Meta SSBU Stagelist Discussion

[Fenrir VII]

There are so many other options that are better than putting Warioware as a starter. For example:

- Make Yoshi's Story stage 5. Two triplats isn't ideal, but it's not the end of the world.

- Replace BF with Yoshi's Story and T&C with Unova. This will never happen, but would result in having 2 big stages, 2 small stages, and an average-size stage. Would also have the side effect of making Little Mac complete garbage (can't fullhop to unova, smashville, or Yoshi's plats) but eh.

- Replace PS2 with PS1 (this should happen anyway, PS1's layout is better) and T&C with Unova. Gives the stagelist more BF-sized stages with Unova.

How are any of these options better than WarioWare? every single one leads to a stage list with 2/5 stages being the same layout. Again, "starter" status means you never have to play on WW if you don't like it, but some chars will. It just brings balance to the starter list, and allows a healthy strike system instead of "well I know I have to strike X and Y, so my opponent gets his choice of the other 3".

Honestly I have yet to see an actual argument against the starter-status or legality of WarioWare. The only thing that comes up is the blast zones, and nobody can tell me why a small stage is even a bad thing. Then among those that think the stage should be legal, nobody can explain why it should not be a starter.

Again, strikes and bans exist for a reason. The ONLY thing we should be considering in determining which stages are starters/CPs (after determining that these stages are legal) is the balance of the striking system. If you have 5 stages and 2 of them are the same layout or benefit the same characters, your list is inherently unbalanced for competitive play. Smash 4 struggled with this for years, and we need to prevent it this time.

 

[MarioManTAW]

How are any of these options better than WarioWare? every single one leads to a stage list with 2/5 stages being the same layout. Again, "starter" status means you never have to play on WW if you don't like it, but some chars will. It just brings balance to the starter list, and allows a healthy strike system instead of "well I know I have to strike X and Y, so my opponent gets his choice of the other 3".

Honestly I have yet to see an actual argument against the starter-status or legality of WarioWare. The only thing that comes up is the blast zones, and nobody can tell me why a small stage is even a bad thing. Then among those that think the stage should be legal, nobody can explain why it should not be a starter.

Again, strikes and bans exist for a reason. The ONLY thing we should be considering in determining which stages are starters/CPs (after determining that these stages are legal) is the balance of the striking system. If you have 5 stages and 2 of them are the same layout or benefit the same characters, your list is inherently unbalanced for competitive play. Smash 4 struggled with this for years, and we need to prevent it this time.

First of all, though you didn't specifically mention this in this post, let me just say that I disagree with your statement that FD and T&C are too similar and benefit the same characters. Unless the switch to Ultimate changed more about T&C than I realized, in Smash 4, it mostly benefited the same characters as tri-plats. I could somewhat understand your claim that Kalos is too similar, but I don't know why you say T&C is. I also don't believe the meta is developed enough to say for sure who benefits from which stages, so I think it's too early to complain about stages being "too similar".

Now, let me share with you my theory for why I believe stages are chosen to be starter, counterpick, or banned. The idea behind competitive Smash is for two players to have a serious and fair match, one where each player has equal opportunity to win but the better player is expected to win more often than not. I would also suggest that the player matchup should be more important than the character matchup. The better player should win, more so than the better character.

Banned stages usually break several of these criteria. Some of them have walk-offs or other areas that promote excessive camping, taking away from the "seriousness" of the match. In these cases, the players may not actually be having a battle of mindgames and tech skill, but rather a battle of "is my character fast enough to deal with his shenanigans." If the stage choice legitimately causes you to lose (not just johns), there may be reason to ban the stage.

Starter stages are the opposite of this: they offer no clear advantage to either party and in general, no one should feel like they lost because of the stage choice. Starter stages should also allow either party equal opportunity to win, regardless of characters. There may eventually be a slight bias toward certain characters, but this is natural and should not significantly affect gameplay. Characters cannot be perfectly balanced and the stages should not be blamed for this. Overall, the stage choice, assuming starter stages, should not significantly affect the player matchup or, to a lesser extent, the character matchup.

Counterpicks, meanwhile, may be between these categories. Starters offer no advantage to one specific player, and banned stages may offer significant advantage to one player. Counterpick stages, as an in-between, often offer a slight advantage to one player. Sometimes, this may be character-dependent, but on certain asymmetrical stages, this can also be spawn position dependent. Even if it may not be clear who has the advantage, on a stage like Castle Siege or Frigate Orpheon, the players' spawn points are not symmetrical and may lead to an advantage to one side over the other, even if only slight. Other counterpick stages may favor particular characters that may be able to abuse the stage more than others. I feel a good example of this would be sharking. Sharking is something only a few characters can do effectively, and thus stages that allow it may become counterpicks. These stages might otherwise be neutral but ultimately become counterpicks because one aspect of the stage (sharking) is easier to abuse for a certain group of characters (and maybe completely impossible for others).

With this in mind, let's discuss WarioWare. As just about everyone in here has said, the main problem with the stage is that the side blastzones are incredibly close. I don't know if you know exactly how much closer these blastzones are, but I'll share a practical comparison. When trying to figure out these blastzones for myself (both before I found Muno's work and so I could see practical data), I tested each stage's side blastzones based on Incineroar's back throw (strongest in the game) kill %s vs Jigglypuff (one of the lightest characters in the game - I didn't know Pichu was lighter at the time) at ledge. This extreme test case was to hopefully notice even the smallest changes in blastzone size. Anyway, regarding the actual data, most legal (starter) stages I got a kill % somewhere between 70% and 80%. Battlefield and FD were both 74%, and the biggest outliers among commonly accepted stages were Dream Land on the upper end (85%) and Yoshi's Island on the lower end (63%). That is, except for WarioWare. On WarioWare, it killed at 33%. That's a difference of over 40%, in fact, Jigglypuff died at less than half the percentage for FD! But okay, I get it, that's an extreme example. Let's try something a bit more tame. How about Mario's back throw on Bowser? On FD, that killed at 137%. On WarioWare, 92%. Again, a difference of over 40%. I am all for having WarioWare legal, but I don't think killing 40% earlier off the sides is a good quality for a starter to have. While WarioWare is a symmetrical stage and thus may not directly give advantage to one player, it can provide a significant character advantage to any character who prefers to kill off the sides. Another potential issue with WarioWare is that the base platform is a bit smaller than other legal stages. IIRC this benefits the slow, heavy characters who now no longer have to chase the fast characters as far. And who benefits the most from close blastzones? Oh yeah, the characters that already kill early: the slow, heavy characters. One final point regarding "you can just strike it": this may not be the best counter-point, but that requires enough knowledge about the game to know that the stage has close blastzones, which is not intuitive. Most legal stages, you can look at the picture and get a fair idea what the stage might be like. That's a bit harder to do with WarioWare, so someone playing competitively for the first time may get faced with this, die early off the side, and not know what went wrong.

