Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[Deleted member]

Well, it's a counterpick against projectile users, then. That's, uh, kind of the point of a counterpick, isn't it?

Thats why I said it wasn't a huge gripe. Could you please enlighten me on why the blast zones, windmill, and springs aren't problems? I would love to see Windy Hill be legal (its my favorite stage), but at this point I can't see it happening.

 

[Piford]

Thats why I said it wasn't a huge gripe. Could you please enlighten me on why the blast zones, windmill, and springs aren't problems? I would love to see Windy Hill be legal (its my favorite stage), but at this point I can't see it happening.

The springs aren't a problem because they are on a timer (all the time I'v checked they've been the same, I guess I could just be lucky though). It's easy to punish someone who uses them since you always end up in the same spot, so you know exactly where the person using the springs will be. Then you just punish with an aerial. The springs are basically a latch ditch effort for recovery because of how unsafe they are. The windmill isn't a problem because its never advantageous to be there. If you are on the windmill, you have to keep moving in order to not be killed, which means your movements are easy predictable and therefore punishable. If you try to camp on it, your opponent will always come out on top since they are under you, which is the more advantageous positions.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Totally unobjectionable, nothing of substance at all, any disagreements are objectively wrong? Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, you can't deny that there are some complaints to be made:

Delfino: Just look at this silliness and tell me there's nothing I'm allowed to object to.

Kongo Jungle 64: Well, it was banned in Melee for easy camping as some characters can't reach the top very easily. Now that may or may not be a problem again, might as well test it to find out, but it's possible. Just making a note of it. I could see it being unplayable for Little Mac.

Skyloft: Temporary walkoffs and walls. You can argue that temporary makes them fine, and I'm not gonna rehash that whole argument for the dozenth time, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that there is an argument to be had here. Also, 15 seconds per transformation, air and ground, is very fast and sudden, has you moving around too much.

Halberd: Uh, a bigass cannon sniping at you the whole time?

Castle Siege: On the flipside from Skyloft, a walkoff that lasts an entire 40 seconds + load times (does it still load midmatch like in Brawl?). Now that's too long.

Wuhu Island: See Skyloft, plus swimming.

Windy Hill: Weird gravity changes how geometry works. Things are essentially farther apart higher up. This can throw off some combos, followups, and setups. Also, some projectiles don't follow the curvature, like Thoron. Having a stage that changes entire game mechanics and disrupts physics is really bad IMO.

Also, wasn't Pilotwings more or less declared dead after it became clear how easy it was to stall?

I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do to this post. I think basically eveyrthing said here isn't reasonable, and I said "objectively unreasonable" to characterize opposition and not "objectively wrong". Unreasonable and wrong are different words that mean very different things...

I see nothing objectionable there. That gif of Delfino isn't even 4 which makes it dubious in the first place, but just ignoring that since the same mechanics exist here anyway, what's unreasonable about that situation? A MK player is off-stage and gets hit by a meteor. This leads to his death. That's pretty much the same dynamic that exists on every stage. Water is like the least ban-worthy thing ever. The only argument I heard for banning this stage in Brawl that made any sense involved MK playing under the stage which was kinda a problem on every stage because you know MK in Brawl but was worse here, but this is a very different engine in which that tactic would not be very successful.

Stalling on Kongo 64 really doesn't work. Not only did it only even kinda work in Melee in a small number of match-ups (and even there it really wasn't ban-worthy; I really am against that ban and I think a lot of Melee players agree), but the stage is smaller in 4 with generally different physics and character dynamics that STRONGLY weaken such a tactic. It might be bad for Little Mac, but Little Mac is a kinda bad character so a lot of stuff is bad for him. I've played a ton on this stage in 4, and it plays really, really well.

What do walls do in 4? They don't do anything as far as I can tell. What unfair advantage can you get from a temporary walk-off? What tactics can you pursue that will give you an unjust advantage or even really prove problematic? Saying it's ban-worthy really isn't reasonable because I don't think a reasonable position has ever been presented on the topic. You don't even really have to move that much; the floor comes under you with each transformation. The geography changes around you; you don't have to keep up. I actually think Skyloft is the #1 best competitive stage in 4; it's just a god-tier stage with nothing wrong with it at all, and it's absolutely critical to have this stage as legal as legal can be since it adds so much to the game.

