• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Smash Wii U Community Leaders Release Recommended Ruleset

In the aftermath of Genesis 4, many Super Smash Bros. for Wii U players have taken to social media to discuss the ever present issue of stage legality and a competitive ruleset that can accommodate the needs of all players while remaining competitively proper. Amidst months of disagreement and adjustment, a collective of profound tournament organizers from various Smash Wii U regions have come to a consensus on what they are calling the “2017 Recommended Ruleset”.

The ruleset was announced through a Twitlonger published by Scott “VGBC | Tantalus” Robertson. The group behind it, comprised of BAM, Bear, Blind, Champ, D1, Martakia, Tantalus, TLTC, TMPR, Vayseth, and Zan, agreed upon several factors that have been previously dubious to tournament settings, be they unestablished in official ruling or met with varying restrictions from region to region. These rulings cover such aspects as Coaching, Gentleman’s Rule, Settings Check, Controller Settings, and a consensus on a concrete stage list.

Tantalus' Twitlonger covers the details behind these rules as well as a brief explanation to the conclusions the community leaders had come to. On top of expounding on some of these factors officially for the first time, Tantalus noted that “This is a living, breathing document, not a set in stone document. We are open to change and that is how we got to this point, so if this doesn't improve the playing field, we aren't opposed to reverting changes”.

As well as Tantalus' quote, a quote attributed to the entire team reads "We think this ruleset will solve most of the challenges and qualms of the current metagame while springing the game into a new healthy meta". It is clear that the leaders of the community are open to future suggestion and adaptation of this recommended list as the meta evolves and needs of the players evolve alongside of it.

As of right now, tournaments confirmed to be using the 2017 Recommended Ruleset include all future 2GGaming, Midwest region, and Smash at Xanadu events. It will likely be in use at more regionals and majors in the the coming months.

Author's Note With a semi-finalized ruleset being formed so early into 2017, it will be exciting to see how these rules suit the ever evolving meta of Smash Wii U and it will quell the dissent from those dissatisfied with the now previous variety of rules.

Feel free to sound off in the comments section below how you feel about the 2017 Recommended Ruleset and make sure to check back here at Smashboards for more content as the 2017 competitive year picks up into full swing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank "Hangman" DeJohn

Comments

If this ruleset ever gets adopted (which I hope it doesn't) I wouldn't be surprised if the stage list boils down to 3 in the future (Battlefield, Smashville, Final D), just like how it is in Japan. :/

EDIT: I guess I should mention the obvious problem with having a ban for a 3 starter list: It heavily favors the second person to stage-strike as they basically decide what stage they wanna fight on.
Sadly I have seen tons of TOs saying they are adopting it for their next event.
 
No items, Cloud only, Starterville. That's all I'm seeing from this. Because most matches are on Smashville or Town & City.
 
I'm a big supporter of making custom stages legal; you could make Lylat but disable tilting + the "jank".

Argument against it: But then everyone has to download it and that's a hassle; every setups needs it installed.

But it's really no different than DLC characters like Bayonetta and Cloud or like DLC Dreamland. Whoever is in charge could make them (or allow Enter Your Own Stage contest) to permit one or more legal stages to be used in the competitive stage selection. It could solve an any amount of problems as you wanted it to.
 
Three starters, giving an inherent advantage to characters who are strong on two of those stages (hello, Diddy and Sheik) and a serious advantage to whoever strikes second, something decided by the results of something as luck-based as rock-paper-scissors?

Lylat Cruise banned for its potential to ruin a major set with a glitch despite the fact that it hasn't happened yet, and while a significant majority of top players and TOs seem to believe we have more to gain from its unique platform layout and blast zone dimensions?

Dream Land 64 treated as being the same as Battlefield despite different blast zones, platform heights and sizes, ledge layouts, and Whispy? Treating a semi-clone stage as if it was a full clone?

I'm not a fan of getting rid of Duck Hunt, either, but I could at least compromise on that.

The rest, though? This reeks of being a knee-jerk decision that wasn't thought through. Especially with such a significant number of notable TOs speaking up and saying their input was never asked for. Even the writing itself feels rough and unrevised in places!

What's going on, Bear? Did you try to rush this out after learning we're getting center stage at EVO? Are you afraid of Smash 4 getting ostracized if anything slower or defensive happens in front of such a large audience? That it'd be abandoned for not looking like Melee or Marvel? Because this isn't the answer.

The best way to grow this game's audience is to educate the fans and play to its strengths: the sheer variety of its viable characters and playstyles. Instead, this ruleset caters to ignorance and stifles the very variety that helps Smash 4 stand out.
 
