Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

Do you think if MLG had information on the most played set of rules that they would adapt to that? Or are they pretty much set in their ways?\

They did it with melee back in 2004-2006

 

[LiteralGrill]

Last MLG they kinda just talked to Alpha Zealot for ideas on what people were running if I remember correctly. So if people had something to work with, I assume it'd be looked at.

 

[Networker1]

Why is everyone here so damn impatient? Jesus, are you all 15 year olds with no concept of delayed gratification? Take your damn time, smell the freaking roses. -_-

This is hilarious, because I agree with him, plus I'm a 15 year old with a good concept of delayed gratification. :D

(and yes I know that I responded to a really old post, but I thought that his terminology was really ironic)

 

[Johnknight1]

This topic

Is for everyone to talk in

But competitive players or TO's (or hopeful competitive players or TO's) are the opinions that really matter.

Because they play competitive smash and host the tournaments.

This is hilarious, because I agree with him, plus I'm a 15 year old with a good concept of delayed gratification. :D

(and yes I know that I responded to a really old post, but I thought that his terminology was really ironic)

How about the inverse delayed gratification of reverse banning=???

Why can't we just start with the obviously legal stages and unban stages that work, by starting out using those stages in smaller tournaments=???

Big Melee tournaments don't use Mute City, Congo Jungle 64, Kongo Jungle, or Rainbow Cruise anymore (random note: Rainbow Cruise and Mute City are my 2 favorite Melee stages), but you see them in lower level tournaments quite frequently.

If we test out bigger tournaments with such stages, they could potentially derail a huge tournament and a huge pot of glory and gold.

If we test it out on smaller tournaments... well... we don't lose much.

So I say let's stick to what we know.

And start with only the obviously legal stages in huge tournaments.

Make the smaller tournaments use preferred stage lists by region until we find compromises and "proof" that a stages' status (whether banned, counter-pick only, or starter/neutral stage, which can vary from singles to doubles) instead of just saying "screw it, everything is legal, because past history means nothing"=???

Lastly, I find it odd the people who say "past history means nothing" have little or no past experience in competitive smash. There's nothing wrong with that (other than missing hype matches).

 

[KingofPhantoms]

Oh boy, this thread is back.

Last time there were quite a few... "unusual" things going on.

Hopefully that will change, assuming this thread becomes active again.

 

[XStarWarriorX]

HugS, Mew2King, the smash twins (t0mmy and t1mmy [they're big name TO's]), and especially Armada have shown interest.

Armada actually stated he might quit Melee for Smash Wii U.

Nice, T1mmy's kirby is beast, can't wait to see his SmashU kirby if that's still his main.

Also I agree with HugS' ruleset.

 

[Johnknight1]

I brought this thread back because I felt it has a purpose, an educated starter, and it's a better alternative to the other thread I was posting on

Hopefully that will change, assuming this thread becomes active again.

I hope this thread becomes something of an educational resource for non-competitive players looking to become competitive players for Smash 4 (I know I did that from Melee to Brawl, although after I became a Brawl competitive player I quit Brawl and moved to Melee, lol!).

I want to give them my knowledge on rulesets and why they are, and why the basis of Smash never changes (so long as the gameplay remains the same).

I also want to hear their opinions.

I also want to see some other competitive players from the 3 currently released Smash games (plus all the mods that exist of those games) to come here, give their opinions on the current rules (and state of those rules) in those games, and how it effects smash moving forward.

Basically, I want this thread to have a Renaissance effect to where the hopeful Smash 4 competitive players get the same resources I got out of the pre-release Brawl Boards in regards to the rules, and how we make them.

Although I'm not involved in the Melee or Brawl BRoom (I'm not that good, influential, or a TO), I do have information and knowledge and experience that could give them insight into stuff, as well as how things like character balance, tiers, character match ups, stage hazards, walk off stages, etc. have an effect and gameplay (And even tiers) and thus the rules, as well as our (collective) perspectives on those things.

 

[Ussi]

Know who is gonna decide the stage list? The TOs that host nationals

Mainly cause locals/regionals take national rulesets to prepare for then.

So yea there is my piece, probably a well repeated piece. I've watched what happened to the unity ruleset when Alex Strife broke off. the Apex ruleset started taking over the unity ruleset..

 

[Johnknight1]

Know who is gonna decide the stage list? The TOs that host nationals

Mainly cause locals/regionals take national rulesets to prepare for then.

So yea there is my piece, probably a well repeated piece.

Thank God.

But still, it will be interesting to see some of these stages, since some of them look like they could be legal stages, although they have hindering parts.

The Pilotwings/Wuhu Island stages moves and the planes swirl around, but it has a neutral-ish layout.

Dr. Wily's Castle appears to have the Yellow Devil stage hazard, but it might not be that big of a deal, and the rest of the stage screams "counter-pick", if not neutral.

I've watched what happened to the unity ruleset when Alex Strife broke off. the Apex ruleset started taking over the unity ruleset..

Oh man, I saw that coming way in advance.

I read what t0mmy wrote here.

But yeah, a BRoom within a BRoom is the dumbest idea ever.

That's another thing I want in the Ruleset of the community: No secret super community that overpowers everything and ignores all content that isn't their own.