Overall, yes, the biggest problem with having WarioWare as a starter is the close blastzones, but yes, that is a big deal and I hope I was able to clearly explain why.

 

[Fenrir VII]

First of all, though you didn't specifically mention this in this post, let me just say that I disagree with your statement that FD and T&C are too similar and benefit the same characters. Unless the switch to Ultimate changed more about T&C than I realized, in Smash 4, it mostly benefited the same characters as tri-plats. I could somewhat understand your claim that Kalos is too similar, but I don't know why you say T&C is. I also don't believe the meta is developed enough to say for sure who benefits from which stages, so I think it's too early to complain about stages being "too similar".

Now, let me share with you my theory for why I believe stages are chosen to be starter, counterpick, or banned. The idea behind competitive Smash is for two players to have a serious and fair match, one where each player has equal opportunity to win but the better player is expected to win more often than not. I would also suggest that the player matchup should be more important than the character matchup. The better player should win, more so than the better character.

Banned stages usually break several of these criteria. Some of them have walk-offs or other areas that promote excessive camping, taking away from the "seriousness" of the match. In these cases, the players may not actually be having a battle of mindgames and tech skill, but rather a battle of "is my character fast enough to deal with his shenanigans." If the stage choice legitimately causes you to lose (not just johns), there may be reason to ban the stage.

Starter stages are the opposite of this: they offer no clear advantage to either party and in general, no one should feel like they lost because of the stage choice. Starter stages should also allow either party equal opportunity to win, regardless of characters. There may eventually be a slight bias toward certain characters, but this is natural and should not significantly affect gameplay. Characters cannot be perfectly balanced and the stages should not be blamed for this. Overall, the stage choice, assuming starter stages, should not significantly affect the player matchup or, to a lesser extent, the character matchup.

Counterpicks, meanwhile, may be between these categories. Starters offer no advantage to one specific player, and banned stages may offer significant advantage to one player. Counterpick stages, as an in-between, often offer a slight advantage to one player. Sometimes, this may be character-dependent, but on certain asymmetrical stages, this can also be spawn position dependent. Even if it may not be clear who has the advantage, on a stage like Castle Siege or Frigate Orpheon, the players' spawn points are not symmetrical and may lead to an advantage to one side over the other, even if only slight. Other counterpick stages may favor particular characters that may be able to abuse the stage more than others. I feel a good example of this would be sharking. Sharking is something only a few characters can do effectively, and thus stages that allow it may become counterpicks. These stages might otherwise be neutral but ultimately become counterpicks because one aspect of the stage (sharking) is easier to abuse for a certain group of characters (and maybe completely impossible for others).

With this in mind, let's discuss WarioWare. As just about everyone in here has said, the main problem with the stage is that the side blastzones are incredibly close. I don't know if you know exactly how much closer these blastzones are, but I'll share a practical comparison. When trying to figure out these blastzones for myself (both before I found Muno's work and so I could see practical data), I tested each stage's side blastzones based on Incineroar's back throw (strongest in the game) kill %s vs Jigglypuff (one of the lightest characters in the game - I didn't know Pichu was lighter at the time) at ledge. This extreme test case was to hopefully notice even the smallest changes in blastzone size. Anyway, regarding the actual data, most legal (starter) stages I got a kill % somewhere between 70% and 80%. Battlefield and FD were both 74%, and the biggest outliers among commonly accepted stages were Dream Land on the upper end (85%) and Yoshi's Island on the lower end (63%). That is, except for WarioWare. On WarioWare, it killed at 33%. That's a difference of over 40%, in fact, Jigglypuff died at less than half the percentage for FD! But okay, I get it, that's an extreme example. Let's try something a bit more tame. How about Mario's back throw on Bowser? On FD, that killed at 137%. On WarioWare, 92%. Again, a difference of over 40%. I am all for having WarioWare legal, but I don't think killing 40% earlier off the sides is a good quality for a starter to have. While WarioWare is a symmetrical stage and thus may not directly give advantage to one player, it can provide a significant character advantage to any character who prefers to kill off the sides. Another potential issue with WarioWare is that the base platform is a bit smaller than other legal stages. IIRC this benefits the slow, heavy characters who now no longer have to chase the fast characters as far. And who benefits the most from close blastzones? Oh yeah, the characters that already kill early: the slow, heavy characters. One final point regarding "you can just strike it": this may not be the best counter-point, but that requires enough knowledge about the game to know that the stage has close blastzones, which is not intuitive. Most legal stages, you can look at the picture and get a fair idea what the stage might be like. That's a bit harder to do with WarioWare, so someone playing competitively for the first time may get faced with this, die early off the side, and not know what went wrong.

Overall, yes, the biggest problem with having WarioWare as a starter is the close blastzones, but yes, that is a big deal and I hope I was able to clearly explain why.

First of all, we have years of experience telling us which stage formats benefit which characters.. probably the most useful info is from Smash 4 because of just how much transfers between 4 and Ult.. Obviously Ultimate is a new game, but the meta is not significantly different from prior games to negate statements like "Sonic can play keepaway on large stages" and such. We don't need to trash the obvious knowledge we have on the ways a Smash game plays out.

2nd, regarding your T&C speculation... Hazardless T&C has 3 forms. the 1st layout, which is essentially a reverse triplat (center platform is lower than the outers); the transition layout, which is literally FD; and the 2nd layout, which is a 2plat, but the platforms are offstage horizontally. So >60% of the time on that stage, it is either FD or FD with offstage platforms (which still has the same traits/benefits/issues as FD). The triplat form is a break from that, sure, but also benefits characters with good movement / runaway options similar to how FD does. Also in this case we have to trash the Smash 4 knowledge because T&C was primarily picked as the "low ceiling option", which has been changed in ultimate.

