Should every stage be available as a counterpick?

[RODO]

Or at least the ones that don't have ridiculous stage hazards?? I'm all for starting off on a neutral stage but I feel as if counter-picking over the years has been very limited, almost to the point where your CP stages are mostly neutrals anyway. Here is how I see it:

-stages with PREDICTABLE stage hazards should still be available for a CP
-some walk off stages should still be available (probably smaller ones so that camping the sides isn't as bad)
-anything with unavoidable stage hazards and levels that make you play the stage more than the opponent (ie moving levels like pokefloats and rumble falls) should be banned.

I feel like that would still free up most of the stages to be a CP stage. In a best of 3 or 5 scenario I feel that the better player should win regardless of if they were CP'd to a jank stage since they SHOULD win the first game on a neutral anyway. It would just give other players and certain characters a better chance if they could pick from more stages imo.

 

[Senario]

Or at least the ones that don't have ridiculous stage hazards?? I'm all for starting off on a neutral stage but I feel as if counter-picking over the years has been very limited, almost to the point where your CP stages are mostly neutrals anyway. Here is how I see it:

-stages with PREDICTABLE stage hazards should still be available for a CP
-some walk off stages should still be available (probably smaller ones so that camping the sides isn't as bad)
-anything with unavoidable stage hazards and levels that make you play the stage more than the opponent (ie moving levels like pokefloats and rumble falls) should be banned.

I feel like that would still free up most of the stages to be a CP stage. In a best of 3 or 5 scenario I feel that the better player should win regardless of if they were CP'd to a jank stage since they SHOULD win the first game on a neutral anyway. It would just give other players and certain characters a better chance if they could pick from more stages imo.

No. I'm all for more legal stages but creating stagelists that a lot of players wouldn't find appealing to play on would result in the scene suffering overall.

We have a history of predictable stage hazards eventually being moved out of the legal stage list. For example the Fzero stage in melee. You knew when the cars would come, but even if it is predictable it still can and will interfere with the gameplay between two players and force them to fight the stage essentially. Or avoid it slowing down gameplay.

Walk offs make everybody camp on the edges small or large stage, it doesn't matter. And as long as projectiles do damage you will see the game devolve into camping on the edge for quick kills and using percent advantage to never approach. It happens in other fighting games kinda, the whole "if you are ahead don't needlessly approach". In those games the timer is low enough and people have enough tools to get in and defend so going in and getting DP'ed when you are ahead in life is silly. You can pressure the opponent from afar with projectiles and catch them offguard/or if you are a pressure heavy char you can actually get away with going in but really this doesn't work in smash due to the timer and stock system. If the timer is low, you get people who get a stock lead and use the loads of vertical mobility to get away till the timer is gone. It isn't like other fighters where your opponent can never fully go around you as a character and keep running unless their char is built around it. If they try to go over you there is dragon punch inputs, if they keep backing up they run into a wall.

But hey, opinions. I'm sure to be called out for one reason or another and then technically I should argue against their point. Then it''ll turn into an argument about character rather than the topic then it'll devolve into a melee vs brawl argument because somebody will say "this isn't melee". And frankly I don't want to bother with those ppl atm.

 

[Raijinken]

At least in my group, we're starting off with all stages legal (but we also don't do striking and pick orders, we'll probably just random stage or play them in order), and will be removing them as we decide they're disruptive to play. Some might be nixed never to be seen again (Brawl Wario Ware), some may see some lulz play without being used in serious matches (Melee Temple). My hope is that more than just Final Destination and Battlefield will feel fair, and that I'll be able to convince my friends of the same.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Personally, I'm anti-walkoff because walk-offs are simply too abusable and promote camping, but I don't think predictable stage hazards need to be banned. Walls may or may not work depending on whether wall infinites exist. I do think the stage list should start out big and be reduced if things are discovered, but we already know how walk-offs work and they don't appear to be different enough to warrant re-testing. I'm not convinced that all of the predictable stage hazard stages in past games were banned for justifiable reasons and feel that they often fell into the category of "I don't like this" instead of "this clearly degenerates gameplay and needs to go."

 

[<π]

I've NEVER had any issue with stage hazards. Most of the community has untill what 2 or 3 years ago. I don't really understand the switch. Telegraphed or predictable stage hazards are perfectly okay in my book. They test a players ability to adapt and react to situations they aren't in control of. If you are fighting another opponent you are doing that already.

Walk offs never have and never will be "abusable" or "promote camping". Top level players will very quickly understand that you are at MORE risk for a KO if to try and wait near the blast zone. (you have few options and can only approach when pressure is applied.)You take a stock off me and camp near the edge of the stage? I will just pepper you with projectiles pressure your shield stay out of your grab range and force you to make a poor decission. Idiotd run up and get shield grabbed 4 times in a row.

