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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I don't really agree but it's not something you can be super objective about. In any case the point still stands, with 3 bans campy char still gets one of PS2/TNC, close-range char gets to pick between SV & LC.
From my point of view, 10 stages works best with 2 bans, especially if you look at a Bo5:
In game 1, you strike to the most neutral stage, i.e. the 5th best stage for both players
In game 2, since winner gets 2 bans, loser gets his 3rd best stage (his opponent's 8th best stage)
In game 3, the other player gets his 3rd best stage (his opponent's 8th best stage)
In game 4, loser could go back to his 3rd best stage again, but if they wanted to change, they could go to their 4th best
Same with game 5
Basically, with 10 stages & 2 bans, you can go to a different stage every single game in a Bo5, while still giving CP advantage on games 2-5. With 3 bans (or with less stages) this isn't possible.
So, I have tested out some things on WarioWare and I'm still torn here.
It would appear my original theory about the ratios comparing Battlefield to WarioWare were incorrect! Using Bowser's Forward Smash against Pichu and K Rool on both stages, I found this data (take with a grain of salt, percents may be off very slightly):
Conclusion A:Looking at the math, it would appear that characters seem to die around 30% faster on WarioWare. That's absurd, and probably ban-worthy on its own, but there's a catch.
Conclusion B: The in-game percent difference peaks at an 18% difference on the heaviest character in the game. Is this too much? Well, since Pichu dies about 12% less, that'd put the average to be about 15% faster on WarioWare in general. Is that really so bad? It's a tough call, but honestly I don't think that's that big of a deal.
Then we're left with the burning question, which perspective of this data is more objective? I really can't tell, myself. I feel like both ways of looking at it are pretty fair? Yet, whichever way you choose seems to skew you for having it be legal or having it be banned pretty extremely.
Yes, combos and ledge-guarding is where a lot of extremely early kills happen, but I have no way I can personally measure that. If someone could find a true combo (that isn't Lightning Loops) that kills absurdly early on WW on a character who already excels on the wider stages, that'd be a pretty big deal. For now, this is a tough call. I'm leaning towards a ban, but I'm not fully convinced that WarioWare is objectively ban-worthy.
I don't really agree but it's not something you can be super objective about. In any case the point still stands, with 3 bans campy char still gets one of PS2/TNC, close-range char gets to pick between SV & LC.
From my point of view, 10 stages works best with 2 bans, especially if you look at a Bo5:
In game 1, you strike to the most neutral stage, i.e. the 5th best stage for both players
In game 2, since winner gets 2 bans, loser gets his 3rd best stage (his opponent's 8th best stage)
In game 3, the other player gets his 3rd best stage (his opponent's 8th best stage)
In game 4, loser could go back to his 3rd best stage again, but if they wanted to change, they could go to their 4th best
Same with game 5
Basically, with 10 stages & 2 bans, you can go to a different stage every single game in a Bo5, while still giving CP advantage on games 2-5. With 3 bans (or with less stages) this isn't possible.
Am I misunderstanding this? How is it your opponent's 8th best stage? That's based on your character and player-preference. If you're both playing the same character then it's even more equal.
So, I have tested out some things on WarioWare and I'm still torn here.
It would appear my original theory about the ratios comparing Battlefield to WarioWare were incorrect! Using Bowser's Forward Smash against Pichu and K Rool on both stages, I found this data (take with a grain of salt, percents may be off very slightly):
Conclusion A:Looking at the math, it would appear that characters seem to die around 30% faster on WarioWare. That's absurd, and probably ban-worthy on its own, but there's a catch.
Conclusion B: The in-game percent difference peaks at an 18% difference on the heaviest character in the game. Is this too much? Well, since Pichu dies about 12% less, that'd put the average to be about 15% faster on WarioWare in general. Is that really so bad? It's a tough call, but honestly I don't think that's that big of a deal.
Then we're left with the burning question, which perspective of this data is more objective? I really can't tell, myself. I feel like both ways of looking at it are pretty fair? Yet, whichever way you choose seems to skew you for having it be legal or having it be banned pretty extremely.
Yes, combos and ledge-guarding is where a lot of extremely early kills happen, but I have no way I can personally measure that. If someone could find a true combo (that isn't Lightning Loops) that kills absurdly early on WW on a character who already excels on the wider stages, that'd be a pretty big deal. For now, this is a tough call. I'm leaning towards a ban, but I'm not fully convinced that WarioWare is objectively ban-worthy.
Am I misunderstanding this? How is it your opponent's 8th best stage? That's based on your character and player-preference. If you're both playing the same character then it's even more equal.
For me if the difference is so slight, that makes WW definitely legal. Might be worth comparing larger stages to BF and see what the actual difference is too just to see how they measure up.
For me if the difference is so slight, that makes WW definitely legal. Might be worth comparing larger stages to BF and see what the actual difference is too just to see how they measure up.
Thing is, from the center of the stage the only variable that matters is the blast zones.
From the ledge, the size and blast zones matter.
Though, I do want to see how PS2 and MKU hold up. I'm going to be testing those next, hopefully with another person to make testing DI easier. In theory, you'll die sooner on the ledges of PS2/MKU because they're simply closer to the blast zone. PS2 is 26 units wider (13 on one side), but the blast zone is also 10 further away, meaning a net difference of about 3 units? That's nothing.
Meanwhile, on MKU the blast zone is also 10 units further away. The stage itself is 54 units wider (27 on one side), so the net different is about 17 units.
Initially, I was hoping that because WarioWare was smaller, that would mitigate the blast zone difference at least a little. Doesn't seem that way, though. The ledge is about 23 units shorter on one end compared to BF, so that softens it a little bit but the blast zone being so drastically small really really hurts it.
Meh, knowing Nintendo I doubt it but, I'd love to see a change to WarioWare's blast zones. I'd go as far to say it's not going to happen, but it would be neat. A pleasant surprise if it does happen.
