Sakurai Balancing

[Dracometeor]

Totally missed the point.

Your ignorant for assuming Sm4sh will not get patches on the WiiU(which can do online patches)
Because Brawl did not receive patches on the Wii(which can't do online patches).

You made a statement that was ignorant of the wii inability to patch games.

So I'm ignorant because you were agreeing with me? Do you just like to throw the word "ignorant" around the internet? Dude...you're agreeing with me on the Wii patch point I made. We don't know what Nintendo will do with smash 4 patches yet. I was talking about the history of smash being connected to the internet. It's not my fault nintendo failed at having a decent network on the Wii. There should have been a network on the Wii and there should have been patches. I bought the adapter for it. How does that make me ignorant for pointing out a fact?

You still aren't understanding.

All Nintendo Wii games were created as Read-only, which means they were NOT able to be patched through patches on the internet. This means they COULDN'T patch the game even if Sakurai wanted to.

The WiiU does not have this limitation. Therefore you have ZERO proof that Sm4sh won't receive patches. Sakurai CAN add patches if he or the team wants to. Not saying they 100% will, but that they can.

Here is a similar argument for you to understand what your trying to say.

The GameCube does not have online functions. Melee does not have an online function.
The Wii has online functions. Brawl won't have online functions because they didn't add that to Melee.

Same situation, when the technological barriers are overcome by next gen consoles you can't use past games limited by these barriers to limit features for the future games.

Therefore yes, ignorant.

 

[smashbroskilla]

You still aren't understanding.

All Nintendo Wii games were created as Read-only, which means they were NOT able to be patched through patches on the internet. This means they COULDN'T patch the game even if Sakurai wanted to.

The WiiU does not have this limitation. Therefore you have ZERO proof that Sm4sh won't receive patches. Sakurai CAN add patches if he or the team wants to. Not saying they 100% will, but that they can.

Here is a similar argument for you to understand what your trying to say.

The GameCube does not have online functions. Melee does not have an online function.
The Wii has online functions. Brawl won't have online functions because they didn't add that to Melee.

Same situation, when the technological barriers are overcome by next gen consoles you can't use past games limited by these barriers to limit features for the future games.

Therefore yes, ignorant.

You still are not understanding what I'm saying either. Lets just call it a day because I think we're going in circles here.

 

[Wazygoose]

Well it seems pretty clear that I'm not going to convince anyone about stage hazards. I'm a little confused as to what the tipping point is for a stage to be considered unfair. Hacky Sak is probably confused too, as he has signed off on the For Glory mode with no items and a Final Destination format... which strangely (to me) competitors have complained about. I really feel like I'm missing something.

So it's probably better to ask more specifically, purely as examples, what is unbalanced about Jungle Japes (the one with the water is what I mean), the Pirate Ship, Delfino Plaza, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat, Hannenbow, the Star Fox stage exclusive to Brawl, and Dr. Wily's stage? And is the Yellow Devil "unbalanced"? I'm honestly trying to understand what balance means to everyone.

 

[Silverjay323]

You still aren't understanding.

All Nintendo Wii games were created as Read-only, which means they were NOT able to be patched through patches on the internet. This means they COULDN'T patch the game even if Sakurai wanted to.

The WiiU does not have this limitation. Therefore you have ZERO proof that Sm4sh won't receive patches. Sakurai CAN add patches if he or the team wants to. Not saying they 100% will, but that they can.

Here is a similar argument for you to understand what your trying to say.

The GameCube does not have online functions. Melee does not have an online function.
The Wii has online functions. Brawl won't have online functions because they didn't add that to Melee.

Same situation, when the technological barriers are overcome by next gen consoles you can't use past games limited by these barriers to limit features for the future games.

Therefore yes, ignorant.

Didn't Skyward Sword get a patch?

 

[Saikyoshi]

Well it seems pretty clear that I'm not going to convince anyone about stage hazards. I'm a little confused as to what the tipping point is for a stage to be considered unfair. Hacky Sak is probably confused too, as he has signed off on the For Glory mode with no items and a Final Destination format... which strangely (to me) competitors have complained about. I really feel like I'm missing something.

So it's probably better to ask more specifically, purely as examples, what is unbalanced about Jungle Japes (the one with the water is what I mean), the Pirate Ship, Delfino Plaza, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat, Hannenbow, the Star Fox stage exclusive to Brawl, and Dr. Wily's stage? And is the Yellow Devil "unbalanced"? I'm honestly trying to understand what balance means to everyone.

Like I said before, with massive hazards like the Yellow Devil, it's less about imbalance and more about the problem of distracting everyone from the battle.

Hanenbow gave characters like Bowser, who couldn't jump that well, a severe disadvantage. Plus, it just plain wasn't comfortable to play on even casually.

Jungle Japes had the Klap Traps that you couldn't see coming and were immediately lethal even at 0%. Same with Kongo Jungle.

The pillars on Luigi's Mansion stopped attacks, giving a severe disadvantage to projectile-wielders.

The problems with Pictochat were the missiles, which were extremely difficult to avoid, and a glitch that gave Kirby an endless, invincible attack.

