Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Well you can't ban a stage because of that without many many repetitions of playing matches in an competitive environment. A stage shouldn't be banned until a strategy has been proven to be broken and yields degenerate gameplay. You have to take into account that occasionally that look degenerate actually can be easily countered once players are aware of them and find their weakness.
I agree, though color me pessimistic on Wooly World.
I'm mildly hopeful that it'll squeak by, but I may be trusting a little too much in the willingness of people to give it a go.
Mfw every match on Miiverse.
I forgot Miiverse existed. Isn't it due to be released in a patch or something anyway?
Wow, so ban happy. This guy just hates diverse stages, everybody.
Town and city is pretty different than smashville, and some extremist want it banned because the platforms can carry you offscreen when the station leaves, but we probably don't have to worry about that. Those people likely can't be convinced no matter what.
Well I hosted a tournament like that, but sadly didn't have the stream... It was seriously good for Smash 3DS
You say the nicest things, you flatterer you.
Piford
, after watching that video I have to say it's basically Smashville with a more dynamic coat of paint although I can't figure out what the tell is for transitioning between the two forms.)
Wow those platforms go really high... Why does everything have to be so darn big in this game? They almost look double jump high.
They wanted to buff Jigglypuff.
I know this was in jest, but Jigglypuff really likes low platforms moreso than high ones. She doesn't go very high with just one jump, but she has the movement to really maneuver around low platforms better than most. High platforms are something I'd favor more with Wario if I wanted an aerial mobility focused character though I'm also quite a fan with a lot of different characters (Rosalina loves high platforms, and IMO DK does too).
That was a great read, and definitely the mindset more people should adopt. G&W represent.
Would you mind linking the thread?
While I agree with this statement in concept, in practice no one wants to be the TO who has his tournament ruined by this kind of lame play. Running tournaments and streams costs money, and if you're not that well established as a stream I can understand the desire to stick to generally safer gameplay so that your viewers / players don't just think "this is dumb, peeps don't understand the meta" and leave.
Which is why people are going to try them and see which stages are okay for tournaments..... My college will host a very small students-only tournament on the 26th, so we'll have to see
Sure, but your opponent isn't going to want Norfair, they're going to want the stage that is the most advantageous for their character. In order to get an agreement about what stage to play, we're going to have to implement some kind of stage selection system. There's a few ways we could do this (coin flip, random select, etc), but people have generally decided that the most fair method is for each player to take turns saying which stages they don't want until only one choice is left. According to the theory, the stage that is left over should be a decent compromise where both players can fight effectively.
This is an interesting argument. We never really talk about the difficulty of playing on a given stage, separate from the way it affects the matchup. I am generally inclined to believe that such "stage knowledge" generally pales in importance to character and matchup knowledge, but if you have reason to believe your opponent doesn't know the stage I suppose there's no reason not to use that.
I feel like you can't conclude this based on the evidence that we have. While it is true that interest in Brawl dropped around the time that stages started to be banned, there were a lot of other factors at the time which may also have caused interest in Brawl to drop. First of all, the main reason that stages started to be banned was because of growing awareness of how ludicrously powerful Metaknight really was. It was becoming clear that the game was rapidly turning into "Super Metaknight Bros", where you either played Metaknight or you didn't win, and thus I'm sure a lot of people who played low tier characters or those who fought Metaknight poorly were starting to lose interest in the game. To make matters worse, after we started banning the stages then the Ice Climbers began to become almost equally dominant, which probably caused even more people to drop their mains, but note that this is not an issue of people specifically wanting more stage diversity.
I do agree that there's something fundamentally inconsistent about saying that you can never ban moves or specific tactics or whatever despite the fact that the community basically lives around banning stages and items. However, I've never had any issue with banning or tweaking things where they prove to be imbalanced. Sakurai isn't some kind of Smashing god, in fact he frequently demonstrates that he barely understands the metagame at all, so I see no reason to believe that the choices he makes would always be the best ones. If we have the capacity to change the game and fix fundamental problems I say we go for it. Smash 4 may be much better designed and more well thought-out than previous smash games (it's the best Smash Bros by quite some margin IMO), but that doesn't mean that I would oppose the creation of a "Smash 4 Plus" if such a thing became possible, if only for the sake of them adding my beloved Ivysaur back into the game.
While this is a good story, I'm not sure it really supports your argument. Olimar was able to gain some very strong options from that stage, and you were forced to flee from part of the stage and play super defensively to have a chance. In the end, you managed to outplay your opponent, but it still seems like that stage gave Olimar a big advantage and if he played better he should have won. This is why I'm always leery of personal anecdotes when we talk about rulesets and legality. If there's a large skill disparity between the players (which there usually will be online or in the early rounds of a tournament), it's hard to determine whether or not something is fair or broken or if it was just skill that made the difference.
AA was making an isolated point: If you MM'd him on the condition that he could pick any stage, he'd pick Norfair.
I think it's implied that the reason they prefer neutral stages is that they understand that favourable stages will not be available because the opponent would also want a favourable stage. Failing that, a neutral stage is best.