Am I misunderstanding this? How is it your opponent's 8th best stage? That's based on your character and player-preference. If you're both playing the same character then it's even more equal.
When I say '3rd best stage' or '8th best stage' I don't mean it based on that particular player's preference or character, but rather in the context of that particular set.
So if I say stage A is P1's best stage, I mean it's the stage that favours him the most against P2. This may not correspond to what P1 thinks his best stage is.
I guess I'm also assuming that both players aren't switching characters.
Hope this explains it. Of course in practice it's not as clear-cut but it's still a valid point imo.
When I say '3rd best stage' or '8th best stage' I don't mean it based on that particular player's preference or character, but rather in the context of that particular set.
So if I say stage A is P1's best stage, I mean it's the stage that favours him the most against P2. This may not correspond to what P1 thinks his best stage is.
I guess I'm also assuming that both players aren't switching characters.
Hope this explains it. Of course in practice it's not as clear-cut but it's still a valid point imo.
Yes, I understand the concept here, my issue lays in the "8th best stage" part. If my opponent bans my best 2 stages, and I choose to go to my 3rd best, that does not suddenly make it their 8th best stage.
Say, if I'm on Wolf and they're on Peach, Town & City is my 3rd best and probably peach's 4th best. The bans put your opponent to their 3rd, but do not put you to your 8th. I assume I'm missing something in relation to what your original post said, so please feel free to correct me here.
Yes, I understand the concept here, my issue lays in the "8th best stage" part. If my opponent bans my best 2 stages, and I choose to go to my 3rd best, that does not suddenly make it their 8th best stage.
Say, if I'm on Wolf and they're on Peach, Town & City is my 3rd best and probably peach's 4th best. The bans put your opponent to their 3rd, but do not put you to your 8th. I assume I'm missing something in relation to what your original post said, so please feel free to correct me here.
I'm using a sort of 'omniscient' point of view. If a stage is P1's 3rd best stage for that particular match against P2, then it automatically is P2's 8th best stage (if there are 10 stages).
Basically I'm assuming that both players are using their bans 100% optimally (which means taking into account your opponent's character/stage preference as well)
FD is Olimar's best stage generally, but against Wolf (or any character with a strong projectile that can one-shot kill the Pikmin) it becomes one of his worst
I'm using a sort of 'omniscient' point of view. If a stage is P1's 3rd best stage for that particular match against P2, then it automatically is P2's 8th best stage (if there are 10 stages).
Basically I'm assuming that both players are using their bans 100% optimally (which means taking into account your opponent's character/stage preference as well)
FD is Olimar's best stage generally, but against Wolf (or any character with a strong projectile that can one-shot kill the Pikmin) it becomes one of his worst
Dittos are weird, you can technically go to any stage for any match in the set. However, player preference is a thing, so in that case it'd become the deciding factor.
So, to go back to the original point, let's say BF is P1's favorite stage, and SV is his second favorite. Now let's say P2's favorite stage is also BF, but SV happens to be his least favorite.
In this case, P1 should aim to go to SV (his 2nd favorite) rather than BF (his favorite stage), because of the advantage it gives him over P2.
So taking into account your opponent is always something you should do if you want to optimally ban stages, in any situation.
A little late but I wanted to weigh in on Warioware. While I was initially in favour of Warioware for counterpick, I can see the arguments for it being banned. The kill percentages are pretty far out of line with the other stages and you can probably make a decent argument that the stage is simply too small, in the same sense that a stage like Mushroom Kingdom U is too big despite otherwise being a fine stage. Having an overly small stage diminishes the importance of recoveries significantly, probably too much so considering the increased focus on edgeguarding in SmashU.
I agree that it'd be cool to see Nintendo expand the boundaries on the hazards off version because I do like the platform layout, but I know they won't.
I do however still definitely support Castle Siege and I think the "can't see recoveries on the right cuz wall" argument is largely nonsense, you have to be really low to be behind the wall, by which time virtually no characters in the game have more than one option to make it back to the stage.
This tournament had especially low attendance for an already small series, so this tournament will not provide much data, but hopefully it should at least add some. Thankfully, though, the players who did attend were willing to help me test out the stages, and thus several stages got at least a bit of screen time.
Specific things I noticed about stages:
-Spikes on slopes are weird. See Set 3, timestamp 20:20. Don't know that it makes these stages bad, but might be an element to consider.
-On Tomodachi Life, it seemed like if anything was problematic, it might have been the early vertical kills from the top platform or possible ladder combos rather than camping. One of my players in particular noted that in our set (Set 3), once he started trying to camp, he "lost neutral twice and lost the game" (beginning around timestamp 16:40). He started camping with a ~80% lead as Lucina vs. Yoshi. After the tournament, he actually still believes the stage is fine, so I might continue to run it for a while longer.
Timestamps of potentially controversial stages:
-Castle Siege: Set 3, 18:35
-WarioWare: Set 1, 3:00
-Wuhu Island: Set 3, 3:55
-Mushroom Kingdom U: Set 2, 9:23
-Tomodachi Life: Set 2, 3:38; Set 3, 13:55
This tournament had especially low attendance for an already small series, so this tournament will not provide much data, but hopefully it should at least add some. Thankfully, though, the players who did attend were willing to help me test out the stages, and thus several stages got at least a bit of screen time.
Specific things I noticed about stages:
-Spikes on slopes are weird. See Set 3, timestamp 20:20. Don't know that it makes these stages bad, but might be an element to consider.
-On Tomodachi Life, it seemed like if anything was problematic, it might have been the early vertical kills from the top platform or possible ladder combos rather than camping. One of my players in particular noted that in our set (Set 3), once he started trying to camp, he "lost neutral twice and lost the game" (beginning around timestamp 16:40). He started camping with a ~80% lead as Lucina vs. Yoshi. After the tournament, he actually still believes the stage is fine, so I might continue to run it for a while longer.
