Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[Mister M]

Hi, sorry if this question has been answered a thousands times, but it's kind of hard to sludge through a 100pg thread for a specific answer to the question; why are stages with permanent walkoffs banned. I never seem to receive a satisfying answer. Thanks

 

[webbedspace]

http://smashboards.com/search/1376964/?q=permanent+walk-off&t=post&o=date&c[thread]=367708

 

[Pazx]

Hi, sorry if this question has been answered a thousands times, but it's kind of hard to sludge through a 100pg thread for a specific answer to the question; why are stages with permanent walkoffs banned. I never seem to receive a satisfying answer. Thanks

It promotes "degenerate" play as the best strategy is to stand near the blast zone and try to get low % kills. It's not a bad strategy but it's not something the competitive community wants to promote.

 

[Mister M]

Thanks, but i already tried searching the phrase, and the results are mostly topics that don't give specific definitive answers. Its information regarding general stage legality, off handed references, temporary walk off comparisons and more. But nothing indepth and concise.

Camping near the edge doesn't seem like a problem, considering, the opponent backs themselves into a position, where they can only move forward and up, and there are a whole number of rock paper scizzor style approach and defence options for the each player to consider. Plus, those standing by the edge actively put themselves at the most risk by being closest to the edge. Am I missing something?

Or is it the consequence of matches ending potentially quickly, that is considered degenerate play.

 

[Tybis]

Just my opinion, but personally, I don't think permanent walkoffs are anti-competitive per se, though when they're brought in the game does change significantly around them, in a way most people think is inferior. There's still skill involved, definitely, but it's a very different game (not even considering the complaints of such play being "too defensive" or "boring" that most competitive players have). Whether or not it's "degenerate" is arguable, though I do think that the original goal of the game (pushing your opponent offscreen) is a little less satisfying in that setting, compared to a ledgeguarding/recovery scenario in which the core game is balanced around. But I guess if you're a stickler to what truly denotes "competitive" criteria, then preference shouldn't really come into account ? Just thinking out loud at this point.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Just my opinion, but personally, I don't think permanent walkoffs are anti-competitive per se, though when they're brought in the game does change significantly around them, in a way most people think is inferior. There's still skill involved, definitely, but it's a very different game (not even considering the complaints of such play being "too defensive" or "boring" that most competitive players have). Whether or not it's "degenerate" is arguable, though I do think that the original goal of the game (pushing your opponent offscreen) is a little less satisfying in that setting, compared to a ledgeguarding/recovery scenario in which the core game is balanced around. But I guess if you're a stickler to what truly denotes "competitive" criteria, then preference shouldn't really come into account ? Just thinking out loud at this point.

It made a little more sense when it was described to me as "volatile." Camping a walkoff is a highly volatile position where either party can lose a stock in a matter of seconds.

I still wouldn't mind playing on Coliseum or whatever, but I can better understand why most don't share that opinion.

 

[Mister M]

so, i understand the concept of volatility and preference, but neither of those are hard grounds for stage bans. There are going to be changes to the nature of game play when unique elements make a stage depart from the traditional FD style (e.g, platforms of any kind, transforming stages, touring stages, stage hazards and walk offs), and i get that different people value what each of these stage styles bring, but why should walk offs be considered inferior, just because there's a slightly larger shift in meta. I imagine if a particular character were particularly strong on a walk-off, they could just strike it (like little mac and FD).

In a 'walkoff camp' scenario, the better player should in theory always come out on top, regardless of whether they are the camper of the campee. Once both players have a full understanding of what the options are regarding the edge of the screen, it can play out in a variety of ways. By my understanding, variety is the opposite of degeneracy, (though, i guess we're no longer arguing about that)

Camping by the edge of the screen seems like a more high risk, high reward version of familiar off stage play. Granted, the moment may end quicker, but it that inherently a bad thing?