Lylat Cruise and Pirate Ship tilted, stopping projectile users. See Luigi's Mansion.

Delfino Plaza had sections with close-together pillars, which posed a problem for Ness and Lucas's recovery (the same problem that banned Saffron City), along with sections that had walk-off edges, giving an advantage to characters normally balanced by poor recovery or gifted with strong throws.

There's an ongoing debate over Final Destination on whether it gives fast characters with projectiles an advantage; the jury is out on how much of an advantage though, which is why it's still legal and common, but it's generally agreed on that Battlefield is more suitable for competition.

 

[Dracometeor]

Well it seems pretty clear that I'm not going to convince anyone about stage hazards. I'm a little confused as to what the tipping point is for a stage to be considered unfair. Hacky Sak is probably confused too, as he has signed off on the For Glory mode with no items and a Final Destination format... which strangely (to me) competitors have complained about. I really feel like I'm missing something.

So it's probably better to ask more specifically, purely as examples, what is unbalanced about Jungle Japes (the one with the water is what I mean), the Pirate Ship, Delfino Plaza, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat, Hannenbow, the Star Fox stage exclusive to Brawl, and Dr. Wily's stage? And is the Yellow Devil "unbalanced"? I'm honestly trying to understand what balance means to everyone.

I HATE how For Glory mode only uses Final Destination, I wish it included other stages that just have platforms. Anyways about your second point.

Jungle Japes(I'm assuming the one from Melee, otherwise I think it's pretty understandable with the upscrolling.): The problem with this stage is that the stage "floor" is way too close to the platforms. If you fall below the platform your have an extremly high chance of being immediately gimped. This makes characters who are great at edgeguarding and recovery worthless and champions that excel on stage will have a definite advantage. Not to mention the croc that randomly flies in and ko's people below the stage.

Pirate Ship: The bombs. The flipper. Both easily cause deaths. Nobody wants to have a single death to anything except the opposing player. Would you feel like you deserve to lose if you caught your opponent in a combo and were going in for the kill when a bomb hits you in the face ending your last stock and saving your opponent? No.

Delfino Plaza: Now this is a stage that I can see debatable. However in my personal experience when fighting there are times where the stage has taken off while your on the ground, it doesn't pick you up and you get swiftly koed without having any chance to get back. This would make certain characters who can consistently trip you right before the stage leaves for the easy ko. I've had it happen to me and I know it doesn't feel good. Also if I remember correctly every landing ground is a walk off ledge. Which makes strong onstage characters better picks then edgeguard and makes edgeguarding unviable.

Luigi's Mansion: The stage is destructible. Not too bad. Except the Mansion pillars block all ranged attacks. Making Zoning/spacing good against characters like Marth impossible. Or you have to spend your time breaking the pillars while he chases you. Which is boring to watch and annoying to have to play like. Without the pillars I would love the stage. With them it's a nightmare for characters that rely on ranged spacing tools such as Falco and Fox laser, Mario fireball etc.

Pictochat: This stage is a mess.... Literally the definition of random. Anything can happen and most of the iterations of the stage will cause a lot of damage or kill you. It's like a deadly version of Pokemon Stadium.

Hannenbow: I can't even think of what this stage is The rainbow cruise thing?

Lylat Cruise?: I don't remember all of the stage interactions so I'm not sure. Do the arwings shoot? If they don't then the only reason I can see is the curved plane stopping some zoning tools from functioning normally, Samus missiles hitting the stage and charge beam, Diddy's gun and etc.

Dr Wily's Castle: Literally the yellow devil only. He makes the game 1v1v1. You might as well just have tournament matches all have a level 4 computer on Random.

I think that's the best I can breakdown those maps. See the post above me for more info! Saikyoshi is awesome.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

The real problem with Walkoffs is Waveshining with Fox in Melee and chaingrabbing/throwing in Brawl. Especially the latter. They're banned because you shouldn't be able to just keep spamming grab to take your opponent all the way to the blast line. (That said, for many other reasons, I have no idea why chaingrabbing and chainthrowing aren't banned in Brawl outright but now I'm getting off topic.)

 

[LancerStaff]

Well it seems pretty clear that I'm not going to convince anyone about stage hazards. I'm a little confused as to what the tipping point is for a stage to be considered unfair. Hacky Sak is probably confused too, as he has signed off on the For Glory mode with no items and a Final Destination format... which strangely (to me) competitors have complained about. I really feel like I'm missing something.

So it's probably better to ask more specifically, purely as examples, what is unbalanced about Jungle Japes (the one with the water is what I mean), the Pirate Ship, Delfino Plaza, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat, Hannenbow, the Star Fox stage exclusive to Brawl, and Dr. Wily's stage? And is the Yellow Devil "unbalanced"? I'm honestly trying to understand what balance means to everyone.

There is no specific tipping point. That's why there's so much disagreement on stages.

 

[Wazygoose]

Like I said before, with massive hazards like the Yellow Devil, it's less about imbalance and more about the problem of distracting everyone from the battle.