Timestamps of potentially controversial stages:
-Castle Siege: Set 3, 18:35
-WarioWare: Set 1, 3:00
-Wuhu Island: Set 3, 3:55
-Mushroom Kingdom U: Set 2, 9:23
-Tomodachi Life: Set 2, 3:38; Set 3, 13:55
Yeah, the thing about spikes on slopes has been known. In a friendly as Ganon on YI:B I Dair'd my friend's Shulk and he flew at a crazy 45 degree angle to the blast zone. I don't think it's a ban-worthy thing, it's something you have to know about and be aware of. If you don't have a solid diagonal recovery, then you don't wanna get spiked into a steep slope like that.
Thank for hosting a tourney like this! Testing stages and getting data (no matter how little) is always appreciated here!
Duck Hunt is another stage that is "effectively FD" for a lot of characters, many of them top tiers. Is Duck Hunt better than Kalos or T&C or FD? Most would say no, and would rather run those 3 "effectively FD" stages than running Duck Hunt over one of them.
You don't want to run all 4, or else you even further push the rushdown versus campy meta. We want more than two play styles to be viable. So, even in a large stage list, you only want to pick 3.
It was banned in Smash 4 because even when the middle platform was more relevant, it was still a campy stage. Now the platforms have basically Zero relevance.
Duck Hunt is larger than FD, the platforms are barely relevant, the 2D mechanics are quite janky and mess with quite a few moves and animations. The stage brings nothing new that FD or Wily's Castle doesn't already bring. Wily's is much more balanced, and we don't even use that because having 5 stages that are effectively the same stage is bad for balance. Done and done.
For anyone wanting a tl;dw:
-PS1 has a narrower main platform. While already common knowledge, the video specifies that it takes Incineroar (the slowest runner in the game) an extra 10 frames to get to the end of PS2 compared to PS1
-PS1 has a curved underside similar to FD while PS2 has a flat underside similar to T&C
-PS1 has lower platforms which means more moves can reach characters on them and more characters can full hop onto them. The only characters that can't full hop onto either are Jigglypuff and Snake. The video shows Kirby, Ganondorf, Ryu, Ken and Little Mac being able to reach the platforms of PS1 in a full hop but not PS2's platforms and he mentions that every other character can full hop onto both. He also has this list in the description showing what moves he knows of that reach the PS1 platforms but not the PS2 ones:
Moves that hit on PS1 platforms only:
Mario up tilt
Pikachu up Smash
Ness up smash
Sheik up tilt
Zelda up tilt
Dr. Mario up tilt
Meta Knight up smash
Lucario up tilt
Toon Link up smash
Greninja up tilt
Palutena up tilt
Ryu up smash
Ken up smash
Incineroar up smash
Piranha Plant up tilt
Cloud side special (first hit)
This is likely not a complete list of every move that is affected by this either. He also shows how Kirby can't follow up after fthrow near the platforms on PS1 due to getting put on them after.
-PS1's right platform has a slight slant to it which can cause jab locks to fail on it and can cause other rare oddities with the example shown being R.O.B. up throwing Mario from underneath the platform and being forced to let go before his throw is complete. There's a caption that mentions this was tried on purpose ~30 times and was only achieved once.
-Characters are more obstructed by the ledge on PS1 compared to PS2
-PS1 has a lower blastzone that's further down than PS2's with K. Rool being able to survive Bayonetta's dsmash ~3% longer. The blastzone difference also allows more options for characters with good recoveries offstage with the example shown being K. Rool letting go of ledge and doing a neutral air dodge and being able to still recover on PS1 while unable to on PS2.
-Side blastzones are the same but due to the larger base platform, characters die sooner at the ledge on PS2.
-The screen on PS1 isn't as zoomed in and it switches more often but it's also on 'zoom in' mode more often. PS2's background screen also has a sound to let you know when it's done focusing on the characters.
-Characters spawn on the base platform on PS1 while they spawn on the floating platforms on PS2.
General consensus seems to be that PS2 is chosen for legal status over PS1 most of the time but the differences seem small enough that they could be treated as the same stage in striking purposes much like how Dreamland 64 and Battlefield were handled in Sm4sh. DL64 also had a slanted platform (the base one), a different underside and higher floating platforms along with having a lower upper blastzone which the Pokemon Stadiums lack. Not too sure if Unova could be treated as an 'echo' stage too.
For anyone wanting a tl;dw:
-PS1 has a narrower main platform. While already common knowledge, the video specifies that it takes Incineroar (the slowest runner in the game) an extra 10 frames to get to the end of PS2 compared to PS1
-PS1 has a curved underside similar to FD while PS2 has a flat underside similar to T&C
-PS1 has lower platforms which means more moves can reach characters on them and more characters can full hop onto them. The only characters that can't full hop onto either are Jigglypuff and Snake. The video shows Kirby, Ganondorf, Ryu, Ken and Little Mac being able to reach the platforms of PS1 in a full hop but not PS2's platforms and he mentions that every other character can full hop onto both. He also has this list in the description showing what moves he knows of that reach the PS1 platforms but not the PS2 ones:
Moves that hit on PS1 platforms only:
Mario up tilt
Pikachu up Smash
Ness up smash
Sheik up tilt
Zelda up tilt
Dr. Mario up tilt
Meta Knight up smash
Lucario up tilt
Toon Link up smash
Greninja up tilt
Palutena up tilt
Ryu up smash
Ken up smash
Incineroar up smash
Piranha Plant up tilt
Cloud side special (first hit)
This is likely not a complete list of every move that is affected by this either. He also shows how Kirby can't follow up after fthrow near the platforms on PS1 due to getting put on them after.
-PS1's right platform has a slight slant to it which can cause jab locks to fail on it and can cause other rare oddities with the example shown being R.O.B. up throwing Mario from underneath the platform and being forced to let go before his throw is complete. There's a caption that mentions this was tried on purpose ~30 times and was only achieved once.