 

[thehard]

I think it's 90% preference, @ Mister M , if I'm being honest. A lot of people miss the off-stage play when walkoffs are afoot. Otherwise the only thing holding them back is camping the side blast zones for back throws, but that's MU-dependent and probably an exaggerated fear.

As a side note, I always thought WFT Studio would make a good legal stage.

 

[Earthboundy]

I think it's mostly that players are so used to a meta game based around ledges that walk offs kinda take that away. Ledge guarding and airal games are super important aspects of the meta game.

 

[[Deuce]]

so, i understand the concept of volatility and preference, but neither of those are hard grounds for stage bans. There are going to be changes to the nature of game play when unique elements make a stage depart from the traditional FD style (e.g, platforms of any kind, transforming stages, touring stages, stage hazards and walk offs), and i get that different people value what each of these stage styles bring, but why should walk offs be considered inferior, just because there's a slightly larger shift in meta. I imagine if a particular character were particularly strong on a walk-off, they could just strike it (like little mac and FD).

The point that should be made here is yes, there are several rock paper scissors style options at the edge of the screen but the point where volatility comes in is not simply because players can die at low percents (hell, I welcome that given the pacing of this game) but the fact that a % lead painstakingly racked up from up to several reads can be immediately erased from one read at the edge.

In a 'walkoff camp' scenario, the better player should in theory always come out on top, regardless of whether they are the camper of the campee. Once both players have a full understanding of what the options are regarding the edge of the screen, it can play out in a variety of ways. By my understanding, variety is the opposite of degeneracy, (though, i guess we're no longer arguing about that)

Camping by the edge of the screen seems like a more high risk, high reward version of familiar off stage play. Granted, the moment may end quicker, but it that inherently a bad thing?

That's just the thing though. "In theory" is literally just that- a theory with expected outcomes. In the long long run, the better player should win regardless of being the camper/campee, but the nature of the edge causes an absolute reduction in the number of decisions made before an outcome is produced (a stock loss) classified as volatility. While volatility is just another variable to many, in reality it does play a factor in how these matches play out, and more importantly how brackets play out due to unforseen or god forbid, unworthy upsets. My point here is that the theory is a long run assumption in a short run scenario. There are only 6 stocks to play with in a Bo3. The larger the sample size (decisions made), the more likely the true outcome will surface. This is the reason why people prefer Bo3 to Bo1, and Bo5 over Bo3 and so on, but is made trivial from the volatility of edge play in a walkoff. This type of gameplay where the clearly weaker player is willing to bank on the volatility of the edge to offset the skill gap in a "crush or be crushed" scenario isn't a pleasurable viewing experience imo.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

On the topic of walkoffs, there's something that hasn't been touched on yet. Volatility is certainly a problem (though we must admit that it boils down to preference) but it's because walk offs create degeneracy. Now, I know that term gets thrown around a lot, so I'll say what I mean by that. Walk offs limit what strategies and characters are viable in competitive play.


Firstly, there's strategy. With walkoffs, you get to the point where an overwhelmingly large amount of matches are completely decided by who take the first stock. This is because camping the edge when you've taken the first stock is a vastly superior option to actually continuing to play the game. There's the volatility reason for sure; if you're a stock ahead you want to take a 50/50 chance and risk your extra stock for the opponent's last stock. The problem is, it's not a 50/50 chance at all.

In most fighting games, Smash included, the approaching player is at a disadvantage. Basically it has to do with approaching being very committal and the defender having more options. When behind (even if it's just by a few percent), you MUST approach, because you'll lose by time out if you don't. Additionally, the defender can position themselves juuuust close enough to the blastzone so that their throw will kill, but far enough away that their opponent's throw will not. A position where a correct read leads to a kill and an incorrect read doesn't lead to a death is an oppressively good scenario. It's also the only strategy worth looking at, due to its power, so we have our options degenerate to a single strategy.



