Meta SSBU Stagelist Discussion

[ATH_]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

I lack the words to even comment on this further than this sentence.

This is the worst stagelist I've ever seen. Leffen's 6 stage-list was better just because there was only 3 starters that were balanced.

People hate dying to Incin's sideB at 60% or even before (rip, WarioWare)

Anyway, Atlanta has started using a very interesting stage ruleset:

There was a problem fetching the tweet

FoD is available there.

Meanwhile, this is AMAZING!! H+ T&C is no longer a FD-like stage, while FoD serves a really good midpoint between stages that promote a campy playstyle and stages that promote rushdown + patience. I love this.

 

[NotLiquid]

I guess everyone gave up on Yggdrasil then. Really disappointing.

Setting that aside, the SoCal stage list is downright offensive.

 

[IsmaR]

I think that is destined to be the fate of any DLC stage that isn't immediately obvious as a distinct legal starter (as in, short of getting something like Warioware with reasonable blast zones, or a platform layout that isn't even remotely similar to any of the existing ones), which is what I feared by being so conservative early on.

A lot of it boils down to "if it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality, with a majority not even caring what happens since they'll just be able to go to PS2/BF/FD anyway. Even things that may be factually better (H+/H- rulesets) get gatekept because it's not easy/takes effort to learn things you haven't already been doing for months.

I'm sure the feedback is outstanding amounts of issues that get overblown ("the ledge kills teleport recoveries/gets me pineapple'd, slants mess up my character, Incineroar with rage kills off the top at 30%") or just misinformation that consists of parroting others that don't want any part of potential 'jank' costing them a win.

I don't judge people for having preferences, but when it makes a substantial difference in how a set might go (factoring in stuff like DSR/number of stages vs bans especially) it is inexcusable, particularly when a blatantly large number of the similar stages heavily favors one side than another. Even Nintendo seemingly gets it.

There's no easy solution/one correct perspective to view the matter, but the longer nothing is done about it, the more stagnant/"why change it now?" it becomes.

 

[ATH_]

Various arguments against many stages have been double standards all throughout Smash history.

"Castle Siege is too small because heavies can kill under 30%" for instance. Is this to imply that top tiers who can combo off for 60+% and other characters who can kill at extremely low percents without a small stage (Roy, Olimar, Joker, Hero, etc) should be banned just like the stage? You must realize that the stage being smaller does not just let heavies kill earlier, it makes for a more dynamic neutral and promotes actually approaching your opponent. The point of counterpicks is to grant an advantage, not to be another 50/50.

Then there's the argument that players will never be consistent with switching Hazards between games, but many tournaments have done this with success. Not just that, but think about how backwards that logic is. "Players won't follow our rules so we have to change them" can work in some circumstances, but in a game where we're trying to maximize being rewarded for skillful play? Rules are the foundation of that, not the player's inconsistencies. If people are inconsistent, make rules about it. Let it be known what happens if you break a rule, and which situations can be passed. For example, you could have a rule as follows:

"When a stage is selected, both players must agree on the stage being selected. If the selected stage falls outside of the rules of the tournament, either player may ask for a game-reset within the first 30 seconds. Past 30 seconds, the game is to be played out and counted." or any variation of this. Not that this is a perfect solution by any means, but the point is to have a rule related to how its handled to make sure players have even more incentive to become familiar with your rules.

In my opinion, if you go to a tournament and aren't familiar with the rules beforehand, you're being extremely disrespectful to everyone else there and the TOs. I wish this sort of stigma existed more in the community, rather than being so targeted at TOs for being "weird" or "inconvenient".

Another ridiculous one is that having too many stages makes it harder to remember and harder to ban/counterpick. First off, you should have a print-out or phone-version of the list and basic rules so you can pull it up at any time. Second off, if something is more difficult in terms of skill-required (such as it being more difficult to know what to ban/counterpick to), then that means you have a more skill-testing ruleset. That's a good thing as long as you don't have to run a 100 meter dash before banning a stage.

Slopes hurt your character? Slopes make your character "broken"? Good. That's the point of a counterpick. To give an advantage.