I LOVED pokefloats... well the idea of it anyway. Samus didn't do too well on pokefloat, but neither did fox and falco. I think the pacing of the stage was reasonable so that if you knew the stage you could never be stuck in a situation you can't over come. (If memory serves just about every character can navigate the stage with just thier first jump) I don't think that is as true with rumble falls though. that stage was rough for a lot of the cast to manage.

 

[Raijinken]

The most likely things for me to knock out are stages that scroll too quickly (Rumble Falls, Icicle Mountain, but not Big Blue), stages that disrupt "regular" play physics (Spear Pillar, much as I like it for casual play, or the gravity on the Mario Galaxy stage, or the temporary lightweight in Summit on Brawl, and probably Balloon Fight for wraparound), stages with hyperlethal hazards (Chimera, Fish), and massive stages.

 

[Hero of the Winds]

I've NEVER had any issue with stage hazards. Most of the community has untill what 2 or 3 years ago. I don't really understand the switch. Telegraphed or predictable stage hazards are perfectly okay in my book. They test a players ability to adapt and react to situations they aren't in control of. If you are fighting another opponent you are doing that already.

Walk offs never have and never will be "abusable" or "promote camping". Top level players will very quickly understand that you are at MORE risk for a KO if to try and wait near the blast zone. (you have few options and can only approach when pressure is applied.)You take a stock off me and camp near the edge of the stage? I will just pepper you with projectiles pressure your shield stay out of your grab range and force you to make a poor decission. Idiotd run up and get shield grabbed 4 times in a row.

I LOVED pokefloats... well the idea of it anyway. Samus didn't do too well on pokefloat, but neither did fox and falco. I think the pacing of the stage was reasonable so that if you knew the stage you could never be stuck in a situation you can't over come. (If memory serves just about every character can navigate the stage with just thier first jump) I don't think that is as true with rumble falls though. that stage was rough for a lot of the cast to manage.

Yeah I never really completely understood the whole walk offs promote camping...like, just reflect their projectiles or dodge and shoot back...they will eventually have to leave, especially if their shield is running out.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Mario Galaxy appears to effectively be a flat stage, since its gravity also bends projectiles' movement paths. The only odd consideration is that you have to take that constant Interface Screw into account with the flat ground appearing bent.

 

[<π]

Mario galaxy always Little mac's CP.

 

[SpaceJell0]

Yeah I never really completely understood the whole walk offs promote camping...like, just reflect their projectiles or dodge and shoot back...they will eventually have to leave, especially if their shield is running out.

The reasoning is mainly two things:
1) Back Throws kills for days!
2) You can just wait it out on the other side of the stage spamming projectiles and force your opponent to approach

 

[<π]

The reasoning is mainly two things:
1) Back Throws kills for days!
2) You can just wait it out on the other side of the stage spamming projectiles and force your opponent to approach

Like like on stages with platforms the center is the strongest point. You have the most options and have the furthest distance to go.

Sure you can run to a walk off and try and wait and force an approach. but just like in any neutral situation you have just as much of a chance of being hit off except you can't safely maneuver backwards and you don't have the fall back of just being hit off stage if your camp game falls apart.

Even if somehow this does become an optimal strategy it is high risk high reward. it forces players to engage in combat to capture and take hold of this AMAZINGLY POWERFUL spot. It is fun and exciting to watch because of the high risk on both ends.

 

[SpaceJell0]

Like like on stages with platforms the center is the strongest point. You have the most options and have the furthest distance to go.

Sure you can run to a walk off and try and wait and force an approach. but just like in any neutral situation you have just as much of a chance of being hit off except you can't safely maneuver backwards and you don't have the fall back of just being hit off stage if your camp game falls apart.

Even if somehow this does become an optimal strategy it is high risk high reward. it forces players to engage in combat to capture and take hold of this AMAZINGLY POWERFUL spot. It is fun and exciting to watch because of the high risk on both ends.

You may be onto something there but I don't see the competitive scene seeing it like you do. There are far more problems than I have listed that more qualified players are able to answer for but I do agree that would be cool to experiment with.

 

[<π]

There aren't any problems though... at least not yet. And I AM qualified to say that. I started playing melee shortly after walk offs were universally banned.