What if you're playing a character with a bad backthrow at low percents? Then congrats, you are playing a non-viable character. Or if your character who's grab range is beat out constantly by other players? Also not viable

And I'm sure projectiles would make camping harder, but even if they negate camping altogether, that just means that characters without projectiles are completely non-viable on this set of stages. When walkoffs are picked as a stage option, the list of viable characters shrinks, and that's what it means for a stage to be degenerate.

 

[Mister M]

I understand what everyone is saying about preference and 'missing' ledge play, but those are emotional arguments. And they dont warrant a ban. I know ledge play has always been a big part of smash, but thats only been becausr walk offs have been long time banned because of polarising and exploitable gameplay mechanics. As far as I know, those a largely gone.

arguments made for and against degeneracy are fair points i think. Its so rewarding to be the triumphant person in walk off shenanighans, and different mid match dynamics change the probability of which player can takr the most advantagr of it, but at this point its all theory. how things will play out HAS to be determined by testing, and i dont think they are gettinf their fair chance.

I play walk offa with my house mates, and these kills aren't determined by any one thing like, whose character has the best back throw. At low percents, Ness' s back throw is garbage at the edge, But if i can force a forward throw position, the stock is mine, how ever my opponent is familiar with this and takes this in mind. If he camps near the edge, i can pressure the hell out of him without compromising myself too much. But thats the match up. NessvC.Falcon. He plays accordingly and will attempt to combo me off, from varyous positions. Each kill is earned through smart and skilled play. Admittedly gameplay centralises not on the center of the stage, but nearer the edges, but thats what makes the stage so different to play on. I argue there isnt any one dominant strategy that controls the meta. And if there are people who dissagree, i think we can at least agree to testing any proposed theory fighting. Walk off kills can be earned in so many ways, it's seems like a lot of fun and has a lot to offer in substitute for off ledge play.

if you are up a stock, and have the advantage of forcing them to approach you at the edge, at the edge, your options are limited, with your back to the blast zone and your feet on the ground. The aggressor (This varies with character to character) has inherantly less information to read, which gives them some advantage in the situation. its not so one sided. If you put yourself in a position where you have less to risk but more to gain (say taking advantage of a rage buffed throw), that is absolutely fair game, because you earned that position. At this point, gameplay centralises around that stage position, but it doesnt boil down to a single strategy. Even as a commited aggressor, if you aren't aware how the stage dynamics should influence your approach, then you just arn't playing at a reasonable level. It sounds like im saying get good, but it is honestly just a case of learning the dynamic. The risks are higher, but so is your reward. Why isnt that fair game. There are loads of match ups where approaching a winning player on the edge is a nightmare war of attrition, but because you are familiar, people tolerate it. in spite of how unfun it can be to play or spectate (in some peoples opinion). We must not be ignorant.

the whole first stock advantage thing was discussed when people were arguing for 3 stocks vs 2 stocks. People can still come back fine, it boils down to a players attitude.

While low percent kills will happen a lot, and percentage Difference has less impact on whose winning, Percentage leads still matter because ultimately, the higher your percent, the smaller the stage is to you. In Dittos (just for demonstration) the player with less percent will be able to control more of the stage at less risk than the higher percent. In a scenario where the high percent player has the stock lead, they have to do a lot more to get a kill, vs say a well placed tilt attack from the lowered percent opponent. thus Camping is more risky for them. BBUT thats all theory. It could go the way other people have described. Its a dynamic situation that should be explored.

Without a clear demonstrated reason for degeneracy, these stages shouldnt be banned; even if preference. If that were the case, lylat should be banned. I hope i make sense.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Jiggernaut nailed most of the main points, but really the most important thing comes down to shrinking game depth. How many interactions, on average, do you need to win in order to get a stock off your opponent? On permanent walkoffs, the answer is "one". One missed approach, one mistimed grab->bthrow, your stock is gone. Even in the most extreme example I can think of (Metaknight comboing you straight to the upper blastzone), he has to first get you to 20-40% depending on character, then read your DI 3-4 times. In almost every other case, it's a matter of quite a few interactions, unless they get a really hard read on you. This is not good gameplay. This robs the game of depth and makes it far, far easier to be the dominant player. It cuts the game's depth in a way that just is not acceptable.