3rd, onto WarioWare... I think a base assumption that a tournament player understands what the starter stages are good/bad for is acceptable. If you lose a match on a legal stage because of lack of understanding in the stage to strike it... you deserve to lose honestly. That's not the stage's fault.
Every argument that "but this example killed at __%!!!" from the stage is... not really a bad thing for a starter, though. We have years of examples of low% kills on Yoshi's in Melee and Smashville platform in Brawl and S4. It leads to stronger horizontal kills than FD, but that's known and consistent, and in general many characters benefit with something from that (most chars have something horizontal that gets buffed here)
So again, I think it's reasonable to assume that tournament players should understand the stages. So if somebody actually strikes to that stage, they should have a reason for doing so.. The stage is not going to be a surprise. And everything you mentioned about it benefiting heavies, etc.. in theory, those characters are literally hurt by any starter list that includes PS2, FD, and Kalos/T&C... which has been my point exactly. They currently would not be able to strike to a "neutral" stage because the majority of the 5-starter list hurts them in certain matchups. WarioWare or even Yoshi's Story being the 5th starter would prevent that, and allow every char to strike to a neutral stage (with the caveat that YS would be a 2nd triplat, which may do something bad to other chars).

 

[Freecs]

Why is Smashville with hazards off never mentioned? It’s a different stage entirely from Smashville with hazards on, and no other stage has its layout.

 

[Munomario777]

Why is Smashville with hazards off never mentioned? It’s a different stage entirely from Smashville with hazards on, and no other stage has its layout.

it is mentioned; lots of rulesets proposed are entirely hazards off (because of the demonstrated issues with hazards mixed)

 

[BigMac1304]

What makes a stage unqualified or qualified to be legal?

 

[Munomario777]

What makes a stage unqualified or qualified to be legal?

if it's good, it's legal
if it's bad, it's not

a ton of different things can make a stage good / bad

 

[YOJOEHOJO]

flat stages as in omega flat zone etc – the character models are flattened so that when you turn the camera, they’re not 3D

this affects how hitboxes work and etc

Oh okay, that's honestly a shame. Turning stage hazards off should honestly turn that gimmick off for that stage. Thank you for the answer though, I appreciate it.

 

[[Deuce]]

== P[X+1]P1 == [X+2]-2-1

Yeah, see I'm not sure on the equivalency here.
So for example, P5P1, winner choses the stage out of 5 which gives the winner quite a bit of power.

In 6-2-1 the loser has a lot more power here.

 

[Munomario777]

indeed, but akiak means in terms of striking power for each player

say the stage list is 10 stages

2 bans (traditional)
- W bans 2 (bans 2)
- L picks 1 (bans 7)

p3p1
- L nominates 3 (bans 7)
- W picks 1 (bans 2)

4-2-1
- L nominates 4 (bans 6)
- W picks 2 (bans 2)
- L picks 1 (bans 1)

in all cases, the total number of bans is 7 for L and 2 for W



the order of those bans changes the overall power of each player, so it might be worthwhile to consider, for example, using 5-2-1 instead of 4-2-1 (offset L's new "final say" privilege by removing 1 of his stage bans) if 4-2-1 gives L too much power

5-2-1
- L nominates 5 (bans 5)
- W picks 2 (bans 3)
- L picks 1 (bans 1)

L total: 6 (from 7)
W total: 3 (from 2)

ultimately there are a number of factors when determining what X to use for pXp1 / X-2-1 / etc

 

[Akiak]

Yeah, see I'm not sure on the equivalency here.
So for example, P5P1, winner choses the stage out of 5 which gives the winner quite a bit of power.

In 6-2-1 the loser has a lot more power here.

In X-2-1, the name might be slightly misleading:

X-2-1: L nominates [X] stages, W bans [X-2], L selects one of remaining two.

So for 6-2-1, W is still banning 4 stages (6-2), which is the same amount as in P5P1.

Edit: also what Muno said. X-2-1 does give slightly more power to the loser, as there's a somewhat higher chance of wasting bans. Similarly, X-bans gives the loser the most power, since the probability of wasting bans is highest.

However, I'm not sure if the differences in power between say, P3P1 and 4-2-1 are comparable to P3P1 and P2P1.

 

[[Deuce]]

Interesting. I did not know that the 2 in X-2-1 meant winner picks two. Thank you guys for clarifying.

ultimately there are a number of factors when determining what X to use for pXp1 / X-2-1 / etc

Yes, this is why I didnt deem the two functionally equivalent as ParanoidDrone had mentioned. Sure the ban/strike count can be similar but the advantage given in regards to the order of banning is very subjective imo. For example during game 1 selection, people default to 1-2-1 striking so that the final strike is offset by the initial. How could one really quantify that?

In the end, while the result in the isolated scenario could be similar with P3P1 vs 4-2-1, I think it is quite a stretch to coin it functionally equivalent when there are many levers and factors at play.

 

[Pacack]

Can someone explain how PXP1 functionally works? I'm very intrigued by the idea of not having starters and counterpicks with so many potential legal stages.

 

[Munomario777]

Can someone explain how PXP1 functionally works? I'm very intrigued by the idea of not having starters and counterpicks with so many potential legal stages.

The procedure is
- last match's loser nominates the top X stages he'd like to play on
- last match's winner picks 1 of those X stages he likes best
- play the match on that stage

e.g.
- L: "I nominate BF, FD, and TC"
- W: "I pick FD"
- play the match on FD

If you're interested in how it works behind the scenes, I have a post about that here (Akiak's post directly above it is also rad)

 

[Akiak]

Can someone explain how PXP1 functionally works? I'm very intrigued by the idea of not having starters and counterpicks with so many potential legal stages.

It doesn't remove starter-counterpick, it's just a different method of selecting the stage for games 2+. You still have only starters for game 1 and starters+counterpicks for games 2+

 

[Munomario777]

yeah, pXp1 is strictly for game 2+ – so it doesn't affect the need for starters at all

 

[Krysco]

Buddy just left a few minutes ago and him and I had played since midnight. Ended up with 90 replays in total and the only stages I picked the whole night were Green Greens, Frigate Orpheon, Halberd, Norfair, Reset Bomb Forest, Wuhu Island, Skyloft, Brinstar, Warioware, Lylat Cruise, Prism Tower, Rainbow Cruise, Castle Siege, Kalos Pokemon League, Mushroom Kingdom U and Dracula's Castle. I'll see about looking through all the replays and upload the ones of interest once I wake up and then I'll post links in a spoiler for potential discussion~

For a quick rundown while the stages are still fresh in my mind:

Green Greens allows for easy camping, even with the ability to run off any platform and grab a ledge. Makes actually approaching with an attack of some sort difficult.

