Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[AB-80]

As a TO, I'm thinking (at least to start, until the community as a whole agrees otherwise)....

NEUTRAL
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Prism Tower
Final Destination

COUNTERPICK
Arena Ferox

 

[<π]

As a TO, I'm thinking (at least to start, until the community as a whole agrees otherwise)....

NEUTRAL
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Prism Tower
Final Destination

COUNTERPICK
Arena Ferox

As a potential spectator I'm wondering why only these 5 stages out of the almost 20+? What is your goal as a TO with this stage list?

 

[MechaWave]

As a TO, I'm thinking (at least to start, until the community as a whole agrees otherwise)....

NEUTRAL
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Prism Tower
Final Destination

COUNTERPICK
Arena Ferox

lmfao one counterpick. may as well not have any.

I think Tomodachi Life and Rainbow Road can be effective counterpicks. Tomodachi Life has no problems other than the houses which have no hazards. Rainbow Road has ledges for every transformation and last only about 7-8 seconds, the cars don't do much damage, but just my opinion.

Spirit Train is technically also possible but some people may not like not having a floor across the whole stage tho imo it's just as effective since meteor smashes send people upwards much more than previous games anyway. The bomb car gives a cue when it will explode and it's easy to spot. Needs more research.


Also, this is just the 3DS version. I don't think stage lists need to be so conservative since I think this version will just be a side event come the Wii U version, and it's clearly designed to be the more casual of the two.

 

[WindMajor]

In Street Fighter, being up against the wall is a bad idea, but people just deal with it.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Going back to the Omega stages,

I think its a valid argument whether some of them should be banned or not.
The shaping, especially the walls, is one way that it could favor a character group over another
but there is also the matter of the Pictochat omega stage with Greninja's shadow sneak.
Because Pictochat is black it's impossible to see where Greninja's shadow is.

 

[AB-80]

As a potential spectator I'm wondering why only these 5 stages out of the almost 20+? What is your goal as a TO with this stage list?

My goal as a TO with this list is to eliminate a random factor from giving another player an undeserved advantage. Considering most TO's want to go the traditional route with stages and only want to use Battlefield, FD, and Yoshi's Story Brawl, I think adding Arena Ferox and Prism Tower gives it some variety, even if its minimal.

You say some stages need additional research? Well guess what.. each "new" stage has had an almost identical stage in a past Smash game, AND WE NEVER PLAY THEM. Why? Because there's a possibility (even if it's slight) that random factors can influence the outcome of a match and give inaccurate results. No amount of research is ever going to change that. They don't care if the amount of damage is 5% or 50%. Damage is damage.

 

[infomon]

There are good reasons to ban things aside from randomness. And I'm not sure why you're so concerned about randomness. Peach and G&W have randomness, and we don't ban them.

Moderate amounts of calculated-risk randomness in a stage can be fine. Players will know the risks and avoid obstacles as necessary. We see this with the ghost-cloud-things and shy-guys on Yoshi's Island: Brawl.

The goal of the competition should be to determine who is the best at Smash Bros. 3DS. This means the whole game, what it actually is. If a competition excludes fair stages then I don't consider the winner to be the best at smash. Of course we have to make many adjustments to allow for valid competition, but they should be as few as possible, or your competition is invalid.

 

[Noa.]

I don't understand the problem with wanting a stage list that focuses on player vs player matches. Playing on more wild stages does require skill and knowledge on how stages work but that's not a skill that people want to test.

Personally it's just not as much fun to have to deal with randomness in stages. Moments that distract me from playing against my opponent are moments when I'm not having as much fun. And it seems that the majority of the community feels that way as well. People go to tournaments to fight other players, not stages.

 

[infomon]

What you think is fun should not be the basis for competition. I don't like Wario or Battlefield, but a competition without them would be silly. At some point we're not all playing the same game anymore.

