While theorycrafting is definitely good, we're talking about stages that are borderline (not even borderline in some cases imo) as if they're really terrible. Has it been shown that the top plat in norfair encourages camping? From Who? I'd say it leaves you open to free attacks from below.

So I agree, and there's someone in my region who keeps bringing things up like fourside (and I don't have to run a tourney to tell you why fourside shouldn't be legal), but let's not get ahead of ourselves and throw away things that give characters small advantages (counterpicks) based of speculation and conjecture.

 

[DMG]

We say this for most Smash games, and end up with a conservative list anyways lol. Why not start off cutting back a bit, instead of trying to get 20+ stages?

 

[thespymachine]

As an example, I don't think Norfair's top platform forces such a camping game that the stage is bannable, just definitely not a starter. I don't think Rumble Falls is bannable either.

We say this for most Smash games, and end up with a conservative list anyways lol. Why not start off cutting back a bit, instead of trying to get 20+ stages?

I'm sure that came from the fact that there were hardly any 'good' stages to use, and didn't want to play on 2 or 3. lol
But I definitely agree with DMG, especially considering - with our current Striking and CP rules - how much effort and time would be put into stage selection during a set with 20 stages legal. I'm all for narrowing it down to 7, and giving each player a certain number of bans dependent on the set length (ie. Bo3 = 2 bans each, Bo5 = 1 ban, Bo7 = no bans).

 

[Eaode]

As far as starters go, I agree with the undisputed three, but why couldn't it be fleshed out to 5 or 7 for more variety? (Games are fun remember? If balance and neutrality were the only concern we'd run 1 character, 1 stage tournies) My point is, we weren't even this stingy in melee. Randall can **** up a match, sure. So can wispy. Yeah some characters are better on FD than others. Even starters can skew matchups.

So you deal with it. It's more a part of the character balance than anything. For example I don't really see a reason for Skyworld to not be neutral/starter worthy. It's edge is leagues better than melee battlefield, which has been a starter for a decade. The platform layout is different, sure, but so what? That's a good thing.

MC too good for bowser? Why isn't falcon on Yoshi's, Falco on FoD, or Marth on BF banned in melee? (Also bowser isn't even demonstrably top tier, so who cares if one starter is a good stage for him?)

Norfair gets flack for the top platform but I still don't know why it's a big deal other than a loose conjecture about camping. Same with Rumble Falls. I mean look at that layout. Is it crazy? no, not at all. It's perfectly fine. If we're so antsy about anyone ever being able to camp, we're either crybabies, or there's a character with a design issue that we're ignoring.

That's my point.

 

[Life]

mfw 7 stages is "variety" to you people:

Final Destination
Little Battlefield (Yoshi's Island)
Medium Battlefield (Battlefield)
Big Battlefield (Dreamland)
Moving Battlefield (Fountain of Dreams)
Pokemon Stadium

Oh, right, I forgot.

Apex Brawl stagelist feels restrictive to me and that's 5 starters and 5 counterpicks.

 

[thespymachine]

As far as starters go, I agree with the undisputed three, but why couldn't it be fleshed out to 5 or 7 for more variety? (Games are fun remember? If balance and neutrality were the only concern we'd run 1 character, 1 stage tournies) My point is, we weren't even this stingy in melee. Randall can **** up a match, sure. So can wispy. Yeah some characters are better on FD than others. Even starters can skew matchups.

So you deal with it. It's more a part of the character balance than anything. For example I don't really see a reason for Skyworld to not be neutral/starter worthy. It's edge is leagues better than melee battlefield, which has been a starter for a decade. The platform layout is different, sure, but so what? That's a good thing.

MC too good for bowser? Why isn't falcon on Yoshi's, Falco on FoD, or Marth on BF banned in melee? (Also bowser isn't even demonstrably top tier, so who cares if one starter is a good stage for him?)