Frigate's right platform makes for a very powerful defensive spot. When it's down, there's a wall for combos (I'll get into more detail on these when I talk about Dracula's Castle) and walling the opponent out with short hop aerials is easy and effective. When it's up, you can sit at the edge, making it uncomfortable for a lot of characters to approach. When it's level, it's fine but that's only a third of the time.

All of the semi solid stages (Halberd, Skyloft, Brinstar, Wuhu, Prism) do as I expected, make it needlessly difficult for some recoveries like Ganon and Ike while making ones like Pikachu's better. Halberd and Prism have ground that leave, requiring a jump to not get KO'd and Prism also has some poor platform layouts and a walkoff.

Reset Bomb Forest is really easy to camp on with mobile characters. I even have a replay where I was able to effectively camp with Ike around the pit.

Warioware seems fine but if a combo is ever found that allows 0 to death, I can see it being banned. Those borders are pretty crazy.

Lylat didn't cause us any issues.

Rainbow Cruise just has a bad left border and a wall that also forces a jump.

Castle Siege was mostly fine. There was maybe one match at most where the foreground greatly got in our way. The bigger issue might be the slant with how it interacts with hitboxes.

Kalos is basically FD but with some platforms at the edges. Adds options for getting off the ledge and some characters could have trouble with attacking people that camp the far edges of the platforms but it was mostly fine.

MKU seems too big for singles but could be good for doubles.

Dracula's Castle...oh boy. So there's walls that both force jumps to approach and the walls themselves allow for infinites or just really long combos. On Frigate, my buddy was able to pin my DK to the wall with constant dtilts with his Marth and on Dracula's Castle, I was able to pin his G&W to a wall for a long time with constant dtilts from my DK. The stairs also make approaching incredibly awkward since not many attacks have hitboxes that arc that low. Also grabs don't seem to work properly on them. Like, you get forced to grab release pretty soon, regardless of percent or mashing.

Oh and Norfair...**** that stage man. You can camp by just going from platform to platform, edgeguarding basically doesn't exist since there's 3 ledges on either side to grab and it's super easy to maintain center stage and just utilt or aerial anyone that comes near you. Worst stage we tried.

Overall, we tried to make a stage list with 9 and came up with Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Yoshi's Island Brawl, Pokemon Stadium 1 or 2 or Unova, whichever, Town & City or Kalos but not both, Warioware, Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege. Anyway, y'all can expect the replays to be posted before Christmas.

 

[Pacack]

The procedure is
- last match's loser nominates the top X stages he'd like to play on
- last match's winner picks 1 of those X stages he likes best
- play the match on that stage

e.g.
- L: "I nominate BF, FD, and TC"
- W: "I pick FD"
- play the match on FD

If you're interested in how it works behind the scenes, I have a post about that here (Akiak's post directly above it is also rad)

It doesn't remove starter-counterpick, it's just a different method of selecting the stage for games 2+. You still have only starters for game 1 and starters+counterpicks for games 2+

Thank you both for explaining; I think I prefer that.

I'm about to propose something heretical.

Since the starter list being balanced is important for the PXP1, and since the list of stages tends to benefit characters that do well on FD, I'm proposing a list with FD as a counterpick rather than a starter.

Starters:
Battlefield (and forms)
Yoshi's Story
*Pokemon Stadiums (PS1, PS2, Unova Pokemon League)
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Town and City

*If struck to, each player bans one of the variations, with the one left as the pick.

Counterpicks:
Final Destination (and forms) and Pictochat, grouped.
Kalos Pokemon League (Not banned with Pokemon Stadium since it plays more like FD)
Warioware
Smashville
Castle Siege
Lylat
Skyloft
Halberd
Prism Tower

I'm unsure how many X in PXP1 is practical for a stagelist of 9 counterpicks and 5 starters.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Pacack Final Destination as a counter-pick isn't really that controversial, the issue is finding something to replace it with as a starter. Your list has both Battlefield and Yoshi's Story as starter, which means that characters that benefit from triplats greatly benefit. Furthermore, you have Town & City as a starter, which is a borderline stage that might end up banned eventually due to platform camping.

Prism Tower, Halberd, and Skyloft seem highly unlikely at this point, there's too much evidence that semisoft platforms are bad for the game (I've tested it myself and believe that they are, and many other people have tested them too). So then you're down to 5 starters and 6 counter-picks, which is much more reasonable anyway.

 

[Pacack]

Pacack Final Destination as a counter-pick isn't really that controversial, the issue is finding something to replace it with as a starter. Your list has both Battlefield and Yoshi's Story as starter, which means that characters that benefit from triplats greatly benefit. Furthermore, you have Town & City as a starter, which is a borderline stage that might end up banned eventually due to platform camping.

While characters that benefit from triplats benefit, mind that both players can ban two stages, which means any character that benefits too much would simply end up on Pokemon Stadium, Yoshi's Island, or Town and City, depending on what that player wants to ban. None of those stages benefit the characters in question so much as to make the stagelist unbalanced.

Town and City's supposed platform camping is only a problem if a player isn't smart about their ban. It's up to the player to determine if there's a chance of camping from the opponent, and to ban if there is. If it's banned, then none of the other stages allow for a keepaway style of play, so it's basically just a necessary stage ban (ala FD against Marth in Melee).

Prism Tower, Halberd, and Skyloft seem highly unlikely at this point, there's too much evidence that semisoft platforms are bad for the game (I've tested it myself and believe that they are, and many other people have tested them too). So then you're down to 5 starters and 6 counter-picks, which is much more reasonable anyway.

I'm not of the opinion that semisoft platforms are inherently worthy of a ban, if only because I would argue for 4 or 5 stages in PXP1. If the loser of the last game chooses all three of those stages along with one or two other stages, the winner of the last game simply chooses the remaining one or two stages if their recovery disadvantage is more of an issue than the other stages are a benefit to the other character.

 

[Frihetsanka]

While characters that benefit from triplats benefit, mind that both players can ban two stages, which means any character that benefits too much would simply end up on Pokemon Stadium, Yoshi's Island, or Town and City, depending on what that player wants to ban. None of those stages benefit the characters in question so much as to make the stagelist unbalanced.

Town and City's supposed platform camping is only a problem if a player isn't smart about their ban. It's up to the player to determine if there's a chance of camping from the opponent, and to ban if there is. If it's banned, then none of the other stages allow for a keepaway style of play, so it's basically just a necessary stage ban (ala FD against Marth in Melee).