Small and large stages are both great for competitive play. As much variance in the layouts as possible, with balancing mechanisms such as the ban/counterpick system, really add to the competitive experience. Lists like the 2GG list are just disgusting because they lack so much of what makes a stagelist good in the slightest.

Just as bonus to this post, throwing this random stagelist concept I had.

Spoiler: Sick List

The idea here is that every starter is H+ and every counterpick is H-. As many completely unique layouts as possible, with tons of variance in size and playstyle-promotion. I love this, myself. But I admit that I could never see this being ran since there's such a huge amount of player stigma against TOs right now.

 

[Untouch]

Looks as if there's a platform at the bottom of the Spiral Mountain unfortunately.
Wonder how Hazardless will spawn because the platform isn't there on all transformations.

 

[sleepy_Nex]

I hope hazardsless won't have the platform on the bottom it would promote campy play too much. I really really want the community to test the stage as much as possible though instead of just banning it outright like always.

 

[Untouch]

We saw an extremely small part of it, but Terry's stage looks like a walkoff.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

This stage won't be legal. It's got a walk off, and I'd imagine it's spinning effect might mess with players that have some sort of motion sickness. If it doesn't spin with hazards off the platform at the bottom will still get it banned.

We saw an extremely small part of it, but Terry's stage looks like a walkoff.

Yeah. Looks like Colloseum in that it's just flat.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

A reminder that we've only seen the H+ form of Spiral Mountain and don't know what H- will look like. It might be positioned so that there's an under-stage platform and a walkoff bridge, or it might not. Give it...

*checks clock*

About an hour, hour and half? The update will probably be live by then and we can see for ourselves.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

A reminder that we've only seen the H+ form of Spiral Mountain and don't know what H- will look like. It might be positioned so that there's an under-stage platform and a walkoff bridge, or it might not. Give it...

*checks clock*

About an hour, hour and half? The update will probably be live by then and we can see for ourselves.

The starting position for the stage would not be legal and I don't think we've ever seen a stage start in a different position when in hazards off mode. I think it's pretty safe to say that this stage will be intsa-banned in competitive play.

They could decide a different layout would be more fun than the starting layout and add that instead so I may eat my words later but I kinda doubt it. Maybe I've become too cynical...

 

[Untouch]

In one of the forms it goes to, there is no platform there, some of the stages (Pilotwings for example) doesn't start at the starting position in H-.
In the "Cameos" section, the stage never rotates, is this the H- mode? If so it SHOULD be legal, the stage looks like a smaller Kalos. The SINGLE odd thing I can see is that the platforms don't move the same way when going offstage.

(Only saying that this may be the H- version as the platforms move out then come back.)

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

In one of the forms it goes to, there is no platform there, some of the stages (Pilotwings for example) doesn't start at the starting position in H-.

Hm...I'll prepare to eat my words then.



(Well some of them at least.)

 

[Untouch]

Nope, Hazardless spawns in the first area, platforms go away after a while but the stage never rotates.
Not legal unfortunately.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

Nope, Hazardless spawns in the first area, platforms go away after a while but the stage never rotates.
Not legal unfortunately.

Wait what? Where did you see that?

 

[Untouch]

Wait what? Where did you see that?

Nairo is streaming right now.

 

[blackghost]

that atlanta stagelist is nearly perfect imo. begging for years to alternate bewteen hazards on and off and now we go lazy is just sad.

also i tihkn its easy: if you misspick the stage you take a game loss. guarantee people wont make that mistake more than once.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

Nairo is streaming right now.

Oh cool! I didn't think it'd be out for another hour!

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The starting position for the stage would not be legal and I don't think we've ever seen a stage start in a different position when in hazards off mode. I think it's pretty safe to say that this stage will be intsa-banned in competitive play.

They could decide a different layout would be more fun than the starting layout and add that instead so I may eat my words later but I kinda doubt it. Maybe I've become too cynical...

Counterexamples: Arena Ferox (starts flat in H+, locked in one of its 4 transformations in H-) and Garden of Hope (bridge/pot/stick start intact in H+ but are destroyed in H-).

I'm downloading the update right now and managed to miss the last flurry of posts so if it's already been confirmed to have some no-bueno feature than oh well.