I quit playing Brawl competitively at the end of 2009, but man, even I know the Unity Rulset and such a system in work.

And thank God Alex Strife did that, and Mike Haze left it. They might have saved Smash 4, and the Brawl BRoom because of their actions.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

How about the inverse delayed gratification of reverse banning=???

But you did such a good job of showing normal delayed gratification in repsonding a several-month-old comment!
In all seriousness though, I don't get how you could expect a TO to know the definition of "unbanning," and even if one did, the competitors sure as hell wouldn't.
Don't make me dig up that story...

 

[Johnknight1]

But you did such a good job of showing normal delayed gratification in repsonding a several-month-old comment!

I know. I'm too pro!

In all seriousness though, I don't get how you could expect a TO to know the definition of "unbanning," and even if one did, the competitors sure as hell wouldn't.

Well unbanning is the opposite of banning, even if it isn't a real word. (the correct phrase is "reversing the ban")

And it would be a more collaborative effort of seeing how the regions and rulesets work by the Smash WiiU and Smash 3DS BRooms (these 2 will be different BRooms for different games that are as connected as the Smash 64, Melee, and Brawl BRooms are to one another) and how it all works together to make the best suggested ruleset, stage list, and whatnot (obvious with optional leeway).

We don't want what happened with early Melee (items on, lots of awful stages like Brinstar Depths legal), early with Brawl (I seriously played 3 tournament matches on the Summit [although 1 was super hyped!], 1 on Mario Bros., and several on PS2 that got camped out due to the wind and electric transformations) again.

We don't need to repeat those mistakes on an international level. Let's let the regional scenes screw that up if they want so we can laugh at them and learn what to never do... or, in a rare instance, feel a sense of insight from regional proactive legalization of stages or unique ruleset in how it functions, works, and produces a better product for the competitors, organizers, and viewers that keeps everyone engaged.

Don't make me dig up that story...

I'm making you dig up that story!

 

[salaboB]

Well unbanning is the opposite of banning, even if it isn't a real word. (the correct phrase is "reversing the ban")

Unbanning doesn't happen specifically because people like you won't accept something that was once banned ever being re-introduced, for pretty much all the same types of excuses you have for keeping items banned.

So, realistically, once something gets banned it stays banned forever.

 

[Johnknight1]

Unbanning doesn't happen specifically because people like you

Labeling. How cute.

It's funny, because early in Brawl I was against nearly all bans, and yet, after playing most of the stages in its' true "play to win" environment, I wound up agreeing with most of the bans.

won't accept something that was once banned ever being re-introduced, for pretty much all the same types of excuses you have for keeping items banned.

You're all about "you don't know until you try" right=???

Well, you've never seen me in that kind of situation, so you don't know.

Yet I've seen items legal in tournament, and I know I don't think it works, and that most competitive players don't want it because it screws with the timing.

But hey, at least I know because "you don't know until you try".

So, realistically, once something gets banned it stays banned forever.

Not really. Final Destination was the only legal stage in most of Japan in Melee for quite a while, and yet, international play has made them unban a few stages (specifically the internationally recommended ones).

Also, Wobbling in Melee was banned for quite a way, and its' banning got reversed.

Heck, I think Samus' super wavedash was banned for a good while as well.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

I know. I'm too pro!

Well unbanning is the opposite of banning, even if it isn't a real word. (the correct phrase is "reversing the ban")

[some other stuff and...]
I'm making you dig up that story!

Well, my apologies for using an unword.
My argument is still mostly the same as before, and it's one of semantics best described in that story you requested I dig up. (I didn't feel like reading through all 26 pages of this thread to find it, but there is a wonderful feature I never saw before, "Likes You've Recieved," which is very useful for this sort of thing).
As per JK1's request, the return of a legend:

Spoiler

Introduction: On page 10 of this thread, the same argument as always was being had in a soul-sucking merry-go-round of self-righteous, narcissistic ego stroking, performed through blatant, directionless patronizing, though I won't name names (especially not Quilt, Overswarm or Ulevo). Enter MopedOfJustice (much to OS's dismay), communicating the only way he knows how: Random Anecdotal Stories!

Just a matter of semantics, but:
If we do go with the "Ban all stages we aren't sure about until we are sure of where they belong" approach, we should consider them "pending" (or something to that effect) not "banned."
There is a difference in the meaning of the words, and a difference in how they will likely be treated. Maybe that's just me, but I think that it makes a difference when you think about how it would play out.