 

[Kuraudo]

It really depends. I think to start a lot of stages will be legit once we've experimented with them. Walk-offs for example, if all it does is encourage camping at the edge to get quick throw kills, those will get banned. But if chaingrabbing isn't in the game for example, that could change things possibly. Stages like Delfino Plaza and Castle Siege were legitimate for so long in a lot of different rulesets because of the fact that the walk-offs were not constantly there and switched constantly, shifting how people fought on platforms and all. In a stage where there's constant walk-offs, all it takes is for someone to get the hit and percent lead, camp the side of the stage and predict their opponent coming in. It's counterproductive to a fighting game where in the competitive scene we wanna see stocks lost via combos/reads/edgeguarding, not waiting to backthrow your opponent for a free kill every time.

Stages like Pilotwings could be legit at first unless wall camping is a huge issue and forces infinites. Although that in of itself is halted by the planes constantly switching so it's not like Corneria or the walls of Shadow Moses.

When the game first drops on Wii U at least, we'll experiment with what we've got, see what other people are doing too, and create our own stagelist, counterpicks and all. But I'm open to many options at first. And if we have a lot of stages, banning 2/3 stages on a counterpick is legit still.

 

[Tsuko G.]

Even though I personally think we should wait a bit before have a clear opinion on this issue, I believe allowing stages with 'limited' hazards would give a bowl fresh air to the metagame, and make it evolve from what we're used to.

Yes, some players will take advantage of it with camping/walks-off. However, it is a counterpick. A little favor we give to the past round loser to have a chance against his opponent.

Otherwise, it would sound a bit wobbly, but how about couter-counterpicks? We could allow the use of hazard stages if the gap between the players is too wide. In BO5, for instance.

 

[<π]

It really bothers me that people don't know this stuff.

In melee Walk-offs were banned (and shouldn't have been) because of Fox's waveshine combo... which only worked on maybe 2/3s of the cast? Its very situational and hard to do to an opponent who is actively trying to avoiding it.
Later wobbling was found. it works on every character on every stage. It is still legal.

In brawl Walk-offs were banned because of the D3 chain grab found early in the games life span. D3 could chain grab and infinite a sizeable amount of the cast, after quickly banning his infinite (which shouldn't have been banned) the walk offs were also banned (which also shouldn't have been) because of his quick an easy access to kills.
Later ANOTHER IC infinite was found. it works on ever character on ever stage. It is still legal.



Walk offs were NEVER banned because people camped them because no high level player would ever seriously try and sit at a blast zone and hope their opponent gives them a free grab. If the Ice climbers are sitting on the edge of a stage do you run up to them and try and attack their shield? NO! Do you concede the match since you can't get though their defense. Of cource not. So how is someone sitting next to a blast zone some unstoppable force. You pressure them and try to force errors!

This logic is blowing my mind right now...

 

[Kuraudo]

Even though I personally think we should wait a bit before have a clear opinion on this issue, I believe allowing stages with 'limited' hazards would give a bowl fresh air to the metagame, and make it evolve from what we're used to.

Yes, some players will take advantage of it with camping/walks-off. However, it is a counterpick. A little favor we give to the past round loser to have a chance against his opponent.

Otherwise, it would sound a bit wobbly, but how about couter-counterpicks? We could allow the use of hazard stages if the gap between the players is too wide. In BO5, for instance.

I'd have to disagree wtih that. In a tournament setting where it's your goal to determine whose the best of the best, you shouldn't be punished for beating your opponent. That's why when your opponent counterpicks you to a stage, you have the option to counter them right back as the victor with a new character if you so choose.

A counterpicked stage is used to give the loser an opportunity to turn things around, but it shouldn't be something that has the loser relying solely on things like camping/walkoffs is the issue. It can be something like, "Well Lucina has amazing platform control on this stage, so I'll counterpick you here with my Lucina." instead of "I'm gonna counterpick Gerudo Valley. alright, you picked your character? I'm picking Bowser. Backthrow camp the sides for days."

In a tournament setting, you wanna be rewarded for winning and keeping the momentum, but that's where it's up to the loser to chose wisely on their counterpick what will work best for them to fight back without having to rely on the stage itself to carry them. A stage needs to compliment the character and skillset the player brings, not the other way around.

That's how I feel about it at least. Allowing use of hazard stages if the skill gap is too wide between certain people would be odd too. Chances are that unless one guy in the tournament is above everybody else, the guy that has a hard time keeping up with the better player will probably be knocked out earlier in the tourney anyways.

It really bothers me that people don't know this stuff.

In melee Walk-offs were banned (and shouldn't have been) because of Fox's waveshine combo... which only worked on maybe 2/3s of the cast? Its very situational and hard to do to an opponent who is actively trying to avoiding it.
Later wobbling was found. it works on every character on every stage. It is still legal.