Halberd's cannon doesn't snipe at you the whole time; it only can attack when you're on the deck of the ship. All of Halberd's hazards are absurdly slow and predictable to the point that it's just trivial for a good player to avoid them (honestly at most tournaments, even the very worst player present is good enough to avoid Halberd hazards; it's that easy). This is easy to avoid to the point that even an opponent actively trying to force you into them will rarely succeed. They don't come very often, and honestly they're pretty tactical in how they affect the neutral when they come out. This is a great stage, and it was commonly legal in Brawl for good reason (with the main problem, MK playing under the stage, being fixed).

I honestly find the question about mid-match loading telling on Siege. Do you not know? Are you arguing a ban is reasonable while not knowing the stage's mechanics? The transition form still exists but is very brief in 4; it does not seem like the stage is loading mid-match (and the situations in which that mattered in Brawl, transforming characters being blocked by stage load, don't exist in 4 anyway). The lips on ledges are also gone now which removes a common annoyance of this stage, and the general changes to character mobility and attack patterns make stalling out the second form harder. Castle Siege was already a good stage in Brawl commonly legal in tournament, and it's non-trivially better in 4.

Skyloft and swimming are both without flaw so Wuhu is great? Wuhu is actually a really interesting stage that IMO has pretty strongly different match-up implications than Skyloft; after Skyloft, it's IMO the second best competitive stage in the game just for how much it adds to the game for being present.

Windy Hill's gravity effect is very weak, and it's not weird. It's just... gravity. I toyed with it quite a bit (and have played some games here to put it in practice), and it is not only very intuitive but not even very important. Massive objects behave under the effects of a gravitational field and fall toward the center of gravity while massless objects are not significantly acted upon by gravity over ordinary area scales. That's just ordinary physics at work, and while that effect isn't represented on most other stages, it should be very intuitive to anyone who grew up on a planet with a curved surface which I believe is all of us. Beyond being intuitive, it barely matters. Doing direct physical attacks on a curved surface versus a flat one is exactly the same thing. All of the same set-ups and combos work here that work everywhere else. You have to think a little bit more about projectiles, but when you remember to just think of it like how gravity actually works, it's very easy to wrap your head around. It's also worth noting that projectile zoning is substantially different on every stage versus any other just because of the way it's super dependent on geography. Like this stage I feel is litmus-test style in that it's just so eminently reasonable once you play on it a bit but seems dubious if you just look at it and don't confirm through play (in particular it looks WAY bigger than it actually is; matches don't go slowly here at all). Honestly this stage is really, really good itself, and I think it has an important role to play rounding out the stage list (it works like an inverse Kongo in a few ways, as weird as that probably sounds).

I'm not in the business of defending Pilotwings. I think the stage is marginal, deserving of significantly more play before being written off but not a top candidate.

So yeah, I actually do really believe in all of these stages very strongly. I've played on all of them enough to be sure; they're legit stages. Like I said, I'm not supporting 13 legal and that's it (I like quite a few more!), but 13 is an easy number to strike from (it's not slow at all guys; just try it seriously, and also stop agreeing to Smashville it's not to your best interest I always strike that stage and get one I like more) and those stages are just so unobjectionable and have such top quality gameplay. This game has very, very good stages, but you have to actually play on the stages to appreciate how good they are...

 

[LiteralGrill]

I was discussing stages with my friend /u/SNEAKY_AGENT_URKEL from /r/smashbros, a member of the content team as he raised what I felt like was a very powerful argument I wanted to share with you all in terms of stages like Skyloft, Wuhu Island, etc.

"I feel like changing the flow of a game, and finding ways to change how your opponent is playing is the responsibility of the player.
I don't like the stage cutting in and doing the job for em even if it's not actually doing what the players want putting opponents into bad places or forcing them to approach should not be aided by what they're playing on.

One example is a walkoff. One person has a projectile So now the STAGE is helping them force the opponent into certain options instead of them having to work and think about how to cover options obviously walkoff is just b& gtfo but that's a very clear example of the stage doing what a player's job should be."

Anyone want to talk about this? I wanna link him here, and maybe you can aim your responses at him.

 

[SNEAKY_URKEL]

Aim at me, nerds

 

[Piford]

I was discussing stages with my friend /u/SNEAKY_AGENT_URKEL from /r/smashbros, a member of the content team as he raised what I felt like was a very powerful argument I wanted to share with you all in terms of stages like Skyloft, Wuhu Island, etc.

