Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[Piford]

Not when the lava rises.

There's no reason you could be on the ledge when the lava rises. If you were to fall, you'd just hit the lava and bounce back up.

 

[Doval]

Not when the lava rises.



It doesn't really work, though, because the cars change the dominant position. If the cars come, the safe spot is the dominant position. If they don't, it may not be. Without knowing whether they're coming or not you don't know which spot you should try to aim for.



By that same logic, the stage choosing to make a stop disrupts your stage control. Also, the mere fact that some stops can be skipped altogether makes the stage unpredictable. You might CP to this stage because a certain layout gives you advantage, only to have it not ever appear.

At any given moment you know: 1) the minimum amount of time before the next stop; 2) the layout of the next possible stop; 3) the safe spots of the next possible stop. Come on; you can't possibly say you can't plan around the stage. If you dominate the stage then you can place yourself at a comfortable distance from the safe zone should the Shy Guys come.

Anyone picking RR should know that any one stop will only account for a small portion of the match. If you depend on a particular stop and it never happens, it's your fault for taking such a risky gamble. What if I want to pick RR purely because it's not a terrible option for me and the other stages are? I don't really care where in particular it stops if most of the time the stage doesn't inconvenience me.

 

[Terotrous]

There's no reason you could be on the ledge when the lava rises. If you were to fall, you'd just hit the lava and bounce back up.

The point is that when the lava rises, if you're sent offstage, you can only recover onstage, there's no ledge.

What if I want to pick RR purely because it's not a terrible option for me and the other stages are?

If RR wasn't in the stagelist, you'd have to have at least one additional option, because there'd be fewer bans, so it's not like you'd have a situation where you have to pick your worst stage because RR wasn't there to save you.

In fact, allowing RR may actually force you to play on an inferior stage since your opponent may use their extra ban to ban the stage you wanted, potentially forcing you to pick RR instead. This is why people tend to oppose stages they feel are janky being added to the stage list.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The official reason according to the SSBWiki

In terms of stage legality NEVER trust the wiki. It tends to not only be outdated, but has been outright wrong on why stages were banned in the past. Just a fair warning.

 

[DeLux]

Trust me, I know that full stagelist striking "FLoSSing" is the better route. I also know people already are going to argue like mad over most of the stages. This isn't a what is actually better question, it's convincing folks to get rid of something they've done for years and refuse to take any evidence to the contrary is wrong or broken. No one I have discussed this with in the general populace accepts giving up starter/counterpick systems and it is to a point were I would hurt tournament attendance to just make stages legal or banned.

I know it sucks, but it's going to take a huge community shift before I can consider running this in a community that I have to beg and fight with to even allow a single stage with a hazard to be legal. How can I even remotely tackle this?

If you could write up an argument that could convince tons of TOs and users to adopt this I can try to put it up and see what people think, but I'm not optomistic.

In the end though the largest tournaments will decide the ruleset, and they have the oldest TOs who aren't going to change. IT sucks, but Alex Strife and the Apex team have way more sway then we ever could imagine. Even if you got every other event person using only legal/banned stagelists, all it takes is for that ONE event to not do this and it doesn't matter. The best it seems I can do at the moment is at least try to keep as many stages legal as possible to prove they don't have issues, and even that will probably mean squat anyways, since when in the history of smash have large TOs ever listened to sound reasoning to keep stages legal? Anyone who discussed stages in Brawl should feel that one painfully well.

It would take a giant community shift, maybe even an entirely new major circuit to get people to even consider this as a standard. I'd even run one if there were enough TOs, it would be nice to have what is actually right be used for once. But how am I supposed to sway this many folks when all I am is a TO on the web, change years of their thinking?

If a stage is good enough for Game 2 or 3 (where the set is truly won or lost), then it ought to be good enough for Game 1 as well.

 

[LiteralGrill]

If a stage is good enough for Game 2 or 3 (where the set is truly won or lost), then it ought to be good enough for Game 1 as well.

I 100% agree with you. Seriously, I'm not arguing that starter/counterpick is a better system. It's not.