 

[Rizen]

Even with hazards off Spiral Mountain has too much jank with the lower platform to be legal. You can combo off the side and overhang and there's 2 grab-able ledges. Characters can probably camp down there and shield to OoS anyone who tries to jump down.

 

[sleepy_Nex]

awww ****. Thats a real shame this damn platform. I hope some future stages will be viable.

 

[SecretAsianMan]

Im still frustrated that people dont legalize Warioware
It is literally Not Fair to Half of the roster when you promote campy stages like FD or Kalos and
not promote non-campy stages at the same time
It is an unhealty balance only to promote "high tier characters"

 

[Kaiser19]

Im still frustrated that people dont legalize Warioware
It is literally Not Fair to Half of the roster when you promote campy stages like FD or Kalos and
not promote non-campy stages at the same time
It is an unhealty balance only to promote "high tier characters"

Tis a shame for the metagame. The whole "heavies kill too early on WW" is a useless argument imo, because everyone will kill earlier on WW. Heck, Shiek probably kills at reasonable percents on WW!

 

[ATH_]

I've been thinking about how people hate slopes, and honestly despite the arguments being mostly irrelevant things that are simple aspects of advantage/disadvantage to your character on said stage.

There's so many suspicious things going on around the stage list debate that all point to the same people and characters. Ban all slopes? You're left with a smaller list that has literally 3-5 campy stages that are similar to FD. Ban all small stages? Once again, left with a bunch of campy stages. Ban anything too big? Once again you're banning things that hurt you, since on larger stages like MKU and Mementos, you can't camp as effectively because your opponent can camp you back. Always go to PS2? Just happens to be the largest stage on the stage list that isn't too big.

No, I don't think Ultimate is riddled with too many campy players who are topping events and what not. However the stage list criteria keeps pointing to the same thing and it's so irritating how major TOs stay silent about it. They'll unveil their new list like it was sent from heaven then never address this problem. They want everything to be campy versus rushdown. You either have good projectiles with low lag and high kill power (snake, ivysaur, wolf, duck hunt, ROB, ylink) or insanely fast buttons with good speed (pichu, mario, inkling, joker, olimar, lucina). The in-between is very little, and anything outside of that spectrum is just absent from top-level play. Heavies (characters with typically high weight, high kill power, large hurt boxes and hit boxes, and slower than average frame data) are absent for this reason. Same with midweight combo characters like Yoshi, Ryu, or Bayo (because characters with good projectiles are way too good at keeping distance from them and rushdown characters are always the ones who can break out of combos too).

This isn't to say these characters are never seen, but they get outclassed by the more meta characters and in my opinion, the main issue is our stage lists. Every single character who top 8s a major can always get a stage they have an advantage on, while every other character can't because of the lack of small stages, slopes, varying layouts, and too large a presence of empty layouts (such as Kalos, FD, T&C).

Please, for the love of Sakurai, TOs need to address these issues. We're the ones unbalancing the game right now.

 

[Zoljinx_]

were stages that allow sharking reevaluated in Ultimate? i know alot of people are against the idea of stages like this, but i feel like some of them would have been candidates for viable counterpick stages.

I'm mostly curious on if these type of stages were properly vetted in Ultimate's engine, or if they were banned on principle given previous installments.

 

[SecretAsianMan]

I remember that some places legalize skyloft, but that's the only stage that comes to mind

 

[ATH_]

were stages that allow sharking reevaluated in Ultimate? i know alot of people are against the idea of stages like this, but i feel like some of them would have been candidates for viable counterpick stages.

I'm mostly curious on if these type of stages were properly vetted in Ultimate's engine, or if they were banned on principle given previous installments.

The main issue with these stages is no longer the semi-soft terrain, though there's a huge stigma against that, it's that all of them share their own host of problems. The main issue aside from unique problems with each stage though, is that semi-soft terrain is difficult for many recoveries to do consistently, and has been known to have a lot of unintuitive properties.

Let's go through them, shall we?

Kongo Jungle's platform layout is far too spread out, making it just worse than lots of other stages. As well, where the two center platforms meet, there's a lot of weird interactions since it's not one platform.