Norfair gets flack for the top platform but I still don't know why it's a big deal other than a loose conjecture about camping. Same with Rumble Falls. I mean look at that layout. Is it crazy? no, not at all. It's perfectly fine. If we're so antsy about anyone ever being able to camp, we're either crybabies, or there's a character with a design issue that we're ignoring.

That's my point.

1) I'm sure there is quite a distinction between the amount of viable stages Melee can choose from and what PM can choose from. In order to incorporate as broad of a range of diversity with balance as possible (and to have actual stages to play on), the Melee ruleset has to be more conservative. Even so, there are many people within the Melee community wanting a new stage list because of the 'random/chaotic' elements of some of the stages: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=332763.
Point being that we can be stingy because we have a game that is still being developed, and that provides far more options as far as viable stages go. By being 'stingy' we provide a more balanced and neutral competitive environment - which brings me to my next point...

2) Balancing the game and trying to create as neutral a fighting ground as possible inhibits 'fun'? If that's the case, why not allow all stages and all items, both players playing random character, in order to provide the most 'fun' as possible? I'm sure you've heard scrubs and noobs complain about the lack of 'fun' in competitive Smash due to the lack of items (and stages) - and I'm sure you can chuckle at their statements knowing that you enjoy the game immensely and on a much deeper level (and I would argue, we enjoy it more than a scrub/noob).

'Fun' is a very arbitrary term, due to how subjective it can be. The context of 'fun' here, is 'competitively fun.' So, I would suggest, that such things that hinder the pure expression of skill in the game of Smash would be destructive to our 'fun.' And as far as I can tell, the ability to run away and/or camp is not a skill that the Smash community (or any fighting community) values. This doesn't me we should eliminate all forms evasion, but that we should form our game and ruleset in a way that you get rewarded for being a good 'fighter.'

3) All of the stages you mentioned aren't really being discussed as to be banned. We haven't even really got to discussing whether or not there should be a distinction between 'neutral' and 'counter-pick.' We're using 'starter' and 'cp' as a frame of reference when discussing the 'competitiveness' of a stage (at least, that's what I'm perceiving it as). The three main 'starter' stages we have were just a starting point to get the conversation going into a organized manner.

4) Do we think that having 20+ stages would be pertinent for a high-end, competitive PM scene?
I'll answer first:
No. First, considering that the development team behind PM can tweak and balance characters, we don't need to make sure every character has a stage that they can CP with. If we - with the PM devs - work on a set list of stages that we deem 'competitive,' the devs can work on balancing each character in an easier manner.
Second, I don't really see a point in having so many stages if two opponents can't play on them all in a set. It's only exhibiting the players' skills in a handful of stages that the whole community has deemed as the most competitive stages. If we want many stages, and the variety that comes with them, I suggest having sets long enough to have players express that variety. And, as you may predict, I don't think Best of 21 sets would be a good thing.
Third, and not a very strong argument, as I tried to point out in my previous post, too much time would be committed to stage selection. This is more from a TO and/or spectator perspective, since it would add more time to tournament matches and viewers would have to sit through more down time.

/long post

 

[Eaode]

the fun semantics debate

and other stuff

I really didn't want to open up that can of worms like you did. All I'm saying is that melee did fine for ten years with Randall in the starter pool, with battlefield's derpy ledges, and with wispy's shenanagins. We had to deal with it, we didn't run away from it.

Now we have more viable stages than we could ever drool over. And you want to use LESS of them than we do in melee? Because of what? that we decided that YS gives a 4% matchup advantage to one character over another, over theorycrafting? So what? All the characters are different, there's no such thing as absolute balance. So what if a 65:35 MU becomes 60:30 on a particular stage? What if the matchup was 60:30 to begin with? Does it really make a difference?

So no, we don't need EVERY set to play EVERY stage in the game. But why the **** would we trim so far down that we only have THREE starters? Less than half of what we had in melee, and meanwhile we are proverbially drowning in awesome, balanced stages. THAT'S what I mean about "fun". Yes we could play every match on smashville or PS2. But neither you, nor I, nor most anyone would want to. And why? Because playing on one stage is boring. Just the same as playing one character would be boring.