A small number of TOs:

TO 1: "Hey, Smash 4 has a pretty good ruleset in place... A few hiccups like the majority of people wanting to ban Duck hunt..... But nothing too bad"
TO 2: "Alright, any other problems?"
TO 3: "I've heard there's a few rare documented instances of someone clipping through Lylat's stage... very rare and it hasn't happened in a major yet"
TO 2: "we're banning Lylat then"
TO 1: *rolls eyes* What, are you going to ban DreamLand now?"
TO 2: "That's just a clone of Battlefield. Same stage"
TO 3 (under his breath): "No one is going to like this; players will just gentlemens to Lylat and Duck Hunt anyway..."
TO 2 (hears TO 3) "Then they're getting DQ'ed"

... And thus Smash 4 was changed forever
 
Last edited:
Oh boy, I would love to see every set start in Shiekville now. Battlefield and Dreamland are totally the same thing. Look at those triple platforms!
/s
Anyone who legitimately thinks that Battlefield and Dreamland are the exact same stage despite the different blastzones, the different height of the platforms AND the windbox that Wispy gives shouldn't be taken seriously.
Kinda indifferent to Lylat and DH since I don't really care what happens to those stages.
Also, I like how they specified that this is called "recommended ruleset" yet 2GGC and Xanadu already decided to implement it. Should've called it "official" at this point.
 
I love how this is only "proposed", and despite the heavy backlash, tourneys are already picking it up. Like, I would understand if a local event said "okay, we're gonna try this for one event and see how it works", but picking it up permanently?

Hopefully, people realize that this ruleset might not be a good representation of how we want to play. Protest this garbo.
 
Smash 4's scene has always seemed to suffer from TOs trying to make the game more viewer-oriented. I recall rules like the specific instructions pertaining to time for setting up a match cropping up pretty early on, often specifically only for Smash 4, even if Melee and/or others were also present at that event.

This is a whole new level of insanity, however, and shows a complete lack of regard or incredibly basic understanding of the game (pretty much only non-players would ever consider DL64 and Battlefield the same) and the overarching Smash competitive scene (how do you retool the Gentleman's Rule to become the complete opposite of what it used to be!?!)
 
Last edited:
People want Duckhunt banned the same reason DK64 was in Melee, it way too easily allows the "take first stock and time out" play style.

In Melee, characters like Peach and Jigglypuff can just easily float around the top while they time out the opponent.

In Sm4sh, many characters are capable of this run away time out tactic; most notably Sonic, Bayonetta, and ZSS.
 
There's something about science. If a new idea is introduced, and if several arguments are give for said idea, then there is a need for the adversarial method.

1.3 "Gentleman's clause"
I find it unusual that if an illegal stage is agreed upon by both players, they'll be subject to disqualification. To give an example, say all you have are Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, and Town & City. What purpose would there be to agree upon a stage? My understanding is that whoever loses, gets to choose the next stage, even if it's a stage they lost on. Making it so only legal stages are allowed by both players' agreement defeats the purpose of having such clause in the first place.

1.7 Stalling
The purpose of a tournament is to win. The game doesn't care who wins and who loses. That is entirely a personal problem. I can't see how the stages given allow for stalling to occur. Stalling means one just stands still. This isn't Melee where you can continuously grab onto a ledge. This isn't Brawl where you can grab onto a ledge. If a stage like Duck Hunt is being banned because of this, then you're essentially saying, "**** those characters who can benefit from a stage like this."

Think about it. Who has a hard time getting onto the tree on Duck Hunt? My experience tells me Little Mac and Ganondorf. How often are these characters used in tournaments? More importantly, given there are 58 characters in this game, 97% of the characters don't have this problem. Not only that, some characters can actually benefit from a stage like Duck Hunt. They're being punished because some people are complaining about stalling? Give me a break.

1.10 Stock Sharing
I don't play doubles, but I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to share my stock. If you died first, then that's your problem.

1.11 "Grab and Go" Clause
This is a farce.

1.14 Team Color Clause
I take it people are confused as to who they are or who their teammate is. I understand this being helpful if there are two of the same characters, one on each team. Otherwise, this is a farce.

2.3.3 Controllers
This is the only positive thing I see from this.

2.3.4 Controller Interference
Someone help me understand this. It's not like someone whose controller is causing interference has control over radio waves. Disqualifying them because of this is like punishing someone born with an ailment. Again, someone help me understand this.
 
Thinking about it, the two-stock standard makes the penalties here even more ridiculously unforgiving than they really are.

What would be a slight disadvantage for Melee (it's not inconceivable to be able to win a match starting with three stocks) is now a nearly surefire way of just giving the other player the game.