The issue is teaching a community that has been using the same thing for so many years that their system isn't fair and that we need to change. It's an astronomical challenge as many people refuse to listen to logic or any argument presented to them that breaks with their core ideal that the current system is best. There are folks you will never convince that Brinstar or Arena Ferox even should be able to be a starting stage, and that if it's not something like Battlefield it shouldn't be started on.

HOWEVER the guy running our EU tournament IS going to try it. A nine stage list. We'll see how the community reacts, if it's really positive maybe we can keep it up. If people want this better system to be used go out there and start trying to educate folks so when I host a tournament people don't just freak out at me for trying it.

 

[Terotrous]

If a stage is good enough for Game 2 or 3 (where the set is truly won or lost), then it ought to be good enough for Game 1 as well.

From a technical perspective, doesn't the Gentleman's Rule cover every situation where eliminating the distinction between starter / counterpick would be relevant? If both players agree to play a counterpick stage for Game 1, they can. If they don't, one of them would just ban that stage.

 

[Thinkaman]

If a stage is good enough for Game 2 or 3 (where the set is truly won or lost), then it ought to be good enough for Game 1 as well.

I also think the Starter/CP distinction encourages the persistent gravity towards slowly banning everything.

 

[Doval]

From a technical perspective, doesn't the Gentleman's Rule cover every situation where eliminating the distinction between starter / counterpick would be relevant? If both players agree to play a counterpick stage for Game 1, they can. If they don't, one of them would just ban that stage.

Not necessarily. There may be other counterpick stages you want to ban even more. The only time someone would be guaranteed to agree to the stage is if it's a better choice for him than all the starters.

 

[Terotrous]

Not necessarily. There may be other counterpick stages you want to ban even more.

Oh, I suppose, if the list has more counterpicks than starter stages, then you could be forced to a counterpick stage for game 1 by virtue of the opponent banning all starter stages. That seems kind of undesirable.

 

[DeLux]

Oh, I suppose, if the list has more counterpicks than starter stages, then you could be forced to a counterpick stage for game 1 by virtue of the opponent banning all starter stages. That seems kind of undesirable.

Depends on where you sit. What if you're the person wanting to strike all the starter stages? Then the current system is undesirable.

 

[Doval]

Oh, I suppose, if the list has more counterpicks than starter stages, then you could be forced to a counterpick stage for game 1 by virtue of the opponent banning all starter stages. That seems kind of undesirable.

You get to choose characters after the stage though, right? And striking would give you a chance to eliminate just under half the stages. And now you could also adjust yours custom special moves to fit the stage. I think that's reasonable.

To me the whole starter stage thing only makes sense if it's picked at random. Striking ensures just under half of your worst possible stages can't appear. In cases where your opponent also doesn't want to play on a stage you'd strike you get to eliminate more than half. If after that the remaining stages still screw you too hard you probably need a better character or an alternate. I think any stage should be fair game if it can be used as a counterpick.

 

[Terotrous]

Depends on where you sit. What if you're the person wanting to strike all the starter stages? Then the current system is undesirable.

What reason does this person have for wanting to strike every starter? The point of the starter list is that every character should be able to get a neutral matchup on at least one of the starter stages. If someone's plan is to attempt to strike every starter stage it seems to me like they're probably trying to random out their opponent with a jank stage or something.

In general, I can see why the idea of having the first match be played on a neutral stage is desirable, you don't want either player to gain significant advantage in the first game since the way the stage selection system goes even if they lose game 2 they get advantage again in game 3.

 

[Terotrous]

You get to choose characters after the stage though, right?

True, but not enough people have two mains for this to be significant. Forcing someone to a bad stage for their main on game 1 is still a big advantage.

To me the whole starter stage thing only makes sense if it's picked at random. Striking ensures your worst possible stages can't appear, so I think any stage should be fair game if it can be used as a counterpick.

But the whole point of the starter list is that you can't force someone to a bad stage for their character. Some characters are bad on one of the starters, but they can ban that one. Things start to become dodgy when you have a list where you character might be at a disadvantage on half the stages, and most CP stages give someone advantage over the other.