 

[Mister M]

okay. i think i get it. Thanks

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

okay. i think i get it. Thanks

Basically, to put it simply, I am not a player who stands a chance against, say, Mew2King. But on a walkoff stage, I might be. And that's the problem.

 

[J_the_Man]

I apologize for bringing this discussion back up in addition if this isn't the best place for this discussion (If that's the case, please point me to a more appropriate thread);

My scene seems to be very satisfied with three starters. I hate it. The only TO in my scene is fine with it. He's hosting the biggest Sm4sh tournament our scene has had to date soon. I don't have hope of convincing him to change, but I don't feel like my arguments are convincing him to at least think about it. I try bringing up the fact that the three stage starter list is not balanced and causes unfair matchups in game 1 (As someone who mains characters who like juggling and hates lack of platforms, I'm personally affected by this, as I'm almost always guaranteed to not get a stage I'm comfortable playing on).

He keeps on saying it's the most fair starter list because the stages can't kill you.

A little help here, please?

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

I apologize for bringing this discussion back up in addition if this isn't the best place for this discussion (If that's the case, please point me to a more appropriate thread);

My scene seems to be very satisfied with three starters. I hate it. The only TO in my scene is fine with it. He's hosting the biggest Sm4sh tournament our scene has had to date soon. I don't have hope of convincing him to change, but I don't feel like my arguments are convincing him to at least think about it. I try bringing up the fact that the three stage starter list is not balanced and causes unfair matchups in game 1 (As someone who mains characters who like juggling and hates lack of platforms, I'm personally affected by this, as I'm almost always guaranteed to not get a stage I'm comfortable playing on).

He keeps on saying it's the most fair starter list because the stages can't kill you.

A little help here, please?

This is something I'd like to talk about very much as well. A few of the neighboring communities use 3 starters, and I want to get a convincing argument together as to why to stop that.

I'm sure you guys have heard these arguments before, so I'll go bullet point for now. I'll elaborate on request.

1) 3 is a terrible number to stage strike from. Player that goes second gets the advantage of choosing the stage AND forcing their opponent to announce a decision first. Puts way too much into a Rock Paper Scissors game.

2) With SV FD BF you have a largely static group of stages, giving an outright advantage to characters that excel on these stages in a Bo3 scenario, as they don't have to learn any other type of stage. It's absolutely no coincidence that every top tier character has a large advantage on these three starters

3) These three stages completely fail the point of stage striking: to find a fair stage for the matchup. If a character has two strong stages on the SV FD BF list (Every Top tier + Duck Hunt and I'm sure others) and the opponent's character only has one, then the character can always go to an outright advantageous stage no matter the outcome of the RPS game.

As I sort of imply, the problems with SV FD BF as the only starters is largely what is shaping our current meta. If we had only transformation stages as starters Diddy would not be the best character in the game. He would only guarantee a flat stage one time in a set, and that's not enough to win a Bo3. Our list of starting stages has probably THE biggest impact on the meta of any arbitrary choice we must make.

The biggest problem of "practicality" is that there's a huge movement to ban Lylat Cruise, and therefore, we only have 4 starters and must default to 3 because we can stage strike off of that. Let's ignore the fact that this is a dicey choice and figure out how to make a starter list with what we have available.

Assuming we should be pushing for 5 stages (as 9 might be hard if others are insisting on 3) what should the stages be, assuming a generally conservative ruleset?

I was thinking to propose:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Delfino Plaza

Basically to replace Lylat with Delfino. I think this largely looks identical to our previous 5 starters, Delfino catering to a similar crowd as Lylat did. You always have the power to strike Delfino, giving characters who are good on it a little more wiggle room with the static stage they must play on. Same as before.