-Characters are more obstructed by the ledge on PS1 compared to PS2
-PS1 has a lower blast zone that's further down than PS2's with K. Rool being able to survive Bayonetta's dsmash ~3% longer. The blastzone difference also allows more options for characters with good recoveries offstage with the example shown being K. Rool letting go of ledge and doing a neutral air dodge and being able to still recover on PS1 while unable to on PS2.
-Side blastzones are the same but due to the larger base platform, characters die sooner at the ledge on PS2.
-The screen on PS1 isn't as zoomed in and it switches more often but it's also on 'zoom in' mode more often. PS2's background screen also has a sound to let you know when it's done focusing on the characters.
-Characters spawn on the base platform on PS1 while they spawn on the floating platforms on PS2.
General consensus seems to be that PS2 is chosen for legal status over PS1 most of the time but the differences seem small enough that they could be treated as the same stage in striking purposes much like how Dreamland 64 and Battlefield were handled in Sm4sh. DL64 also had a slanted platform (the base one), a different underside and higher floating platforms along with having a lower upper blastzone which the Pokemon Stadiums lack. Not too sure if Unova could be treated as an 'echo' stage too.
I don't remember if the video was posted already, but I do remember seeing it somehow. Great video, very informative.
Personally, I say PS2 > PS1 because of the screen in the background. On PS2 it's off for more than double the time on PS1. A lot of people really dislike the screen, and I feel like despite the other differences that put PS1 in a better light, PS2's screen is most important.
PS1 helping more characters with full-hops is great and all, but visual distractions are becoming more frequently problematic for the community as it gets larger and people with sensitivities voice their concerns. It especially matters when PS2 is currently the most played stage in Game 1.
Characters die sooner at the ledge on PS2 but they also recover easier because the stage reaches out more. I'd say this is a fair trade-off. Kinda feeling the same way for MKU right now, but haven't decided if that stage is really viable enough.
On another note, I would love some opinions on MKU and it's utility as a stage. Does it offer different strategy from a stage like FD? My testing partner and I both agree that the platforms do make a difference, but at times it feels difficult to take advantage of them. I personally want to say it's simply my unfamiliarity with the stage, so if you've had a different experience let me know. Do the platforms on MKU make a difference? How big of a difference? Would you consider it yet another good stage for Pichu/Wolf/Peach?
For some explanation: MKU has a 250 blast zone which is within the standard range. The stage is much larger than average, but the blast zone seems to balance that out. You don't live longer on MKU than you do on PS2. The ledge reaches out even further which helps recoveries, but it may be too large and further support the campy versus rushdown meta.
For MKU, I don’t think it’s the same as FD. Its size helps out zoners obviously, but you don’t get the same open air as FD / KPL / TC, meaning trapping landings / etc isn’t as free. I don’t usually use the platforms a ton in neutral, but I find they’re really impactful during advantage or disadvantage. When you’re being juggled, the platforms offer more places to land, but the gap in the middle also gives you a route to return to the ground even while using an airdodge or attack. From the ledge, the left platform is easier to reach, while the right platform’s height makes it safer against grounded opponents.
You could try to ladder combo with them, but the high ceiling makes this pretty ineffective for KOs. In general, the stage has a lot of emphasis on horizontal KOs and stage control, thanks to its wide stage but small ledge-to-blastzone distance. Vertical KOs aren’t as strong, due to the high ceiling and good anti-juggle options.
Frostbite 2019 was excellent. Despite a rather unbalanced stage list, not a single Wolf or Pichu main was in top 8. That's insane.
However, we did have two Olimar players, an Inkling, and a Snake. I'd say that those characters benefit from the open stages just as much as Wolf/Pichu, it may simply be that the meta call was incorrect and Wolf/Pichu aren't the best like everyone thought they were. Who knows, I sure don't yet, we'll see in the coming tournaments.
My point I want to get to is: Pokemon Stadium 2 is still by far the most agreed upon stage for games. Now, I personally take this with a grain of salt. For an international tournament, there was a LOT of Japan players attending which is awesome! I think simply to make games go faster, lots of players may have chosen to just agree to PS2 instead of communicating strikes with their opponents due to the difference in language.
In truth, they're probably wrong to do that considering that most of the Japan players can speak enough english to communicate about stages, but I digress.
I don't understand why so many players agree to PS2 against Olimar or Wolf. The only reasons I can possibly think of is that people are having the same "Smashville bias" from previous Smash games, or its a bi-product of the unbalanced stage list.
For the record, the starters at Frostbite looked like this:
Battlefield*
Final Destination*
Town And City
Pokémon Stadium 2
Smashville
So, against a character who wants big/wide stages like Olimar or Wolf, what do you strike? They have 3 good stages on the starter list alone. You probably strike FD and T&C and then you go to PS2. That's the only option you really have, honestly. Though, a small piece of tech: If you go to T&C instead, the ceiling is 15 units higher up than on PS2, which means you'll die to Olimar's up-throw later.
This is why we need more balance in our lists. Remove FD and use Lylat as the 5th starter instead, and we have a pretty good list. Hell, I've even considered using Unova > PS2, but aren't because for some reason lots of people dislike Unova. I believe it would be far more balanced, and maybe I'll do it anyway.
IMO swap out FD for Unova in Frostbite's starter list and you're golden. Reasons:
- Town and FD being in the same starter list didn't turn out well afaik.
- At Frostbite, FD was the least picked stage for game 1. [source]
- At Genesis 6, Lylat was the least picked stage for game 1. [source]
- Frostbite banned Unova because it was rarely counterpicked to except as an alternative to PS2 (when DSR ruled out PS2). This indicates that Unova either is redundant with PS2 (which is unlikely for a number of reasons), OR it saw limited use as a counterpick because it's a generally "neutral" stage (so you wouldn't pick it as a counterpick; it doesn't often grant a large advantage to either player). The latter case would make it ideal as a starter.