Hanenbow gave characters like Bowser, who couldn't jump that well, a severe disadvantage. Plus, it just plain wasn't comfortable to play on even casually.

Jungle Japes had the Klap Traps that you couldn't see coming and were immediately lethal even at 0%. Same with Kongo Jungle.

The pillars on Luigi's Mansion stopped attacks, giving a severe disadvantage to projectile-wielders.

The problems with Pictochat were the missiles, which were extremely difficult to avoid, and a glitch that gave Kirby an endless, invincible attack.

Lylat Cruise and Pirate Ship tilted, stopping projectile users. See Luigi's Mansion.

Delfino Plaza had sections with close-together pillars, which posed a problem for Ness and Lucas's recovery (the same problem that banned Saffron City), along with sections that had walk-off edges, giving an advantage to characters normally balanced by poor recovery or gifted with strong throws.

There's an ongoing debate over Final Destination on whether it gives fast characters with projectiles an advantage; the jury is out on how much of an advantage though, which is why it's still legal and common, but it's generally agreed on that Battlefield is more suitable for competition.

I HATE how For Glory mode only uses Final Destination, I wish it included other stages that just have platforms. Anyways about your second point.

Jungle Japes(I'm assuming the one from Melee, otherwise I think it's pretty understandable with the upscrolling.): The problem with this stage is that the stage "floor" is way too close to the platforms. If you fall below the platform your have an extremly high chance of being immediately gimped. This makes characters who are great at edgeguarding and recovery worthless and champions that excel on stage will have a definite advantage. Not to mention the croc that randomly flies in and ko's people below the stage.

Pirate Ship: The bombs. The flipper. Both easily cause deaths. Nobody wants to have a single death to anything except the opposing player. Would you feel like you deserve to lose if you caught your opponent in a combo and were going in for the kill when a bomb hits you in the face ending your last stock and saving your opponent? No.

Delfino Plaza: Now this is a stage that I can see debatable. However in my personal experience when fighting there are times where the stage has taken off while your on the ground, it doesn't pick you up and you get swiftly koed without having any chance to get back. This would make certain characters who can consistently trip you right before the stage leaves for the easy ko. I've had it happen to me and I know it doesn't feel good. Also if I remember correctly every landing ground is a walk off ledge. Which makes strong onstage characters better picks then edgeguard and makes edgeguarding unviable.

Luigi's Mansion: The stage is destructible. Not too bad. Except the Mansion pillars block all ranged attacks. Making Zoning/spacing good against characters like Marth impossible. Or you have to spend your time breaking the pillars while he chases you. Which is boring to watch and annoying to have to play like. Without the pillars I would love the stage. With them it's a nightmare for characters that rely on ranged spacing tools such as Falco and Fox laser, Mario fireball etc.

Pictochat: This stage is a mess.... Literally the definition of random. Anything can happen and most of the iterations of the stage will cause a lot of damage or kill you. It's like a deadly version of Pokemon Stadium.

Hannenbow: I can't even think of what this stage is The rainbow cruise thing?

Lylat Cruise?: I don't remember all of the stage interactions so I'm not sure. Do the arwings shoot? If they don't then the only reason I can see is the curved plane stopping some zoning tools from functioning normally, Samus missiles hitting the stage and charge beam, Diddy's gun and etc.

Dr Wily's Castle: Literally the yellow devil only. He makes the game 1v1v1. You might as well just have tournament matches all have a level 4 computer on Random.

I think that's the best I can breakdown those maps. See the post above me for more info! Saikyoshi is awesome.

Thanks for explaining all this! Now I actually understand what it is that people say is unbalanced about those stages.

I get most of the complaints and can't disagree with them. Makes total sense for Hannenbow, Jungle Japes, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat. But Lylat Cruise and Pirate Ship are unbalanced because they slope? (No pun intended). I really feel like that's being super arbitrary. I guess I'm thinking, why is it important that sloping gives a slight disadvantage to certain characters--you could just as easily say that other characters are at a disadvantage when the stage doesn't slope.

You could make the same argument for slopes that is made for Final Destination, just how much of an advantage/disadvantage does it really give? Would the better player lose based on whether or not the stage slopes? Why can't players adapt to both slopes and level terrain?

As for Pirate Ship, in my mind both players know about the bombs and catapult ahead of time, so I don't feel like there's a good excuse to say they were totally "randomly" killed by them. Same thing with the Yellow Devil. You see him coming, and he doesn't really do anything random, he always does the same things. I think about it like the platform in Smashville, it's not random, it always moves side to side. So maybe people personally don't like the stage hazards, but it doesn't mean that Pirate Ship and Dr. Wiley's stage are unbalanced.

Thoughts?

 

[Halfhead]

Didn't Skyward Sword get a patch?

It saved to the memory, not the disc. It was also only a few lines of code. If it had to be any larger, it would have been impossible.

 

[KatKit]

Semi off topic, but when I see the title, I can't help but think of Sakurai playing Wii Fit. xD

 

[Beats]

Thanks for explaining all this! Now I actually understand what it is that people say is unbalanced about those stages.