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between PsychoVillager and PlayerMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 should be unbanned!
TO: It's too late now, besides it was banned for a reason, right?
*Vague murmurs of agreement*
ashton: But it was never shown to--
TO: Look, just because some nerd posing as a two wheeled Italian vehicle with an engine under 50cc says the stage is safe, doesn't mean it's viable. I'm sure that it would over centralize gameplay, or have a wall or --
(Random Competitor): IT'S TOTALLY GAY!
TO: See? That's it. It has homosexual tendencies, which drastically interferes with the normal play style, and gives Kirby a distinct advantage.
ashton: But...b-but...
TO: Sorry kid, maybe next time.
*Tourney continues*

*7 years pass*

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between MacroRidely and ManlyMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! I have--
TO: What is it this time ashton?
ashton: I've been studying PS3 (on and off) for the past 7 years, along with a dedicated group of nerds posing as various slow-but-economic Italian vehicles! After 7 years, I--
TO: Want that gay stage to be unbanned?
ashton: Yes! Exactly! I have studied the stage second-by-second, frame-by-frame. I know exactly when a stage will transform, and exactly when their respective effects kick in! I have a 70-page power point presentation on how each stage type effects any possible matchup of any character, even in 2v2. The same presentation also demonstrates why their matchups are -- while not even -- completely balanced by the standards of a CP. I--
TO: Let me just stop you right there. I'm sure you worked very hard making your little collection of anecdotes on a *snicker* PowerPoint presentation, but until you can present to me hard facts on a Prezi, there is no way I'll allow a stage that has been objectively proven to be...uh...what was it again?
(The Same Guy as Before): GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
TO: Ah, yes, that's what it was. You see? Until you can be objective like us, you'll never understand the inherent homosexuality of the PlayStation3.
ashton: But that's not even what it--
TO: PEER PRESSURE!
ashton: ok...
*Tourney continues*

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between Geno-cide and PacMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*Ash Catch'em bursts through the door*
Ash: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 went from Pending to Legal!
TO: Ok, sure, I like that stage.
(Randon Audino): YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
*Tourney continues*

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[Johnknight1]

I agree that we shouldn't hold such a bias against moving stages.

Of course, I say that, and 3 of my 4 favorite all-time Smash stages (Rainbow Cruise, Mute City, and Delfino Plaza) are moving stages, and my other top 4 stages (Peach's Castle 64) has moving stages elements!

Still, the big problem with stages in that regards is that those particular stages (well sans Delfino Plaza maybe) don't have builds that work in all kind of games.

In Melee, Mute City works quite well in smaller tournaments because camping usually isn't too big of a problem in Melee, and because the parts with the wide stage parts all had platforms that helped prevent projectile spamming and camping.

In Melee, Rainbow Cruise had some Fox camping problems, but other than that it wasn't too bad. In Brawl... Meta Knight camping pretty much destroyed that stage, especially since Brawl was already very defensive.

My opinion of the Melee scene is that using Mute City and Rainbow Cruise is some more regional tournaments is actually pretty cool. It add neat looks. While I don't like stages like Congo Jungle (64) in singles, Kongo Jungle (Melee), or heck, even Corneria or Brinstar.

Still, I think at the national and international level, it is just more "appropriate" to ban those stages.

Well, my apologies for using an unword.

Shut up with the apology and take it back.

I was the first one to use it.

Also, unword isn't a word last I checked!

 

[MopedOfJustice]

I agree that we shouldn't hold such a bias against moving stages.

Of course, I say that, and 3 of my 4 favorite all-time Smash stages (Rainbow Cruise, Mute City, and Delfino Plaza) are moving stages, and my other top 4 stages (Peach's Castle 64) has moving stages elements!

Still, the big problem with stages in that regards is that those particular stages (well sans Delfino Plaza maybe) don't have builds that work in all kind of games.

In Melee, Mute City works quite well in smaller tournaments because camping usually isn't too big of a problem in Melee, and because the parts with the wide stage parts all had platforms that helped prevent projectile spamming and camping.

In Melee, Rainbow Cruise had some Fox camping problems, but other than that it wasn't too bad. In Brawl... Meta Knight camping pretty much destroyed that stage, especially since Brawl was already very defensive.

My opinion of the Melee scene is that using Mute City and Rainbow Cruise is some more regional tournaments is actually pretty cool. It add neat looks. While I don't like stages like Congo Jungle (64) in singles, Kongo Jungle (Melee), or heck, even Corneria or Brinstar.

Still, I think at the national and international level, it is just more "appropriate" to ban those stages.

Shut up with the apology and take it back.

I was the first one to use it.

Also, unword isn't a word last I checked!

I'm sorry, I seem to be getting lost again.

Is Pokemon Stadium considered moving? The only moving elements are a treadmill and a windmill last I checked, and those aren't really the same as the 4 you listed. The "criticisms" I mentioned in the story were "Over centralizing game play, having a wall" or "Being prone to homosexual tendencies" (the last on being facetious, of course).
My point wasn't even about bias towards a stage for having particular elements, that was actually the opposite of my (apparently poorly communicated) moral.
My point is that people are biased against a stage because it is banned. Not because they have a case against, say, the inconsistent layout of Delfino Plaza's intermediate stages, but bull****ing a reason because it was banned and they want to keep it that way for the sake of keeping it that way. OS would tell you this, as most of it is based upon stuff that he said (especially the GAAAAAAAY part).
Also, thatsthejoke.jpg, NewSpeak FTW.

 

[Johnknight1]

PS1 is considered a transformation stage, which is different from a moving stage. Stages like Flat Zone 1 and 2, PS1, PS2, Brinstar Depths (I think), Frigate Orpheon, Castle Siege, and the Battle Arena in FE: Awakening (in Smash 3DS) are considered this.