No, the attitude being debated is that "non-neutral" stages are "janky" and "unreliable"--inappropriate when money is on the line.
So first off a stage can't be generally bad for both players. A stage can either be neutral or give one player and advantage. It's not like the Mario vs Luigi matchup suddenly becomes 45:45 on Battlefield. That doesn't make sense. If a stage is a "toss-up" than I assume both players have an equal chance of winning making it a neutral stage (unless of course its because of something like Warioware's prizes but thats different). If neither player wants to play a stage it won't be played on. Simply having a stage legal doesn't mean your forcing both players to play on the stage if neither want to. Only when your being counterpicked do you have to worry about being on a stage you don't want to play on. If they don't want to play on a stage then they are not giving up there ban there using it. I never want to play on FD, so should we ban it? I am giving up my ban because FD is legal? For a stituation where the stages are 3-1-7, I'll give a counter example. Lets say that its Mario against Luigi and stages 1-3 benefit luigi, 4 is neutral, and 5-11 benefit mario. So to balance it you ban stages 8-11 because you want the neutral stage to always be played on first. But now lets consider how theres 52 characters, or just use one, how about Link. Link is good against Mario on stages 8-11, but Mario is good against link on 2-7, and stage 1 is neutral. You just made the game more unbalanced because you banned stages trying to balance it. If you want to ban a stage based on balance there needs to be an immense amount of work done that would require tons of testing across a long period of time.
Stage knowledge is just as if not more important as character knowledge at higher level play. And both stage knowledge and character knowledge together make up matchup knowledge. It's not like knowing Fox has a positive matchup against Captain Falcon will do you much unless you know the best stage to take him too is Pokemon Stadium and how to use both the stage and the character to your advantage. Character knowledge will make you good, but both character and stage knowledge will make you great.
Have you ever played on Flat Zone? It's 0:0; no one wins.
It's doing fine, yes, but I'd argue it would be doing much better with more stages. By comparison, I believe PM has 12
Melee is a VERY different game then the other smash titles. A lot of its other stages honestly cause severe issues when playing on them. Their small stagelist works in that game and still has decent variety since it keeps the cast decently viable.
Case in point, Randall.
Well, it's not like I know them personally, but from hearing them explain their reasoning the people who are typically in a position to actually make these decisions seem to understand it for the most part.
Broadly speaking it can be. Let's go back to what I said about Wooly World.
What if it's the only one left after everything else has been struck?
Well we kind of have already done that. For the last 15 years we've been tinkering with stagelists in Melee and Brawl, so we have a fairly decent idea of what kinds of characters are good on what kinds of stages. That should in theory allow us to get to a good stagelist in a shorter span of time in this game.
Pfft Jank is totally a real word. You're just being a slave to dictionary.com =P
I don't mean to suggest that it's not important, but rather I think by the time you reach mid level play most people have pretty solid stage knowledge. Is there any player whom you would say is not especially good with their character but performs very well in tournament play because their stage knowledge is so good? Legitimate question here.
Well; in case that wasn't a joke. I think he means stages that aren't simulating average day in the Sims.
You remember that IC centralization was the fault of the small stage list right?
I'm not sure if that's possible this time around. Have we ever had a stage like Wrecking Crew that theoretically should allow flying characters to take advantage of the high platforms, but consistantly shifts the upper platforms without being a scrolling stage?
Mac dittos in Reset Bomb forest play like that, too.
So if it my turn to ban and we have only Wooly World, Final Destination, Skyloft, and Smashville left and I really don't want to go to wooly world, why would I not strike it? The only reason I wouldn't strike it is if I wanted to play on 2 of the 3 other stages less. Which means that I actually want to play on Wooly World more than the majority of the legal stages.
Yeah, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily imply that people want a diverse stage list. It just implies that they want balance.
The bigger concern with wrecking crew is moves like KIrby's UThrow. And also the barrels I guess. To be honest, it just strikes me as a worse version of Tomodachi. I actually like Tomodachi as a stage. It's a new idea while not having any silly stuff that breaks it. I would definitely be in favour of that stage being legal.
Unless you play multiple characters. Also, there's far more opponent characters to learn how to fight with your character than there are legal stages to learn.
The entire reason I actually want Wrecking crew to be legal is because I think it's the exact opposite. I find Wrecking crew the better version of Tomadachi. The problem with Tomadachi life is that the person who is at the bottom gets a good advantage and it's decently hard to get down to the same level as them because of lack of options in going down.
But most people think Skyloft should be legal. And about 1/3 of people think Luigi's Mansion should be legal with another 1/3 willing to test it. For wooly world, about 1/10 of people thought it should be legal while 1/2 were willing to try it out.
Because it hits a weird mix of good and bad points from most people's view. It's a walkoff (bad) but it's temporary (good), camping the walkoff is a bad idea due to how it transforms (good), there's nothing on the stage that can actually hurt you (good), and the overall layout is either "really weird platforms" or "really weird platforms with a walkoff" (bad).
Has any stage ever been banned for odd platform layout? I can't find a single one. If any stage, I would say 75m but thats also huge and has a much worse layout.