I think this is a good bandage solution, but the old list was flawed in that it still favoured the top tiers. Is there any easy list of 5 starters using Apex rules that we can throw at the ultra-conservative crowd?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I apologize for bringing this discussion back up in addition if this isn't the best place for this discussion (If that's the case, please point me to a more appropriate thread);

My scene seems to be very satisfied with three starters. I hate it. The only TO in my scene is fine with it. He's hosting the biggest Sm4sh tournament our scene has had to date soon. I don't have hope of convincing him to change, but I don't feel like my arguments are convincing him to at least think about it. I try bringing up the fact that the three stage starter list is not balanced and causes unfair matchups in game 1 (As someone who mains characters who like juggling and hates lack of platforms, I'm personally affected by this, as I'm almost always guaranteed to not get a stage I'm comfortable playing on).

He keeps on saying it's the most fair starter list because the stages can't kill you.

A little help here, please?

For starters you can throw the EVO ruleset at him, which is using FLSS with 9 stages. Appeal to authority isn't exactly a sound logical argument but it may help your case regardless.

If Diddy and/or Villager (and other campers I guess) are "problems" in your area (I use the term "problems" loosely) then you can point out that the current starter list implicitly favors them and is almost certainly partially responsible for their performance. Increasing variety in starters gives more options for characters that have to fight them, and that's a Good Thing (TM).

You can also point him at this thread where a poll currently shows 80% of the participants prefer FLSS over a 3- or 5-starter system.

 

[Nintendrone]

Why Delfino over the other 2 traveling stages? I could've sworn that Skyloft was generally the "most fair" out of the group (unless you're doing this with only Apex/Evo's list, which is so horrifically conservative that it is more restrictive than Brawl's in a game that has the most good stages). But if I had to pick out of Apex's list (BF, FD, SV, Lylat, T&C, Siege, Delfino, DH, Halberd), then I'd agree with BF/FD/SV/T&C/Delfino.

 

[Tybis]

Jiggernaut nailed most of the main points, but really the most important thing comes down to shrinking game depth.

Not to cherry-pick, but if something is bannable due to "shrinking game depth", then can't we ban a lot more than just walkoff stages?

The more stages that are added to any stagelist have the potential to shrink depth of any given stage in favor of complexity over a range of stages. Instead of knowing only 1 or a handful of stages intimately, you must know a larger group with less in-depth knowledge of each. Instead of being a small, deep pool, it's more of a large, yet shallow pool. So why do we push for larger stagelists than usual if this is true? Isn't this shrinking game depth?

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Why Delfino over the other 2 traveling stages? I could've sworn that Skyloft was generally the "most fair" out of the group (unless you're doing this with only Apex/Evo's list, which is so horrifically conservative that it is more restrictive than Brawl's in a game that has the most good stages). But if I had to pick out of Apex's list (BF, FD, SV, Lylat, T&C, Siege, Delfino, DH, Halberd), then I'd agree with BF/FD/SV/T&C/Delfino.

The reason for picking Delfino over the others is simply because of the Apex ruleset reason you mention. The region I'm trying to appeal to has neither Skyloft or Wuhu as legal stages, so I kind of assumed @ J_the_Man has a similarly conservative ruleset in his region.

Does anyone else agree with pushing BF/FD/SV/T&C/Delfino at regions that have Lylat banned and an otherwise small stage list? Any other suggestions for 5-stage starter lists?

 

[Piford]

Castle Siege definitely deserves to be a starter more than most other stages (if we really have to say some are more deserving than others). It was sometimes seen as a starter in Brawl if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not to cherry-pick, but if something is bannable due to "shrinking game depth", then can't we ban a lot more than just walkoff stages?

The more stages that are added to any stagelist have the potential to shrink depth of any given stage in favor of complexity over a range of stages. Instead of knowing only 1 or a handful of stages intimately, you must know a larger group with less in-depth knowledge of each. Instead of being a small, deep pool, it's more of a large, yet shallow pool. So why do we push for larger stagelists than usual if this is true? Isn't this shrinking game depth?