Having to spend 2 bans on triplats game 1 is pretty bad, and that's the main reason why we didn't end up banning Lylat in Smash 4. Also, what if someone is really bad on triplats and Town & City? In that case, they either have to go to a triplat or Town & City game 1.

'm not of the opinion that semisoft platforms are inherently worthy of a ban, if only because I would argue for 4 or 5 stages in PXP1.

If a stage is bad enough that it's ban-worthy a large % of the time, then keeping it in the list means forcing bans. I think, at this point in time, we've tested semisoft stages enough to conclude that, yes, they should be banned.

 

[ShneeOscar]

How about Kalos as a Starter instead of FD?

 

[dav3yb]

Prism Tower, Halberd, and Skyloft seem highly unlikely at this point, there's too much evidence that semisoft platforms are bad for the game

Is there though? The only actual thing I've read against them as experienced is that certain recoveries are a bit more difficult. How they are, I'm still not sure, but things are still being claimed without actually presenting. I'm sure someone will still say something about "sharking" but that also has no real evidence presented as far as I've seen.

 

[Pacack]

Having to spend 2 bans on triplats game 1 is pretty bad, and that's the main reason why we didn't end up banning Lylat in Smash 4. Also, what if someone is really bad on triplats and Town & City? In that case, they either have to go to a triplat or Town & City game 1.

The characters that tend to benefit most from triplats tend not to also benefit from Town and City, since the ceiling is not higher than usual in this game. In this game, T&C is more akin to Kalos than triplats. However, I would understand swapping Town and City for Kalos. My main reason for having Town and City was because of its similarity to FD in playstyle, and Kalos fulfills that function too.

However, if we remove one of the triplats, we end up with the predicament of having three stages that benefit characters that prefer large spaces (Town and City, Pokemon Stadium, and Kalos, for example.) The alternative is Warioware, which is more polarizing than a triplat since it significantly benefits characters that can kill off the side; Lylat, which still has issues with its ledge for some characters; or Castle Siege, which is uneven, giving the character on the right an advantage.

Of these three, I'd argue that the most reasonable choice would be Castle Siege if we're ruling out having Yoshi's Story as a starter. That would leave us with this:

Battlefield (and forms)
*Pokemon Stadiums (PS1, PS2, Unova Pokemon League)
Castle Siege
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Kalos Pokemon League (alternatively, T&C)

If a stage is bad enough that it's ban-worthy a large % of the time, then keeping it in the list means forcing bans. I think, at this point in time, we've tested semisoft stages enough to conclude that, yes, they should be banned.

This has certainly not been tested long enough to be made illegal immediately. We need to give every potentially viable stage a test period before we ban it, ala Melee, since stages are practically never unbanned once a ban is decided.

Mind, the PXP1 method of counterpicking means forced bans aren't actually as oppressive as they would be in a typical counterpick situation.

 

[dav3yb]

I feel like trying to discus how favorable a stage to any given character is a complete waste of time. If you start trying to use that as some criteria this game will end up with fewer legal stages than smash 64. Characters are going to benefit or suffer from nearly any stage depending on the matchups. The player should be expected to adapt to the game, not the other way around.

 

[Pacack]

I feel like trying to discus how favorable a stage to any given character is a complete waste of time. If you start trying to use that as some criteria this game will end up with fewer legal stages than smash 64. Characters are going to benefit or suffer from nearly any stage depending on the matchups. The player should be expected to adapt to the game, not the other way around.

I agree in the sense that I don't think a characters' performance on a stage itself should be the deciding factor in whether or not a stage is a starter.

However, if characters derive the same benefit from the majority of stages in a list of starters, the cause is often that those stages aren't different enough.

If one of our goals is to have a varied list of starters (and I think it ought to be), then a stage like Final Destination shouldn't be a starter alongside Kalos Pokemon League and Town and City.

Spoiler

Alternatively, we could increase the number of starters so these stages aren't the majority. If we did, we could end up with something like:

Spoiler: 7 Stages

Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium
Castle Siege
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Kalos Pokemon League
Town and City
Final Destination

Spoiler: 9 Stages

Battlefield
Yoshi's Story
Pokemon Stadium
Castle Siege
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Smashville
Kalos Pokemon League
Town and City
Lylat

Spoiler: 11 Stages

Battlefield
Yoshi's Story
Pokemon Stadium
Castle Siege
Yoshi's Island Brawl
Smashville
Kalos Pokemon League
Town and City
Final Destination
Lylat
Warioware

But I think TOs would kill us if we did that many starters, since striking would take an impractical amount of time.

 

[Guber]

I don't know what terrifying goblin lingo you guys have come up with, but I thought I might add a concept for a stagelist of my own.

My idea was that each of the 5 starters should be agreed upon and solid, because they determine the first match and are the only instance when we ban stages. Each one should also be unique so as to give more variety. Counterpicks can be whatever we find to be balanced, I just thought that using stranger stage variations of the 5 used in the starters would be a good balance, plus adding something for a wild card.

The list on Bans.Page

Starters:
Noplat - Final Destination
Monoplat - Smashville
Diplat (twoplat or dualplat) - Pokemon Stadium 2 (Hazards Off)
Sideplat (Platforms on sides) - Kalos Pokemon League (Hazards Off)
Triplat - Battlefield

Counterpicks:
Noplat - Wily's Castle (Hazards Off) [I'm less sure about this one, but of the potential stages, this seemed like the only noplat we could use]
Monoplat - Yoshi's Island Brawl [Hazards On, because I think if it's a counterpick then the rotation of the middle platform is fine.]
Diplat - Unova Pokemon League (Hazards Off) [This one has the same problems as Wily's Castle, it just has walls instead of a rounded bottom.]
Sideplat - WarioWare (Hazards Off) [4 side plats instead of 2, small stage, horizontal blast lines are small]
Triplat - Town and City [This could either be replaced by Yoshi's Story due to the Shyguys and slants, or FoD if frame drop is no longer an issue]
Wild Card - Halberd (Hazards Off) [Removing hazards prevents the issue of the cannons like back in 4, and the walk-offs are only around for 5 seconds out of the entire 7-minute match. It's probably the least janky transforming stage. Sharking may be an issue?]




I'm sure we can do more with the counterpicks, but each starter only having 1 alternative as opposed to some having multiple seems fair. That's partly why I didn't put Lylat Cruise, the other reason being that it could take the place of counterpick's triplat.