There's a reason millions of people are buying Smash Bros. If we want to keep this scene alive we should be as open to the masses of players, and that means our tournaments should reflect the actual game as much as possible (but of course cutting whatever detracts from a valid competition to determine the best). We have to cut items because they're so disruptive and anti-competitive. Some stages too. But we have lots of time to allow the meta to advance and figure out what's right for this game.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't understand the problem with wanting a stage list that focuses on player vs player matches. Playing on more wild stages does require skill and knowledge on how stages work but that's not a skill that people want to test.

Personally it's just not as much fun to have to deal with randomness in stages. Moments that distract me from playing against my opponent are moments when I'm not having as much fun. And it seems that the majority of the community feels that way as well. People go to tournaments to fight other players, not stages.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but looking at all the stages over the course of Smash Bros., far more have hazards and dynamic elements in general than not, which in turn seems to suggest that being able to deal with them as they appear is considered a core design philosophy by the dev team. Knee-jerk banning them comes across as restricting the game and trying to make it something it's not.

 

[Noa.]

What you think is fun should not be the basis for competition. I don't like Wario or Battlefield, but a competition without them would be silly. At some point we're not all playing the same game anymore.

There's a reason millions of people are buying Smash Bros. If we want to keep this scene alive we should be as open to the masses of players, and that means our tournaments should reflect the actual game as much as possible (but of course cutting whatever detracts from a valid competition to determine the best). We have to cut items because they're so disruptive and anti-competitive. Some stages too. But we have lots of time to allow the meta to advance and figure out what's right for this game.

What I think is fun should not decide the ruleset, but if the majority of the community does not have fun playing on stages with hazards, that should have clear implications on tournaments. The majority of the people who hosts tournaments and go to tournaments are more interested in player vs player skill than player vs stage skill. Otherwise there would be more tournaments with larger stage lists. And while it may be nice to attract more players by opening up the stage list, it's more likely that you'll lose more players than you gain. People just really despise those kinds of stages. They are turned off to going to tournaments with large stage lists.

And if we want to rely on developer intent, we should look at what the developers envisioned the competitive version of smash to be, which is all omega stages. Obviously more stages should be legal than just fd and it's variants, but the developers seem to think final destination is the most competitive stage.

 

[AB-80]

We play in a community where we play on CRT's because we can't deal with less than a second of input lag....

And you expect these people to play on stages with hazards? I don't care how minimal they are. It's just not realistic. Don't get me wrong, I personally wouldn't mind it, but it's just not in the cards for the community as a whole.

 

[BooSex]

How are you going to run strikes with four starters? lol

You should make FD a CP.

 

[infomon]

I assume everyone here only plays on lagless setups. I've been to many tournaments with top players, and I know many competitive smashers that expect a diverse stage-list. I strongly encourage you exercise caution when evaluating what is desired by "the community as a whole".

There is so much diversity amongst players, and the common-ground will be the game Smash Bros. 3DS that is enjoyed all over the world. That is why I think we should stick to playing the game and not custom house-rules except for what is required to allow for competition.

Honestly, many players don't like complicated stages because they're not good at dealing with them. That just means they're inferior players. I would know; I used to be one of them.

 

[DraginHikari]

Look I'm just throwing it out there, but the Wii U version of Smash comes out in probably 1 or 2 months tops after the 3DS version does. Are we seriously considering using the handheld for large scale tournaments? Honestly, I feel like this discussion isn't going to matter much because the competitive scene will focus on the console version. I just can't see the 3DS even being given any attention by TOs when the console one is right around the corner.

Primary, my guess is that the standard that is established for the 3DS version in regards to stage criteria on what is acceptable and what is not is going to remain the same between both version even if the stages themselves are different as the discussion is more how stage selection will be determine in the long run of things.

 

[AB-80]

For what it's worth, D1 just tweeted his starters are Battlefield, FD, Yoshi Brawl, and Prism Tower. So it looks like my idea fell right in line with theirs.

 

[infomon]

Yes, the east coast has a long history of banning things they don't necessarily understand. I think it's unfortunate for the community and the game's longevity.

But it's a reasonable gamble for players to take, out of self-interest: why practice a stage that might get banned? We know BF will stick around, so people will choose to play that one.