The casual "Fun" argument shoots in favor of things that are demonstrably broken in favor of "fun." But we also shouldn't go in the opposite direction and shun absolutely everything that isn't cut and dry, 100%, robotically "neutral."

So why the hell narrow down to three starters when we had seven in melee, and we have even more good ones now. I could lay down a 9-stage starter list EASY and none of them are ********. That could be 11 if we got even a tiny smidgen ballsier.

I'm sick of this trend I'm seeing in the smash community. What happened to the days when "play to win" was our mantra? When we had to deal with things? Why are we talking about going down to a three stage starter list among the largest amount of viable stages we've ever had? Because we'd much rather complain and blame something on a buzzword that represents a strategy that we don't like.

 

[thespymachine]

Now we have more viable stages than we could ever drool over. And you want to use LESS of them than we do in melee? Because of what? that we decided that YS gives a 4% matchup advantage to one character over another, over theorycrafting? So what? All the characters are different, there's no such thing as absolute balance. So what if a 65:35 MU becomes 60:30 on a particular stage? What if the matchup was 60:30 to begin with? Does it really make a difference?

So no, we don't need EVERY set to play EVERY stage in the game. But why the **** would we trim so far down that we only have THREE starters? Less than half of what we had in melee, and meanwhile we are proverbially drowning in awesome, balanced stages.

Melee has 6 legal stages right now, 5 are starters. 3 starters would be more than half of what Melee has, and I think I stated that 7 total in PM would be fine. And all of them wouldn't have broken little things about them like all the Melee stages. I thought that I informed you that we only started with those three stages because they seem the most 'neutral,' and that we're trying to work from there. We haven't made anything concrete with those three.
I don't recall myself, or anyone else on here, saying that stages needed to be removed because they helped or hindered some characters by a certain, arbitrary degree.

THAT'S what I mean about "fun". Yes we could play every match on smashville or PS2. But neither you, nor I, nor most anyone would want to. And why? Because playing on one stage is boring. Just the same as playing one character would be boring.

The casual "Fun" argument shoots in favor of things that are demonstrably broken in favor of "fun." But we also shouldn't go in the opposite direction and shun absolutely everything that isn't cut and dry, 100%, robotically "neutral."

Don't speak for me, if I had my way, I would only pick PS2 and BF in tournaments. Why? Because knowing that there isn't a single chaotic element to those stages means I know that the competition against my opponent will be as balanced as can be - there will be no "that dang ledge" or "stupid randall" or "that platform off the edge saved you," just straight up competitive fighting.
But this is limited to the tournament environment, only. You are more than welcome to play stages on random with your character on random have some fun, on your own time.

The "Casual Fun" argument is something I think you are falling into, because it assumes that cut and dry 'robotic neutralness' isn't fun. I realize your 'fun' is the diversity of stages and characters - and these are great things, no doubt - but, as far as competition goes, diversity of stages and characters isn't pertinent to a balanced competitive environment (though, diversity of stages and characters - within a balanced competitive environment - provides depth). We're aren't trying to provide an 'aesthetic fun.' We're trying to provide a competitive fun.

I'm sick of this trend I'm seeing in the smash community. What happened to the days when "play to win" was our mantra? When we had to deal with things? Why are we talking about going down to a three stage starter list among the largest amount of viable stages we've ever had? Because we'd much rather complain and blame something on a buzzword that represents a strategy that we don't like.