In brawl Walk-offs were banned because of the D3 chain grab found early in the games life span. D3 could chain grab and infinite a sizeable amount of the cast, after quickly banning his infinite (which shouldn't have been banned) the walk offs were also banned (which also shouldn't have been) because of his quick an easy access to kills.
Later ANOTHER IC infinite was found. it works on ever character on ever stage. It is still legal.


Walk offs were NEVER banned because people camped them because no high level player would ever seriously try and sit at a blast zone and hope their opponent gives them a free grab. If the Ice climbers are sitting on the edge of a stage do you run up to them and try and attack their shield? NO! Do you concede the match since you can't get though their defense. Of cource not. So how is someone sitting next to a blast zone some unstoppable force. You pressure them and try to force errors!

This logic is blowing my mind right now...

The problem here is that while they're still hard to do, wobbling and IC infinites are more difficult to do and require actual time and tech to get timing down and frame counting just right. And in the 3DS tournament we got, a lot of side camping was seen on Gerudo Valley for example. Even if it's not happening all the time, the possibility of an insta-kill because you're near the blast zone is, IMO, counterproductive to how you earn your kills previously, via edgeguards/combos/smashes/death throws that aren't done at low or non-kill percents.

It's a lot easier to screw someone over on the blastzone, waiting for someone or losing to the guy approaching, over Wobbles/IC Chain Grabs.

 

[<π]

first of all difficulty has nothing to do with anything in a competitive play environment.

second of all I can do all the IC infinites in both games... it isn't hard.
Melee: grab tilt forward press A rythmically
Brawl: grab pummel back throw tab jump twice tap b re grab
I've never played IC climbers seriously. When my top level IC main roommate made the "its hard though" argument I learned the chains in under a half hour. (real smasher poor MONTHS into their characters)

third of all: camping an edge is just as risky for the camper. What if I DK whirlwind punch you into the blast zone? What if I walk up right outside of your dash grab range and wait for you to do anything? What if I dash up and grab you before you grab me, and I throw you forward? There are SO many risks the camper takes by putting himself in this position.

forth of all: Why is camping bad anyway? If you have gained an advantage you have EARNED the right to demand your opponent play YOUR game. At the end of the day though he HAS to approach you or else he will lose. its on him to figure out how to regain his footing. But then again... I guess banning a stage is kind of doing that before it even happens, so maybe I'm playing the game wrong.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

I would at least want Walk-Offs banned.

They eliminate the edge game entirely, which is one of the unique aspects of Smash. Without the need to recover or the need to edge guard, the game becomes much more shallow.

If chain grabs are a thing again, then salt will follow.

Edit: Oh yeah. I double-posted on Smash 4 boards. Feel free to delete this one.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

Lemme go a bit further in depth on why I think Walk-Offs shouldn't ever be legal.
I'll use a Melee example, since I know that game best. Smash 4 may not be Melee 2.0, but a lot of the same concepts and fundamentals will most likely carry over. If somehow a Melee v Brawl argument stems from this, I apologize.

Let's look at my Melee main Pikachu. Pikachu is pretty good. He has one of the best recoveries of the cast. He really thrives on his great mobility, and has a great platform game. Up Smash -> Thunder is one of the best finishers off the top in the game. IMO, Pikachu's biggest strength is his ability to edge guard the opponent. On-stage, Side-tilt is a nightmare for Spacies, and Down-tilt isn't too shabby either. He also has a plethora of options off-stage (Up air, especially), and because he has such a great recovery, Pikachu can go REALLY deep for early kills.

Pikachu does have quite a few weaknesses though. His projectile sucks. He has very limited and poor options to kill off the side. His grab game is average, and his grab range is terrible. His shield is atrocious. Without platforms, he is easily locked down by projectiles. He is also at a VERY good combo weight, meaning he is susceptible to quite a few chain grabs. He also has bad range, meaning he is often out spaced. Last, but not least, he's a lightweight, meaning he dies off the side pretty easily.

What happens when you put Pikachu on a walk-off? Let's look at his strengths again:

>His recovery is great
That no longer matters, because we're playing on a walk-off.
>He has a great platform game
Most walk-offs have no platforms. Another useless trait.
>He has viable finishers off the top
Because Edge Guarding no longer exists, KOing players off the side becomes just as effective as KOing off the top. Another useless trait.
>He is one of the best at Edge Guarding
Edge Guarding no longer exists. Another useless trait.

Now his weaknesses:

>Poor Projectile
That's too bad. Projectiles reign supreme on walk-offs.
>Poor KO options off the side
That's too bad. Side KO's are much more prevalent on walk-offs.
>Poor Grab Game
That's too bad. Chain Grabs and Kill Throws are optimal on walk-offs.
>Poor Shield
I hope you're good at power shielding. Lots of projectiles are on the way.
>Susceptible to chain grabs
That's too bad. One grab and you're donesies.
>Poor Attack Range
That's too bad. Spacing is a lot more important on walk-offs.
>Lightweight
That's too bad.