As for Pokémon Stadium 1, it is a counter-pick/neutral stage in Melee. In Brawl it is a banned/counter-pick stage, a lot of that in part because of its' inferior design compared to its' Melee incarnation.

And moving stages could be considered in three categories: transporting stages (like Mute City, Delfino Plaza, Port Town Aero Dive, Rainbow Road 3DS, and Skyloft [in Smash Wii U])), side scrolling stages (Mushroomy Kingdom, the NEW Super Mario Bros. 2 stage [in Smash 3DS]), and fixed moving stages (like Rainbow Cruise [it could also fit in the previous category a bit], Mute City, Rumble Falls, The Summit, The Haleberd, etc.).

Oh, and freaking Infinite Glacier deserves its' own bullcrap categorization of pure awfulness.

My point wasn't even about bias towards a stage for having particular elements, that was actually the opposite of my (apparently poorly communicated) moral.
My point is that people are biased against a stage because it is banned. Not because they have a case against, say, the inconsistent layout of Delfino Plaza's intermediate stages, but bull****ing a reason because it was banned and they want to keep it that way for the sake of keeping it that way. OS would tell you this, as most of it is based upon stuff that he said (especially the GAAAAAAAY part).
Also, thatsthejoke.jpg, NewSpeak FTW.

Well that certainly is a factor in some cases.

As for Delfino Plaza, the reasons I've seen it be banned in competitive play in Brawl is because of this:
-Swimming camping.
-Lots of stalling due to its' huge size.
-Lots of stalling due to players "hiding" behind gaps (like the side port where you can hide on the far right behind the stage floor drop).
-The Shine Gate top glitch where you can get stuck and die.
-Lots of timed out matches.
-Lots of platform camping and stalling and forcing the slower character to be the (over) aggressor, thus leading to the defensive player having an advantage.
-Meta Knight just making the stage bad.

Personally, out of the maybe 50 competitive matches I saw IRL in tournaments in generally a 9 minute, 3 stock setup (granted this was back in 2008 and 2009), I saw 4 games get timed out, 5 almost get timed out, and about 15 or so just drag on and on that was boring for even the players get played on that stage.

However, all of that can be fixed in a future Smash game for that stage if good offense beats good defense routinely, and we have (and enforce) our anti-camping and anti-stalling rules better than the example I just gave.

Again, note that Delfino Plaza is probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite Smash stage ever, and along with Delfino Plaza, it was my counter-pick stage, and I never lost on it in tournament!!!

 

[MopedOfJustice]

However, all of that can be fixed in a future Smash game for that stage if we have (and enforce) our anti-camping and anti-stalling rules better than the example I just gave.

I hate stalling and camping, but I'm not sure if more rules to narrow game play would really help. An excess of prohibitions is what puts many low-tier characters where they are. It also makes the game more about worrying about not breaking the rules than actually playing the game.

E: What do you think of trying to have ISP in 4?
E2: the OP has 77 likes. Jeez

 

[Johnknight1]

I hate stalling and camping, but I'm not sure if more rules to narrow game play would really help. An excess of prohibitions is what puts many low-tier characters where they are. It also makes the game more about worrying about not breaking the rules than actually playing the game.

Oh no, I hate camping and stalling, too, and I hate that rules for those things have to be a thing, becuase it is hard to differentiate like say (this is a random example that isn't probably true at all) Zelda using her range (lol, bad example) and offense, and Meta Knight camping and stalling.

The problem I have with many of the Brawl rulesets (note: I haven't played Brawl since 2009) is that it applies to the whole roster, when it should apply to individual characters.

Everyone shouldn't have to know those rules; just users of those characters.

Still, if we do have those issues in Smash WiiU or 3DS, I think it will be for a few characters on a few stages. Hopefully it doesn't lead to mass bans like campy Fox's did for a while to Melee (before they got wrecked and exposed for the awful Fox's they are), or what Brawl Meta Knight and other such characters have done to Brawl.

Basically, hopefully the community learns from past Smash Bros. competitive experience (and just fighting game experience in general) on how to handle this.

Let the game figure itself out, and if someone is fighting by not fighting, let the boo's reign down, and let's do what we can to prevent them from making the game boring and super campy. There's nothing wrong with defensive matches, and in fact they can be incredible matches (see: HBox vs. Wobbles in Melee in Winner's Finals at EVO 2013), but when crap gets campy, super hit-and-run-based, or stalling-heavy, something's gotta give.

E: What do you think of trying to have ISP in 4?

No. It's not going to work as a tournament main event.

As a side tournament it could have some life, and I am 100% okay with that (in general, we need more side tournaments, like bottom, low, and/or mid tier tournaments, although time restraints mostly stop this; also, 2v2 SHOULD BE THE MAIN EVENT OF TOURNAMENTS MORE OFTEN!!!), but it should serve as only that.

Items just take away from the competitive play (in main tournaments), and they have a tendency of making certain characters OP (THE ICE CLIMBERS!!!).

The ISP only is really used in areas where there either isn't much competitive Brawl or there isn't that much talent usually.