The community seems to have locked into 2-stocks so I see no point in fighting that aspect, but for Christ's sake, TOs need to work with that standard in mind. Punishments should be more or less proportional across games. Maybe, instead of immediately taking a stock from an offending party for pre-match offenses, the opponent just gets to pick any legal stage of their choosing without bans for the round.
 
There's something about science. If a new idea is introduced, and if several arguments are give for said idea, then there is a need for the adversarial method.

1.3 "Gentleman's clause"
I find it unusual that if an illegal stage is agreed upon by both players, they'll be subject to disqualification. To give an example, say all you have are Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, and Town & City. What purpose would there be to agree upon a stage? My understanding is that whoever loses, gets to choose the next stage, even if it's a stage they lost on. Making it so only legal stages are allowed by both players' agreement defeats the purpose of having such clause in the first place.

1.7 Stalling
The purpose of a tournament is to win. The game doesn't care who wins and who loses. That is entirely a personal problem. I can't see how the stages given allow for stalling to occur. Stalling means one just stands still. This isn't Melee where you can continuously grab onto a ledge. This isn't Brawl where you can grab onto a ledge. If a stage like Duck Hunt is being banned because of this, then you're essentially saying, "**** those characters who can benefit from a stage like this."

Think about it. Who has a hard time getting onto the tree on Duck Hunt? My experience tells me Little Mac and Ganondorf. How often are these characters used in tournaments? More importantly, given there are 58 characters in this game, 97% of the characters don't have this problem. Not only that, some characters can actually benefit from a stage like Duck Hunt. They're being punished because some people are complaining about stalling? Give me a break.

1.10 Stock Sharing
I don't play doubles, but I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to share my stock. If you died first, then that's your problem.

1.11 "Grab and Go" Clause
This is a farce.

1.14 Team Color Clause
I take it people are confused as to who they are or who their teammate is. I understand this being helpful if there are two of the same characters, one on each team. Otherwise, this is a farce.

2.3.3 Controllers
This is the only positive thing I see from this.

2.3.4 Controller Interference
Someone help me understand this. It's not like someone whose controller is causing interference has control over radio waves. Disqualifying them because of this is like punishing someone born with an ailment. Again, someone help me understand this.
You had me until I read the doubles share stock bit. But I'll throw you a like anyway
 
Heya im here to support the TOs who made this ruleset.
What? Yeah, i know most of you guys disagree with the new rules but i want to actually explain some of the decisions, so you can see it from another perspective(hopefully)
First, the stages.
As someone who has been to hundreds of tournaments, i can say with absolute certainty that most participants DO NOT like lylat. I know this because 99% of the time this stage is immediately striked, or not striked because they know their opponent would never pick that stage.
Lylat + DH, why were they banned? Simply because they are not very /neutral/ stages. These stages have many uncontrollable factors and other aspects that can swing matches to ones favor. Clipping in lylat is ridiculously easy for some characters (ex: diddy, MK) and this inherently gives them an advantage simply for having the ability to break a stage. The tree in DH encourages camping and running away. This is normally referred to as "defensive play", but whats wrong with that?
Its boring, and makes top tiers even better. This game is already incredibly defense orientated (why do you think we use 2 stocks instead of 3 or 4?), and top tiers simply have some of the best maneuverability and defense in the game. Nobody wants to sit down, turn on twitch for the big tournament, and see a sonic chilling in the tree against a little mac for 6 mins straight. Thats boring, and not how smash is meant to be played.
"Well Mac can just strike it!" Yes, but now every little mac player has to waste their strike on DH in every set they ever play, and then still end up on battlefield or dreamland with the same problem as before.
Oh wait, now they dont have to! Because DH is banned and battlefield/DL are treated as one stage. Kinda makes it more fair now, doesn't it?

The whole purpose of the stagelist is to make it so the stage has as little affect on the outcome of the set as possible, which is why they opted for only the most neutral stages.


....
Also, no DSR? Idk how i feel about that part but nobody has mentioned it yet. What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
All rules are fine, but the stage list is bad...
Disagree. The rules, IMO, are honestly way more offensive than the stage list. Mii Fighters 1111, if you settle on a non-legal stage via gentlemen's clause you both get disqualified, considering Battlefield and Dreamland the same stage?

Plus, the way they've gone about this is absolutely terrible. "Recommended ruleset" they say, as the suddenly force it at every tournament that matters without any testing or asking a majority of TOs.
 
I hope everyone here is seeing what is going on here. About 11 TOs were included in the list of people who convened and made this list. Even then, some have come out and said that their input wasn't asked for some things (it's a rumor, but that could mean that like 8 people were really involved.). Now take into account how many people in those 11 or 8 or whatever disagreed with what was proposed. Let's say 6 people wanted to ban Lylat while 5 people wanted it to stay. Boom. Lylat is banned because 6 people who hardly even play the game said so. And look, there is already massive protest.