This is just what I came up with as a way to manage things, I feel like we shouldn't limit ourselves with over 100 stages though. I'm sure you guys could find a better middle ground for things but this could be a good idea for what we would want.

 

[VGFan95]

< Deleted>

 

[Pacack]

I don't know what terrifying goblin lingo you guys have come up with, but I thought I might add a concept for a stagelist of my own.

My idea was that each of the 5 starters should be agreed upon and solid, because they determine the first match and are the only instance when we ban stages. Each one should also be unique so as to give more variety. Counterpicks can be whatever we find to be balanced, I just thought that using stranger stage variations of the 5 used in the starters would be a good balance, plus adding something for a wild card.

The list on Bans.Page

Starters:
Noplat - Final Destination
Monoplat - Smashville
Diplat (twoplat or dualplat) - Pokemon Stadium 2 (Hazards Off)
Sideplat (Platforms on sides) - Kalos Pokemon League (Hazards Off)
Triplat - Battlefield

Counterpicks:
Noplat - Wily's Castle (Hazards Off) [I'm less sure about this one, but of the potential stages, this seemed like the only noplat we could use]
Monoplat - Yoshi's Island Brawl [Hazards On, because I think if it's a counterpick then the rotation of the middle platform is fine.]
Diplat - Unova Pokemon League (Hazards Off) [This one has the same problems as Wily's Castle, it just has walls instead of a rounded bottom.]
Sideplat - WarioWare (Hazards Off) [4 side plats instead of 2, small stage, horizontal blast lines are small]
Triplat - Town and City [This could either be replaced by Yoshi's Story due to the Shyguys and slants, or FoD if frame drop is no longer an issue]
Wild Card - Halberd (Hazards Off) [Removing hazards prevents the issue of the cannons like back in 4, and the walk-offs are only around for 5 seconds out of the entire 7-minute match. It's probably the least janky transforming stage. Sharking may be an issue?]


I'm sure we can do more with the counterpicks, but each starter only having 1 alternative as opposed to some having multiple seems fair. That's partly why I didn't put Lylat Cruise, the other reason being that it could take the place of counterpick's triplat.

This is just what I came up with as a way to manage things, I feel like we shouldn't limit ourselves with over 100 stages though. I'm sure you guys could find a better middle ground for things but this could be a good idea for what we would want.

Mixed hazards has proven to be a problem in tournaments already, unfortunately. That's why we're still arguing over starters. I think it would be relatively easy to make a list of starters if Hazards off Smashville wasn't a more polarizing version of Yoshi's Island Brawl hazardless.

Other comments:

• I think this list is unnecessarily limited in stage selection. Namely, I don't see why we shouldn't have Castle Siege, Lylat, Yoshi's Story (hazardless), Pictochat (hazardless), Prism Tower, or Skyloft. (For counterpicks, that is.)
• I'd argue that Final Destination should be a counterpick, personally.
• I think Pokemon Stadium 1 is a bit better than 2 as a starter since its blastzones are more in line with the average.
• Wily's Castle seems better for doubles than for singles due to its excessively high vertical blastzones and large size. I'd recommend hazardless Pictochat as an alternative.

Click here for a post that details how each stage is affected by turning Stage Hazards Off.

Click here for the stage list I am recommending for competitive.
The stage list post might still be waiting for moderator approval. Here's the list:

Spoiler: Stages

Please see the imgur gallery for screenshots.

Standard Three Platform Layout

Great Plateau - Battlefield Form

Kongo Falls - Battlefield Form

New Donk City Hall - Battlefield Form

*Fountain of Dreams - Default Form

Two Platform Layout

Pokémon Stadium - Hazards Off

Pokémon Stadium 2 - Hazards Off

Unova Pokémon League - Hazards Off

*Castle Siege - Hazards Off

One Platform Layout

Smashville - Hazards Off

Yoshi’s Island - Hazards Off

WuHu Island - Hazards Off

*Halberd - Hazards Off

Zero Platform Layout

Boxing Ring - Omega Form

Palutena’s Temple - Omega Form

Suzaku Castle - Omega Form

*Wily Castle - Hazards Off

Unique Layout

Town and City - Default Form

--------------------------------------

Selection Process
The first stage in a set could be agreed upon by both players or struck to.
The remaining games of the set could follow standard counter-picking procedure.
In this case, a ban could be a ban on a layout, rather than a particular stage.
*Similarly, players would not be able to choose the same style layout as previously won on.

Conclusion
This is a short, structured, easy to follow list that offers a great variety of visuals and music while retaining competitive layouts.

---------------------------------------
* Up to TO discretion.
--------------------------------------

It's worth noting that Fountain of Dreams has framedrops for some reason, so it's effectively banned at the moment.

 

[Munomario777]

I think Pokemon Stadium 1 is a bit better than 2 as a starter since its blastzones are more in line with the average.

They actually have the same blast zones IIRC

E: Unrelatedly, I made a post in the ruleset discussion thread just now. It outlines a change in procedure which, if it were to be used, could change the fate of many contested stages.

 

[Pacack]

They actually have the same blast zones IIRC

Oops, you're right, sorry. I meant stage size, not blastzones. PS2 has a slightly bigger main platform than PS1.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Oops, you're right, sorry. I meant stage size, not blastzones. PS2 has a slightly bigger main platform than PS1.

This would actually lead me to support PS1 over PS2 in the stage list, assuming the sides are not too wonky...

Also I agree with what you're trying to do with the list, but I don't see any reality where a starter list without Smashville is accepted at large.

The way I see it, there's a core, almost perfect 3-stage starter list that is the most fair, although I agree with trying to get a larger list for variety.

3-stage list:

• BF or other Triplat
• Smashville
• PS1 or PS2

Any larger lists need to expand on this list imo, and not take from it.

For the 5 stage list, I think you could in theory add any 2 CP stages that lead to a balanced list. Again, I think the balance of the LIST is more important than "but this stage helps/hurts these things!" because as long as there's not 2 stages that help the same types significantly, the striking system will keep it balanced.