E2: the OP has 77 likes. Jeez

HugS was there for the Brawl ruleset. I remember at CGC back in November of 2009 talking to him about how awful the stagelist and ruleset was, and how Meta Knight and the way he is played made Brawl terrible to play and watch, lol.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Oh no, I hate camping and stalling, too, and I hate that rules for those things have to be a thing, becuase it is hard to differentiate like say (this is a random example that isn't probably true at all) Zelda using her range (lol, bad example) and offense, and Meta Knight camping and stalling.

The problem I have with many of the Brawl rulesets (note: I haven't played Brawl since 2009) is that it applies to the whole roster, when it should apply to individual characters.

Everyone shouldn't have to know those rules; just users of those characters.

Still, if we do have those issues in Smash WiiU or 3DS, I think it will be for a few characters on a few stages. Hopefully it doesn't lead to mass bans like campy Fox's did for a while to Melee (before they got wrecked and exposed for the awful Fox's they are), or what Brawl Meta Knight and other such characters have done to Brawl.

Basically, hopefully the community learns from past Smash Bros. competitive experience (and just fighting game experience in general) on how to handle this.

Let the game figure itself out, and if someone is fighting by not fighting, let the boo's reign down, and let's do what we can to prevent them from making the game boring and super campy. There's nothing wrong with defensive matches, and in fact they can be incredible matches (see: HBox vs. Wobbles in Melee in Winner's Finals at EVO 2013), but when crap gets campy, super hit-and-run-based, or stalling-heavy, something's gotta give.

No. It's not going to work as a tournament main event.

As a side tournament it could have some life, and I am 100% okay with that (in general, we need more side tournaments, like bottom, low, and/or mid tier tournaments, although time restraints mostly stop this; also, 2v2 SHOULD BE THE MAIN EVENT OF TOURNAMENTS MORE OFTEN!!!), but it should serve as only that.

Items just take away from the competitive play (in main tournaments), and they have a tendency of making certain characters OP (THE ICE CLIMBERS!!!).

The ISP only is really used in areas where there either isn't much competitive Brawl or there isn't that much talent usually.

HugS was there for the Brawl ruleset. I remember at CGC back in November of 2009 talking to him about how awful the stagelist and ruleset was, and how Meta Knight and the way he is played made Brawl terrible to play and watch, lol.

Wasn't he there for the Melee ruleset too?

I largely agree with that post.
I think individual character rules would be a good idea. No more will I fear a camping DQ with Doc M.
I never thought about it, but IC with ISP would be fascinating.

 

[xDD-Master]

Smash4 should be 2 stocks.

 

[ryuu seika]

Smash 6 should be no stocks.

^ That's where trends are heading, don't follow them.

 

[xDD-Master]

I also think Brawl shouldve been 2 stocks from the start, now it's obviously too late to change IMO ^^

 

[MopedOfJustice]

@ Johnknight1 What happened to bring the thread back? Had enough of our stupidity?

 

[lordvaati]

another thing that should be considered is how overall properties are changed in the mechanics. the newest picture showcases a change in ledgeguarding via a damage priority system, so we also have to see other changes after experimentation(most notably with grabbing). for example, Peach's Castle, Fourside, and(arguably) Onett were all potentially valid CPs, but due to Waveshine exploits were banned. come Brawl, Waveshines went the way of the dodo, but due to grab properties infinites were discovered and along with the returning Onettt, now Corneria and Rainbow Cruise got the banhammer and PS1 was sealed as a counterpick due to it. however, if grab properties are chnged and no characters have dumb arse exploits this time, some walled stages could atb the very least up for CP options this time.

Besides, we need another Hyrule Castle-like stage that's tourney legal even with walls.

 

[J1NG]

Hmm, if I'm going to enter into this discussion again, I'll start by addressing this response I got way back:

You must not know how insanely difficult it is to unban things. Once you ban a stage it almost NEVER is unbanned no mater what you do. I can't actually think of a time when a banned stage was unbanned.

Unbanning stages is only as difficult as we make it to be, honestly. Why is the flip side of banning not as feasible?
But before we answer that question, I'd like to create an illustration of banning/unbanning using Melee, so as to illustrate my stance on the topic:
Melee comes out, and every stage is banned besides FD and BF(just to be safe, like I was suggesting). My question is, even after stages like PS YS and FoD have been rigorously tested for tournament usage, would they remain banned? If the answer is yes, then my next question is(obviously):why? We are all aware that PS YS and FoD are indeed tournament worthy as of today. I think it's better to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning of competitive play and slowly open up more stages, as it creates a feeling of "oh wow more legal stages" as opposed to having a bunch of stages available in tournaments and proceeding to ban them, creating the feeling of "ah man, less stages to play on...". Feelings aren't the sole reason to do this; like I said before, it's safer to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning so that people don't lose on stages that would later be discovered to be gimmicky/unfair/etc.
Any thoughts on this?