The point here is that we're being played by perhaps 6 or 7 people or so who actually wrote these new rules. I have all the respect in the world for Champ and D1... but the party who makes these rules should encompass more people than this. Why wasn't there a poll of some kind to gauge interest? Why didn't they get quotes from top players? It looks as if they skyped for a few minutes then slapped a google doc together without any real research or any idea with what the community wants.

Furthermore, was there any real reason to change the rules in the first place? They seemed pretty fine with a possible exception to Duck Hunt (I like DH but I know many others don't)

I'm a TO for a small college weekly local and I'm not adopting these rules unless/until they become much more widespread (which i mean they will be if they don't change it, it's just a matter of time).
 
Last edited:
Ok, I don't generally bother speaking, but I can't stay quiet here. Do ANY of you people seriously play this game competitively!? WATCHING IT DOESN'T COUNT! DO YOU GO TO TOURNAMENTS AND WIN MONEY!? (Or at least come close?).

This ABSOLUTELY needs to happen everywhere, first off, as stated above, most people don't like Lylat in the first place, but a bigger reason is that Bayonetta is rather frightening on this stage because the arcing of her gun shots works in tandem with the tilting. Would you people (who probably lose to nobodies all the time on For Glory anyway) rather the character gets banned instead? (A lot of people at my tournament scene have suggested they want this, but I guess thats not really the point...)

As for the Duck Hunt stage, once Sonic has a comfortable lead on this stage, half the character roster has NO options whatsoever, a comeback is very nearly impossible. If Sonic's shield NEVER regenerated, it might be doable. I only personally witnessed a Sonic player doing it, but I imagine most of the high jump / maneuverability characters could also make this work honestly... I'm sure some dip **** is gonna come in and say they beat a Sonic on this stage in a tournament or something, and if you did, congratulations, you have NO clue what top level play is like, or you got REALLY lucky, and thus, your opinion isn't relevant. Hell it doesn't even have to be top level in this case. Anyone gutsy enough to try it could make it work.

There's reasons Delfino, Halberd, and Castle Siege are no longer legal, because certain characters have unreasonable advantages on these stages. Sheik can (or used to be able to?) effortlessly F-air anyone to death in the middle section of Castle Siege at 0%. That isn't ok! That should've IMMEDIATELY disqualified it from tournament play, but for some reason this stage was still legal for a while.

The top tier characters are still gonna see plenty of use even if their better stages are gone, and lower tier characters MAY see more use. I could probably go on further, but this'll fall on deaf ears, and anything else I say would probably be very condescending anyway.
 
I disagree, a lot of low tier characters had certain abilities on these stages. Also, the stage list =/= the whole ruleset. Like I said previously, I have much bigger complaints. Assuming people don't play the game competitively just because they disagree is really stupid, especially considering it's fairly popular opinion by competitive players I've seen that this is a bad ruleset.
 
As someone who has been to hundreds of tournaments, i can say with absolute certainty that most participants DO NOT like lylat. I know this because 99% of the time this stage is immediately striked, or not striked because they know their opponent would never pick that stage.
I can agree. I don't attend tournaments. I don't have the time to. That doesn't mean I don't subscribe to the rules as given by the Smash community. Anyway, I don't like Lylat Cruise, either. I never have. If the stage didn't tilt one way or another, then I wouldn't have too much of a problem. Otherwise, that's my biggest issue.

Simply because they are not very /neutral/ stages.
My understanding is that neutrality shouldn't matter after the first stage has been decided.

The tree in DH encourages camping and running away. This is normally referred to as "defensive play", but whats wrong with that?
Its boring, and makes top tiers even better.
I main Samus. She kind of requires to play at a distance. I personally don't use the tree. I never saw the benefit. Sure, I could do a screw attack to KO my opponent early, but if my opponent were to attempt attacking me, then he/she was risking a stock, which I'd say he/she deserved it.

When it comes to certain characters like Bayonetta, I'd rather have a wide stage with a high ceiling. I want to be able to survive for as long as I can. If I get caught in her combo, I'm more likely to survive. This benefits me as a Samus main. "Boring" is entirely subjective. I could say watching dabuz play as RosOlimer is boring. It doesn't mean dabuz thinks so.

This game is already incredibly defense orientated (why do you think we use 2 stocks instead of 3 or 4?), and top tiers simply have some of the best maneuverability and defense in the game.
I don't think Sm4sh is incredibly defensive. That goes to Brawl. I figured we have two stocks because that's how it is on For Glory and because TOs don't want to have a long ass tournament. At one point in time, Sm4sh had three stocks, and even Brawl had three stocks.