I get most of the complaints and can't disagree with them. Makes total sense for Hannenbow, Jungle Japes, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat. But Lylat Cruise and Pirate Ship are unbalanced because they slope? (No pun intended). I really feel like that's being super arbitrary. I guess I'm thinking, why is it important that sloping gives a slight disadvantage to certain characters--you could just as easily say that other characters are at a disadvantage when the stage doesn't slope.

You could make the same argument for slopes that is made for Final Destination, just how much of an advantage/disadvantage does it really give? Would the better player lose based on whether or not the stage slopes? Why can't players adapt to both slopes and level terrain?

As for Pirate Ship, in my mind both players know about the bombs and catapult ahead of time, so I don't feel like there's a good excuse to say they were totally "randomly" killed by them. Same thing with the Yellow Devil. You see him coming, and he doesn't really do anything random, he always does the same things. I think about it like the platform in Smashville, it's not random, it always moves side to side. So maybe people personally don't like the stage hazards, but it doesn't mean that Pirate Ship and Dr. Wiley's stage are unbalanced.

Thoughts?

Isn't Lylat legal, at least as counterpick? Also I've heard that camping behind the Yellow Devil is very effective, and he just seems more disruptive than most other stage hazards.

 

[Dracometeor]

Thanks for explaining all this! Now I actually understand what it is that people say is unbalanced about those stages.

I get most of the complaints and can't disagree with them. Makes total sense for Hannenbow, Jungle Japes, Luigi's Mansion, Pictochat. But Lylat Cruise and Pirate Ship are unbalanced because they slope? (No pun intended). I really feel like that's being super arbitrary. I guess I'm thinking, why is it important that sloping gives a slight disadvantage to certain characters--you could just as easily say that other characters are at a disadvantage when the stage doesn't slope.

You could make the same argument for slopes that is made for Final Destination, just how much of an advantage/disadvantage does it really give? Would the better player lose based on whether or not the stage slopes? Why can't players adapt to both slopes and level terrain?

As for Pirate Ship, in my mind both players know about the bombs and catapult ahead of time, so I don't feel like there's a good excuse to say they were totally "randomly" killed by them. Same thing with the Yellow Devil. You see him coming, and he doesn't really do anything random, he always does the same things. I think about it like the platform in Smashville, it's not random, it always moves side to side. So maybe people personally don't like the stage hazards, but it doesn't mean that Pirate Ship and Dr. Wiley's stage are unbalanced.

Thoughts?

For your point about pirate ship and the bombs. Yes both players know when the bombs are coming. However this only gives them two options, 1. Stop fighting and shield incoming bombs until done(boring to watch and slows down gameplay) or 2. Keep fighting and end up having someone die to bombs. In general it just isn't a fun mechanic for anyone to deal with and there is no reason to keep it.

Yellow devil interrupts the game. He promotes camping and defensive play styles too much. Which is toxic for the game(see brawl). He can also be the deciding factor in a match and the players should be the real deciding factors. Not a random stage hazard.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

I understand why some of those got banned from competitive play. Yellow Devil is WAAAYY too frequent as a hazard, and some are just too polarizing. However, I really don't like how PM removed stages like Hanenbow and Luigi's Mansion, even if you can't play them in tourneys. Also wasn't it the water that's ultimately too distracting for Pirate Ship? I don't really feel the bombs are particularly distracting enough.

 

[Wazygoose]

Isn't Lylat legal, at least as counterpick? Also I've heard that camping behind the Yellow Devil is very effective, and he just seems more disruptive than most other stage hazards.

For your point about pirate ship and the bombs. Yes both players know when the bombs are coming. However this only gives them two options, 1. Stop fighting and shield incoming bombs until done(boring to watch and slows down gameplay) or 2. Keep fighting and end up having someone die to bombs. In general it just isn't a fun mechanic for anyone to deal with and there is no reason to keep it.

Yellow devil interrupts the game. He promotes camping and defensive play styles too much. Which is toxic for the game(see brawl). He can also be the deciding factor in a match and the players should be the real deciding factors. Not a random stage hazard.

I see what y'all are saying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Pirate Ship and Yellow Devil might not be well-liked by most players, but they're not necessarily unbalanced. Wall of text but bear with me for a moment.

Let's say two people who are equal in skill, Jack and Jill, play 1000 times on Battlefield and always pick the same characters, and the result is something like 51% wins for Jack and 49% wins for Jill. Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Pirate Ship--I don't think their win percentages would suddenly swing to 60-40, or even 45-55. They would probably still stay around 50-50. And if they did, that means that Pirate Ship is not an unbalanced stage for that character match-up.

Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Battlefield and pick random characters every time. They are competent with each character never do mirror match-ups, either of which would throw off the numbers. I'm just making this up, but to do an example let's just say that in the top four: MK wins 95% of all his matches, Wario 85%, Mario 83%, Snake 75%.