"I feel like changing the flow of a game, and finding ways to change how your opponent is playing is the responsibility of the player.
I don't like the stage cutting in and doing the job for em even if it's not actually doing what the players want putting opponents into bad places or forcing them to approach should not be aided by what they're playing on.

One example is a walkoff. One person has a projectile So now the STAGE is helping them force the opponent into certain options instead of them having to work and think about how to cover options obviously walkoff is just b& gtfo but that's a very clear example of the stage doing what a player's job should be."

Anyone want to talk about this? I wanna link him here, and maybe you can aim your responses at him.

Well for having a projectile and walk-offs it shouldn't work. If you camp the walk-offs while spamming projectiles, I'm just going to continue to spot dodge and shield them. Then when the stage is going to leave, you're forced to approach me and I have the advantage. Also someone picked that stage, any advantage the stage gives them was their choice (or their opponents choice). If you are not fully prepared for the changing layout stage does thats your fault. Sorry this is kinda vague and maybe not that well thought out but I have to go and I wanted to put my two cents in before leaving.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Man, that's what I've been trying to say this whole damn time. I want to fight my opponent, not the stage.

 

[SNEAKY_URKEL]

Piford, I was just using walkoff as an example of how a stage can do a player's "job" sometimes, I didn't mean that walkoff during transforming stages is just terrible and onesided. What I said was kind of messy since it was taken directly from skype by capps haha

What I'm saying is that a game should be a battle of two players, the stage should be included in that, but not intervene. During a game, you want to limit your opponent's options in order to be able to try and cover the ones they have left, right? That's the player's job, to position themselves and throw out the moves necessary to force their opponent into certain situations. I don't like when the stage ends up changing how players must play, because I think that forcing your opponent into certain playstyles should be left to the player. It takes skill to do things such as limit options effectively, and the stage shouldn't do the job of changing the pace of the game/the way the players must behave.

That's why I disagree with stages like that being able to be used as counterpicks. Yes, you should be able to adapt. Yes, the better player will probably win anyways. I just don't like how they're fulfilling part of the responsibilities of the player.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

New stage research topic done, this time Garden of Hope. The Peckish Aristocrab is more dangerous than I expected.

Piford, I was just using walkoff as an example of how a stage can do a player's "job" sometimes, I didn't mean that walkoff during transforming stages is just terrible and onesided. What I said was kind of messy since it was taken directly from skype by capps haha

What I'm saying is that a game should be a battle of two players, the stage should be included in that, but not intervene. During a game, you want to limit your opponent's options in order to be able to try and cover the ones they have left, right? That's the player's job, to position themselves and throw out the moves necessary to force their opponent into certain situations. I don't like when the stage ends up changing how players must play, because I think that forcing your opponent into certain playstyles should be left to the player. It takes skill to do things such as limit options effectively, and the stage shouldn't do the job of changing the pace of the game/the way the players must behave.

That's why I disagree with stages like that being able to be used as counterpicks. Yes, you should be able to adapt. Yes, the better player will probably win anyways. I just don't like how they're fulfilling part of the responsibilities of the player.

Then what's the entire counterpick system doing for us? We already have a system in place where players are explicitly encouraged to choose a stage that puts their opponent at a disadvantage. While it's true that transforming stages such as Delfino (I assume that's what you're aiming at, your post is slightly ambiguous) don't have a single static layout to work with, I would argue that the player's ability to adapt to the various layouts is just as important a skill as knowing how to control space on Battlefield or FD.

Also, Pokemon Stadium in Melee. The Fire and Rock transformations can bring the game to a grinding halt if it catches the players in the wrong position. Despite this it's still used as a stage. Meanwhile Delfino Plaza, Skyloft, and Wuhu Island are suspect? I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[19_]

Piford, I was just using walkoff as an example of how a stage can do a player's "job" sometimes, I didn't mean that walkoff during transforming stages is just terrible and onesided. What I said was kind of messy since it was taken directly from skype by capps haha

What I'm saying is that a game should be a battle of two players, the stage should be included in that, but not intervene. During a game, you want to limit your opponent's options in order to be able to try and cover the ones they have left, right? That's the player's job, to position themselves and throw out the moves necessary to force their opponent into certain situations. I don't like when the stage ends up changing how players must play, because I think that forcing your opponent into certain playstyles should be left to the player. It takes skill to do things such as limit options effectively, and the stage shouldn't do the job of changing the pace of the game/the way the players must behave.