So on the chopping block would be (imo):

• FD or T&C or Kalos, but not more than one of them. I think it's a pretty short putt to have 1 of these.
• Another triplat. This completely depends on how balanced the triplat design is... we could even replace BF with Midgar and add Yoshi's to keep it as different as possible.
• Yoshi's Brawl. I'm not convinced this stage is all that one-sided or benefits the same chars as Smashville, so I think it has potential
• Skyloft. Significantly different triplat design, and I don't think the soft bottom is a problem as a single stage on a starter list.
• Lylat. Imo the stage benefits the same subset as FD, PS1/2. Another problem is people just hate this stage for reasons.
• Castle. I don't see much of a problem with the stage itself except for that foreground thing, which I could see banning it eventually, unfortunately.
• Frigate. I think people will be against this stage over time. the asymmetry kind of screams non-starter, but idk that it's bad.....
• WarioWare. This is why I support this stage. Every other stage has an issue of varying significance, but WW's are just the side blast zones... which again in a striking system don't cause an issue.. at all. it also adds a much needed small option to keep the list as balanced as possible.

The interesting things happen when you go to a 7 stage strike list, because at that point, you can end up with a list like this:

• BF / Midgar
• Smashville
• PS1 / PS2
• FD
• WarioWare
• T&C
• Yoshi's Story / Yoshi's Brawl / etc.

The important thing in any of these lists, imo is to be sure that the striking system can't always land on a similar stage. like when you have 3 large/open stages and 2 medium or small stages... one can always strike to a large, and that's an issue imo.

EDIT* ok yeah I've done some testing and I truly believe PS1 is better than PS2...

1. it's a bit smaller and the platforms are lower (around BF's plat. height). Leads to less campy play and better platform counter-measures while still being a large open stage.
2. The 'pineapple' area under the stage is lower, more inward, and MUCH more visually obvious. Much harder to get trapped under there.
3. Can't wall-cling to the bottom "stem" of the stage or to the edges like you can in PS2.
4. The downside is that the foreground of the stage kind of hides the wall, but the wall is predictably slanted, so this doesn't have much effect from what I can tell.

 

[Epok]

Can we just do 9-11 stages and do full list stage striking and let players decide in their matches what stage they want to start on. I’m honestly not sure why we are effectively hand holding players and telling them what 5 to 7 stages they should start on . If all the stages are legal let the two players of that match figure it out for themselves. If both players strike down to wario ware game 1 why is that a problem?

 

[ShneeOscar]

Can we just do 9-11 stages and do full list stage striking and let players decide in their matches what stage they want to start on. I’m honestly not sure why we are effectively hand holding players and telling them what 5 to 7 stages they should start on . If all the stages are legal let the two players of that match figure it out for themselves. If both players strike down to wario ware game 1 why is that a problem?

The issue with striking more than like seven stages is that it takes too much time.

EDIT* ok yeah I've done some testing and I truly believe PS1 is better than PS2...

1. it's a bit smaller and the platforms are lower (around BF's plat. height). Leads to less campy play and better platform counter-measures while still being a large open stage.
2. The 'pineapple' area under the stage is lower, more inward, and MUCH more visually obvious. Much harder to get trapped under there.
3. Can't wall-cling to the bottom "stem" of the stage or to the edges like you can in PS2.
4. The downside is that the foreground of the stage kind of hides the wall, but the wall is predictably slanted, so this doesn't have much effect from what I can tell.

I agree. It also looks way better, IMO.

 

[Epok]

The issue with striking more than like seven stages is that it takes too much time.

I agree. It also looks way better, IMO.

How much time? Is it anything we can actually quantify? So if we have 7 starters, is adding 4 more stages really consuming too much time? Besides, if you have a paper list on hand or even on your phone, I highly doubt it's eating up that much time to add 4 stages game 1.

 

[Fenrir VII]

How much time? Is it anything we can actually quantify? So if we have 7 starters, is adding 4 more stages really consuming too much time? Besides, if you have a paper list on hand or even on your phone, I highly doubt it's eating up that much time to add 4 stages game 1.

A bigger problem with large starter lists or full list stage striking is also that it becomes increasingly difficult to balance the stage selections while also giving players a chance to strike all of the less janky / neutral stages. For instances, with a 9-stage FLSS list, somebody could in theory strike Smashville, FD, BF, and PS1... the 4 stages we are sure about being in the top 5 lol. It's not a gigantic problem, mind you... but it does irritate people and doesn't really simplify the conversation at hand. actually makes it harder.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

A bigger problem with large starter lists or full list stage striking is also that it becomes increasingly difficult to balance the stage selections while also giving players a chance to strike all of the less janky / neutral stages. For instances, with a 9-stage FLSS list, somebody could in theory strike Smashville, FD, BF, and PS1... the 4 stages we are sure about being in the top 5 lol. It's not a gigantic problem, mind you... but it does irritate people and doesn't really simplify the conversation at hand. actually makes it harder.

If the same person strikes all 4 of those stages, then that's their choice. Isn't that the point of striking in the first place, to play game 1 on a stage that's agreeable to both players?

 

[Epok]

A bigger problem with large starter lists or full list stage striking is also that it becomes increasingly difficult to balance the stage selections while also giving players a chance to strike all of the less janky / neutral stages. For instances, with a 9-stage FLSS list, somebody could in theory strike Smashville, FD, BF, and PS1... the 4 stages we are sure about being in the top 5 lol. It's not a gigantic problem, mind you... but it does irritate people and doesn't really simplify the conversation at hand. actually makes it harder.

But if gaming 1 we strike down to 1 stage you still eliminate all other stage to the 2 most agreeable stages. I don’t think that’s something we need to regulate. Not to mention, using terms like jank / neutral just don’t hold weight because they are so overused and vague. Saying we need to make sure there is no jank on game 1 makes is blending into putting other people’s opinions into another player’s match. There’s no universal definition of jank and neutral.

 

[spinalwolf]

Dear All Smash Fans~



Okay so i’ve seen many ideas for a competitive smash ultimate and honestly I’m very disappointed with them. This is because we have a very unique opportunity in the fact that the competitive community has actually been thought of and not disregarded. So I have an idea on what a rule set can be all I need is for you to share this so everyone can see it. Now than before we begin i’d like to say from the bottom of my heart thank you for taking your time with this let us now begin.





~STOCK AND TIME~





Now after playing Ultimate since the midnight release of the game I’ve had an idea on how long matches will last after playing with others who are switching from playing other smash games competitively one coming from Melee the other two coming from Sm4sh and my self also coming from Melee. After playing for some time this is what we thought.

• 4 Stock

• 8 Minutes

This gives more than enough time for the match to play out and not be timed out nor have to few stock to were it would end to fast. This is the same rules as melee altho I could see the stock count changing to three as well. There really isn’t much to explain here so i’ll move on to the next subject.