Now repeat 1000 games on Pirate Ship. If the number of wins per character are the same, then the two stages are perfectly equal to each other on paper in terms of game balance. But let's say that they don't stay the same and the top four become: Snake 80%, MK 79%, Olimar 75%, Wario 70%.

In that scenario would that mean that Pirate Ship is less balanced, or more balanced? If MK doesn't win as often on Pirate Ship as he does on Battlefield does that necessarily mean Pirate Ship is unbalanced, or does that mean that Battlefield favors certain characters over others moreso than Pirate Ship does?

They play 1000 games so surely in a few of them the game winning hit ends up being a cannonball. But I would argue that in each case (there could only be a few) the loser didn't lose because of the cannonball, they lost because they didn't already win the rest of the match. If LeBron James has to throw the game-winning shot and misses, the whole team didn't lose just because he missed that one shot. They also lost because they didn't get enough rebounds, they had too many turnovers, they let too many shots in, all sorts of things. You can't blame a single play and just forget the rest of the game.

So we can't just say that hazards and bosses automatically make a match unbalanced and stamp our disapproval on those stages. People might not like the Yellow Devil, but if he doesn't throw off Jack and Jill's overall numbers then he's not unbalanced. Same goes for Klaptraps and Cannonballs.

Balance means that players of equal skill win 50-50. In the above example: since Jack and Jill are of equal skill, if Jill likes MK but Jack likes Olimar and Snake, I think it would be actually be unfair to ban Pirate Ship, since for those particular character match-ups Pirate Ship is actually more balanced than Battlefield.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I understand why some of those got banned from competitive play. Yellow Devil is WAAAYY too frequent as a hazard, and some are just too polarizing. However, I really don't like how PM removed stages like Hanenbow and Luigi's Mansion, even if you can't play them in tourneys. Also wasn't it the water that's ultimately too distracting for Pirate Ship? I don't really feel the bombs are particularly distracting enough.

There's a little something called the Classic Expansion Kit I think you should check out. The thing about P:M is that it encourages end-user customization, and that pack re-adds 75m, New Pork City, Distant Planet, and various others without touching the P:M stages.

Not Hanenbow, though. The number of people who actually liked Hanenbow, competitive or not, can be counted on one hand.

I see what y'all are saying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Pirate Ship and Yellow Devil might not be well-liked by most players, but they're not necessarily unbalanced. Wall of text but bear with me for a moment.

Let's say two people who are equal in skill, Jack and Jill, play 1000 times on Battlefield and always pick the same characters, and the result is something like 51% wins for Jack and 49% wins for Jill. Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Pirate Ship--I don't think their win percentages would suddenly swing to 60-40, or even 45-55. They would probably still stay around 50-50. And if they did, that means that Pirate Ship is not an unbalanced stage for that character match-up.

Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Battlefield and pick random characters every time. They are competent with each character never do mirror match-ups, either of which would throw off the numbers. I'm just making this up, but to do an example let's just say that in the top four: MK wins 95% of all his matches, Wario 85%, Mario 83%, Snake 75%.

Now repeat 1000 games on Pirate Ship. If the number of wins per character are the same, then the two stages are perfectly equal to each other on paper in terms of game balance. But let's say that they don't stay the same and the top four become: Snake 80%, MK 79%, Olimar 75%, Wario 70%.

In that scenario would that mean that Pirate Ship is less balanced, or more balanced? If MK doesn't win as often on Pirate Ship as he does on Battlefield does that necessarily mean Pirate Ship is unbalanced, or does that mean that Battlefield favors certain characters over others moreso than Pirate Ship does?

They play 1000 games so surely in a few of them the game winning hit ends up being a cannonball. But I would argue that in each case (there could only be a few) the loser didn't lose because of the cannonball, they lost because they didn't already win the rest of the match. If LeBron James has to throw the game-winning shot and misses, the whole team didn't lose just because he missed that one shot. They also lost because they didn't get enough rebounds, they had too many turnovers, they let too many shots in, all sorts of things. You can't blame a single play and just forget the rest of the game.

So we can't just say that hazards and bosses automatically make a match unbalanced and stamp our disapproval on those stages. People might not like the Yellow Devil, but if he doesn't throw off Jack and Jill's overall numbers then he's not unbalanced. Same goes for Klaptraps and Cannonballs.

Balance means that players of equal skill win 50-50. In the above example: since Jack and Jill are of equal skill, if Jill likes MK but Jack likes Olimar and Snake, I think it would be actually be unfair to ban Pirate Ship, since for those particular character match-ups Pirate Ship is actually more balanced than Battlefield.

You're completely missing the point. Wily Castle and Pirate Ship were not banned for imbalance, or because people don't like them, but for distracting from the battle. A tournament is a show, entertainment, and nobody wants to WATCH the contenders flail around or shield helplessly.

 

[Wazygoose]

There's a little something called the Classic Expansion Kit I think you should check out. The thing about P:M is that it encourages end-user customization, and that pack re-adds 75m, New Pork City, Distant Planet, and various others without touching the P:M stages.

Not Hanenbow, though. The number of people who actually liked Hanenbow, competitive or not, can be counted on one hand.