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Hmm, if I'm going to enter into this discussion again, I'll start by addressing this response I got way back:

Unbanning stages is only as difficult as we make it to be, honestly. Why is the flip side of banning not as feasible?
But before we answer that question, I'd like to create an illustration of banning/unbanning using Melee, so as to illustrate my stance on the topic:
Melee comes out, and every stage is banned besides FD and BF(just to be safe, like I was suggesting). My question is, even after stages like PS YS and FoD have been rigorously tested for tournament usage, would they remain banned? If the answer is yes, then my next question is(obviously):why? We are all aware that PS YS and FoD are indeed tournament worthy as of today. I think it's better to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning of competitive play and slowly open up more stages, as it creates a feeling of "oh wow more legal stages" as opposed to having a bunch of stages available in tournaments and proceeding to ban them, creating the feeling of "ah man, less stages to play on...". Feelings aren't the sole reason to do this; like I said before, it's safer to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning so that people don't lose on stages that would later be discovered to be gimmicky/unfair/etc.
Any thoughts on this?

If you look at either this page or a previous one, there is a lovely story crafted by a brilliant author that demonstrates what I believe to be an excellent solution.

I believe that the simple act of considering them pending would change the outlook on them entirely.

I also think it should be kept in mind that the game is (probably) intended to be balanced with most stages on, and that the "flexibility" of a character should be considered just another pro or con when deciding who to play as.

Edit: A few more things

If a tactic is so bad and game-ruining, ban the tactic, not the stage that facilitates it.

For example:

This kind of stuff resulted in a stage ban. A better approach might be: "On RC, more than 2 consecutive ledge grabs on the boat will result in a DQ."

 

[J1NG]

I believe that the simple act of considering them pending would change the outlook on them entirely.

Which is completely idiotic.(not your stance, the idea)

If a tactic is so bad and game-ruining, ban the tactic, not the stage that facilitates it.

This. I can imagine that some people would take the easy way out and just say, "eh, that's too many things to remember. Just ban the stage and make everyone's life easier."
[/quote]

A better approach might be: "On RC, more than 2 consecutive ledge grabs on the boat will result in a DQ."

Again, I agree with you. But some people would probably frown at the fact that a tournament game would need these kinds of rules in the first place.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Which is completely idiotic.(not your stance, the idea)

Could you explain the difference?

 

[J1NG]

Could you explain the difference?

It's fair to think that the act of considering a stage pending would change the outlook on them entirely; in fact I agree with that statement. However, no personal opinions have been expressed on the statement. My personal opinion is that "it is stupid that just because a stage is pending, people will think differently of it".

 

[lordvaati]

in the case of Brawl's RC, it's not just MK stall, but also due to glitches involving the top section(usually with Wario Bike, DeDeDe infinite on boat, and donuts being changed to solids that made it banned as well.

regardless, I do see your point.

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Johnknight1 What happened to bring the thread back? Had enough of our stupidity?

17.5 units of college, my family being sick and me being force to take care of them, and me finally figuring out how to make good BRSTM's for Brawl hacks and me getting sucked into that.

Also, A Link Between Worlds, Arkham Asylum, Left 4 Dead 2, Hitman, and my super long backlog of games!!!!

Wasn't he there for the Melee ruleset too?

HugS helped change the national tournament list to not include a lot of stages I think.

Besides, we need another Hyrule Castle-like stage that's tourney legal even with walls.

A stage like Hyrule Castle's left or right side could be legal, but not in terms of that size or with that middle. Heck, Hyrule Castle isn't legal at nationals in Smash 64 anymore. It causes too many gimps in the middle, the tornadoes cause too many kills and too much stalling, and the stage in general has stalling issues. This is Smash 64, the least campy of the 3 games we're talking about, lol.

That's not to say Hyrule Castle 64 is a bad stage (I LOVE IT TO DEATH!!!), but in singles, it is hard to justify it being legal in regional to international level tournaments. In doubles it could potentially work, however.

Oh, and can we have more stages legal in doubles now=??? Enough of doubles essentially having the same stage lists, at least in regional level tournaments and lower.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Hmm, if I'm going to enter into this discussion again, I'll start by addressing this response I got way back:

Unbanning stages is only as difficult as we make it to be, honestly. Why is the flip side of banning not as feasible?
But before we answer that question, I'd like to create an illustration of banning/unbanning using Melee, so as to illustrate my stance on the topic:
Melee comes out, and every stage is banned besides FD and BF(just to be safe, like I was suggesting). My question is, even after stages like PS YS and FoD have been rigorously tested for tournament usage, would they remain banned? If the answer is yes, then my next question is(obviously):why? We are all aware that PS YS and FoD are indeed tournament worthy as of today. I think it's better to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning of competitive play and slowly open up more stages, as it creates a feeling of "oh wow more legal stages" as opposed to having a bunch of stages available in tournaments and proceeding to ban them, creating the feeling of "ah man, less stages to play on...". Feelings aren't the sole reason to do this; like I said before, it's safer to ban a bunch of stages in the beginning so that people don't lose on stages that would later be discovered to be gimmicky/unfair/etc.
Any thoughts on this?

It looks great on paper, but doesn't work. If it did, the stagelist in Brawl would be MUCH larger as many stages that places banned were never brought back, even after tons of evidence to the contrary against reasons why they banned stages. Some places even have some of those stages still legal and keep on proving they aren't really the problems people say they were. But people aren't willing to learn something new when they don't have to. It's a play to win game, why would you make your life harder by needing to learn something new when you didn't have to? A lot of gimmicks that were supposed to break stages also were proven to be wrong by people playing to see if they can beat the strategy first. If no counter is found within a reasonable amount of time THEN they get rid of the stage like how other fighters handle bans. I could pop out a bunch of examples, but I'm not sure if it would help, those stages are doomed anyways and usually for the reasons of "it's janky" translated into "I don't understand how it works".