That's why I disagree with stages like that being able to be used as counterpicks. Yes, you should be able to adapt. Yes, the better player will probably win anyways. I just don't like how they're fulfilling part of the responsibilities of the player.

That second paragraph is the best pro-ban argument I have seen. Many people have used the "fighting the stage" argument before in this thread but I think you hit the nail on the head with it. The idea that a stage should not affect the adaptability of players is understandable. A static stage is a great way to present a test of skill between two players.

I don't want just see and play just static stages in tournament though.These stages can obviously be played on competitively but can't because having them legal would make it harder to go to the stage you want, and here lies a whole different issue. Counterpick is the word that stuck out to me in you argument. More than a month ago there was thread on how we could make a better way to make pick stage here.

Honestly, the way stages are picked is why many stages are banned and I think this should be part of the discussion.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Plenty of people have been complaining about PS1 halting matches for a long time. It's something almost everyone hates about that stage, but begrudgingly puts up with - either for the good matchups it offers their characters, because there's only 5 other stages, or just because everyone else is running it and they know it's not going away. It was one of the first stages to get the boot when PM had free reign to make replacements, and nobody had any objections to that. Honestly, if it were up to me I'd be all for banishing it from Melee too, even if it meant having only 5 stages left.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

Piford, I was just using walkoff as an example of how a stage can do a player's "job" sometimes, I didn't mean that walkoff during transforming stages is just terrible and onesided. What I said was kind of messy since it was taken directly from skype by capps haha

What I'm saying is that a game should be a battle of two players, the stage should be included in that, but not intervene. During a game, you want to limit your opponent's options in order to be able to try and cover the ones they have left, right? That's the player's job, to position themselves and throw out the moves necessary to force their opponent into certain situations. I don't like when the stage ends up changing how players must play, because I think that forcing your opponent into certain playstyles should be left to the player. It takes skill to do things such as limit options effectively, and the stage shouldn't do the job of changing the pace of the game/the way the players must behave.

That's why I disagree with stages like that being able to be used as counterpicks. Yes, you should be able to adapt. Yes, the better player will probably win anyways. I just don't like how they're fulfilling part of the responsibilities of the player.

So this is on the subject of transforming stages? Then what about the predictable ones where all you need to do is glance at the background to know where you're going, or those who have a straight set path? Is that really all that different if both players know what's coming for them? If they know the time of what's happening, is it really all that different from a normal match? The stage isn't really doing anything other than playing it's rounds and both players know what's coming so they are both planning around it, like they do any other stage. The players will play around the platforms of Battlefield, and Kongo Jungle. They will play around the empty space of Final Destination, or the swinging platform of Smashville. This is just the nature of dynamic play. Ultimately, if both players truly knows the layout and order of a transforming stage, then it doesn't seem different from any counterpick. If one doesn't know, then that person is at fault.

 

[SNEAKY_URKEL]

I don't believe you guys are properly addressing my point that the stage is doing some work that the PLAYER should be doing.

I am not talking about advantages or disadvantages FROM the stage transformations. I'm not talking about how it's bad for the player to have to adapt to these situations.

The easiest example for me to use is options. You want to control your opponent's options as much as possible in order to force them into positions favorable for you, right? A transforming stage may not be trying to make one person win a game, but it is affecting the options that players should throw out in a given situation. Shouldn't the control of the options of one's opponent be left to the player? Why should a stage do the work that should be assigned to a player?

 

[MegaMissingno]

Transformations are one offender, but not the only one. Let's revisit Halberd. You're controlling center stage and have forced your opponent to the edge. Suddenly, cannon starts shooting at you and you're forced to give up stage control in order to dodge it. That's disruptive, the stage is taking an active role in controlling your options for you. And it's random who that cannon targets, no memorization to plan for and avoid it.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

Well then, isn't Smashville affecting my options when the platform moves from one side to the other? Isn't Dreamland affecting my options by having the tree blow me in another direction. If we're throwing negligence of the effects out of the way, isn't Randall affecting my options to recover. Isn't Fountain of Dreams affecting my options when a platform rises? Isn't Duck Hunt affecting my options when that dog comes up? Isn't Yoshi's Island Brawl affecting my options when the upper platform changes position. Isn't Lylat Cruise changing my options when it tilts?