Nobody wants to sit down, turn on twitch for the big tournament, and see a sonic chilling in the tree against a little mac for 6 mins straight.
Once again, how often is Little Mac used in tournaments? If we just consider Little Mac alone, he's merely 1.72% of the rest of the roster. If we consider how many players will use Bayonetta, Cloud, Diddy Kong, or Mario, then we have 6.9% of the roster. Not only that, we have to consider how many of these characters will be played in a tournament. Your example is a rare instance.

Thats boring, and not how smash is meant to be played.
"Well Mac can just strike it!" Yes, but now every little mac player has to waste their strike on DH in every set they ever play, and then still end up on battlefield or dreamland with the same problem as before.
Oh wait, now they dont have to! Because DH is banned and battlefield/DL are treated as one stage. Kinda makes it more fair now, doesn't it?
"Fairness" is a personal problem. The game doesn't care about fairness. If it did, Little Mac would have been designed to address this unfairness, or the stages would have been made to accommodate him and others who may have a problem. Battlefield and Dream Land aren't even the same. If a player has a problem with Little Mac when he attends tournaments, then he should pick up a secondary to resolve this issue, or just give up Little Mac altogether.

Let's face it. As a Samus main, I know that I'm limiting myself. Her match-ups are probably stacked against her. I have Mario as a secondary and I've been trying to take more time using Zamus as well. If Samus isn't doing it for me, then I should re-evaluate my choices or just suck it up.

Also, no DSR? Idk how i feel about that part but nobody has mentioned it yet. What do you guys think?
What's DSR?
 
I have now played two tournaments with the new ruleset. I can't stand the stage striking. Gives the first ban a huge advantage.
 
Ok, I don't generally bother speaking, but I can't stay quiet here. Do ANY of you people seriously play this game competitively!? WATCHING IT DOESN'T COUNT! DO YOU GO TO TOURNAMENTS AND WIN MONEY!? (Or at least come close?).

This ABSOLUTELY needs to happen everywhere, first off, as stated above, most people don't like Lylat in the first place, but a bigger reason is that Bayonetta is rather frightening on this stage because the arcing of her gun shots works in tandem with the tilting. Would you people (who probably lose to nobodies all the time on For Glory anyway) rather the character gets banned instead? (A lot of people at my tournament scene have suggested they want this, but I guess thats not really the point...)

As for the Duck Hunt stage, once Sonic has a comfortable lead on this stage, half the character roster has NO options whatsoever, a comeback is very nearly impossible. If Sonic's shield NEVER regenerated, it might be doable. I only personally witnessed a Sonic player doing it, but I imagine most of the high jump / maneuverability characters could also make this work honestly... I'm sure some dip **** is gonna come in and say they beat a Sonic on this stage in a tournament or something, and if you did, congratulations, you have NO clue what top level play is like, or you got REALLY lucky, and thus, your opinion isn't relevant. Hell it doesn't even have to be top level in this case. Anyone gutsy enough to try it could make it work.

There's reasons Delfino, Halberd, and Castle Siege are no longer legal, because certain characters have unreasonable advantages on these stages. Sheik can (or used to be able to?) effortlessly F-air anyone to death in the middle section of Castle Siege at 0%. That isn't ok! That should've IMMEDIATELY disqualified it from tournament play, but for some reason this stage was still legal for a while.

The top tier characters are still gonna see plenty of use even if their better stages are gone, and lower tier characters MAY see more use. I could probably go on further, but this'll fall on deaf ears, and anything else I say would probably be very condescending anyway.
Implying that the people who disagree isn't a way to get your view across. Furthermore, it seems to me the argument isn't Why are these rules in place? We all know WHY they are in place. We just disagree with them or would argue a different approach/mindset is better.

Also I'd like to make mention of something; these "OP ideas for stage + character combos" (Little Mac vs Sonic on Duck Hunt, Bayo on Lylat or anyone clipping through Lylat) is a very rare occurrence and precisely the reason why bans exist.

Let's make sonic an example. Sonic is a pretty decent character, but he's been deprived of major top 8 results as of late. Having Duck Hunt legal would make Sonic "better" against a few matchups. But this is what Sonic needs to do well at times; an auto ban for the opponent. Think of Melee Ice Climbers. Wobbling was seen as super OP for a while, but it wasn't banned because Ice Climbers need something like Wobbling to do well. Taking away Wobbling would make Icies a bad character. Similar logic applies to these stages, I would argue. If you look at Sonic's advantages...

1. Fast
2. Combos
3. Can escape combos
4. Pressures opponent to insta-ban Duck Hunt.

And Sonic is still not in top 8 most of the time. Point is, Sonic camping on Duck Hunt isn't OP. The opponent can ban Duck Hunt and sonic will have to go somewhere else and could lose. If every major had 2 Sonics in top 8 and Sonic Camping on Duck Hunt happened all the time, then these rules would make some amount of sense.
 