Brinstar is sick, and really fun to play on. However, the layout is really weird and the ledges are really tiny.

Delfino Plaza has issues with the blast zones every time it transforms. As well, a lot of the layouts it lands on have walk-offs and are bad.

Norfair doesn't have enough of a center stage to have anything remotely close to a recognizable neutral. This is very subjective.

Halberd is really good, but it has a janky transformation sequence when the platform lands and takes off again. It can interrupt kills and combos and generally be unpleasant, but this stage has the best shot easily.

Prism Tower is decent, has a walk-off for longer than Halberd and goes back to the walkoff sometimes. The stage changes size, but overall has the least amount of problems.

Mario Circuit can kill you even with hazards off.

Skyloft is great, but it's not centered for some reason. It's 10 to the left iirc. Otherwise this would be the best one tbh.

Wuhu Island is huge, but that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the ledges are so high up that every person I've seen play on the stage dies to undershooting their recovery. Yes, you could just get used to it. Yes, you could just adapt. However having exactly 1 stage like this that's also semi-soft which makes it harder to recover on top of that? There's just no reason for the hassle. Shoutouts to @LegalizeWuhuIsland.

The best ones are definitely Halberd, Brinstar, Prism Tower, and Skyloft. However, I could see Brinstar and Skyloft being problematic.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Skyloft is great, but it's not centered for some reason. It's 10 to the left iirc. Otherwise this would be the best one tbh.

I haven't looked at the raw data in a while but I was under the impression that Skyloft's asymmetry was just the top-center platform being offset, not the entire stage being shifted to the side.

 

[ATH_]

I haven't looked at the raw data in a while but I was under the impression that Skyloft's asymmetry was just the top-center platform being offset, not the entire stage being shifted to the side.

Double checked cause my memory can be spotty at times with things like this. It appears that the entire stage is offset, as well as the left platform being further to the left. If it was just the platform, this wouldn't be a problem imo.

To note, the blast zones are centered with a simple 230/192 box. The stage itself is 10 units to the left.

 

[blackghost]

it will never stop being a giant question marl to me why the movement and platforming aspect of smash, the original platform fighter, was minimized in its competitive scene. also people dont want to learn how to effectively ban or stage strike. if your character cannot perform well on sloped stages then strike it. dont beg and plead for it to be removed from the list.
also we need smaller stages to be in use. everything benefits one type of character rrught now those with high killpower.

but we know how smash stages go the conservative force always wins and the liberal stage lists always lose long term.
at this point, i'd just settle for some legal hazard on stages to be added PS2 every game is no better than smashville every game.
random seleciton out of a list of 7 stages IS a viable option imo other games do it. and yes in those games stage does matter.

 

[Kankato]

As someone who has to deal with the dry Socal stage list (BF FD SV T&C PS and Kalos) I'm curious how you guys would revise this list. I personally wouldn't mind playing on Lylat for the bizarre layout but I don't really know what other regions are running...

 

[ATH_]

As someone who has to deal with the dry Socal stage list (BF FD SV T&C PS and Kalos) I'm curious how you guys would revise this list. I personally wouldn't mind playing on Lylat for the bizarre layout but I don't really know what other regions are running...

Socal is trying to run a really conservative list, but it's so ungodily unbalanced it's practically a joke.

You want a conservative list? Try this.

Hazards On Starters

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Smashville
• Town & City
• Fountain of Dreams

Hazards On Countertpicks

• Pokemon Stadium 1

Or try this! With the same starters above.

Hazards Off Counterpicks

• Kalos Pokemon League
• Pokemon Stadium 1/2
• Castle Siege
• WarioWare
• Unova Pokemon League
• Yggdrassil's Altar

The idea of this list is to have as many stages without slopes, unintrusive changing terrain, and unique layouts as possible. In socal people really don't like slopes, so we minimize it to Siege. Plenty of stages has changing layouts, but nothing other than Altar with changing terrain. Stages are varying sizes to offer support for other characters too.

Or, yknow, you could go with my standard stagelist found here, if you want something with purely Hazards Off that would be accepted by more people, with a detailed explanation of my choices.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

FoD still has the frame drop issue, that's a no go no matter how good its layout is with Hazards on.