Every stage that isn't Battlefield and Final Destination changes your options when a dynamic element is added; however predictable and neglible it may be. The only way for that not to happen is for the stage to not move at all.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Plenty of people have been complaining about PS1 halting matches for a long time. It's something almost everyone hates about that stage, but begrudgingly puts up with - either for the good matchups it offers their characters, because there's only 5 other stages, or just because everyone else is running it and they know it's not going away. It was one of the first stages to get the boot when PM had free reign to make replacements, and nobody had any objections to that. Honestly, if it were up to me I'd be all for banishing it from Melee too, even if it meant having only 5 stages left.

Maybe so, but unless that actually happens I'm going to continue pointing it out as a counterexample every time someone says one or two iffy transformations make an entire stage ban worthy. Because clearly we're willing to put up with it to some extent.

I don't believe you guys are properly addressing my point that the stage is doing some work that the PLAYER should be doing.

I am not talking about advantages or disadvantages FROM the stage transformations. I'm not talking about how it's bad for the player to have to adapt to these situations.

The easiest example for me to use is options. You want to control your opponent's options as much as possible in order to force them into positions favorable for you, right? A transforming stage may not be trying to make one person win a game, but it is affecting the options that players should throw out in a given situation. Shouldn't the control of the options of one's opponent be left to the player? Why should a stage do the work that should be assigned to a player?

I don't want to get drawn into a long debate this late at night, but consider that this argument applies to non-transforming stages just as well since Battlefield and FD are literally the only completely static stages in the series. Smashville has its platform and balloon. Yoshi's Island in Brawl has the support ghosts and Fly Guys, Yoshi's Story in Melee has Randall. Fountain of Dreams has its side platforms that sometimes lower into the floor completely. All of these affect options over time.

How is this better than a stage like Wuhu Island, which yes changes its layout to a much more drastic degree but also follows a pattern in the transformations it goes through?

Veering into relatively unexplored territory, Duck Hunt and Town and City are a weird mix of static and dynamic. Orbital Gate Assault is dynamic as ****, but it's also completely predictable. How does that fall into your reckoning?

Also consider that the counterpicking player isn't immune either, it's possible to pick a stage due to mostly favorable transformations but get screwed over by an odd one out that doesn't work so well. It cuts both ways.

'd

 

[SNEAKY_URKEL]

I'm really regretting my decision of joining this as well... I don't want to stay in this debate for that much longer and it's getting late haha

However, how drastic the changes are really shouldn't be ignored. Although I do suppose that a stage not being completely static will effect options, the magnitude of the changes does affect how much option coverage is affected.

Orbital Gate Assault really does affect the gameplay through the stage too much though. I don't think my specific argument brings much more to the table when this is the topic.

And uh... I actually just completely disagree with these stages being present at all in competitive play. I disagree with them even being an option because of all the stuff I've said here. Some stages just change the game too much, and even though the better player will probably adapt player, I just don't feel like a stage should be legal if there are better stages that can fill in its gap.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I know, the bags are really forming under my eyes too, maybe we should shelve this for later today?

Once we get into the topic of how much it changes things, we're back where we started from with this whole discussion. That's just the pattern I see coming.

Edit: You see, I knew it. It's back to the same thing as before. It's going to be the same back and forth until something relevant happens.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm still really exist the idea of Starter/Counterpick distinction. It's ideologically sour and out of line with actual competitive experience, where game 1 is 90% of the set so who cares about CP-only stages?


Anyway, here is a slightly updated list, presented arrogantly without further comment:

1. Smashville
2. Battlefield
3. Town and City
4. Final Destination
5. Halberd
6. Lylat Cruise
7. Skyloft
8. Duck Hunt
9. Delphino Plaza
10. Castle Siege
11. Wuhu Island
12. Mushroom Kingdom U
13. Mario Circuit (Wii U)
14. Pokemon Stadium 2
15. Norfair
16. Windy Hill Zone
17. Kongo Jungle 64
---------------------------------
18. Big Battlefield
19. Orbital Gate Assault
20. Luigi's Mansion
21. Pilot Wings
22. Gamer
23. Garden Of Hope
24. Port Town Aero Dive
25. Kalos Pokemon League
26. Jungle Hijinx
27. Wooly World
28. Skyworld
29. Coliseum
30. Wii Fit Studio
31. Wrecking Crew
32. Mario Circuit (Brawl)
33. Mario Galaxy
34. Wily Castle
35. Bridge of Eldin
36. Onett
37. Boxing Ring
38. Pyrosphere
39. Yoshi's Island
40. Pac-Land
41. Flatzone X
42. 75m
43. Gaur Plains
44. Temple
45. Palutena's Temple
46. Great Cave Offensive

 

[Pazx]

After playing a bunch of matches I've come to the conclusion Norfair shouldn't be legal as it takes a lot of control away from the players at seemingly random times in terms of positioning, options, edgeguarding and kill moves. My revised stage list is here, presented somehow more arrogantly than Thinkaman's because I'm always right. In rough order of definitely-legal to almost-definitely-legal:

Starters (5):
Smashville
Battlefield
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise
Town and City

Counterpicks (11):
Delfino
Skyloft
Halberd
Duck Hunt
Castle Siege
Kongo Jungle 64
Pokemon Stadium 2
Wuhu Island
Wii Fit Studio
Big Battlefield
Pilotwings

Stages I believe should be explicitly banned despite the opinions of others:
Skyworld
Mario Circuit (Wii U)
Norfair
Windy Hill Zone
Wooly World
Everything else has no competitive merit and is undeserving of a place in our tournament scene.

 

[Fenrir VII]

@ SNEAKY_URKEL , I think you need to make a better example of what you are meaning. I can actually see how your argument applies to the water stages, by the factor of the water affecting recoveries and such... but for a stage like Skyloft, where the transforms come from the bottom and generally leave everybody in the neutral throughout the transformation, I don't see how the transformations give or limit options for either player. In the case of the walkoffs, worst case the match is stalled a few seconds while one player avoids projectiles from a camper. If possible, I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on your point

(Kongo Jungle) plays really, really well.
...
I actually think Skyloft is the #1 best competitive stage in 4; it's just a god-tier stage with nothing wrong with it at all, and it's absolutely critical to have this stage as legal as legal can be since it adds so much to the game.
...
Castle Siege was already a good stage in Brawl commonly legal in tournament, and it's non-trivially better in 4.

Couldn't agree more with these points. We disagree on Windy Hill (I'm not a fan mostly because of the awkward stage geometry moreso than the gravity), but I'm ok with that. lol.

@ Thinkaman , so you said you weren't elaborating, but I have to know why KJ64 is so low (assuming your list is ordered), and Luigi's Mansion is shafted by Mario Circuit, Mushroom U, and Norfair. I actually think PS2 beating it makes sense, though I disagree.

 

[Piford]

I think in regards to the transforming stages "doing the work for the player," that can be applied to every single stage. I could argue that final destination is doing the players job of limiting approach options for them. I think the common misconception is that we are only testing (or should only be testing) character knowledge in competitive Smash, while in fact we are testing both character and stage knowledge

If we assume all other things equal (players physical and mental abilities among other things.), then who is better is determined by character knowledge and stage knowledge. Both the character and the stage are tools you can use in order to win. Banning a stage is like banning a character. Of course this only applies to stages that don't have strategies like over powerful camping, or have elements like the prizes in Warioware. By removing fair stages, you are taking away tools that players can use to win and lowering the skill ceiling for the game. A stage doesn't do the work for you, it provides you with tools in order to win. If you think skyloft's unfair for giving the character with projectiles on some landings, ten its your fault for not picking a character with projectiles, not the stages.

Sorry again as I don't have much time to fully explain everything I want to say.

 

[WritersBlah]

Wanting to join in the discussion, but unable to focus on more than one stage at once. So here's a stage liberal's stage list. I imagine most people will say it's garbage, but...yeah.

Starters (7)
Battlefield
Final Destination (+ Omega Mode)
Kongo Jungle 64
Lylat Cruise
Town & City
Smashville
Duck Hunt

Counterpicks (11)
Big Battlefield
Mushroom Kingdom U
Mario Circuit U
Delfino Plaza
Skyloft
Halberd
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Pilot Wings
Wuhu Island
Windy Hill Zone

Unsure of Yet (9)

Luigi's Mansion
Yoshi's Woolly World
Jungle Hijinx
Orbital Gate Assault
Kalos Pokemon League
Coliseum
Garden of Hope
Wii Fit Studio
Norfair

 

[Terotrous]

What do walls do in 4? They don't do anything as far as I can tell.