And with a new game, it's still fun to explore the characters on a simple stage. But in 3 years, I expect a lot of would-be smashers to get bored and move on. We've seen it happen before, which is perhaps why our community has so many players that prefer simple stages; they're the ones that stayed around.

We could be so much more.

 

[AB-80]

I've proposed only having the Smash ball available, because I think the final smashes are great and wish they were part of the game, and TK laughed at me.

But all honesty, I will most likely consider running a tournament in the near future with items that aren't instant KO's and stages that aren't hazard heavy. Next up would probably be Corneria and Tortimer Island for me.

 

[infomon]

We could make another thread to discuss items / smash balls. I believe in Brawl it was determined that smash balls always appear closer to the player that is losing. So there may be counter-intuitive anti-competitive aspects to them. The rules might have changed in smash4. In any case I believe the properties need to be understood.

As for stages, we could just guess which stages are viable and stick to those. Or we could prove which ones are viable by exploring the options and allowing the meta to discover the broken technologies, severe randomness, etc. With the latter we get video proof of stage viability.

There's an amazing, but subtle difference between these two stances. Watch what happens when a newcomer shows up to a tournament and asks, "Why is Unova banned?". If we never proved ban-worthiness, most competitive smashers will think they know the reason for the ban, but don't actually. So they'll answer "hahaha why is it banned... lol n00b". But if we actually explored the stage and got some videos about it, then someone will give the newcomer a real answer, and can maybe even demonstrate the technique. It's a social change.

 

[<π]

My goal as a TO with this list is to eliminate a random factor from giving another player an undeserved advantage. Considering most TO's want to go the traditional route with stages and only want to use Battlefield, FD, and Yoshi's Story Brawl, I think adding Arena Ferox and Prism Tower gives it some variety, even if its minimal.

You say some stages need additional research? Well guess what.. each "new" stage has had an almost identical stage in a past Smash game, AND WE NEVER PLAY THEM. Why? Because there's a possibility (even if it's slight) that random factors can influence the outcome of a match and give inaccurate results. No amount of research is ever going to change that. They don't care if the amount of damage is 5% or 50%. Damage is damage.

First off "traditional" rulesets had a MUCH wider stage list than we have now for both melee and brawl. THAT is the era I grew up in.


Second; if your goal is to eliminate random factors than you may want to change your list a little. YI(B) has random in it. Banned.

Stages that should be added include
Boxing Ring (no random)
Jungle Japes (no random)
Tomadachi Life (No random)
Gaur Plain (no random)

Also, Peach, Luigi, GaW, Villager, and a few other characters have random attacks. We need to remove those characters or ban those moves. Don't want a random VIllager up air to win the match.

Personally I hate these half way rules. If you are going to make a ruling or a mission statement you need to go all the way with it.


As a TO my rulesets will be made with the goal of getting as many butts in seats as possible. I want to turn casual players into competetive players with as little friction as possible. To do that I will follow the rules that define my ruleset to a fault. No exceptions based on what I like or dislike or what leaders and top players do and do not want to see. Its been mentioned before, but free for all tournaments with items on as side evens at conventions get more attendees than our scene does. When us competetive s,ashers show up and start messing with the "casual rulesets" the attendece actually tends to drop. There are reasons for that.

I'm all for the purist "me versus you" game play, I just feel like smash isn't the place to try and shove it down people's throats. Go play street fighter, go play dive kick. Smash IS random.

 

[AB-80]

I'm not against random, but like you said, it's not going to attract players.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Smash is all about the stage hazards though. As long as there is sufficient warning before they appear that without specific, targeted interference from your opponent you can dodge them reliably, I'd say they're fair game. It's not only about learning how to fight your opponent or learning how to "fight the stage", it's about learning how to force your opponent to "fight the stage". There's a bomb train on the left side of Spirit Train? Cool. Launch your opponent over there and use projectiles, spacing, walls of pain, etc. to keep them there until it blows up. Or even if you can't land a kill with the bomb train directly, you can force the opponent to approach you in a way they would rather not in order to avoid getting blown up, which can lead to free damage on them.