To me the whole starter stage thing only makes sense if it's picked at random.

If our goal is merely to make stage selection quicker or more simplistic, I think an alternate "Game 1 is always Smashville" rule could be possible, as Smashville is commonly accepted to be the most neutral stage and is by far the most common choice for game 1. Of course, this is impossible on the 3DS version.

 

[Doval]

If our goal is merely to make stage selection quicker or more simplistic, I think an alternate "Game 1 is always Smashville" rule could be possible, as Smashville is commonly accepted to be the most neutral stage and is by far the most common choice for game 1. Of course, this is impossible on the 3DS version.

To be clear, I think picking at random would suck. But the idea of a neutral stage can't be looked at in a vaccuum either. Just because a stage is the least polarizing on average it doesn't mean it's the fairest for specific match-ups. Little Mac would probably have an advantage on Smashville, for example, and less advantage on Battlefield. If you always start with a given stage, some matchups are always skewed.

 

[Terotrous]

To be clear, I think picking at random would suck. But the idea of a neutral stage can't be looked at in a vaccuum either. Just because a stage is the least polarizing on average it doesn't mean it's the fairest for specific match-ups. Little Mac would probably have an advantage on Smashville, for example, and less advantage on Battlefield. If you always start with a given stage, some matchups are always skewed.

Right, and that's why we have the system we have now. It doesn't take that long and generally works the way it should, ensuring game 1 is fairly neutral and on game 2 and 3 the loser of the last match gets some (but not unreasonable) advantage.

 

[DeLux]

What reason does this person have for wanting to strike every starter? The point of the starter list is that every character should be able to get a neutral matchup on at least one of the starter stages. If someone's plan is to attempt to strike every starter stage it seems to me like they're probably trying to random out their opponent with a jank stage or something.

In general, I can see why the idea of having the first match be played on a neutral stage is desirable, you don't want either player to gain significant advantage in the first game since the way the stage selection system goes even if they lose game 2 they get advantage again in game 3.

Let's say the players double blind the ditto. What's the reason of having Stages A-E be legal and stages F-I be not legal for game 1, when every matchup is now neutral?

If you strike from the full legal list, you end up with the most neutral stage by player preference of the legal stages. If you have a starter / cp distinction, you arbitrarily cut off stages that have inherently have neutral matchups (as evidenced by the ditto, thus indicating the stages alone aren't polar necessarily).


For example from previous metagames - ICs vs. Anyone in Brawl. ICs are extremely good on only 3 stages. They lose considerable options over the other say, 6 legal stages, because they are a bad character. If you have a 5 starter / 4 CP stage break down, Game 1 is going to be played on ICs 3rd best stage for the MU (and their opponent's 7th best stage), rather than the neutral 5th best stage for both characters because of the arbitrary distinction. You have now artificially made a character bad on most stages artificially good for no reason other than a self prescribed "desirable" way the game should be played. So you're finding the neutral of how you want to play the game within the legal limits of the game, rather than the neutral stage within the legal limits of the game.

 

[Doval]

Let's say the players double blind the ditto. What's the reason of having Stages A-E be legal and stages F-I be not legal for game 1, when every matchup is now neutral?

If you strike from the full legal list, you end up with the most neutral stage by player preference of the legal stages. If you have a starter / cp distinction, you arbitrarily cut off stages that have inherently have neutral matchups (as evidenced by the ditto, thus indicating the stages alone aren't polar necessarily).


For example from previous metagames - ICs vs. Anyone in Brawl. ICs are extremely good on only 3 stages. They lose considerable options over the other say, 6 legal stages, because they are a bad character. If you have a 5 starter / 4 CP stage break down, Game 1 is going to be played on ICs 3rd best stage for the MU (and their opponent's 7th best stage), rather than the neutral 5th best stage for both characters because of the arbitrary distinction. You have now artificially made a character bad on most stages artificially good for no reason other than a self prescribed "desirable" way the game should be played. So you're finding the neutral of how you want to play the game within the legal limits of the game, rather than the neutral stage within the legal limits of the game.