They can still create camping positions because they limit the ways the opponent can approach. See Pilotwings for example.

What unfair advantage can you get from a temporary walk-off?

I feel that the ones on travel stages confer almost no advantage because the stage will leave after a little while and if you're not on the platform you're actually put in a negative situation, decreasing the incentive to camp. I'm a bit more concerned about the Castle Siege one, because it lasts a long time and doesn't really put you in a bad spot when it transforms (note that here the entire stage becomes a platform for a while), for some characters laming out that entire transformation is likely the dominant strategy.

Honestly, if I was going to choose one stage from the ones we're currently considering to be mostly legal to ban, it would probably be Castle Siege. The second transformation would obviously be an instaban if it was its own stage, and you're forced to play on it for quite a long time. I don't see anything especially great about form 1 or 3 that really warrants putting up with it when we have so many other better travel stages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I find it funny how Gamer seems to vary between "garbage" and "eh, maybe" depending on whose list you're looking at.

In other news I'll probably cover Skyloft next in my series. That sound good to people?

 

[19_]

I think in regards to the transforming stages "doing the work for the player," that can be applied to every single stage. I could argue that final destination is doing the players job of limiting approach options for them. I think the common misconception is that we are only testing (or should only be testing) character knowledge in competitive Smash, while in fact we are testing both character and stage knowledge

If we assume all other things equal (players physical and mental abilities among other things.), then who is better is determined by character knowledge and stage knowledge. Both the character and the stage are tools you can use in order to win. Banning a stage is like banning a character. Of course this only applies to stages that don't have strategies like over powerful camping, or have elements like the prizes in Warioware. By removing fair stages, you are taking away tools that players can use to win and lowering the skill ceiling for the game. A stage doesn't do the work for you, it provides you with tools in order to win. If you think skyloft's unfair for giving the character with projectiles on some landings, ten its your fault for not picking a character with projectiles, not the stages.

Sorry again as I don't have much time to fully explain everything I want to say.

I honestly think the argument behind what SNEAKY_URKEL is trying to say is that (mostly) static stages should be the best way to display and challenge player skill. This argument actually turns the discussion of what what stages should be legal into a philosophical debate. I honestly agree with you and disagree with URKEL on the terms of stage legality, but I can see how jarring it can be to be put in a situation where you can only pick Town & City because it is the only static stage that your opponent did not ban or you know you will have to be sent to a traveling stage just because you don't have enough strikes.

I do agree that stages like skyloft should be legal and that stage knowledge should be more important, but not at the expense of system that encourages lopsided matchups. You should not be letting a stage fight for you in a way that you don't have display as much skill because you know the matchup is in your favor.

look at this stage list:

Smashville
Battlefield
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise
Town and City
Smashville
Delfino
Skyloft
Halberd
Duck Hunt
Castle Siege
Kongo Jungle 64
Pokemon Stadium 2
Wuhu Island
Windy Hill Zone

Battlefield, FD and Smashville are simple stages that easy to understand because of how static they are but compared to stage like PS2, Halberd and Wuhu the difference is jarring. Due to the way counterpicks work you will end up having to pick stage that is un-helpfull for your character. The reason why these stages are banned is for the sake of consistency, due to a system that does not promote diversity of stages on a broad scale.

I basically just want to see more freedom and control between two players when picking stages, without having to cut out a huge chunk of the game. There is much potential for watching and playing on a stage that changes in a competitive setting.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I find it funny how Gamer seems to vary between "garbage" and "eh, maybe" depending on whose list you're looking at.

In other news I'll probably cover Skyloft next in my series. That sound good to people?

That would be really good, then maybe we can show it Anther's Ladder and get it legal over there.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The thing about "fighting the stage" is that you know what's up ahead of time and that fighting your opponent is always informed by your environment. Like let's say Skyloft transforms. How does that interfere with my gameplan? I knew it was going to transform. It poses no danger to me; it's just a situation that was a part of my gameplan (if I'm smart). Halberd's hazards are the same way. I calculate them into my neutral game on the deck of the ship. I even calculate them into my neutral game off the deck since I can long term plan that they'll eventually be present. I don't really see how having this plan interferes with anything more than some alternative plan. To me, anything that can be reasonably handled by a prepared gameplan is inherently NOT interference since it was a dynamic you were relying upon the entire time.