~FINAL SMASH METER~





I think the Final Smash Meter (which i’ll now be referring to as FS Meter) should be tried if it is not it may never, if we banned it right away and what to try to later many will be reluctant to and it will be much harder to get people to have a open mind once the rules are finalized. Here are some of the key points about the meter I will explain more after it is listed.



#1).The FS Meter is similar to other fighting game Ultimate Moves.



#2).It gives variation to a fight.



#3.)Makes the game have more depth with how it can be used.



#4).From what i’ve seen it is not broken and every Final Smash can be avoided.



Now lets get into the first point most fighting games played competitively has some for of a Ultimate Move Street Fighter II, Mortal Kombat, Marvel vs. Capcom, Injustice Gods Among Us. Their Ultimate moves from what i’ve found are completely aloud in competitive play. Now on to point two. The fights would have more variation with the visuals of the Final Smash along with players having a new move to use. As for point three its easy to explain ill do this one with a example first. Lets say that a Incineroar has their meter ready and than get launch off stage they could try using Incineroar’s Final Smash which would rush him forward allowing them to recover from what his poor recovery would consider death most the time. This is one of many examples on how it gives game play variation. Now for the final point four. The FS Meter Final Smash is overall weaker than one from a Smash Ball. Along with the fact that in this game they are meant to be more like Ultimate Moves I don’t see any that are busted. Now than this one is a bit incorrect not every character can doge every Final Smash like Little Mac trying to dodge Ice Climbers on Fountain Of Dreams. But overall a Pichu won’t beat a Bayonetta and just like match ups some are just better at dogging Final Smashes but overall the cast can all dodge a hefty amount of them but now lets move on to the next part.





~SPIRITS~





This will be fast but I thought I should still talk about it in case someone who supported for customs in Sm4sh was wondering. Its a easy no the Spirits give to much randomness and would take to long setting up at tournaments. Not only that but they can also allow a player to have a item like the Lip’s Stick. So overall the Spirits are a easy no, they should be banned we seen them in Sm4sh where they was the exact same in the form of customs.





~STAGE HAZARDS~





Now let us get a tad weird shall we? I’ll first say the rules than describe it and that is both have it on and off. Let me explain, so in Ultimate you have the ability to save rulesets so I say we should make two rulesets both being used in one tournament being swapped between i’ll start making my points now.



#1).More stages can be allowed.



#2).Lets stages be more unique.



And thats it but it makes a huge impact heres why. With stage hazards turned off the stages Dream Land, Fountain of Dreams, and Yoshi’s Story all becomes Battlefield with some differences around the bottoms of the stage and the blast zones but normal on Dream Lands a breeze will blow on Fountain of Dreams the platforms will rise and fall and on Yoshi’s Story Randle (That cloud) will go around the bottom of the stage on a timer. Along with that some other things are Pokemon Stadium not transforming Yoshi’s Island not having it’s top platform move or the side platforms show. Smashville not having its platform move the same goes for Town and City.



But even than we lose if we just leave hazards on because now stages that can be use with the hazards off now can’t because of their hazards like for example. Halberd firing lasers and canon balls, Reset Bomb Forest transforming the same goes for Castle Siege. PictoChat 2 now having drawings and WarioWare, Inc. playing it’s mini games.

So the solution is simple we make two save rule list one called “Ultimate Hazards On” and another named “Ultimate Hazards Off” with the rules being

• 4 Stock

• 8 Minutes

• FS Meter On

then one will have hazards on the other hazards off now we have the best of both the variation of stages like Fountain of dreams but more stages that would other wise be unusable like WarioWare, Inc.





~STAGE LIST HAZARDS ON~





This one will be short ill just list the stages I think should be able to be picked with the Hazard On rules.

• Omega/Battlefield Stages along with the original Battlefield and Final Destination.
• DreamLand
• Fountain of Dreams
• Yoshi’s Story
• Pokemon Stadium
• Lylat Cruise
• Yoshi’s Island
• Smashville
• Town and City
• Prism Tower
• Duck Hunt
• Umbra Clock Tower

And that is all for what I think should be aloud for competitive play with hazards on now granted the stage list can be changed if there are problems found.





~STAGE LIST HAZARDS OFF~





This one will also be short the same as the last a list of stages but this time with the rules of hazards off

• Battlefield/Battlefield Forms
• Final Destination/Omega
• Dream Land
• Green Greens
• Fountain of Dreams
• Yoshi’s Story
• Brinstar
• Pokemon Stadium
• Castle Siege
• Pokemon Stadium 2
• Lylat Cruise
• Halberd
• Yoshi’s Island
• Frigate Orpheon
• WarioWare, Inc.
• Smashville
• Prism Tower
• Unova Pokemon League
• Reset Bomb Forest
• Find Mii
• PictoChat 2
• Mushroom Kingdom U
• Town and City
• Kalos Pokemon League
• Skyloft
• Duck Hunt
• Pilotwings
• Wuhu Island
• Wily Castle
• Midgar
• Umbra Clock Tower

Now there is one thong about this and its Stage Striking I believe if Player One strikes Battle Field than Player Two can’t pick Dream Land Yoshi’s Story, or Fountain of Dreams this rule will apply to any stages that are far to similar to one another.





~ENDING~





So with this I’ve said everything I have to say please make sure to share the post, message me, comment, and comment below if something is wrong with the rules or if there is misinformation. Along with that please make sure to share this everywhere you can if its not seen these rules can’t be taken into consideration and with that i’d like to say THANK YOU so much for your time and please have a wonderful day I truly hope you do.





Sincerely Black Ice Gaming~

You lost me after considering legalizing Final smash meter. FS meter has already been tried and its proven to make matches less fair and provides a luck factor. Not to mention it promotes camping. Final smashes are incredibly unbalanced and its clear they were not intended with competitive in mind. There is a significant difference between supers in other fighting games and final smashes so comparing the two isn't fair. Besides most competitive players would much rather not have supers in their game. I cant speak for everyone but I sure as hell don't want them in my fighting game. I want the winner of any match to be based on skill not because they managed to pull off a super that took no skill to activate. Giving you the win when you didn't deserve that victory. The only people wanting FS meter are either casuals who don't understand competitive play or people who only care about smash being a spectator sport.

 

[ShneeOscar]

The only people wanting FS meter are either casuals who don't understand competitive play or people who only care about smash being a spectator sport.

From a spectator perspective, having 4+ Final Smashes going off every match would get tiresome real quick.