Besides the obvious ditto matches, there could be characters whose most neutral stages are in the counterpick list. Just because the stage confers big advantages to certain characters it doesn't mean it does so for the ones involved in the match. Stage striking will ensure you can't get a stage that's too poor for you regardless of what the stage list is, unless your character does poorly on over half the stages. But in that case no amount of bans will save you when your opponent counterpicks you.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I think we need to stop a moment and clarify something.

DO NOT use the term "Neutral Stage" for a "STARTER stage". This could be a huge problem for this debate. That's why we call it a starter/counterpick system. People calling the first set of stages "neutrals" are wrong as they aren't actually neutral.

What the full list system does is allow people to find the stage that is the most fair between two characters, the median bias of stage fairness. Which is why it's nice.

 

[TimeSmash]

Quick question about Omega Forms: Were all of them just ruled to be skins of FD? Either way, are we just treating Omega stages the same as FD?

 

[Terotrous]

For example from previous metagames - ICs vs. Anyone in Brawl. ICs are extremely good on only 3 stages. They lose considerable options over the other say, 6 legal stages, because they are a bad character. If you have a 5 starter / 4 CP stage break down, Game 1 is going to be played on ICs 3rd best stage for the MU (and their opponent's 7th best stage), rather than the neutral 5th best stage for both characters because of the arbitrary distinction.

I think you're confused about what the term "neutral stage" refers to. A neutral stage is one where the stage has little influence on the capabilities of a character. It is not, necessarily, one where a given matchup between any two characters will be perfectly even. Good characters will tend to beat bad characters on neutral stages, because without the stage being a significant factor the inherent quality of the character dominates the match. Counterpick stages are those where the layout of the stage is not neutral and does give advantage to certain characters, but not to such a complete degree that it completely alters the way the game is played or makes certain characters unbeatable.

What is sounds like people are trying to do is use the stage list to overcome poor balance in the game's roster, by shifting the focus away from neutral stages to more janky stages where fundamentals are less important and thus characters with bad fundamentals have a better chance. Indeed, turning on items and playing dumb stages like Mushroomy Kingdom does make the game more balanced, but it also shifts the focus of the game away from what people find compelling about it, which is the dynamic and exciting neutral play that arises when players are forced to figure out how to deal with their opponent's options. Attempting to beat the opponent by going to a stage that takes their options away just isn't what makes for a competitive game.

 

[luigijerk]

Since recovering and edge guarding isn't even a thing anymore, I think we can add a new dimension to the game by allowing more stages as counterpicks. Mushroomy Kingdom comes to mind as one that isn't random, but not your typical competitive stage.

Edit - To the post above me.

It is not about balance. This game has already stripped away some of the fundamentals of previous installments. Why not add in a new layer of strategy like playing on edgeless stages. There is nothing random about Mushroomy Kingdom, and it moves slow and predictably.

 

[DeLux]

I think you're confused about what the term "neutral stage" refers to. A neutral stage is one where the stage has little influence on the capabilities of a character. It is not, necessarily, one where a given matchup between any two characters will be perfectly even. Good characters will tend to beat bad characters on neutral stages, because without the stage being a significant factor the inherent quality of the character dominates the match. Counterpick stages are those where the layout of the stage is not neutral and does give advantage to certain characters, but not to such a complete degree that it completely alters the way the game is played or makes certain characters unbeatable.

What is sounds like people are trying to do is use the stage list to overcome poor balance in the game's roster, by shifting the focus away from neutral stages to more janky stages where fundamentals are less important and thus characters with bad fundamentals have a better chance. Indeed, turning on items and playing dumb stages like Mushroomy Kingdom does make the game more balanced, but it also shifts the focus of the game away from what people find compelling about it, which is the dynamic and exciting neutral play that arises when players are forced to figure out how to deal with their opponent's options. Attempting to beat the opponent by going to a stage that takes their options away just isn't what makes for a competitive game.

Why not play the first game on only one stage then, without using stage striking?