I've been with the understanding that my attempts here are to create an environment conducive to "playing to win." Simply because we had to deal with things doesn't mean that we had a better "play to win" mindset - it means we had to use what we were given, and couldn't change our circumstance.
As I stated earlier, I don't think our goal at the moment is to make a list of three starters.
And if the buzzword you're referring to is 'turtling,' then I don't mind it; but if it's 'camping,' then I do.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

7 starters: PS2, BF, SV, FD, Norfair, WarioWare, and Rumble Falls
9: ^those^ + Dracula's Castle and Metal Cavern
11: ^those^ + Dreamland and Green Hill Zone

What would make things better:
- A flat, non-rotating, better-edged Lylat (I love the platform layout)
- DL without wind
- WW without the top platforms (Don't think platform stacking is a good thing)
- Yoshi's Story without Randall, the Shyguys and angled edges.
- Yoshi's Island (Brawl) without the rotating platform, ghosts, shyguys, and angled edges.
- Second form of Frigate without the platforms at the edge
- etc etc

 

[Kink-Link5]

SV and PS2 have plenty of lopsided and uneven matchups that would be better suited to other stages.

BF is similar but it focuses more on aiding specific strategies than characters. 3 Stage starter list is undesirable if the goal of a starter list is to provide a set of basically neutral fighting arenas. The only benefit it provides over a 5-9 stage list is that it's a minute faster to select the stage. You might just as well do random select from a 3-stage list at that point.

 

[DMG]

I don't think people necessarily mind camping, just cases when it's taken too far. If you are able to time out less mobile characters by getting the lead and going Pew Pew or running in the air, that's not really "healthy" ya know. Some of these bigger stages are walking that line.

 

[Eaode]

Competitive depth is counterbalanced by variety; that's a fundamental principle. The most balanced fighter would only have one character in it. Obviously all fighters have more. What I'm saying is things as small and insignificant and dealable as randall, wispy, and a different platform layout shouldn't exclude a stage from being neutral.

7 starters: PS2, BF, SV, FD, Norfair, WarioWare, and Rumble Falls
9: ^those^ + Dracula's Castle and Metal Cavern
11: ^those^ + Dreamland and Green Hill Zone

Curious as to why Dreamland is in the second list of filters. Also FoD and YS are completely absent. Now I'm a little confused, because those three stages are more tame and "neutral" than GHZ and WW (and in the atmosphere of the current discussion, Norfair, Rumble Falls and Metal Cavern).

What would make things better:
- A flat, non-rotating, better-edged Lylat (I love the platform layout)
- DL without wind
- WW without the top platforms (Don't think platform stacking is a good thing)
- Yoshi's Story without Randall, the Shyguys and angled edges.
- Yoshi's Island (Brawl) without the rotating platform, ghosts, shyguys, and angled edges.
- Second form of Frigate without the platforms at the edge
- etc etc

^^ This.

I think what's tainted the discussion here, however, is the idea that we shouldn't deal with what's still in the game if we can just ask for the PMBR to fix it. Obviously them doing some of these changes would be great (and I don't doubt that some will be in the next demo), but the next demo is far away and we have what we have.

The PMBR has been the most successful dev team on a smash mod so far not only because of their passion and dedication to this game, but also because they work behind closed doors. They release these demos and leave them "as-is," which is the release model that has been the backbone of the smash metagame forever.

By refusing to just play with these minor oddities of neutral stages, and ask for fixes instead, we are breaking that model. If we knew that there were no more updates, we would have the opposite mindset.

In melee, stages were legal until they were demonstrated to be broken. Hell, Pokemon Stadium was a neutral until recently. Mute City, PokeFloats, Rainbow Cruise... All these stages were definitely not neutral (moving to cp here), but we didn't exclude them until we were sure that they were disruptive to the competitive environment.

Not when we thought that they were bad. <-- By the way, negative public opinion and theorycrafting are often spoken with strong words from vocal minorities. It is very dangerous to use things like that as "evidence"

Do you see what I'm getting at? We're coming at the problem from the other end, and I think it's for the wrong reasons. The problem with starting from the smallest, most neutral set and trying to expand is that you're never going to expand, because you've started out too strict, and you've focused on that. It's much easier (and imo better) to start with the largest set of neutrals we can, and narrow them down if any are demonstrably not neutral after evidence is gathered through competitive play and tournaments.