You're completely missing the point. Wily Castle and Pirate Ship were not banned for imbalance, or because people don't like them, but for distracting from the battle. A tournament is a show, entertainment, and nobody wants to WATCH the contenders flail around or shield helplessly.

Ah, so we're not talking about the same thing. I'm trying to understand why some stages are viewed as balanced and others are not, and already understood that some stages can encourage more entertaining play than others. My impression is that people think that stage hazards and bosses are random and unbalanced, but I don't think they necessarily are, and so want to get some feedback. But if no one thinks that and everyone is just talking about entertainment then I guess I'm in the wrong place hahaha.

But to speak to your point, it seems a shame and surprising that they would be banned since the stages themselves are way more entertaining and variable than the most common picks. I suppose really I just don't like the idea that they get banned for one reason but a different rationalization is given.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Ah, so we're not talking about the same thing. I'm trying to understand why some stages are viewed as balanced and others are not, and already understood that some stages can encourage more entertaining play than others. My impression is that people think that stage hazards and bosses are random and unbalanced, but I don't think they necessarily are, and so want to get some feedback. But if no one thinks that and everyone is just talking about entertainment then I guess I'm in the wrong place hahaha.

But to speak to your point, it seems a shame and surprising that they would be banned since the stages themselves are way more entertaining and variable than the most common picks. I suppose really I just don't like the idea that they get banned for one reason but a different rationalization is given.

It's on a stage by stage basis. And the debates are endless. Some stages ARE imbalanced, and I listed those. Others are banned for different reasons, some even completely arbitrarily.

It's complicated and it can take years to come to an accepted consensus.

 

[Wazygoose]

It's on a stage by stage basis. And the debates are endless. Some stages ARE imbalanced, and I listed those. Others are banned for different reasons, some even completely arbitrarily.

It's complicated and it can take years to come to an accepted consensus.

Wow, OK then! Now I'm wondering what kind of stages in Smash4 will be easy to agree on. Not Dr Wily's hahaha. Well actually based on this thread maybe that's just me.

 

[Anomalus]

1000 games

Except you'll never have a 1000-game match in tournaments, so it's a moot point. Random events are obviously balanced for large sample sizes but we simply do not have that option in a tournament, and when money, prizes and reputation are on the line I doubt most people (spectators and players) would get very excited at a grand finals being decided by a random or minor event.

If most of this stuff was fully deterministic and appropriately adjusted by the developers then I'd have no problem with them (think stuff like Quake or even a more moderate random effect like hyrule castle's tornadoes) but this unfortunately is not the case, so between aesthetic and practical considerations you end up with a culture and ruleset that is severe on variable elements.

I also think you might be underestimating a bit how close some games can get at a high level and the impact these variables can end up having in them. In chess, a single pawn's worth of advantage can often be considered a clear, decisive advantage. For something slower, less technical or not as risky, variable events might be lesser perils, though.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I definitely agree that balancing at all levels is important, but I think more emphasis should be placed at top level play. A casual's interpretation of balance is all over the place and vastly differs from the next casual player. As long as it's "close enough" it shouldn't be a problem.

Purb stompers are a way casual players can be turned off from a game. Even if they aren't broken at top levels of play they can still really ruin casual experience.

Yes top level matters more but purb stompers don't help.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Agree with you 100% on that. Balancing is tough, no?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Agree with you 100% on that. Balancing is tough, no?

I play a lot of MOBAs I know how people can get pissed off at these kinds of things.

 

[Dracometeor]

Wow, OK then! Now I'm wondering what kind of stages in Smash4 will be easy to agree on. Not Dr Wily's hahaha. Well actually based on this thread maybe that's just me.

Any stage with little hazards, normal horizontal/vertical movement, flat platforms/no platforms/moving platforms, No bosses, no walk off ledges, small-medium sized.

Those stages will be "playable" in competitive and debatable on a case by case basis.
Stages that don't fill these requirements will have a difficult time finding a spot for competitive play.

 

[Wazygoose]

Except you'll never have a 1000-game match in tournaments, so it's a moot point. Random events are obviously balanced for large sample sizes but we simply do not have that option in a tournament, and when money, prizes and reputation are on the line I doubt most people (spectators and players) would get very excited at a grand finals being decided by a random or minor event.

If most of this stuff was fully deterministic and appropriately adjusted by the developers then I'd have no problem with them (think stuff like Quake or even a more moderate random effect like hyrule castle's tornadoes) but this unfortunately is not the case, so between aesthetic and practical considerations you end up with a culture and ruleset that is severe on variable elements.

I also think you might be underestimating a bit how close some games can get at a high level and the impact these variables can end up having in them. In chess, a single pawn's worth of advantage can often be considered a clear, decisive advantage. For something slower, less technical or not as risky, variable events might be lesser perils, though.

Yea, I suppose it's like others said about a case by case basis. Because where do you draw the line between tornadoes and cannonballs. I would say they're like the same thing but I guess that's why it's so debateable.