There have been cases even where people may have actually LIED just to try and get a stage banned (Norfair was just fine until a mysterious Jigglypuff beat some high tier character there. What's worse is the video of this fight doesn't seem to exist, yet it started a huge look at the stage. This is just one example, there are others.) People banned things for reasons that weren't even true, and when they were shown to have lied nothing happened, it stayed banned because people were used to it. So I can't trust top players who are in it for serious cash to not represent their best interests. And I also can't blame them, why not try to keep it so you keep making money and being successful with less work if you can? There is no reason not to minus morality.

Also it may seem odd, but I think the community was more open during Melee's beginnings. 64 wasn't exactly highly organized for tournaments and stuff, and people were plunging into new territory. Now, that kind of thing wouldn't be possible, people have their minds set on things and refuse to even consider the idea of change. There's better methods to picking stages for matches then our system has now, yet we don't try and change them. There were better rulesets for Brawl that could have solved a lot of problems the game has but we didn't try it.

Ban things only when they are proven to be ban worthy. Why ban something that might not be ban worthy in the first place? There is no reason, there is no proof it should even be banned. Some stages it's faster and easier to get this proof on (New Pork City anyone?) some not so easy (you could still argue today about Onett in Brawl today, as well as some other stages, though there is controversy sure some should have never even been banned at all and only were out of ignorance).

That is why it needs to happen in reverse and only have bans happen when there is sure fire proof that cannot be unproven that a stage creates problems.

(Note: I will admit there are some stages people tried to keep in the game too that had no business being in tournaments. People who want a larger variety of stages and to keep good stages legal need to not fight for stages that make so many problems. Both sides working together would be a rather smart idea.)

 

[MopedOfJustice]

It looks great on paper, but doesn't work. If it did, the stagelist in Brawl would be MUCH larger as many stages that places banned were never brought back, even after tons of evidence to the contrary against reasons why they banned stages. Some places even have some of those stages still legal and keep on proving they aren't really the problems people say they were. But people aren't willing to learn something new when they don't have to. It's a play to win game, why would you make your life harder by needing to learn something new when you didn't have to? A lot of gimmicks that were supposed to break stages also were proven to be wrong by people playing to see if they can beat the strategy first. If no counter is found within a reasonable amount of time THEN they get rid of the stage like how other fighters handle bans. I could pop out a bunch of examples, but I'm not sure if it would help, those stages are doomed anyways and usually for the reasons of "it's janky" translated into "I don't understand how it works".

There have been cases even where people may have actually LIED just to try and get a stage banned (Norfair was just fine until a mysterious Jigglypuff beat some high tier character there. What's worse is the video of this fight doesn't seem to exist, yet it started a huge look at the stage. This is just one example, there are others.) People banned things for reasons that weren't even true, and when they were shown to have lied nothing happened, it stayed banned because people were used to it. So I can't trust top players who are in it for serious cash to not represent their best interests. And I also can't blame them, why not try to keep it so you keep making money and being successful with less work if you can? There is no reason not to minus morality.

Also it may seem odd, but I think the community was more open during Melee's beginnings. 64 wasn't exactly highly organized for tournaments and stuff, and people were plunging into new territory. Now, that kind of thing wouldn't be possible, people have their minds set on things and refuse to even consider the idea of change. There's better methods to picking stages for matches then our system has now, yet we don't try and change them. There were better rulesets for Brawl that could have solved a lot of problems the game has but we didn't try it.

Ban things only when they are proven to be ban worthy. Why ban something that might not be ban worthy in the first place? There is no reason, there is no proof it should even be banned. Some stages it's faster and easier to get this proof on (New Pork City anyone?) some not so easy (you could still argue today about Onett in Brawl today, as well as some other stages, though there is controversy sure some should have never even been banned at all and only were out of ignorance).

That is why it needs to happen in reverse and only have bans happen when there is sure fire proof that cannot be unproven that a stage creates problems.

(Note: I will admit there are some stages people tried to keep in the game too that had no business being in tournaments. People who want a larger variety of stages and to keep good stages legal need to not fight for stages that make so many problems. Both sides working together would be a rather smart idea.)

And so the wall of text returns.

I'm curious about why Onett is ok in your opinion. Unless chain grabbing is banned (and Marth's side-b), wouldn't being a walk off automatically disqualify it?

And what stages (in Brawl) do you think truly should be banned?

 

[LiteralGrill]

And so the wall of text returns.

I'm curious about why Onett is ok in your opinion. Unless chain grabbing is banned (and Marth's side-b), wouldn't being a walk off automatically disqualify it?

And what stages (in Brawl) do you think truly should be banned?

Oh man that's an entirely different discussion. I don't know if I would say Onett should be legal, I said it could be argued for. Many of the reasons it was banned had some evidence showing they weren't the problems people thought they were. I wish it had more testing for sure, then I could make a good call.