As you can see, Pikachu goes from a somewhat viable character...to what is essentially steaming garbage.

Obviously, this won't be the only case of that.

The point is, walk-offs are way too polarizing.
Only a select few traits will see usefulness.
By legalizing walk-offs, the entire game turns a 180.
Match-ups become incredibly skewed, and some characters will pretty much lose all viability.

It's like playing an entirely different game...and a crappier one at that.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Players tried to camp the walk-off on Gerudo Valley with Bowser's BThrow at the SDCC tournament. It... didn't work. He got the red lightning effect at the edge of the screen on a foe who was steaming (as in, over 100%) and didn't get the KO because the blast lines are too far off-screen. As long as chain-grabs aren't a thing, walk-offs probably won't be all that bad. Also, walk-offs have no platforms? What about Coliseum? Onett? Mushroom Kingdom? Mario Galaxy? Pretty sure all of those have platforms. So this idea of "platform game becomes invalid on walk-offs" is nonsense. I don't know of a single stage that is simply flat with walk-offs on both sides and no platforms. The closest thing is one of the landing sections on Port Town Aero Dive in Brawl.

 

[JoeInky]

Walkoffs should be banned just because they completely remove the edge game that makes smash more unique compared to other fighters, it just dilutes the game if you ask me.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

Players tried to camp the walk-off on Gerudo Valley with Bowser's BThrow at the SDCC tournament. It... didn't work. He got the red lightning effect at the edge of the screen on a foe who was steaming (as in, over 100%) and didn't get the KO because the blast lines are too far off-screen. As long as chain-grabs aren't a thing, walk-offs probably won't be all that bad. Also, walk-offs have no platforms? What about Coliseum? Onett? Mushroom Kingdom? Mario Galaxy? Pretty sure all of those have platforms. So this idea of "platform game becomes invalid on walk-offs" is nonsense. I don't know of a single stage that is simply flat with walk-offs on both sides and no platforms. The closest thing is one of the landing sections on Port Town Aero Dive in Brawl.

Bridge of Eldin had no platforms.
I guess I did kinda jump the gun on that one point, but you didn't adress any of the others I made. Walk-offs are still very polarizing even with platforms.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Bridge of Eldin had no platforms.
I guess I did kinda jump the gun on that one point, but you didn't adress any of the others I made. Walk-offs are still very polarizing even with platforms.

Ah, yes, forgot about Bridge of Eldin. Never play on that stage because A) I replaced it with Skyloft with Brawl hacks and B) that massive hole in the middle turns it into an unfun camp-fest. Still, assuming chaingrabs stay gone (and they should) I think we can expect that comboing a foe straight off of a walk-off stage will be significantly more difficult. Besides, who's to say that characters haven't been better balanced in terms of capabilities on both walk-off and non-walk-off stages? Additionally, with blast lines appearing to be moved farther out on walk-off stages especially, you can't simply get a percent lead and camp the edge for forever. What I am worried about is the universal projectile nerf potentially making it hard to chip at a foe who wants to hang out near the blast line without getting shield-grabbed.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Lemme go a bit further in depth on why I think Walk-Offs shouldn't ever be legal.
I'll use a Melee example, since I know that game best. Smash 4 may not be Melee 2.0, but a lot of the same concepts and fundamentals will most likely carry over. If somehow a Melee v Brawl argument stems from this, I apologize.

Let's look at my Melee main Pikachu. Pikachu is pretty good. He has one of the best recoveries of the cast. He really thrives on his great mobility, and has a great platform game. Up Smash -> Thunder is one of the best finishers off the top in the game. IMO, Pikachu's biggest strength is his ability to edge guard the opponent. On-stage, Side-tilt is a nightmare for Spacies, and Down-tilt isn't too shabby either. He also has a plethora of options off-stage (Up air, especially), and because he has such a great recovery, Pikachu can go REALLY deep for early kills.

Pikachu does have quite a few weaknesses though. His projectile sucks. He has very limited and poor options to kill off the side. His grab game is average, and his grab range is terrible. His shield is atrocious. Without platforms, he is easily locked down by projectiles. He is also at a VERY good combo weight, meaning he is susceptible to quite a few chain grabs. He also has bad range, meaning he is often out spaced. Last, but not least, he's a lightweight, meaning he dies off the side pretty easily.