 

[ATH_]

FoD still has the frame drop issue, that's a no go no matter how good its layout is with Hazards on.

I've seen this reported and debunked countless times. Can anyone please supply proof that it still exists?

Not trying to accuse you of anything, I just keep seeing people say it's a problem then others say it's not, over and over.

 

[Kankato]

I'm hesitant to legalize a 10 stage list with only 2 bans due to the strength of camping heavy characters on so many stages.

2 bans means a zoner can go to one of T&C, Kalos or Altar as a CP. Ultimate isn't optimized to a point where these stages are "free wins" but in a 2/3 set any unavoidable bad stages are a big problem. 3 bans would be more appropriate for a list that size.

Even for 3/5 I think 3 bans and DSR would be totally fine. 10 stages whittles down to 6 after winning your first game and 5 after winning your second, which I think is more than enough should these stages prove neutral.

Sidenote: This hazards on list reminds me of the melee ruleset. Unfortunately I think PS1 with Hazards on would never sit with the community considering Rock/Fire transformations are already camp heavy in melee. Seeing them in Ult might just stall the game entirely (even though I find them to provide new depth in combos and positioning).

"Hazards On Starters

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Smashville
• Town & City
• Fountain of Dreams"

Edit: Spelling

 

[Nidtendofreak]

I've seen this reported and debunked countless times. Can anyone please supply proof that it still exists?

Not trying to accuse you of anything, I just keep seeing people say it's a problem then others say it's not, over and over.

Its not a consistent issue, which is probably why you're seeing conflicting reports.

Until we see a patch note from Nintendo saying they've fixed it, I think its safest to assume that it hasn't been dealt with given its inconsistent nature. That and let's face it, competitive players will never gamble on something like frame drops only being "maybe" fixed. They'd rather deal with slopes than a frame drop out of nowhere making them drop a combo.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

You know...I wonder what a stagelist would look like if it allowed literally every stage that didn't allow for one character archetype to shut down another (allowing an advantage to an archetype is allowed), or caused something to happen that's boring to watch (like any stage with an easy camp spot). Essentially, If it doesn't constantly break a 1v1 match then it's allowed. (I'm sure heavies would still be at a disadvantage, but I'd like to disregard that for now. This would just be for fun anyway.)

 

[ATH_]

I'm hesitant to legalize a 10 stage list with only 2 bans due to the strength of camping heavy characters on so many stages.

2 bans means a zoner can go to one of T&C, Kalos or Altar as a CP. Ultimate isn't optimized to a point where these stages are "free wins" but in a 2/3 set any unavoidable bad stages are a big problem. 3 bans would be more appropriate for a list that size.

Even for 3/5 I think 3 bans and DSR would be totally fine. 10 stages whittles down to 6 after winning your first game and 5 after winning your second, which I think is more than enough should these stages prove neutral.

Sidenote: This hazards on list reminds me of the melee ruleset. Unfortunately I think PS1 with Hazards on would never sit with the community considering Rock/Fire transformations are already camp heavy in melee. Seeing them in Ult might just stall the game entirely (even though I find them to provide new depth in combos and positioning).

"Hazards On Starters

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Smashville
• Town & City
• Fountain of Dreams"

Edit: Spelling

Oh for sure, I wasn't trying to suggest an entire ruleset. You asked what other stages people consider, so what I presented is a more liberal stage list more or less.

Personally, as I said, my 2-ban 10-stage list is my favorite for competitive play right now. However, knowing socal, I genuinely think the 5 stage H+ list is likely the best option for them as long as FoD is viable enough.

Of course, there's still Lylat, and even with tilting it's much better in this game than it was back in Brawl or pre-patch S4, but people definitely won't like it. Overall you need variance, ESPECIALLY with conservative lists. Socal's current list runs 3 stages that are all FD-like (FD, Kalos, T&C) out of the 7 stages, which is ridiculous. It'd be far better to run a 5-stage list with one of each major layout + a 5th unique stage or go for more stages like my 10-stage list.

