After testing it at a local, I am for banning WarioWare due to its blast zones. Heavies were smacking people down like nobody's business. I recommend replacing it with Orpheon, as its base stage is the same size as WarioWare's (not counting the moving platform).
It is not reasonable to ban a static, harzardless stage with traditional ledge play and a higher than average ceiling because characters die easily off the sides. If a player knows he is facing a character that can kill easily off the sides, it is the
player's responsibility to ban stages that benefit that; especially WW. Polarizing qualities are what make counter picks, well,
counter picks. In Melee, floaties love Dreamland because they have excellent recoveries and live twice as long on that stage. In Sm4sh, Pikachu loves Lylat due to the ease of quick-attack cancelling. Give a floaty Dreamland or Pikachu Lylat and you will be fighting a
VERY uphill battle. Yet, these stages remained
legal in their games; as they should because they serve the purpose of providing
counter-play.
These polarizing qualities of stages are countered, however, by the ban system. This is why you will never see Hbox allowed to go to Dreamland in Bo3 sets, and you never see Esam allowed to go to Lylat. Competent players know the strengths afforded to Hbox and Esam on those stages, so they ban them.
The same should apply to WW in Ultimate. During a friendly, I have died off the left blastzone as Captain Falcon (tied for 19th heaviest in the game) to a Ganondorf at 74% post-hit after being F-smashed on the right side of the stage. Something that should be expected. Were I in bracket, I would have banned WW against a super-heavyweight such as Ganon, DK, K. Rool, etc.
One may try to argue that bans are not a good argument because then one could simply say, "if the reasoning to allow a stage is 'just ban it if you don't like it' then any stage should be allowed." However, this is
not the case. Were the stage in question one with
various inconsistencies and nontraditional traits (such as moving platforms that cause walls, hazards, shark'able stage base, transitions, inconsistent ledge grabs, etc), then this argument may apply. But WW is a very calm stage.
Nothing ever changes. Everything can be measured and one can always know when he is or is not in danger or advantage. So, if a player goes to WW, every time he knows what he's getting himself into. If the player sees that he's facing an opponent character of lighter or similar weight to his character that kills best off the top, he may feel comfortable leaving WW unbanned because the other character
wouldn't benefit from the stage much more than his. If a player is an average or lighter weight character going against a heavy or super-heavy, then it would be in his best interest to ban WW. If the player was unwise and left WW available, then proceeds to die early on WW to a whopping f-smash from a super-heavy.... well, that's on him. As is the case with
any bad play made in competition. He made the unintelligent play of leaving WW open and he paid for it.
If you keep WW in the list, this leads competent players facing a slow, heavy character to likely spend a ban on WW and 1 other stage. This means heavies are more likely to have a favorable stage when counter-picking; something that the loser of the last match is SUPPOSED to be afforded. It's his
COUNTER-pick, so the stage should
FAVOR his character. If WW isn't on the list, that's one less small stage that affords benefits to a style of character in this game that
already struggles due to their speed; which means they will often be at the disadvantage when taken to average-wide stages; which is the majority of the stages being considered for competitive play and is something I've clearly mapped out in a previous post. I encourage you to give it a look.
This full-scope of reasoning is what needs to happen when deciding what to ban and permit. Look at EVERY aspect of competitive play. If TOs have tunnel vision and ban simply because blastzones are small (WW complaint), the stage is slanted (CS complaint), the edge is hard for some characters to grab (Lylat complaint), etc...without taking into account bans and the impact a diverse stage list has on the meta, then the stage list will not be as balanced as it should be.
Regarding Frigate Orpheon (FO), it has more debatable variables than WW. FO frequently has a wall because the platform moves so regularly, presents very unbalanced positional advantage when a character is on the moving platform at its lowest point (the character has the advantage of defending from below the opponent, and has the wall for otherwise impossible extensions and setups). The grabable ledge on the main stage is altered when the moving platform connects to it (so if you're coming from below the base's ledge and the platform connects the same moment you go for a grab, you may not get it), and the ledge at its highest point promotes camping (especially against characters with poor jump height). So, given all of the variables, I believe FO is a controversial pick that ultimately should not be used in bracket. And I
definitely believe that FO should not be considered if folks want to ban WW, which has less strikes against it viability.
.
imo, I really don't think Umbra Clock Tower is worth considering for a legal stage because of how distracting the background is. Half the time, you can't even properly see your character, or your opponents. As well, the background can make it hard to judge where the ledge is, due to the asymmetrical layout at times. There just seems to be to many variables caused by the background.
This point isn't really worth in-depth discussion. Nobody is seriously considering UCT for competitive play. You don't ever have to worry about seeing this stage in bracket unless you're at an obscure local with a bad TO.