The problem with this is that you're assuming the game won't evolve to make that larger pool even deeper. The game can be played X million ways on just SV, and Y million ways on SV, BF, FD, T&C, LC, DP, etc... Y is far larger than X. That's depth.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Castle Siege definitely deserves to be a starter more than most other stages (if we really have to say some are more deserving than others). It was sometimes seen as a starter in Brawl if I'm not mistaken.

Rather than approaching this from a standpoint of what's "good" for the game, it's best to approach these ultra-conservative regions with an alternative to SV BF FD that they'll actually listen to. Otherwise, we'd should just push a much larger starter list/FLSS, right?

Castle Siege is probably THE most controversial stage at the moment, as the current ruleset mean it ends with 30 seconds of walk offs, and we've already discussed today why those are a problem. No one on the conservative side will go for that, unfortunately. In fact, (I'm just going to go ahead and name drop who I'm talking about) the Montreal scene doesn't even have Castle Siege legal. Also Halberd is banned.... They have Kongo Jungle at least, so that's positive right? But yeah, not a lot of stages over there...

 

[Piford]

Just because some people don't like it, doesn't change the fact that its one of the most balanced stages.

I also don't see how ending in a walk-off is a problem. Walk-off camping is a pretty risky strategy because your kill options are fewer than your opponents (you only have back throw and your opponent has forward throw plus any moves that have forward knockback). If I'm trying to time my opponent out, the walk-off is the last place I'd want to be seeing as I put myself in much more or a risk of losing my lead than actually attempting to camp my opponent out.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

@ The_Jiggernaut I think the biggest flaw in most people's reasoning is that they don't really understand how striking works and see including "too many" stages in striking as somehow a risk when it's not really at all. Let me use a really extreme example to solve your hypothetical problem.

Let's say we consider your position of only FD/BF/SV/T&C as a "core" and are debating between adding one more starter or removing one arbitrarily which apparently is going to be Town and City (why remove it instead of one of the others I truly have no idea seeing as Town and City is the single most balanced stage in the game). So for proposal A we have a starter list of FD/BF/SV. For proposal B we need one more stage, and I'm going to suggest 75m. Let us agree that 75m is a stage of zero competitive merit but agree that we're using it anyway for proposal B. Which proposal produces better results?

For proposal A, you will play on Smashville in all cases except those in which Smashville is uniquely bad for one character in which case you can expect the other player's preference of FD or BF. SV tends to favor camping and running the clock more than other stages so I might expect characters who struggle in dealing with this, mostly heavies and Little Mac, to do this and end up on whichever of FD or BF is worse for them, a pretty bad outcome for those characters.

For proposal B, obviously one side is always going to strike 75m unless the match-up is a ditto and both players mutually enjoy the stage 75m in which case it does no harm. This will usually be the character who jumps around and runs away worse who "must" strike 75m. They will also, of course, strike whichever of the four stages they believe worst for them. If they are Little Mac or a heavy, this might be SV. Otherwise it will almost always be FD or BF. Specifically if the opponent is using Diddy Kong and if all stages are good in the match-up you might strike Town and City (though in a lot of MUs Diddy would be the one who "has to" strike 75m). The other side will have free reign over the remaining stages. If the opponent is bad at fighting against defensive run-away tactics, you'd probably still prefer SV as the other side unless of course it is already struck in which case you want whichever is better between FD and BF. This is an IDENTICAL outcome to the three starter system! If the run-away dynamics are pretty close in the match-up, the other side has struck 75m and one of BF/FD, then what happens? Well, that other side almost definitely benefits from whichever of BF and FD was not struck so it's not a realistic choice. That boils the choice down to Smashville vs Town and City; both will almost definitely be fair in the match-up.