I noticed recently that Midgar's terrain is actually about 14 units larger than Battlefield, 34 units larger than Yoshi's Story. It's blast zone is also a 250 box instead of the 240 box on BF and the 230 box on YS. Not that this will mean anything huge, but I find it interesting that Midgar is almost perfectly the next step up from Battlefield in terms of size, in a very similar way to Yoshi's Story.
Sadly, we have no such stage to act as a large Monoplat, but if we look at the stages like this, we can see a neat pattern:
Triplats
Midgar (Large)
Battlefield (Average)
Yoshi's Story (Small)
Biplats
Pokemon Stadium 2 (Large)
Unova Pokemon League (Average)
Castle Siege (Small)
Monoplats
Smashville (Small, Blast Zones are 10 further away than YI)
Final Destination (Average, but effectively Large)
Kalos Pokemon League (Average)
Town & City (Average, but effectively Below-Average because of the 230 box)
Then you're left with just Lylat, which completes the Starters. Sadly, it doesn't look like we have a reliable third monoplat without it being semi-soft. Would make a neat 13 stage list though.
Also, on another topic, I'd like to mention some stages I'm seeing some light in. Rainbow Cruise and Tomodachi Life are quite interesting. I don't think they'll end up viable but, I do feel like they deserve more testing. Rainbow Cruise surprised me with its small 230 box despite the 195 unit stage. While Tomodachi Life has only barely been tested for stalling and actually has really good blast zones and a good size. Very interested in seeing these tested more.
I would like to ask, is there harm in having a single semi-soft stage with Character-first PxP1? I am aware that people have abused PxP1 in the past by utilizing Siege/Lylat to essentially "force" their opponent into picking their best stage, but in my opinion that is at fault of the player's adaptation, not the rules. Lylat may be that person's 6th best stage for the match up, if you chose to not go there, that's your fault.
Frostbite data has come out, and, interestingly enough, Yoshi's Island appears to be both the most banned and least picked stage (with more bans and fewer picks than Lylat Cruise). Yoshi's Island as a starter would be worse than Lylat in almost every way (Lylat's main issue seems to be lack of popularity, yet it's still more popular than both Yoshi's Story and Yoshi's Island, at least on Frostbite). Kalos over Final Destination? FD had a higher ban rate at both Genesis and Frostbite, so perhaps Kalos is less polarizing than Final Destination. With that being said, the starters shouldn't necessarily be the least polarizing stages, although it might be worth to try Kalos over FD in order to see what happens. Perhaps fewer game 1 would start on PS2?
Incoming, the Pound 2019 stage list has apparently been out and I haven't seen anybody mention it yet. Supposedly, it's subject to change and may change, but look at this thing!
Starter Stages
Battlefield*
Final Destination**
Kalos League
Pokemon Stadium 2
Smashville
Counterpick Stages
Frigate Orpheon
Skyloft
Town & City
Yoshi’s Island
Wario Ware
In my initial posts on different kinds of stage lists, there is a kind of list I did not mention, actually. This kind is a perfect example of it! A list that seeks as many varying stages as possible, allowing not a single redundant stage to its best ability.
Now, I do have some problems with it. We see (sigh), yet again, that we have two FD-like stages as starters. Meaning players will agree to PS2 over and over against top tiers.
But, to talk about the more interesting section here, look at those counterpicks!!! Frigate lives! Skyloft is around! WarioWare at a potential S Tier tournament??? This is insane. This is the data we need!
Though, we all know these stages will get hated on, it really does force players to make real counterpicks where advantages are traded and a competitive match is played! I'm quite excited for this. I already love the rules at Pound, but this makes it so much better.
Now, stages that are missing, despite there being 3 "effectively FD" stages: Yoshi's Story, Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege, Unova.
I think they purposefully got rid of Lylat/Siege for the hate both stages get, while Unova and Story were left out for...??? I have no idea. Yoshi's Island is still there, but maybe they just wanted as much variance as possible. Sadly, we're still going to see 70% of games go to PS2/T&C. However, if people seem to accept Frigate, then I'm not going to give up on it. I still love the stage, I just thought there was no way it would make it into a major honestly.
It doesn't have Lylat or Yoshi's Story, it has both Kalos and FD instarters, and it has Frigate Orpheon, Skyloft, and WarioWare? Yeah, it's most likely going to change.
I've been leaning towards a stagelist with 8-9 stages for now (either Frostbite or Frostbite without Yoshi's Island). The data indicates that both Yoshi's Story and Kalos are strongly tied with another stage (namely Battlefield and Final Destination, respectively). If we ban Yoshi's Story for redundancy we'd probably have to ban Kalos as well, and while this may happen in the future, for the time being I think we should keep both.
Yoshi's Island seems to be less strongly connected to Smashville than many people suspected. It was, however, the most banned stage and least played stage on Frostbite, being even less popular than Lylat Cruise. This indicates that people don't like the stage, and I'm starting to agree with that sentiment: The slopes near the edge are pretty bad, to be honest. I'm on the fence whether we should ban it right now because of the slants or give it more time, either way works. So for the time being I think a stagelist with 8-9 stages is good, and then we'll see if we'll cut down to 6 or not.
Town & City turned out to be a very popular starter. While I think Lylat Cruise is more balanced it's also much, much less used as a starter. Ideally people would stop hating on Lylat Cruise and we'd give it another try as a starter, but for now I'm fairly okay with Town & City as the 5th starter.
Kalos Pokémon League seems to be more neutral than Final Destination. Perhaps it'd be worth it to try Kalos as a starter and Final Destination as a counter-pick?
It doesn't have Lylat or Yoshi's Story, it has both Kalos and FD instarters, and it has Frigate Orpheon, Skyloft, and WarioWare? Yeah, it's most likely going to change.
I've been leaning towards a stagelist with 8-9 stages for now (either Frostbite or Frostbite without Yoshi's Island). The data indicates that both Yoshi's Story and Kalos are strongly tied with another stage (namely Battlefield and Final Destination, respectively). If we ban Yoshi's Story for redundancy we'd probably have to ban Kalos as well, and while this may happen in the future, for the time being I think we should keep both.