But if you want to get into it about all of my thoughts on each stage, a PM or the stage discussion thread may be better. For the record though, I think that people should never have fought for Pictochat and Pirate Ship, at least those were the first few that came to mind when I wrote that wall of text.

 

[J1NG]

Ban things only when they are proven to be ban worthy. Why ban something that might not be ban worthy in the first place? There is no reason, there is no proof it should even be banned.

But, according to the OP, it should be easy to find out whether or not a stage is ban worthy, am I right? I mean, I'm willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt and say that even if "decent-looking stages" were banned in the beginning, they would have the sense to unban them later, and that's only if there were any stages left to unban after being put through the OP's guideline. So, it seems like you and I have a different view of the community, am I right?

 

[LiteralGrill]

But, according to the OP, it should be easy to find out whether or not a stage is ban worthy, am I right? I mean, I'm willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt and say that even if "decent-looking stages" were banned in the beginning, they would have the sense to unban them later, and that's only if there were any stages left to unban after being put through the OP's guideline. So, it seems like you and I have a different view of the community, am I right?

I guess we do. Honestly there is a chance a bunch of stages wouldn't get unbanned even with that common sense (which isn't so common). I still think it's worthy to ask though, why ban something until there is proof it is ban worthy? There is no reason, so you shouldn't ban it. That's thebig flaw with your idea.

However, some stages will be fast and easy to ban, things like Temple, New Pork City etc, Some won't. Frigate Orpheon is still legal in MANY places but was banned at Apex, while Halberd was legal and is banned in other places.* Castle Siege, legal at Apex would actually be banned by the outline in the OP yet it certainly should be legal. Was MLG illegitimate for having way more stages then we have now? Pre ban and a lot of things will never see the light of day again, as the people testing them will present their data saying "It should be legal" and the people who haven't played on the stage will john and say its janky and will ask for it to be banned because they are losing on it and don't normally lose. And it'll stay banned.** As much as I know some bright reasonable people who smash, I have no confidence in the community at large not behaving that way, because they already have multiple times.

It's not got a huge amount of votes yet, but check out my poll about Stages You Wish Were Legal. (And vote while you're at it). See some stages getting votes you wouldn't expect or people surprised some stages are banned. It's interesting.

*Scenarios like that are quite common actually even for stages you see less often, there are a lot of regions that have Pokemon Stadium 2 legal still yet it's rare to see it here. Is it that they just don't use the stage "broken" qualities, or that they've never had it cause a single problem? Same for all the other stages legal one place and banned at another.

**Which is why local scenes can't test stages and try to present them to large tournaments. People have tried, it doesn't work.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

I guess we do. Honestly there is a chance a bunch of stages wouldn't get unbanned even with that common sense (which isn't so common). I still think it's worthy to ask though, why ban something until there is proof it is ban worthy? There is no reason, so you shouldn't ban it. That's thebig flaw with your idea.

However, some stages will be fast and easy to ban, things like Temple, New Pork City etc, Some won't. Frigate Orpheon is still legal in MANY places but was banned at Apex, while Halberd was legal and is banned in other places.* Castle Siege, legal at Apex would actually be banned by the outline in the OP yet it certainly should be legal. Was MLG illegitimate for having way more stages then we have now? Pre ban and a lot of things will never see the light of day again, as the people testing them will present their data saying "It should be legal" and the people who haven't played on the stage will john and say its janky and will ask for it to be banned because they are losing on it and don't normally lose. And it'll stay banned.** As much as I know some bright reasonable people who smash, I have no confidence in the community at large not behaving that way, because they already have multiple times.

It's not got a huge amount of votes yet, but check out my poll about Stages You Wish Were Legal. (And vote while you're at it). See some stages getting votes you wouldn't expect or people surprised some stages are banned. It's interesting.

*Scenarios like that are quite common actually even for stages you see less often, there are a lot of regions that have Pokemon Stadium 2 legal still yet it's rare to see it here. Is it that they just don't use the stage "broken" qualities, or that they've never had it cause a single problem? Same for all the other stages legal one place and banned at another.

**Which is why local scenes can't test stages and try to present them to large tournaments. People have tried, it doesn't work.

You don't have enough stage threads.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

So, I basically have what I think is an optimum way to handle stages in smash 4 worked out based on the principle that we won't agree but that a unity ruleset is too important not to have. I've been editing the proposal for a while now and wasn't in a hurry to make the thread, but if it's suddenly topical again, I could lay it out tonight (in its own thread because this thread's OP is... not productive to a serious discussion). So, is now a good time for this conversation, or should we just wait until the game is closer?

 

[The Real Gamer]

So, I basically have what I think is an optimum way to handle stages in smash 4 worked out based on the principle that we won't agree but that a unity ruleset is too important not to have. I've been editing the proposal for a while now and wasn't in a hurry to make the thread, but if it's suddenly topical again, I could lay it out tonight (in its own thread because this thread's OP is... not productive to a serious discussion). So, is now a good time for this conversation, or should we just wait until the game is closer?

Better to be proactive and get the debates out of the way early instead of hoping everything falls into place months before release IMO.