What happens when you put Pikachu on a walk-off? Let's look at his strengths again:

>His recovery is great
That no longer matters, because we're playing on a walk-off.
>He has a great platform game
Most walk-offs have no platforms. Another useless trait.
>He has viable finishers off the top
Because Edge Guarding no longer exists, KOing players off the side becomes just as effective as KOing off the top. Another useless trait.
>He is one of the best at Edge Guarding
Edge Guarding no longer exists. Another useless trait.

Now his weaknesses:

>Poor Projectile
That's too bad. Projectiles reign supreme on walk-offs.
>Poor KO options off the side
That's too bad. Side KO's are much more prevalent on walk-offs.
>Poor Grab Game
That's too bad. Chain Grabs and Kill Throws are optimal on walk-offs.
>Poor Shield
I hope you're good at power shielding. Lots of projectiles are on the way.
>Susceptible to chain grabs
That's too bad. One grab and you're donesies.
>Poor Attack Range
That's too bad. Spacing is a lot more important on walk-offs.
>Lightweight
That's too bad.

As you can see, Pikachu goes from a somewhat viable character...to what is essentially steaming garbage.

Obviously, this won't be the only case of that.

The point is, walk-offs are way too polarizing.
Only a select few traits will see usefulness.
By legalizing walk-offs, the entire game turns a 180.
Match-ups become incredibly skewed, and some characters will pretty much lose all viability.

It's like playing an entirely different game...and a crappier one at that.

Keep in mind that skewed match-ups can happen on any stage. Brawl wound up banning most non-conventional stages with the argument that they skewed MUs too heavily in MK's favor, while eliminating pretty much all of the CPs that kept down ICs, who are stupidly good on FD and fairly strong on most other traditional courses. It could be argued that this small stage list made fewer characters viable when people were experimenting with a MK ban, as most of the other top tiers tend to be strong on flat/plat stages and weaker on non-traditional stages. You argue that some viable characters will be made unviable because of bad CPs when it's also possible that other characters will be made more viable because of favorable CPs. I will say that even if I'm not convinced of the viability of walk-offs in tournament play, I think the pro-walk-off crowd has made a few valid points, including pointing out how altered blast zones could make it harder to B-throw camp, that have persuaded me to support testing these stages instead of instantly banning them.

 

[RODO]

Lemme go a bit further in depth on why I think Walk-Offs shouldn't ever be legal.
I'll use a Melee example, since I know that game best. Smash 4 may not be Melee 2.0, but a lot of the same concepts and fundamentals will most likely carry over. If somehow a Melee v Brawl argument stems from this, I apologize.

Let's look at my Melee main Pikachu. Pikachu is pretty good. He has one of the best recoveries of the cast. He really thrives on his great mobility, and has a great platform game. Up Smash -> Thunder is one of the best finishers off the top in the game. IMO, Pikachu's biggest strength is his ability to edge guard the opponent. On-stage, Side-tilt is a nightmare for Spacies, and Down-tilt isn't too shabby either. He also has a plethora of options off-stage (Up air, especially), and because he has such a great recovery, Pikachu can go REALLY deep for early kills.

Pikachu does have quite a few weaknesses though. His projectile sucks. He has very limited and poor options to kill off the side. His grab game is average, and his grab range is terrible. His shield is atrocious. Without platforms, he is easily locked down by projectiles. He is also at a VERY good combo weight, meaning he is susceptible to quite a few chain grabs. He also has bad range, meaning he is often out spaced. Last, but not least, he's a lightweight, meaning he dies off the side pretty easily.

What happens when you put Pikachu on a walk-off? Let's look at his strengths again:

>His recovery is great
That no longer matters, because we're playing on a walk-off.
>He has a great platform game
Most walk-offs have no platforms. Another useless trait.
>He has viable finishers off the top
Because Edge Guarding no longer exists, KOing players off the side becomes just as effective as KOing off the top. Another useless trait.
>He is one of the best at Edge Guarding
Edge Guarding no longer exists. Another useless trait.

Now his weaknesses:

>Poor Projectile
That's too bad. Projectiles reign supreme on walk-offs.
>Poor KO options off the side
That's too bad. Side KO's are much more prevalent on walk-offs.
>Poor Grab Game
That's too bad. Chain Grabs and Kill Throws are optimal on walk-offs.
>Poor Shield
I hope you're good at power shielding. Lots of projectiles are on the way.
>Susceptible to chain grabs
That's too bad. One grab and you're donesies.
>Poor Attack Range
That's too bad. Spacing is a lot more important on walk-offs.
>Lightweight
That's too bad.

As you can see, Pikachu goes from a somewhat viable character...to what is essentially steaming garbage.

Obviously, this won't be the only case of that.