I'm sorry? The whole Midwest?

You got all 12 states to agree?

That's funny, no one mentioned this to me, a TO in the Midwest.
Kansas player here. Our T.O and community have gone into agreement to not use this ruleset. No clue what they meant by this.
 
I personally think this ruleset makes top tiers weaker, because they benefitted the most from DH and LC.

Also Floor Floor , i need to disagree with you about something. You said that the old stagelist affects certain MUs, which you see as a good thing. The point of the new stagelist is to make it so as little of the outcome as possible is determined by the stage. Players are not supposed to play specific strategies on specific stages, because depending on their character it will work better or worse, and in the end it gives one player an advantage over the other.
@der Rabe , this is what i meant by "neutral" stages. A neutral stage is one that has little to no effect on the outcome of the match, leaving only player skill and character choice.
 
I personally think this ruleset makes top tiers weaker, because they benefitted the most from DH and LC.

Also Floor Floor , i need to disagree with you about something. You said that the old stagelist affects certain MUs, which you see as a good thing. The point of the new stagelist is to make it so as little of the outcome as possible is determined by the stage. Players are not supposed to play specific strategies on specific stages, because depending on their character it will work better or worse, and in the end it gives one player an advantage over the other.
@der Rabe , this is what i meant by "neutral" stages. A neutral stage is one that has little to no effect on the outcome of the match, leaving only player skill and character choice.
Yes, a set of stages of stages so "neutral" that they have come to be known as "Shiekville" and "Final Diddynation".

Wow. So neutral, such no effect.
 
Yes, a set of stages of stages so "neutral" that they have come to be known as "Shiekville" and "Final Diddynation".

Wow. So neutral, such no effect.
Actually yeah smashville does benefit shiek, but that's is because it is the most neutral stage on the list. Shiek could very well be the best character in this game arguably having 0 loosing matchups, so it would make sense that the stage with the least interference in the fight, would benefit the strongest characters in the game.
IMO new rules look pretty great but I'll judge further once I actually play them.
 
Last edited:
Banning Duck Hunt because, "Well, Little Mac is forced to use his stage ban on it!" is like banning shield breaking because Jigglypuff's shield break is an OHKO. It only affects one character, can be readily avoided, and limits the options of everyone else. Mac players can: A. Ban Duck Hunt. B. Pick up a side character that doesn't lose hard on Duck Hunt. C. Be like that one Mac player and use the dog rising to your advantage.

Three options for the poor Mac players. Jigglypuff players, to avoid getting their shield broken, can: A. Not hold shield as much. B. Counterpick when against characters that can insta-shield break. C. Notice when they're going for a shield break move, and avoid it. This is just stupid. Lylat being banned kinda makes more sense, because the tilting can mess up otherwise legit recoveries, but once again, this can be avoided by either: A. Picking a character that doesn't get ****ed by Lylat B. Working around the tilt and learning when exactly it ****s you over to avoid that happening. C. BAN THE ****ING STAGE.
 
Lylat being gone is understandable, glitches and community, Duck hunt? I guess, I feel like that was a a good counter pick stage, I feel they should of kept it, just a tad. *Looks at Battlefield and Dreamland as same thing* ok, thats dumb and defeats the purpose of the counter pick, their similar, not the same. I like that T&C is a counter pick now. Also rip miiverse stage but I guess it makes sense why it didnt considering there would be "3 Battlefields" and the cancerous miiverse post that could be distracting. YAY MII'S!!

Well, Reading comments brought up, why did they get rid of non legal Gentleman's rule? It adds more charm to the comp commu. some would say its unfair but its called gentleman's rule for a reason. Also getting rid of Daves Stupid Rule is stupid. It gives the other player a fair chance if they get bodied on that stage plus it makes it more intense and exciting to watch.

I also feel they Should have kept Lylat and duckhunt, Im not sure about Lylat considering you can loose a game because of glitches, Im not too worried about the titling which is just annoying and what makes it a counter pick. But duckhunt they should have kept I feel, it brought more to the table compared to the stages we had plus duck hunt can bring up funny moments in tourney. "But Lil Mac-" Ban it, Just default ban it. Easier said than done but any other stage is better for mac.
 
Last edited:
Banning Duck Hunt because, "Well, Little Mac is forced to use his stage ban on it!" is like banning shield breaking because Jigglypuff's shield break is an OHKO. It only affects one character, can be readily avoided, and limits the options of everyone else. Mac players can: A. Ban Duck Hunt. B. Pick up a side character that doesn't lose hard on Duck Hunt. C. Be like that one Mac player and use the dog rising to your advantage.