I get everyone's complaints about tournaments. I suppose I'm thinking about the principle of it instead of real-world examples. Because I know it's not that players will play 1000 games, it's just the principle that if the random events/hazards don't affect the overall stats on stages then they're not truly determining matches, even if they would appear to be. As in, if you could turn them off and the amount of wins/losses remains constant then they don't determine matches.

Any stage with little hazards, normal horizontal/vertical movement, flat platforms/no platforms/moving platforms, No bosses, no walk off ledges, small-medium sized.

Those stages will be "playable" in competitive and debatable on a case by case basis.
Stages that don't fill these requirements will have a difficult time finding a spot for competitive play.

I still don't understand what the problem with slopes is if they do not have walk off ledges. Yes itt's different from flat terrain and changes play up a bit, but why is it not "playable"?

 

[Dracometeor]

Yea, I suppose it's like others said about a case by case basis. Because where do you draw the line between tornadoes and cannonballs. I would say they're like the same thing but I guess that's why it's so debateable.

I get everyone's complaints about tournaments. I suppose I'm thinking about the principle of it instead of real-world examples. Because I know it's not that players will play 1000 games, it's just the principle that if the random events/hazards don't affect the overall stats on stages then they're not truly determining matches, even if they would appear to be. As in, if you could turn them off and the amount of wins/losses remains constant then they don't determine matches.



I still don't understand what the problem with slopes is if they do not have walk off ledges. Yes itt's different from flat terrain and changes play up a bit, but why is it not "playable"?

They negate projectiles. This is one of the most debatable components though. It depends on the stage and case by case. If the majority of the map is flat then it isn't that bad, but if it's all sloped then no.

 

[Xigger]

I see what y'all are saying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Pirate Ship and Yellow Devil might not be well-liked by most players, but they're not necessarily unbalanced. Wall of text but bear with me for a moment.

Spoiler

Let's say two people who are equal in skill, Jack and Jill, play 1000 times on Battlefield and always pick the same characters, and the result is something like 51% wins for Jack and 49% wins for Jill. Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Pirate Ship--I don't think their win percentages would suddenly swing to 60-40, or even 45-55. They would probably still stay around 50-50. And if they did, that means that Pirate Ship is not an unbalanced stage for that character match-up.

Now let's say they play another 1000 games on Battlefield and pick random characters every time. They are competent with each character never do mirror match-ups, either of which would throw off the numbers. I'm just making this up, but to do an example let's just say that in the top four: MK wins 95% of all his matches, Wario 85%, Mario 83%, Snake 75%.

Now repeat 1000 games on Pirate Ship. If the number of wins per character are the same, then the two stages are perfectly equal to each other on paper in terms of game balance. But let's say that they don't stay the same and the top four become: Snake 80%, MK 79%, Olimar 75%, Wario 70%.

In that scenario would that mean that Pirate Ship is less balanced, or more balanced? If MK doesn't win as often on Pirate Ship as he does on Battlefield does that necessarily mean Pirate Ship is unbalanced, or does that mean that Battlefield favors certain characters over others moreso than Pirate Ship does?

They play 1000 games so surely in a few of them the game winning hit ends up being a cannonball. But I would argue that in each case (there could only be a few) the loser didn't lose because of the cannonball, they lost because they didn't already win the rest of the match. If LeBron James has to throw the game-winning shot and misses, the whole team didn't lose just because he missed that one shot. They also lost because they didn't get enough rebounds, they had too many turnovers, they let too many shots in, all sorts of things. You can't blame a single play and just forget the rest of the game.

So we can't just say that hazards and bosses automatically make a match unbalanced and stamp our disapproval on those stages. People might not like the Yellow Devil, but if he doesn't throw off Jack and Jill's overall numbers then he's not unbalanced. Same goes for Klaptraps and Cannonballs.

Balance means that players of equal skill win 50-50. In the above example: since Jack and Jill are of equal skill, if Jill likes MK but Jack likes Olimar and Snake, I think it would be actually be unfair to ban Pirate Ship, since for those particular character match-ups Pirate Ship is actually more balanced than Battlefield.

Ah, there's quite nothing like facts~
I'm glad the competitive scene is finally acknowledging this, as seen by the "Final Destination giving projectile users an advantage" debate.

Characters have different advantages. Stages have different advantages. It seems like the Smash competitive crowd doesn't like when stages require them to adjust their strategy. Funny in comparison to first-person shooters, where they're almost fine with any symmetrical map.

 

[Dracometeor]

Ah, there's quite nothing like facts~
I'm glad the competitive scene is finally acknowledging this, as seen by the "Final Destination giving projectile users an advantage" debate.

Characters have different advantages. Stages have different advantages. It seems like the Smash competitive crowd doesn't like when stages require them to adjust their strategy. Funny in comparison to first-person shooters, where they're almost fine with any symmetrical map.

Wait... Are you saying that CoD uses more then 5 maps? Seriously they are just as picky.

However gameplay options are completely different between the two games.
In Fps's you design your strategy purely based on the map and choose your class accordingly (which you can still change at death or in between rounds). This is because the difference between guns/classes varies mostly by being range effective. Which is greatly influenced by map layout.