The nomenclature of words like "janky" and "fundamentals" being exclusive to one another is biased, in that it's impossible to separate the matchups from the stages. Further, it's impossible to qualify which stages are "neutral" for influence on the matchup (due to the ditto example plus the epistemological barrier one has to go through on top of that). Given that it's a platform fighter, I'd contend that the player that is better able to utilize positional advantages via the stage is also a strong fundamental characteristic.

To answer the first question, - we have stage striking in place because we acknowledge different stages affect matchups differently, so we use it to let player preference decide the "neutral" stage. This is also why we tend to have clauses of "if they agree to it". If we assume this is the case, we are arbitrarily favoring people that favor the starter stages for whatever reason (which could be who knows what) on the competitive level. We are alienating the people that favor the non-starter stages (which could be for whatever reason) on the competitive level.


The normative function on the rulesset should be able to apply to all situations, otherwise it's not a good normative function. Outside of the redundancy of stages issue (as seen by omega mode) let's say your stage list is -

Stage A, Stage B, Stage C, Stage D, Stage E, Stage F, Stage G, Stage H, Stage I. Stages A - I all have been deemed worthy of competitive play.

Knowing nothing about the stages, why should we strike from a starter list of Stages E-I and exclude Stages A-D to CP only?

it isn't until we start prescribing our own arbitrary descriptors to the game do we start validating this notion that certain stages are "more acceptable" than others. So not only are we making an arbitrary line of what is "acceptable" on one hand, we are making another line of what is "more acceptable", all of which comes from arbitrary preferential reasoning. More over, the descriptors are even more arbitrary because of the epistemology boundary that calls into question if our interpretations are even correct in the first place.

Which again brings us back to the point, if the stage is good enough to be used in the most important games of the set (aka the last one), why is it not good enough to be used on the first game?

 

[Doval]

A neutral stage is one where the stage has little influence on the capabilities of a character.

I must respectfully disagree. It's impossible to establish the capabilities of a character except in relation to other characters, which means you can only establish the effects of a stage with respect to the two specific characters playing. Characters don't operate in a vacuum. Maybe as Fox I usually want FD, but if that gives me no way of dealing with Little Mac specifically then platforms it is.

Indeed, turning on items and playing dumb stages like Mushroomy Kingdom does make the game more balanced

That's actually a really hard thing to prove. The random nature of item spawns and the power of thrown battering items benefits characters that move quickly and control space, and disproportionately helps those that lack the means to go for offstage kills. Items are actually a central element of the game; we don't use them precisely because they're so unbalanced that it's worth deviating from the game's central elements.

 

[mimgrim]

I think you're confused about what the term "neutral stage" refers to. A neutral stage is one where the stage has little influence on the capabilities of a character.

The only stage that even remotely fits this description is FD. And even that is a bit of stretch.

 

[Piford]

Since recovering and edge guarding isn't even a thing anymore, I think we can add a new dimension to the game by allowing more stages as counterpicks. Mushroomy Kingdom comes to mind as one that isn't random, but not your typical competitive stage.

Edit - To the post above me.

It is not about balance. This game has already stripped away some of the fundamentals of previous installments. Why not add in a new layer of strategy like playing on edgeless stages. There is nothing random about Mushroomy Kingdom, and it moves slow and predictably.

The problem with Mushroomy Kingdom is that people live until extremely high percents because of all the roofs.

 

[Terotrous]

Since recovering and edge guarding isn't even a thing anymore, I think we can add a new dimension to the game by allowing more stages as counterpicks. Mushroomy Kingdom comes to mind as one that isn't random, but not your typical competitive stage.

Mushroomy Kingdom is the perfect example of a stage that significantly alters the capabilities of a character, as a major component of the game, which is off-stage play, literally does not exist at all on this stage. Walkoffs are undesirable for many reasons, but this is the most prominent one.


Also, anyone who thinks edgeguarding is totally gone has not watched or played a single match of Smash 4. It's definitely still in and still prominent.

Why not play the first game on only one stage then, without using stage striking?

It's probably largely a matter of convention, because previous games did not have a single stage that was a clear candidate for this choice. These days, I think you could argue that Smashville is this stage, and if a ruleset stipulated that "Smashville is always used for game 1" you'd see few complaints.