To summarize, proposal A (three starters) and proposal B (five starters with 75m as the fifth starter) are nearly identical rulesets in terms of likely outcomes and fairness to both players. 75m is a very, very bad stage, and even still the extent of the damage it does is simulating striking from a smaller number of stages. Reducing the number of starters due to dissatisfaction with precisely one of the starters is a very poor solution; it should be very obvious at this point that if 75m is replaced by a stage with any competitive merit whatsoever, literally any one, that it will be better on average than using three starters. Now if it is a particularly well selected stage you can realize additional benefits, but even if you make a truly terrible choice you're better off than you are if you drop the number of starters. Once everyone understands this and understands what the striking really means, you may find FLSS is the gameplay mode of choice in your region conservative or otherwise. If the players don't understand this and what striking means, they'll continue to push for 3 starters despite the incredibly obvious gameplay disadvantages since they don't comprehend what the gameplay implication of stage striking actually is and think somehow it's risky to include stages that aren't "good enough" when really the only criteria a stage must satisfy to be good enough to improve the result is being better than completely awful.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

@ Piford I think calling it the most balanced is a bit of a stretch to be honest. It certainly visits a lot of extremes of other existing stages, but it does so in really strange ways that it just feels like a mess in my opinion. The thing about the walkoffs is that the stationary (camping) player is actually in the better position because of Defender's Advantage. You can still attack as the defender, even if it doesn't kill, and you can also jab>grab which will kill.

@ Amazing Ampharos Alright, great. Thanks for going through that with me. From that analysis there's exactly no situations where SV BF FD is the stronger option, good to know. Another thing though... There's certainly a large portion of the community that doesn't get what a fair first stage is, but is it possible that others DO understand but are pushing for 3 starters anyways because it gives their chosen high tier character an advantage (either knowingly or subconciously)? I don't mean to accuse anyone of this, it's more a random worry that part of the reason things are difficult to change is because there's players pushing in the other direction...

 

[Nintendrone]

People need to realize that the stagelist, even more so than the timer and number of stocks, is pretty much the biggest influence on character viability. Some believe that having a tiny selection of flat+plat stages is the best for competition, and while that's questionable itself, it's definitely not the best for balance. An ideal ruleset would try to stay close to defaults as much as possible as long as it allows fair competition, so it stands to reason that the larger number of stages allowed, the better we can see the game's true balance when applied to the highest possible number of fair, competitive scenarios, which is a bigger number than conservatives may think.

 

[XCounter]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up and I apologize if it has, but I've seen that all Omega stages are banned at both Evo and CEO. Can anyone explain why that's the case?

I want to organise tournaments in my region in the future, so I'd be interested to know the thoughts behind it.

 

[Quickhero]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up and I apologize if it has, but I've seen that all Omega stages are banned at both Evo and CEO. Can anyone explain why that's the case?

I want to organise tournaments in my region in the future, so I'd be interested to know the thoughts behind it.

Copyright issues with the Sonic stage and some other stage iirc and nothing else. :\ They find it better to just ban omega stages all together than to just ban a few of them.

I don't think any of your tournaments will be sponsored by Nintendo, so please. Legalize them as counter-picks when someone chooses FD.

 

[Piford]

Copyright issues with the Sonic stage and some other stage iirc and nothing else. :\ They find it better to just ban omega stages all together than to just ban a few of them.

I don't think any of your tournaments will be sponsored by Nintendo, so please. Legalize them as counter-picks when someone chooses FD.

It's Onett. I would assume PAC-LAND and Wily Castle would cause issues too, but for some reason they were allowed at Apex.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Banning stages is much more complicated than that, IMO.

Ex: Playing as Fox. I'm not going to ban Final Destination against Diddy Kong, I have no reason to when I can use the stage just as well. Against Little Mac I probably would ban it.

I think that banning a stage shouldn't be specifically about the character you're fighting, but also about your character.