In Smash you design your strategy purely off of your character. Many competitive players main 1- a small handful of characters to play competitively. Some stages can nullify 90% of a characters strategy/options in a match.

In all, Bad stages in Smash are more detrimental to the game then a bad map in a FPS.

 

[Xigger]

Ah, I don't know that much about the competitive scene in Call of Duty. I was thinking about how Halo maps have a good variety of symmetical and asymmetrical maps. But I don't know much about that competitive scene either. But I do know it's not fair to hold a fighting game against a first-person shooter's standards.

Either way, I'm not trying to make a point with that. If anything, the arguement is related to whether competitive play should be about combos or reading your opponent. Combos encourage honing yourself, not necessarily fighting opponents, and reading your opponent focuses on battling your opponent more than honing your skills. The answer is both, but should lean closer towards improvisation rather than memorization.

 

[Dracometeor]

Ah, I don't know that much about the competitive scene in Call of Duty. I was thinking about how Halo maps have a good variety of symmetical and asymmetrical maps. But I don't know much about that competitive scene either. But I do know it's not fair to hold a fighting game against a first-person shooter's standards.

Either way, I'm not trying to make a point with that. If anything, the arguement is related to whether competitive play should be about combos or reading your opponent. Combos encourage honing yourself, not necessarily fighting opponents, and reading your opponent focuses on battling your opponent more than honing your skills. The answer is both, but should lean closer towards improvisation rather than memorization.

Ok. My favorite part about smash is how you have to improvise your combos depending on your opponents di. I also like how the combos aren't set in stone but you can switch them up with different attacks. That's how I think it should be.

There should be combos that your opponent is able to escape unless you outplay them.

 

[Wazygoose]

Speaking of balanced stages. I don't think the community would agree to do this because it would require a concerted effort, but it would be ideal if high-caliber players did a couple of matches against each other with serious intent and eventually playing on each entertainment-viable stage. They could easily do it online.

If they do it regularly for a few months with enough variety of characters, we could get numbers we could use to determine which stages are most balanced for which match-ups, instead of trying to pick a few stages which apply to all characters based on predetermined criteria which may not actually affect win percentages for every match-up. (The entertainment factor is a completely separate issue, which is accordingly determined separately).

It would mean that each match-up might have a slightly different stage selection, but it would be the most balanced option. It's possible (but uncertain) that right now certain characters are unviable competitively because the agreed upon stage selection is skewed against them when they play against the most popular characters. Since each character plays differently, if we are really serious about measuring skill then we need to get more specific for each match-up. And certain match-ups might be more entertaining on certain stages than others. It's a lot of work, but wouldn't it be worth it? Wouldn't the only obstacle be laziness?

Perceived balance is not the same as real balance. If we're serious about real balance and aren't lazy then we can't make blanket options for a roster comprised of 40-50 characters who play totally differently from each other, and who now have zillions of custom options.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Speaking of balanced stages. I don't think the community would agree to do this because it would require a concerted effort, but it would be ideal if high-caliber players did a couple of matches against each other with serious intent and eventually playing on each entertainment-viable stage. They could easily do it online.

If they do it regularly for a few months with enough variety of characters, we could get numbers we could use to determine which stages are most balanced for which match-ups, instead of trying to pick a few stages which apply to all characters based on predetermined criteria which may not actually affect win percentages for every match-up. (The entertainment factor is a completely separate issue, which is accordingly determined separately).

It would mean that each match-up might have a slightly different stage selection, but it would be the most balanced option. It's possible (but uncertain) that right now certain characters are unviable competitively because the agreed upon stage selection is skewed against them when they play against the most popular characters. Since each character plays differently, if we are really serious about measuring skill then we need to get more specific for each match-up. And certain match-ups might be more entertaining on certain stages than others. It's a lot of work, but wouldn't it be worth it? Wouldn't the only obstacle be laziness?

Perceived balance is not the same as real balance. If we're serious about real balance and aren't lazy then we can't make blanket options for a roster comprised of 40-50 characters who play totally differently from each other, and who now have zillions of custom options.

The problem with that, of course, is that it would be a memorization nightmare. That would be over 1,521 (39^2) stage lists.

 

[Wazygoose]

The problem with that, of course, is that it would be a memorization nightmare. That would be over 1,521 (39^2) stage lists.

Can't disagree with that, but I think we could come up with an easy/efficient way to do it. Or not, but we should try it at least. Who knows, the stage lists might not even be that different and if we simplify/reduce the largest ones for practicality we'll only need like 5-10 sets of stage lists to accommodate all match-ups. Besides, everyone memorizes moves and strategies in their match-ups against every other character anyway, a stage list isn't much more than what people already do now.

I think the hardest part, besides getting everyone to agree to it, would be what algorithms/formulas to use to determine balance when you have so many inputs from players of unequal skill. But that's why you test multiple models and see which has the best fit for the data. I just hate to say we shouldn't do it because it's hard, if we actually want to have balance and not just say that we do, we need to explore more options like character match-up stage lists.