Three options for the poor Mac players. Jigglypuff players, to avoid getting their shield broken, can: A. Not hold shield as much. B. Counterpick when against characters that can insta-shield break. C. Notice when they're going for a shield break move, and avoid it. This is just stupid. Lylat being banned kinda makes more sense, because the tilting can mess up otherwise legit recoveries, but once again, this can be avoided by either: A. Picking a character that doesn't get ****ed by Lylat B. Working around the tilt and learning when exactly it ****s you over to avoid that happening. C. BAN THE ****ING STAGE.
Thats kind of misleading. Little mac is forced to deal with his weakness on that stage in nearly every matchup, while jigglypuff doesnt have to worry about shieldbreaks even in her worst MUs. Tournament level play rarely sees shieldbreaks, and even rarer sees jig mains.
Little mac, however, is fairly common in low/mid level tournaments.
Your "just pick a different character" solution makes even less sense to me. If its a problem that the Mac main will face in nearly every MU, then they should pick a different character?
Youre saying that the current stagelist forces Mac mains to play a different character, and is one reason he is unviable. Isnt that a bad stagelist then? If it completely handicaps a certain character to a forced stageban?
 
@der Rabe , this is what i meant by "neutral" stages. A neutral stage is one that has little to no effect on the outcome of the match, leaving only player skill and character choice.
There's no such thing as a neutral stage. There's only stages that can be as close to neutral as possible. Battlefield doesn't benefit or even resolve the issue of Ness' recovery. Nor does Dream Land 64. His wall-bounce is affected by one side of the stage on both stages.

If neutrality was such an issue, then characters who out-perform other characters should be removed. Not only that, it actually minimizes the efforts to observe the meta-game of other characters. This will never happen, however, in spite of the fact that SSB, SSBM, and SSBB have demonstrated characters who weren't used before made a significant change in the meta-game.

So no, there is no such thing as neutrality. There's only such thing as reducing advantages, even if those advantages can benefit the little guys (read: low-tier characters).
 
There's no such thing as a neutral stage. There's only stages that can be as close to neutral as possible. Battlefield doesn't benefit or even resolve the issue of Ness' recovery. Nor does Dream Land 64. His wall-bounce is affected by one side of the stage on both stages.

If neutrality was such an issue, then characters who out-perform other characters should be removed. Not only that, it actually minimizes the efforts to observe the meta-game of other characters. This will never happen, however, in spite of the fact that SSB, SSBM, and SSBB have demonstrated characters who weren't used before made a significant change in the meta-game.

So no, there is no such thing as neutrality. There's only such thing as reducing advantages, even if those advantages can benefit the little guys (read: low-tier characters).
You are correct that there is no perfectly neutral stage, but some are more neutral than others, and few people would disagree that lylat/DH arent very neutral.
If neutrality was such an issue, then characters who out-perform other characters should be removed
if that were the case, then they would have to ban every character except one undisputed best character. Which is obviously much more ridiculous than simply adjusting a stage list to be more neutral.
Characters are different because there are different MUs, and strengths for each character, and they all deserve a chance to prove themselves competatively.

Edit: there are way too many people judging these rules without even trying them first, which is pretty childish and close-minded. Lets all give it some time to see how it works out. I remember when people were furious that Skyloft and Delfino were banned, but now days we all think that its only obvious.
Also, be thankful we arent like japan where every game has an extremely limited stagelist.
 
Last edited:
You are correct that there is no perfectly neutral stage, but some are more neutral than others, and few people would disagree that lylat/DH arent very neutral.
DH is a pretty flat stage and people having a problem with a tree is puerile.

if that were the case, then they would have to ban every character except one undisputed best character. Which is obviously much more ridiculous than simply adjusting a stage list to be more neutral.
Characters are different because there are different MUs, and strengths for each character, and they all deserve a chance to prove themselves competatively.
They wouldn't have to ban every character, just characters who out-perform most others (Bayonetta and Cloud). Characters proving themselves competitively is incorrect. People proving themselves competitively makes more sense, and that can be done so, whether it be by using a character or playing on a stage. Obstacles are merely meant to be overcome.

Edit: there are way too many people judging these rules without even trying them first, which is pretty childish and close-minded. Lets all give it some time to see how it works out. I remember when people were furious that Skyloft and Delfino were banned, but now days we all think that its only obvious.
Also, be thankful we arent like japan where every game has an extremely limited stagelist.
Judging rules without trying them first is not childish, nor close-minded. Imagine if the scientific community ran that way. Some things are economical, and some things aren't. Given that there were only a select few individuals who gave their opinions on the matter (because they're just opinions), I find it rather close-minded to simply ignore peoples' concerns and criticisms.
 