As for walk-off camping, yeah that's a thing, but from the Smash 4 footage I've seen it looks more like the difference between getting a kill at 110% and getting a kill at 90% than it does the difference between getting a kill at 110% and getting a kill at 30%.

Edit: @ AB-80 : @ <π never said random wasn't going to attract players. His argument had nothing to do with it. What he was arguing is that you cannot make arbitrary decisions to remove an unwanted element without going all the way, and that changes to the default rules of the game discourage both viewers and prospective players, especially if the changes appear arbitrary.

 

[T-block]

As a TO, I'm thinking (at least to start, until the community as a whole agrees otherwise)....

NEUTRAL
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
(...)

My goal as a TO with this list is to eliminate a random factor from giving another player an undeserved advantage.
(...)

Hahahahaha

YI:B is one of the most random stages legal stages in Brawl (even in very liberal lists), and it will very likely be one of the most random stages played in Smash 4 as well.

Undeserved advantages and saves ALL OVER THE PLACE

 

[WindMajor]

Randomness is not a bad thing you guys. Adaptivity is a skill that lies at the heart of every fighting game. Introducing random elements is the Smash Bros. way of putting that skill to the test even further.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Randomness is not a bad thing you guys. Adaptivity is a skill that lies at the heart of every fighting game. Introducing random elements is the Smash Bros. way of putting that skill to the test even further.

Stage Rage Crew v2.

 

[Xenigma]

IMO being conservative with 3DS stage selection is a great way to make sure the game becomes completely irrelevant in tournament play once the Wii U version releases. Allowing more unusual stages like Mute City or Brinstar could give the game a unique competitive identity, giving it at least a chance to maintain a niche community. Otherwise, players will simply flock to the version with HD graphics, Gamecube controllers, and likely more than 5 "neutral" stages.

 

[WindMajor]

Stage Rage Crew v2.

I feel no shame.

 

[Katakiri]

I can understand wanting to stick with tradition and have a wide range of stage formats to choose from but we're completely skipping a step here. Assuming that Smash 4 is relatively balanced, we need to first figure out what format it's balanced for. I specifically mean studying Standard (Platforms) vs Omega (Flat) stage formats.

Would our unwillingness to give up our traditional stages make the game unbalanced? Were certain characters just not balanced for platforms? Or even the inverse, would an Omega format break a character's balance? These are the sort of things we need to figure out before we get into debates about random elements in stages. I feel that if one format is balanced but the other neuters even one character, we should stick to the balanced format. Of course this isn't something that's going to be picked apart in a week's time but I'm hoping people will put thought into both standard and omega formats and especially take note of the differences both positive and negative.

In the end it's up to the community to decide how the game should be played but I don't think that extra fun nor variety outside of characters should come at the cost of game balance in a fighting game. That's my stance across the board on stages, custom moves, and equipment.

 

[Mataata]

Does Magicant change any from the initial layout?

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

There's actually a really neat thing about Smash 4 with its large blast zones and Stale Move Negation: Even if you want to edge-camp on a walk-off, you have to do so intelligently. If you just shield-grab and go for that Back Throw every time the opponent approaches, you will not get that kill much earlier than if you were fighting "fairly". Every whiffed attempt to Back Throw the foe over the blast line makes the move KO that much later. In fact, if you rely on nothing but that shield-grab into Back Throw it's almost as if you're healing them, as Stale Move Negation will ensure that the move tacks on less damage than the staling adds to its KO percent. And if you want to camp close enough to the edge to not care about Stale Moves at all, you're gonna be taking constant bubble damage, and that means the opponent doesn't have to approach at all for your percentage lead to quickly evaporate.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Does Magicant change any from the initial layout?

Yes. There's platforms that appear under the stages, but I haven't taken the time to discover the timings because the Bird is so powerfully disruptive.