Yoshi's Island seems to be less strongly connected to Smashville than many people suspected. It was, however, the most banned stage and least played stage on Frostbite, being even less popular than Lylat Cruise. This indicates that people don't like the stage, and I'm starting to agree with that sentiment: The slopes near the edge are pretty bad, to be honest. I'm on the fence whether we should ban it right now because of the slants or give it more time, either way works. So for the time being I think a stagelist with 8-9 stages is good, and then we'll see if we'll cut down to 6 or not.
Town & City turned out to be a very popular starter. While I think Lylat Cruise is more balanced it's also much, much less used as a starter. Ideally people would stop hating on Lylat Cruise and we'd give it another try as a starter, but for now I'm fairly okay with Town & City as the 5th starter.
Kalos Pokémon League seems to be more neutral than Final Destination. Perhaps it'd be worth it to try Kalos as a starter and Final Destination as a counter-pick?
Picking starters based on popularity and pick rates is problematic though, is it not? We can select 5 starters in a very intelligible and logical way. I've posted about this before, but I'd like your personal take on this logic.
In lists, the main stages accepted by the community (and not accepted by the community) can be divided into 4 categories. We can use these 4 categories to designate the first 4 starters.
Semi-Central Biplat: Pokemon Stadium 2, Unova Pokemon League, Castle Siege
Central Monoplat: Smashville, Yoshi's Island, Halberd
Open/FD-Like: Final Destination, Kalos Pokemon League, Town & City
Now, to clarify once again, when I say FD-like and "effectively FD" in quotes, I am speaking from a character perspective. Pichu, Wolf, Olimar, Snake, Peach, and Daisy all look at these stages as "effectively FD" for them. They can get away with the same stunts on all three without being hindered by the stage. Many more characters have that same feeling, I simply listed the ones we see at high level. We have plenty of data of sets showing that top players who play these characters always end up on one of these stages because of the rules. Genesis 6 had two bans. If we watch any set Void played at G6 you see his opponents banning FD/Kalos and him picking T&C nearly every single time.
How do we use this? Well, with these 4 unique layouts we can pick one from each category and make it a starter. How do we know which one to pick? We balance them amongst each other and each character. If specific characters have problems on a stage that are too drastic (such as recovery being hindered by Unova's sides), then we do not make it a starter. Let's try this out.
For the Triangle stages, we pick Battlefield. Average size, 240 box, 192 ceiling, great stuff.
For the biplats, we pick Pokemon Stadium 2. This is not because of its popularity, but because it will help balance out the list later. It's large, but that's okay. With a 5 starter list, each player gets 2 strikes, so we keep that in mind.
For the monoplats, we pick Smashville. It's the least polarizing stage, it's small (balances against PS2), and it acts as the best monoplat we have currently.
For the Open/FD-Like stages, I'm going to pick Town & City. Kalos is just as viable here, but personally I prefer the 230 box of T&C > the 245 box of Kalos. It helps bring the average size down, and it is the least polarizing of the 3 FD-like stages due to its occasional 3 platform setup.
Now we have 4 starters locked in:
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Smashville
Town & City / Kalos Pokemon League
How do we pick our 5th? Well, we need a stage that is unique to the starters, which is difficult. It's extremely important that it is unique, however, because we do not want to skew our starters in favor of one type of character or another. Looking at every single last even remotely viable stage, we have these unique layouts: Frigate Orpheon, Skyloft, Lylat Cruise, Brinstar, Wuhu Island, Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Dracula's Castle, Tomodachi Life, Norfair, WarioWare Inc, Mushroom Kingdom U.
Now we apply the same logic to it. Which stage among these is the least polarizing and balances out the existing list? Well... tough question. Easier question then, which of these stages have polarizing qualities about them? As in, which stages greatly favor a character, character-type, or play style too much? Well, the Semi-Softs do. Semi-Soft terrain has been seen as potentially extremely broken for characters such as Meta Knight, Pit, Dark Pit, Jigglypuff, and Peach/Daisy. So, how about we rid of all of those out of our potential starters.
Great, now we have a much shorter list. We have: Frigate Orpheon, Lylat Cruise, Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Dracula's Castle, Tomodachi Life, WarioWare Inc, Mushroom Kingdom U. What next? Well, another polarizing quality would be the size of the stage. Let's get rid of any stage that is larger than PS2 or smaller than Castle Siege.
We are left with: Frigate Orpheon, Lylat Cruise, Tomodachi Life. Three left, excellent. Looking at these stages, we should be able to pick one out pretty easily. Personally, I believe this logic shows that Lylat Cruise is easily the best 5th starter possible. It has a nice 230 blast zone box, it's average size, and it has a unique platform layout! The "jank" people keep complaining about doesn't exist on this stage anymore. The slopes aren't steep enough for shenanigans, the ledge is fixed, everything about the stage is excellent.
I know you're the lylat guy, but for the sake of debate, I will also post here evidence against those who want to group Lylat with Battlefield. Look at this tool, compare the two, and you get this:
Lylat Cruise is the light turquoise, Battlefield is the red. White is where they overlap.
If people don't believe this is extreme enough of a difference, then they clearly couldn't believe that Castle Siege is so drastically different from Unova, right? That's another topic, though.
Case and point. The 5 starters as I present them, and reasons behind each and every one being picked.
EDIT: I forgot to mention an important point here about Lylat's popularity. It does not really matter in the end if Lylat is never picked or always striked as a starter, its function is served either way. If Lylat were picked 0% of the time, then it would function as if we had a 4 stage starter list, but it would be actually balanced. The players are always in control if they do not wish to go to Lylat game 1. That's all that matters, popularity or not.
Incoming, the Pound 2019 stage list has apparently been out and I haven't seen anybody mention it yet. Supposedly, it's subject to change and may change, but look at this thing!