The point is, walk-offs are way too polarizing.
Only a select few traits will see usefulness.
By legalizing walk-offs, the entire game turns a 180.
Match-ups become incredibly skewed, and some characters will pretty much lose all viability.

It's like playing an entirely different game...and a crappier one at that.

Your reasons for why walkoffs should be banned are me reasons for why it shouldn't. If the stage variety makes some characters more viable against characters they otherwise wouldn't be then I'm all for it. Maybe a character that is terrible against pikachu would actually have a chance. And going back to my first post, if walkoffs are only CPs then any johns should be null since the better players should theoretically win the first match on a neutral regardless and then the third on their counter pick if they lose on a jank stage during the second game.

 

[D-idara]

The most likely things for me to knock out are stages that scroll too quickly (Rumble Falls, Icicle Mountain, but not Big Blue), stages that disrupt "regular" play physics (Spear Pillar, much as I like it for casual play, or the gravity on the Mario Galaxy stage, or the temporary lightweight in Summit on Brawl, and probably Balloon Fight for wraparound), stages with hyperlethal hazards (Chimera, Fish), and massive stages.

The gravity on Mario Galaxy doesn't seem to disrupt the match at all.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

Ah, yes, forgot about Bridge of Eldin. Never play on that stage because A) I replaced it with Skyloft with Brawl hacks and B) that massive hole in the middle turns it into an unfun camp-fest. Still, assuming chaingrabs stay gone (and they should) I think we can expect that comboing a foe straight off of a walk-off stage will be significantly more difficult. Besides, who's to say that characters haven't been better balanced in terms of capabilities on both walk-off and non-walk-off stages? Additionally, with blast lines appearing to be moved farther out on walk-off stages especially, you can't simply get a percent lead and camp the edge for forever. What I am worried about is the universal projectile nerf potentially making it hard to chip at a foe who wants to hang out near the blast line without getting shield-grabbed.

Now that I think about it, the footage I've seen has been very odd. Up Smashes killing at 130, Marth Counter killing at 45. Even if those are early builds, it still worries me, cause not even 64 was that inconsistent. With variables like that, Edge Guarding might not even be a good option, outside of meteors. This next game might be so far off from the others that walk-offs would be acceptable.

Still. If the game is similar enough to previous iterations, I'd wager walk-offs will be banned instantly.

Keep in mind that skewed match-ups can happen on any stage.

I'm aware. It's just that with so many fundamental aspects of Smash being absent with walk-offs, the extremes end up REALLY HUGE. Like I said, it's almost like playing a different game.

You argue that some viable characters will be made unviable because of bad CPs when it's also possible that other characters will be made more viable because of favorable CPs.

I used Pikachu as an example for a reason. Nearly all of his strengths require ledges. I don't like the idea of going 10th to 20th on the tier list, and being at an extreme disadvantage just because my opponent picked a walk-off against me.

I will say that even if I'm not convinced of the viability of walk-offs in tournament play, I think the pro-walk-off crowd has made a few valid points, including pointing out how altered blast zones could make it harder to B-throw camp, that have persuaded me to support testing these stages instead of instantly banning them.

I was being facetious when I said they'll never be viable. It's just that from past experiences, banning walk-offs seems entirely inevitable. I'm open to tests, because this is looking to be the wonkiest Smash game.

Your reasons for why walkoffs should be banned are me reasons for why it shouldn't. If the stage variety makes some characters more viable against characters they otherwise wouldn't be then I'm all for it. Maybe a character that is terrible against pikachu would actually have a chance. And going back to my first post, if walkoffs are only CPs then any johns should be null since the better players should theoretically win the first match on a neutral regardless and then the third on their counter pick if they lose on a jank stage during the second game.

Why should I be forced to lose because my opponent picked an unbalanced stage against me?

"Oh, I'll just pick this stage that gives me a 95-5 match-up against you. LOL. If you're good, you'll win the next game."

That logic is horrible.

If it's "jank", why bother?

 

[RODO]

Why should I be forced to lose because my opponent picked an unbalanced stage against me?

"Oh, I'll just pick this stage that gives me a 95-5 match-up against you. LOL. If you're good, you'll win the next game."

That logic is horrible.

If it's "jank", why bother?

A few thing:

1. You still get bans. You will always ban the stages that aren't in your favor.
2. These stages that give you a bad matchup are ones that I'm only advocating as counter picks. If you can't win on a neutral and a counter pick of your choosing then you do deserve to lose. You can call that poor logic but I call that getting outplayed.
3. The reason we should bother with these stages is to give more characters better matchups and to have more stage diversity. I personally want tons of viable stages and not 3-5 that are played to death. I'm hoping we get some good stages this time around.