 

[Raziek]

I just wanted to echo the concerns about carrying over the Starter-Counterpick distinction from Melee/Brawl. If we allow stages with dynamic elements at all, then we are implicitly declaring that those stages enable us to evaluate the players' relative skill. It then makes no sense that game 1 should be arbitrarily limited to stages that don't move. Perhaps all those years of auto-banning FD against ICs will make people see that "static" is completely unrelated to "fair". And hopefully, it's obvious that "fair" is what we should be aiming for in game 1 of a set.

I realize it's a long shot to hope that the majority of the community and TOs will be able to doff the "static starter" mentality, but ONE CAN HOPE.

Also, I wanted to ask: just how bad is Pictochat 2? I've only seen a couple vids (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z36iEHMp_8Q), and nothing stood out to me as completely over-the-top, but I've still only seen a subset of the possible drawings.

It's bad. Very bad.

Don't even try this time. There isn't even anything close to a 'safe zone'.

 

[infomon]

I'm sure I'll agree with you. But I think for every banned stage, we need a clear concise simple answer. Not just for our own sakes, but so that when a newcomer comes to a tourney and asks why x stage is banned, we can tell them the reason.

If we don't have a simple answer, then everyone will make up their own, and reasons will be inconsistent between stages, and people will get mad / disagree, and then we have a million different rulesets that result, in this game and the next.

I have very little interest in "saving pictochat". I just want the actual reasons known, so that we can communicate them across our community, especially to people that are new / borderline. The competitive scene has earned its bad reputation "fox only, final destination".... the reasons for item/stage bans are poorly understood and poorly communicated.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm sure I'll agree with you. But I think for every banned stage, we need a clear concise simple answer. Not just for our own sakes, but so that when a newcomer comes to a tourney and asks why x stage is banned, we can tell them the reason.

If we don't have a simple answer, then everyone will make up their own, and reasons will be inconsistent between stages, and people will get mad / disagree, and then we have a million different rulesets that result, in this game and the next.

I have very little interest in "saving pictochat". I just want the actual reasons known, so that we can communicate them across our community, especially to people that are new / borderline. The competitive scene has earned its bad reputation "fox only, final destination".... the reasons for item/stage bans are poorly understood and poorly communicated.

To rephrase this, it should be approached akin to a scientific experiment. We have a hypothesis (stage X is ban-worthy due to reason Y), a corresponding null hypothesis (Y is not actually that game-changing) and the means to test it (run enough games on stage X where players attempt to exploit feature Y to get a good statistical sample). The results can then be used to support the hypothesis or the null hypothesis, and then everyone's on the same page.

It'll take some doing and some cooperation from high-level players who will consent to playing some actual matches on these stages which will also have to be recorded for documentation, but it will give the resulting banlist a solid empirical foundation instead of what amounts to "trust me" and "he-said she-said" hearsay.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Except your null hypothesis isn't a variable that can be solved for, it is a resulting opinion.

 

[infomon]

Of course. But then we have: "Some players consider x strategy on y stage during z transformation to be inappropriate for competitive play for reason q; others disagree. Here's a controversial video demonstration." This is a much better claim than anyone can make right now, and helps us all get on the same page.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Except your null hypothesis isn't a variable that can be solved for, it is a resulting opinion.

I phrased it in a shorthand sort of way, but basically if we want to prove that a stage should be banned, then we need documented matches on that stage (that aren't being played by potatoes, or by people deliberately ignoring whatever feature we want to examine) in order to properly examine the results.

Pictochat 2 is actually a good example of this. I have seen a grand total of maybe 3 videos on that stage, during which I saw a total of...I think 5 or 6 transformations? And the initial impressions I got were that although the transformations encompass more of the stage than those in Pictochat 1, they also seem to be of a much lesser magnitude and can't kill by themselves. (Unlike, say, the spikes that sometimes appeared in Brawl.) Yet apparently it's ban worthy to some people.

Ultimately all I'm arguing for is that stage bans be backed up by empirical data. And this:

There are multiple transitions that are ***. Have you seen the shooting star one?

I really, REALLY wanted Pictochat to be good, but it just isn't.