Starter Stages
Battlefield*
Final Destination**
Kalos League
Pokemon Stadium 2
Smashville
Counterpick Stages
Frigate Orpheon
Skyloft
Town & City
Yoshi’s Island
Wario Ware
In my initial posts on different kinds of stage lists, there is a kind of list I did not mention, actually. This kind is a perfect example of it! A list that seeks as many varying stages as possible, allowing not a single redundant stage to its best ability.
Now, I do have some problems with it. We see (sigh), yet again, that we have two FD-like stages as starters. Meaning players will agree to PS2 over and over against top tiers.
But, to talk about the more interesting section here, look at those counterpicks!!! Frigate lives! Skyloft is around! WarioWare at a potential S Tier tournament??? This is insane. This is the data we need!
Though, we all know these stages will get hated on, it really does force players to make real counterpicks where advantages are traded and a competitive match is played! I'm quite excited for this. I already love the rules at Pound, but this makes it so much better.
Now, stages that are missing, despite there being 3 "effectively FD" stages: Yoshi's Story, Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege, Unova.
I think they purposefully got rid of Lylat/Siege for the hate both stages get, while Unova and Story were left out for...??? I have no idea. Yoshi's Island is still there, but maybe they just wanted as much variance as possible. Sadly, we're still going to see 70% of games go to PS2/T&C. However, if people seem to accept Frigate, then I'm not going to give up on it. I still love the stage, I just thought there was no way it would make it into a major honestly.
Also, cool! Honestly, I haven't paid enough attention to who the specific TOs are that are making these decisions. Great to give them credit for experimentation.
EDIT: I am a complete idiot, a total buffoon, an absolute fool. I thought "MDVA" was a TO but it's just a region, my bad. Great job, me.
Anyone else see this? Starters are the same as Pound, but the counterpicks are not. Sadly, Lylat has been eliminated. But Castle Siege is back baby!
On another note, Utah made the decision to make FD a counterpick, with Kalos as a starter in its place. IMO Yoshi's Brawl is screaming to return, but it isn't my decision.
_____________________________
ONE MORE NOTE:
I spent a very long time playing with mixed hazards tonight on some stages. I completely forgot how much better/more fun/more interesting Smashville, T&C, Yoshi's Brawl, and even PS1 are with hazards (if only Yoshi's Story didn't drop food still...). ESPECIALLY Smashville. There's a reason that stage is a classic. I'm hoping maybe someone will be willing to at least give it a thorough shot someday. Maybe not a supermajor with hundreds of setups to check, but something like a local series, or regional tournament.
It might not be updated. It's obviously a pretty bad ruleset (Castle Siege legal, Lylat banned, both FD and Kalos in starters), so I'm hoping they'll update it.
I don't know. I was browsing through some online arenas last night and saw several titled similar to "CEO 2019 Rules". Which is what prompted me to go looking for it.
Neutrals:
Pokemon Stadium 2
Smashville
Battlefield
Final Destination
Kalos Pokemon League
Counterpicks:
Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
Yoshi’s Story
Town and City
Castle Siege
Anyone else see this? Starters are the same as Pound, but the counterpicks are not. Sadly, Lylat has been eliminated. But Castle Siege is back baby!
On another note, Utah made the decision to make FD a counterpick, with Kalos as a starter in its place. IMO Yoshi's Brawl is screaming to return, but it isn't my decision.
_____________________________
ONE MORE NOTE:
I spent a very long time playing with mixed hazards tonight on some stages. I completely forgot how much better/more fun/more interesting Smashville, T&C, Yoshi's Brawl, and even PS1 are with hazards (if only Yoshi's Story didn't drop food still...). ESPECIALLY Smashville. There's a reason that stage is a classic. I'm hoping maybe someone will be willing to at least give it a thorough shot someday. Maybe not a supermajor with hundreds of setups to check, but something like a local series, or regional tournament.
Oof, that CEO list is suffering from the exact same things as other tournament lists. They tried to balance it, with 2-2-2 of triangles-monos-biplats but then they made the same mistake with two FD-likes as starters and having a third as counterpick. It's almost a really good list.
Also, Utah seems to be having trouble here... making very similar mistakes as Frostbite. Come on people, when are we going to start getting smart about this? It's silly. EDIT: I'm referring to having 3 out of the 8 stages be FD-likes. FD as a counterpick is great, optimal even!
Mixed hazards is very fun! Actually, I saw someone mention in the ruleset thread (I think, it could've been elsewhere) that we should be able to consider having 1 or 2 stages with hazards on because it should be obvious that those stages are like that. I'd go as far to say 3, because it would give us Hazards Fountain of Dreams (assuming the lag is fixed) as well as better T&C/Smashville. Don't make them separate stages on the list from their Hazards Off variants to avoid confusion, and you can make some nicer looking lists.
Using mixed hazards in this way allows us to actually use all 10 of the "Balanced Ten".
Starters:
Battlefield: Triangle Triplat, Average Terrain, 240/192 Zones
Pokemon Stadium 2: Semi-Central Biplat, Large Terrain, 250/180 Zones
Smashville (HOn): Dynamic Monoplat, Small Terrain, 229/190 Zones
Kalos Pokemon League: FD-like, Average Terrain, 245/192 Zones
Town & City (HOn): Unique & Dynamic Layout, Average Terrain, 230/195 Zones
Counterpicks:
Final Destination: FD-like (literally), Perceived Large Terrain, 240/180 Zones
Yoshi's Story: Triangle Triplat, Small Terrain, 227/180 Zones
Unova Pokemon League: Semi-Central Biplat, Average Terrain, 237/190 Zones
Yoshi's Island (Brawl): Central Monoplat, Small Terrain, 220/180 Zones
Lylat Cruise: Unique Layout, Average Terrain, 230/180 Zones
Fountain of Dreams (HOn): Unique & Dynamic Layout, Below-Average Terrain, 240/192 Zones
This works because Town & City is no longer an FD-like, which means it makes an (arguably) better 5th starter. Lylat can still be a 5th starter and it would work very similarly, or even FoD. As well, you have a solid 2-2-2-2 among the 4 primary layouts with 3 additional unique layouts. With only 3 stages that are Hazards On, it should be significantly easier to remember and require no printouts or excessive reminding.