Given that it's a platform fighter, I'd contend that the player that is better able to utilize positional advantages via the stage is also a strong fundamental characteristic.

Indeed it is, but the ability to take and retain stage control is useful on every stage, including Smashville. In fact, it's frequently the janky stages where stage control is less useful because they do things like randomly alter which portions of the stage are desirable to control.

Let's say your stage list is -

Stage A, Stage B, Stage C, Stage D, Stage E, Stage F, Stage G, Stage H, Stage I. Stages A - I all have been deemed worthy of competitive play.

Knowing nothing about the stages, why should we strike from a starter list of Stages E-I and exclude Stages A-D?

Because Stages E-I are known to exert a greater influence on the match and thus favour certain characters more heavily.


Anyway, it's a myth to suggest that you can't tell which stages affect the match more than others. The more stage elements a stage has, the more of an impact it has. For example, let's start with Smashville. It has 2 stage elements, the main platform, and one additional platform (note that the exception to this rule is when the stage only has 1 element, as FD is somewhat less neutral than Smashville). Now, let's put a hole in the middle of the stage. This stage now has much more of an effect on the overall matchup than the basic Smashville because you have to deal with the hole.

 

[DeLux]

Because Stages E-I are known to exert a greater influence on the match and thus favour certain characters more heavily.

It's funny you say that, because I deliberately made E-I be the starter list in my example, so the amount they influence a match is certainly up to interpretation. Especially given they are hypothetical stages, I am concerned you can label them as having a greater influence without even knowing what they are.

Anyway, it's a myth to suggest that you can't tell which stages affect the match more than others. The more stage elements a stage has, the more of an impact it has. For example, let's start with Smashville. It has 2 stage elements, the main platform, and one additional platform (note that the exception to this rule is when the stage only has 1 element, as FD is somewhat less neutral than Smashville). Now, let's put a hole in the middle of the stage. This stage now has much more of an effect on the overall matchup than the basic Smashville because you have to deal with the hole.

Then why not play the first game only on FD? That surely is the most neutral stage by your definition and leads to a healthy metagame I'd contend FD is less influential than SV and the one stage element rule is arbitrary / ad hoc.


The point is EVERY stage exerts and influence. How you play the MU is going to be different on FD from BF from Yoshi's Island from Prison Tower etc. If every stage influences the MU, then we should end up playing on zero stages in our minds since that way the MU will be affected the least amount by stages.

 

[Terotrous]

Then why not play the first game only on FD?

Because a significant part of each character's toolset involves their options when on a platform. Having no platforms thus restricts their toolset and thus FD is not totally neutral. In fact, I think you can make a solid argument that FD is actually a counterpick stage, various people are pushing for this in Project M 3.5.

As such, the most neutral stage is going to be some stage that's largely flat and has at least one platform. Not coincidentally, it's widely accepted that the two most neutral stages are Pokemon Stadium 2 and Smashville, which are flat stages with one and two platforms, respectively.

 

[Doval]

Anyway, it's a myth to suggest that you can't tell which stages affect the match more than others. The more stage elements a stage has, the more of an impact it has. For example, let's start with Smashville. It has 2 stage elements, the main platform, and one additional platform (note that the exception to this rule is when the stage only has 1 element, as FD is somewhat less neutral than Smashville). Now, let's put a hole in the middle of the stage. This stage now has much more of an effect on the overall matchup than the basic Smashville because you have to deal with the hole.

Such an analysis would be very inaccurate. It completely disregards the position of the stage elements and what they do. What happens if you move one of the platforms to the right of the edge? What if one is solid? What if they have grabbable edges? What if only certain characters can reach the topmost platform? What if a particular stage element allows a character to use a radically different strategy? What if another element allows another character to nullify the former's character strategy? Before you know it you're looking at how the stage affects all individual matchups.

 

[mimgrim]

Holy crap. The hypocrisy. The only stage that fits your definition of a neutral stage Terotrous is Final Destination. This is because it is a completely flat stage with no platforms. There are no outside influences affecting the character, and yes platforms are an outside influence that affect how characters play.