Is not empirical data. (Sorry for using your own quote by the way, I'm not trying to call you out specifically. It was just the first one I saw on a quick skim.)

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

That's fine. It's not intending to be, but the entire need will be bypassed when anyone plays on it and Magicant. I would compare it to solving whether X location is over 70 degress. You don't really need to say that the living room in the house 801 Peach Street is over 70 degrees when the place is on fire unless others don't know that it is on fire.

I will gather exact data on transitions and hazards and I will do all the science behind it if I feel the stage requires a second glance, but things like Flat Zone 2 aren't worth my effort.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

That's fine. It's not intending to be, but the entire need will be bypassed when anyone plays on it and Magicant. I would compare it to solving whether X location is over 70 degress. You don't really need to say that the living room in the house 801 Peach Street is over 70 degrees when the place is on fire unless others don't know that it is on fire.

I will gather exact data on transitions and hazards and I will do all the science behind it if I feel the stage requires a second glance, but things like Flat Zone 2 aren't worth my effort.

To continue with your analogy, I see it like the news channel reporting that 801 Peach Street is on fire, but for all we know someone set off the smoke alarm due to a cooking mishap. The point being that although I'm very thankful to all the people streaming the game for us, it doesn't really compare to having an actual copy in our hands where we can personally control the variables and do much more rigorous testing.

I do agree that Flat Zone 2 is probably beyond redemption.

I also feel like I'm possibly arguing this point a bit too zealously? Sorry if it sounds like it.

 

[<π]

Instead of science I think more like Law. I'm no lawer, that's for sure. But if we are banning something a reason should be presented that has nothing to do with feels.

Why should a stage be banned?
Because it is random?
Well if thats your sticking point then you are playing the wrong game. It has random built into the characters... but for the sake of argument lets say ONLY player controlled random. You can list a bunch of reasons, random means no skill, I don't want a random event to determine the out come... whatever, thats fine but you shouldn't then pick and choose stages that are the most flat and the most plat if thats the case.

Because of Hazards!
Well... shucks. Again you can list a bunch of reasons why, but if that's your game plan stick to it!

If your mission statement is FD only! go for it!

Most of these "reasons" have been proven false by the community back when Ken, the king of smash, was dominating the scene consistently for years on brinstar, kongo jungle, and mute city, etc. etc. even with items on. Was ken lucking into first play victories over and over again? Or was he adapting to and taking advantage of these random occurrences better than his opponents were? The most prepared players will still win!
They are proven wrong by TONS of other games, Trading card games, MOBAs, Poker, FPSes, Sports games, etc. etc. (and all of those have larger competitive scenes than melee) So saying other wise is just flat out wrong. It's been proven wrong!

Games are about mastering elements that are outside of your control. whether it be the game itself (your gun's accuracy, your crit chance, the likely hood of you pulling a card you need, dice rolls, your buttons not working) or your opponent, or some combination of the two.

If you guys ever get time look up melee tournament's rulesets for the last 5 years and watch as they dwindle down into 5 stages. And then look at the reasons why.

Kongo Jungle was banned because of armada air camped it and since no one could figure out how to beat it... that tournement... they banned it.
Mute City. Spacies got comboed by the track and have issues recovering? A bad stage for a spacie?! Ban it. (think this one was banned after armada beat a top level falco here)

Top level players have tricked people into making the game better for their top characters, and their personal play styles and because they are "pros" everyone just nods their heads and goes along with it. Maybe its the old smasher in me or heck, maybe I'm salty because my characters excel on stages that aren't just flat plat, or because I am better at adapting my playstyle to what ever is going on around me.

BUt the most fun I've ever had playing smash was back when I could play samus on brinstar. Back when I could tell people new to the game "this stage is banned for a reason I believe in! I don't think this stage should be banned but here is why it is."

Instead of "yeah ICs can chain grab everyone zero to death, but this stage is banned because D3 can kill a few characters on it."
"Yeah this stage is banned because people don't want to learn how to counter a popular strategy"
"Yeah... this stage is amazing! but... it is not flat enough or plat enough."