Of course, as per usual, this is only an option offline, and not online. Would be great if Nintendo could fix that though.
It might not be updated. It's obviously a pretty bad ruleset (Castle Siege legal, Lylat banned, both FD and Kalos in starters), so I'm hoping they'll update it.
Castle Siege isn't a problem, people just dislike it. You're right though, if Lylat was the 5th starter instead of FD then this list would instantly be much much better. Would still be unbalanced, but much less so. There wouldn't be game 1 wins decided at the stage select because everyone is practically forced to go to PS2.
On another note, Utah made the decision to make FD a counterpick, with Kalos as a starter in its place. IMO Yoshi's Brawl is screaming to return, but it isn't my decision.
Damn, I am SO happy to see FD as a counterpick. Happy to see T&C as a starter too. This Utah list is almost perfect IMO. I think having FD, Kalos, and T&C is just too many open stages. I could see Yoshi's Island or Castle Siege helping the balance here.
After trying out different lists I'm starting to feel that Lylat should NOT be a starter for a similar reason FD shouldn't be a starter either: they are both very polarizing stages. I think there has already been a healthy discussion on the reasons FD is an issue, but Lylat not so much. From what I've seen, Lylat is a dream for characters with good juggle game. On battlefield, characters have a top platform to "escape" to, but with Lylat the platforms are very close to the same height - causing characters to be trapped above them if they have no strong anti-juggling moves. Furthermore, because the stage is small, drifting to ledge is dangerous for a lot of characters. I love the stage and don't want it to go anywhere, but I could see there being a strong argument for keeping it as a counterpick in the future.
Damn, I am SO happy to see FD as a counterpick. Happy to see T&C as a starter too. This Utah list is almost perfect IMO. I think having FD, Kalos, and T&C is just too many open stages. I could see Yoshi's Island or Castle Siege helping the balance here.
After trying out different lists I'm starting to feel that Lylat should NOT be a starter for a similar reason FD shouldn't be a starter either: they are both very polarizing stages. I think there has already been a healthy discussion on the reasons FD is an issue, but Lylat not so much. From what I've seen, Lylat is a dream for characters with good juggle game. On battlefield, characters have a top platform to "escape" to, but with Lylat the platforms are very close to the same height - causing characters to be trapped above them if they have no strong anti-juggling moves. Furthermore, because the stage is small, drifting to ledge is dangerous for a lot of characters. I love the stage and don't want it to go anywhere, but I could see there being a strong argument for keeping it as a counterpick in the future.
Lylat isn't small, though. It's terrain is average in size (based on coordinates, not true length). If you're referring to its 230 blast zone, sure that makes it a bit smaller, but that isn't going to kill you for going to ledge much more often than it would on Unova.
Whether or not Lylat is polarizing hasn't been talked about much because it's a pretty subjective topic in relation to Lylat. Unlike FD, which is almost objectively polarizing, Lylat has the least amount of polarizing aspects compared to the other viable stages with unique layouts. I made a very detailed post on this page going over all the intricacies. It's imperative we use a stage with a unique layout as the 5th starter, else we tip the balance of the starters in favor of some group of characters or another.
Some disagree, and I respect that, but using two open/wide stages as starters is definitely not the best option either. In my opinion, open/wide stages are the most polarizing type of layout. It would be better to use two triangles or two biplats than to use two FD-like stages.
Lylat isn't small, though. It's terrain is average in size (based on coordinates, not true length). If you're referring to its 230 blast zone, sure that makes it a bit smaller, but that isn't going to kill you for going to ledge much more often than it would on Unova.
Whether or not Lylat is polarizing hasn't been talked about much because it's a pretty subjective topic in relation to Lylat. Unlike FD, which is almost objectively polarizing, Lylat has the least amount of polarizing aspects compared to the other viable stages with unique layouts. I made a very detailed post on this page going over all the intricacies. It's imperative we use a stage with a unique layout as the 5th starter, else we tip the balance of the starters in favor of some group of characters or another.
Some disagree, and I respect that, but using two open/wide stages as starters is definitely not the best option either. In my opinion, open/wide stages are the most polarizing type of layout. It would be better to use two triangles or two biplats than to use two FD-like stages.
I fully agree here. I went back and read your post, great write-up. My mind certainly isn't made up on this topic, but I do think it's something worth considering. I don't think it is anywhere near as polarizing as FD that's for sure and it is hands-down the best 5th starter we have. I also think it's the weakest. Thinking of the future, if we get good DLC stages (praying to the smash gods) it may be a deciding factor replacing it.
A stage list from a local series in the next region over from where I'm at:
Kind of an interesting way of handling it. It's basically just a standard gentleman's rule, but I guess with a bit more recognition that they realize a majority of the stages listed aren't all that bad. But I don't understand why Kalos is suddenly popular as a starter along with FD.
A stage list from a local series in the next region over from where I'm at:
View attachment 196333
Kind of an interesting way of handling it. It's basically just a standard gentleman's rule, but I guess with a bit more recognition that they realize a majority of the stages listed aren't all that bad. But I don't understand why Kalos is suddenly popular as a starter along with FD.
I would really like for a gentleman’s stage select clause to be mainstream, it seems like a huge “why not?”
As far as Kalos being accepted as a starter, I would imagine that if you just want to assemble a list of the ‘least objectionable’ starters then Kalos would be the final starter by default due to the other candidates on the conservative stage list having slopes, stretchering platforms or being “worse PS2.” Hopefully, though, we will come to see more well-balanced stage lists as time goes on.