Its not a consistent issue, which is probably why you're seeing conflicting reports.

Until we see a patch note from Nintendo saying they've fixed it, I think its safest to assume that it hasn't been dealt with given its inconsistent nature. That and let's face it, competitive players will never gamble on something like frame drops only being "maybe" fixed. They'd rather deal with slopes than a frame drop out of nowhere making them drop a combo.

Nintendo has fixed things without saying anything plenty of times. Not saying that's the case, but again, nobody who talks about this subject offers proof and it's irritating. I agree though, people won't want to deal with frame drops no matter how minimal. Though (oddly enough) the buffer system does actually make frame-drops not eat inputs, but that doesn't mean it's okay lol.

You know...I wonder what a stagelist would look like if it allowed literally every stage that didn't allow for one character archetype to shut down another (allowing an advantage to an archetype is allowed), or caused something to happen that's boring to watch (like any stage with an easy camp spot). Essentially, If it doesn't constantly break a 1v1 match then it's allowed. (I'm sure heavies would still be at a disadvantage, but I'd like to disregard that for now. This would just be for fun anyway.)

You'd basically have something like 20 stages, but people will still argue where to draw the line of breaking a 1v1 match. I remember before the game came out, people were talking about ridiculous 30+ stage lists because it was all in-concept. After they confirmed the hazard-off switch that is.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

You'd basically have something like 20 stages...

PERFECT!

...but people will still argue where to draw the line of breaking a 1v1 match.

True, but to me a conversation about adding overall balance by making sure we don't have too much is much more preferable to people wanting more stages for whatever reason and being shot down because all of their suggestions are "too jank".

Or at the very least game 1 wouldn't always be Pokémon Stadium 2.

 

[ATH_]

PERFECT!

True, but to me a conversation about adding overall balance by making sure we don't have too much is much more preferable to people wanting more stages for whatever reason and being shot down because all of their suggestions are "too jank".

Or at the very least game 1 wouldn't always be Pokémon Stadium 2.

I think the same can be achieved in a way that more people will agree with, that is to say having 10+ stages for a list. You accomplish the same amount of variety, while minimizing that feeling of always giving your opponent too much of an advantage.

For instance, let's say we have a list where there's 2 of each major layout (FD-like, BF-like, SV-like, PS-like) and then a bunch (we'll say 5) of other stages that are unique, but offer similar benefits to the major layouts. How many bans do you give?

If you give 2 bans, then they can ban a major layout, which is good! However, then you can go to one of the unique, somewhat-similar stages and still land on a potentially large advantage (for example: they ban SV layout and you go to Castle Siege, a small stage with a slope in the center that makes it extremely difficult to camp on. if they banned Siege + YI:B, then you'd just go to SV which is your best stage for the character.)

If you give 3 bans, this can work if the list is put together properly, but 9/10 times what you'll end up seeing is that most games are played on one of those 5 unique stages. Is that a bad thing? No, but it's not real variance. It's just different.

What I mean is, if every game 2 and 3 are played on the 5 unique layouts and not on one of the 4 major layouts, then you might as well have a list of those 5 stages and it'd be basically the same thing. Overall, the 4 major layouts are tried and true. They're proven to be balanced and good for the competitive scene. So logically, the 5 unique stages are less balanced by nature, until they become proven balanced. The thing is, the smash community won't wait for that to happen, and will choose the easier route: banning any extra stages so that most games take place on the 4 major layouts instead.

Of course, this is oversimplifying the problem. It's not just about layout, but size, blast zones, and tons of other aspects about a stage (whether a character can full-hop onto the platforms or not, whether there's walls, whether the background helps camouflage the character's projectiles, etc etc). This is why most lists are comprised of the same 9 or 10 stages.

IMO, the only real way to push lists in a different direction is to TO your own tournaments, or hold TOs responsible for unbalanced rulesets (Dabuz vs Nairo recently had a huge upset over the stage list).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

IMO, the only real way to push lists in a different direction is to TO your own tournaments, or hold TOs responsible for unbalanced rulesets (Dabuz vs Nairo recently had a huge upset over the stage list).

Can you elaborate on the Dabuz v. Nairo thing?