 

[Renji64]

Walkoffs should be banned the rest can be sorted out after release.

 

[RODO]

Walkoffs should be banned the rest can be sorted out after release.

I'd rather play on that Wii Fit stage than that Mario one that changes honestly.

 

[Renji64]

I'd rather play on that Wii Fit stage than that Mario one that changes honestly.

I can understand that. I actually wanna try out the wii-fit stage myself even if it is a walk off.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

A few thing:

1. You still get bans. You will always ban the stages that aren't in your favor.
2. These stages that give you a bad matchup are ones that I'm only advocating as counter picks. If you can't win on a neutral and a counter pick of your choosing then you do deserve to lose. You can call that poor logic but I call that getting outplayed.
3. The reason we should bother with these stages is to give more characters better matchups and to have more stage diversity. I personally want tons of viable stages and not 3-5 that are played to death. I'm hoping we get some good stages this time around.

1. I know I get bans, but unless I get the option to ban EVERY walk-off (as if they weren't legal in the first place), then the problem still remains.
2. Counter Picks shouldn't give you a free win, though. Then there'd be no point in having 2/3's or 3/5's.
3. I get that playing on the same ol' stages every time can get stale. I wouldn't mind a hefty stage-list either. But we shouldn't just force more stages upon ourselves just for the sake of having them. I'm open to testing all of the stages, but there are more things to keep in mind other than how big the stage-list can be. I don't wanna play jank stages, and I don't wanna watch a campfest induced by poor stage choice.

 

[RODO]

I can understand that. I actually wanna try out the wii-fit stage myself even if it is a walk off.

That Colosseum

1. I know I get bans, but unless I get the option to ban EVERY walk-off (as if they weren't legal in the first place), then the problem still remains.
2. Counter Picks shouldn't give you a free win, though. Then there'd be no point in having 2/3's or 3/5's.
3. I get that playing on the same ol' stages every time can get stale. I wouldn't mind a hefty stage-list either. But we shouldn't just force more stages upon ourselves just for the sake of having them. I'm open to testing all of the stages, but there are more things to keep in mind other than how big the stage-list can be. I don't wanna play jank stages, and I don't wanna watch a campfest induced by poor stage choice.

There is no way every walk off would not be banned. There is only one that interests me and that the wii fit stage since it's not that big and also has platforms so that you aren't forced to be on the ground the whole time. The colosseum stage is wayyy too big and would definitely be way too easy to camp people out on. I think having one decent walk off stage would be a great addition and you could still ban it if you wanted to.

Stages selections shouldn't be free wins anyway. No one wins a match just by selecting a stage. That person still has to outplay you on whatever stage they choose.

I don't want tons of jank stages either but I think a few stages with just a little bit of jank are necessary imo.

 

[Alfonzo Bagpipez]

That Colosseum

There is no way every walk off would not be banned. There is only one that interests me and that the wii fit stage since it's not that big and also has platforms so that you aren't forced to be on the ground the whole time. The colosseum stage is wayyy too big and would definitely be way too easy to camp people out on. I think having one decent walk off stage would be a great addition and you could still ban it if you wanted to.

Stages selections shouldn't be free wins anyway. No one wins a match just by selecting a stage. That person still has to outplay you on whatever stage they choose.

I don't want tons of jank stages either but I think a few stages with just a little bit of jank are necessary imo.

Sure, there aren't any stages that guarantee a win, but there are plenty of stages that come REALLY close.

I like a little jank too, but there definitely needs to be a cutting point. It's preferable for the player AND the spectator to enjoy a match. Quite a few stages simply don't allow that.


That being said, that Wii Fit stage could end up being a good choice depending on how the game plays. I will acknowledge that.

 

[Raijinken]

The gravity on Mario Galaxy doesn't seem to disrupt the match at all.

If that turns out to be the case, I may leave it, but it seems, to me, to be interface screw similar to Palkia flipping the stage horizontally. Even if everything plays roughly the same (I'd be interested to see midair projectile play with the centralized gravity), it still may be far enough from standard play for me to at least dislike it.

 

[D-idara]

If that turns out to be the case, I may leave it, but it seems, to me, to be interface screw similar to Palkia flipping the stage horizontally. Even if everything plays roughly the same (I'd be interested to see midair projectile play with the centralized gravity), it still may be far enough from standard play for me to at least dislike it.

I think it'd be specially interesting if projectiles followed a curved path following the planet's gravity, that'd make for some really epic setups.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

I think it'd be specially interesting if projectiles followed a curved path following the planet's gravity, that'd make for some really epic setups.

They certainly seem to based on the footage from the Smash Direct. That's the best part. It's effectively flat, it just looks like it isn't.