Because a significant part of each character's toolset involves their options when on a platform. Having no platforms thus restricts their toolset and thus FD is not totally neutral. In fact, I think you can make a solid argument that FD is actually a counterpick stage, various people are pushing for this in Project M 3.5.

Stop contradicting yourself.

 

[DeLux]

Because a significant part of each character's toolset involves their options when on a platform. Having no platforms thus restricts their toolset and thus FD is not totally neutral. In fact, I think you can make a solid argument that FD is actually a counterpick stage, various people are pushing for this in Project M 3.5.

As such, the most neutral stage is going to be some stage that's largely flat and has at least one platform. Not coincidentally, it's widely accepted that the two most neutral stages are Pokemon Stadium 2 and Smashville, which are flat stages with one and two platforms, respectively.

That's exactly my point. You have a stage that is inherently polarizing by player preference but is defined as neutral by your definition of stage elements not influencing the matchup.

That being said, the normative function I gave you gives you the neutral stage by preference of the players, so it's applicable to every situation and every game of smash that is out.

Nothing adhoc about it compared to "we want the stage with the least influencing elements on the matchup except in the case when there are no influencing elements because that's bad"

 

[Terotrous]

The only stage that fits your definition of a neutral stage Terotrous is Final Destination. This is because it is a completely flat stage with no platforms. There are no outside influences affecting the character, and yes platforms are an outside influence that affect how characters play.

Stop contradicting yourself.

It's not a contradiction at all without the bolded assertion, which is not supported by anything. The idea is that a neutral stage should not in any way reduce or mitigate what a character is capable of. Having no platforms definitely does fall under that category.

A better argument would be that Smashville does slightly reduce character capability because it has no walls, thus walljumps cannot be used. There's probably some room to argue that the most neutral stage possible would be Smashville with walls below it.

 

[mimgrim]

It's not a contradiction at all without this assertion, which is not supported by anything. The idea is that the stage should not in any way reduce or mitigate what a character is capable of. Having no platforms definitely does fall under that category.

And having platforms definitely falls under the category too.

There is no such thing as a neutral stage.

 

[Terotrous]

There is no such thing as a neutral stage.

Even if there can be no stage that is 100% neutral, there are clearly stages that are much more neutral than others, which is the point of the neutral list. Allowing people to choose between, say, 3-5 slightly different neutral stages using bans brings us that much closer to total neutrality.

 

[DeLux]

Even if there can be no stage that is 100% neutral, there are clearly stages that are much more neutral than others, which is the point of the neutral list.

I have stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stage 4, stage 5, stage 6, stage 7, stage 8, and stage 9.

Please tell me why stage 2 is more neutral than stage 8.

 

[Piford]

Because a significant part of each character's toolset involves their options when on a platform. Having no platforms thus restricts their toolset and thus FD is not totally neutral. In fact, I think you can make a solid argument that FD is actually a counterpick stage, various people are pushing for this in Project M 3.5.

As such, the most neutral stage is going to be some stage that's largely flat and has at least one platform. Not coincidentally, it's widely accepted that the two most neutral stages are Pokemon Stadium 2 and Smashville, which are flat stages with one and two platforms, respectively.

But this game isn't Project M its Smash 4. They're two completely different monster that shouldn't be handled the same.

 

[Terotrous]

I have stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stage 4, stage 5, stage 6, stage 7, stage 8, and stage 9.

Please tell me why stage 2 is more neutral than stage 8.

Show me the layouts of these stages and I would be happy to do so.

 

[Thinkaman]

Everything is relative, the declaration of your frame of reference is arbitrary.

Is Battlefield neutral, and FD is odd for not having platforms?

Is FD neutral, and BF is weird?

Is Temple neutral, and all other stages are janky?

It's all arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Terotrous]

But this game isn't Project M its Smash 4. They're two completely different monster that shouldn't be handled the same.

The general goal of the neutral stage is the same, the only difference is that this game's stagelist is much, much worse (heck, even most of the banned PM stages are way better than anything in Smash4 3DS).