 

[webbedspace]

Are there any regions with regular streamed weeklies/monthlies who also have the three verboten stages legal (Skyloft, Wuhu, Kongo)? Wondering if I could see some more recent tournament footage of those stages. Having PS2 legal would also be nice, but is probably asking too much.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Are there any regions with regular streamed weeklies/monthlies who also have the three verboten stages legal (Skyloft, Wuhu, Kongo)? Wondering if I could see some more recent tournament footage of those stages. Having PS2 legal would also be nice, but is probably asking too much.

Munich runs 13 stages (all four of those mentioned included) every two weeks, assuming we can get our **** together with streaming hardware. We also FLSS. You can watch it on twitch.tv/Smash_Circle, and there's an archive as well.

 

[Sinister Slush]

My city has Kongo and Skyloft, but not wuhu yet. Our next season will very likely have Wuhu in CP or possibly in Starter if some of the more active member in the competitive side of discussing things convinces the crowd and TO.

Stage list
Starters: SV T&C BF FD Lylat
CP: Halberd Skyloft Kongo CS Delfino PS2 Duck hunt
We might move DH or one of the travelling stages to starter. Dunno too much about adding anything else to our weeklies/monthlies yet that're kinda drastic, but I do wish to test out Kalos Woolly World and Gamer.

I doubt I can get in trouble for advertising a channel, right? Thursdays 6:30 CST
http://www.twitch.tv/210smash

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dunno too much about adding anything else to our weeklies/monthlies yet that're kinda drastic, but I do wish to test out Kalos Woolly World and Gamer.

Personally I'd start with Mario Circuit. That stage is just so... awesome. It's got skyloft's moving hazards, except that the path is always the same so it's really easy to see them coming. It's got PTAD's cars, except that they don't kill until like 150 and do piddling damage. It's got tons of really super unique architecture, including large walls and a ceiling which is something almost no stages in the game have, let alone a temporary one. The stage is just so cool.

I actually played a few rounds on Woolly World earlier today. It... wasn't pretty. I could basically run rings around my opponent as Pikachu, and he didn't stand a chance of catching me. :/ It's really kinda busted.

Kalos and Gamer... ****, I gotta find someone who wants to play with me on those.

Also underrated: Yoshi's Island. No, seriously, that stage is so fair (to every character who isn't Little Mac, because Little Mac will murder your **** on that stage).

 

[Sinister Slush]

Oh right Mario circuit is the other on my list.
Thanks for reminding me.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Are there any regions with regular streamed weeklies/monthlies who also have the three verboten stages legal (Skyloft, Wuhu, Kongo)? Wondering if I could see some more recent tournament footage of those stages. Having PS2 legal would also be nice, but is probably asking too much.

The Ottawa Scene has those three stages legal (but not PS2), and they do see use here and there. I can for sure hook you up with our videos/streams, though we're undergoing some big changes at the moment, so streams won't be a thing for the next month, but we'll be coming back with Weekly tournaments every Monday at 6pm EST if everything goes right.

Here's our youtube, hasn't been updated in 2 months, but I know it has play on these stages.

Our Twitch is: http://www.twitch.tv/613smash/profile/past_broadcasts
We have our last tournament still viewable in "Past Broadcasts" for the next week.


Hope it helps!

 

[webbedspace]

OK, I just watched Spring Fighter and S@X Monthly, and I can't believe they've both banned omegas because EVO doesn't have the rights to omegas. And, moreover, intend to keep omegas banned for the next three months!

On the plus side, they seem to have committed to FLSS for the same period.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

OK, I just watched Spring Fighter and S@X Monthly, and I can't believe they've both banned omegas because EVO doesn't have the rights to omegas. And, moreover, intend to keep omegas banned for the next three months!

On the plus side, they seem to have committed to FLSS for the same period.

It's a shame about the Omegas because the music/scenery counterpicks are real (dat Kalos Omega though, hnngh) but I'm not too concerned about them since it's not like we lose any meaningful stage variety while they're banned. And I think it's common knowledge at this point that the reason Omegas are banned at EVO is because of music licensing issues, instead of any real "omegas are imba" argument. So I'm choosing not to worry about them.