Lylat + DH, why were they banned? Simply because they are not very /neutral/ stages. These stages have many uncontrollable factors and other aspects that can swing matches to ones favor.
Congratulations, you just defined what a counterpick stage is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
You know what? I've seen FAR more matches decided as a result of a player being stretchered off the side of T&C than I have from some element on DH or lylat.

Are we gonna ban T&C too? Because that's logically where we are headed.
 
DH is a pretty flat stage and people having a problem with a tree is puerile.
Thats not all that makes a stage neutral. I dont think you guys get what i mean by a neutral stage, a neutral stage is simply one that has little affect on the outcome of the match. A specific MU may be 50:50 on a neutral stage, and 60:40 on lylat/DH. In that situation the stage gives a huge advantage to one player, and more importantly, it forces their opponent to waste a ban on that stage.

They wouldn't have to ban every character, just characters who out-perform most others (Bayonetta and Cloud). Characters proving themselves competitively is incorrect. People proving themselves competitively makes more sense, and that can be done so, whether it be by using a character or playing on a stage. Obstacles are merely meant to be overcome.
When i say characters proving themselves, i mean players proving their character. Didnt think I'd need to clarify that. And yes i agree some stages can be proven viable by players, but neither of these stages have done so.
Also youre saying that with my logic Bayo and Cloud should be banned, which is not what im saying at all. There will always be a character who outperforms the rest.
I do recognize the apparent contradiction in my logic: if a character can give an advantage to one player, whats so bad about a stage giving an advantage to a player?
But the difference is that character choice is completely up to the player, while a stagelist is in the rules and the player has no choice in the matter. Character choice will indeed play a role in who wins, just like a stagelist, but when a character gains an advantage on a stage through exploiting its design flaws (sitting in the tree, clipping into lylat, ledge snaps missing; just to name a few) the problem is with the stagelist, not the player.

Judging rules without trying them first is not childish, nor close-minded. Imagine if the scientific community ran that way. Some things are economical, and some things aren't. Given that there were only a select few individuals who gave their opinions on the matter (because they're just opinions), I find it rather close-minded to simply ignore peoples' concerns and criticisms.
Im not ignoring peoples concerns, thats why im addressing every argument you guys present. And i definitely agree with many of the arguments.
I suppose i should clarify one more thing, i'm not saying i agree or disagree with the new stagelist, im simply providing an alternate perspective on the situation, as well as explaining the reasons for each change.
Also the "select few" individuals who decided on this ruleset happen to be some of the most dedicated and knowledgable organizers known to the smash 4 community.
The scientific community scrutinizes ideas presented, just as we are right now. But they also test and observe those ideas before drawing a final conclusion. The same should be done with this new stagelist. People can scrutinize the reasons behind it, but they should also actually play the stagelist and observe how it affects the meta before deciding "its a stupid stagelist give me back lylat". Most the people here have already made up their minds about the stagelist, which is truly sad.
So in that sense, it is completely close-minded.

One more thing, a lot of people seem to think the new stagelist favors top tiers. But ask yourself, who were the strongest characters on Lylat? Duck hunt?
Lylat: Rosa and cloud
Duck hunt: Bayo, Mario, MK, ZSS, and sonic.

What do they all have in common?
Top tiers.

Even if a character's "best stage" is lylat/DH, they would still be making a mistake to go to that stage against one of the characters i mentioned.
 
I don't play any sort of competitive Smash scene what so ever....

And even i can tell this "ruleset" is a load of Bull****

Like I can sort of understand the 1111 Mii ruleset despite how stupid and unnecessary it is
But everything else (in particular the stages) just proves how sooky some people are. I mean seriously, I don't get why stages like Peach's Castle 64 and Lylat are banned. They have some random elements yes, but it's not like there hasn't been similar things in past stages and sometimes they only really minor.

Even stages that i can see why they are banned like Skyloft and Delfino i just think they really shouldn't be

But that's just my own opinion... not that it really matters i guess

But seriously, use the Glitch 2 Mii ruleset. It was great. GimR was right there, it could have happened.
1132 Brawler, 1332 Swordfighter, 3111 Gunner. Please bring this back if possible.
Eh I'd prefer is Sword fighter was 2322 but that is just how i've learnt to play the character as.

:135:
 
Thats not all that makes a stage neutral. I dont think you guys get what i mean by a neutral stage, a neutral stage is simply one that has little affect on the outcome of the match. A specific MU may be 50:50 on a neutral stage, and 60:40 on lylat/DH. In that situation the stage gives a huge advantage to one player, and more importantly, it forces their opponent to waste a ban on that stage.
No such stage exists. Even FD/Omega stages favour some characters over others.
 
Top Bottom