I mean, look at this from another angle. Let's say I'm fighting Sonic as Rosalina. A big tactic is to hang out under platforms and exert spatial control to really try to limit Sonic's approach angles; this is focusing on Sonic's relatively weaknesses and Rosalina's relative strengths. So when I play on Final Destination in that match-up, that core gameplan that works on literally every other stage is interfered with; I can't hang out under platforms that don't exist! It's even worse than a stage like Wuhu that might have a few no platform transformations since on Wuhu I can devise a plan to use this strength of mine down the road when the stage transforms; on FD, I'm forced to completely abandon a core aspect of my gameplay. If the dynamics of the stage forcing me to alter my baseline gameplan isn't interference, I don't know what interference is.

The point of that isn't really to argue FD should be banned. The point is that the "interference" from Skyloft/Wuhu/Delfino/Halberd is not some special character that only exists on transforming stages. It's about how all stages have certain geographies that force you to make a plan informed by what the stage does; we can't be in teh business of banning stages for interfering with our plans as long as we have a full ability to form a new plan. I mean, the game has been out for 10 days; I'm sure by now everyone has memorized the lay-out of every landing stop on Skyloft and Wuhu Island, knows all the traveling platform lay-outs, intuitively understand the transformation times and knows when the stage is going to transform, knows based on watching the background what stops are likely to come up, and already knows good baseline tactics at every landing zone with your main. It's not tough stuff; anyone who seriously plans to enter a tournament had better find that sort of thing easy and I have to imagine should already be fully ready to play on these stages (when I heard people at tournament say they didn't know all of the stops at Skyloft or Wuhu, both of which were legal, I was blown away and assumed they just entered for the purpose of making a pot donation; you might as well not know what moves all of the characters can do). I don't see any difficulty at all in fighting on this style of stage; it in no way whatsoever impedes my ability to play my game or at the very least impedes less so than most static stages do (I honestly find FD and SV really obstructive to the gameplay stuff I'm usually looking for; they force me way further out of my comfort zone than any other stages).

I really don't understand why I should have to play a worse game with stages like Skyloft as banned or a "counterpick" (banned in game one, small starter lists are really the absolutely most terrible thing) when it's just so easy and natural to fight on such a stage. It's easier and more natural than to fight on that stage than any other stage in the game from where I'm sitting since I can incorporate the maximum number of my gameplay ideas by utilizing the different landing zones and platform lay-outs while soaring while still always having a competence in what's going on in the match and an ability to pre-emptively account for everything going on with the stage in precisely, exactly the same way I do on Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, or any other should be legal stage. Really, what's the problem?

 

[19_]

The thing about "fighting the stage" is that you know what's up ahead of time and that fighting your opponent is always informed by your environment. Like let's say Skyloft transforms. How does that interfere with my gameplan? I knew it was going to transform. It poses no danger to me; it's just a situation that was a part of my gameplan (if I'm smart). Halberd's hazards are the same way. I calculate them into my neutral game on the deck of the ship. I even calculate them into my neutral game off the deck since I can long term plan that they'll eventually be present. I don't really see how having this plan interferes with anything more than some alternative plan. To me, anything that can be reasonably handled by a prepared gameplan is inherently NOT interference since it was a dynamic you were relying upon the entire time.

I mean, look at this from another angle. Let's say I'm fighting Sonic as Rosalina. A big tactic is to hang out under platforms and exert spatial control to really try to limit Sonic's approach angles; this is focusing on Sonic's relatively weaknesses and Rosalina's relative strengths. So when I play on Final Destination in that match-up, that core gameplan that works on literally every other stage is interfered with; I can't hang out under platforms that don't exist! It's even worse than a stage like Wuhu that might have a few no platform transformations since on Wuhu I can devise a plan to use this strength of mine down the road when the stage transforms; on FD, I'm forced to completely abandon a core aspect of my gameplay. If the dynamics of the stage forcing me to alter my baseline gameplan isn't interference, I don't know what interference is.

The point of that isn't really to argue FD should be banned. The point is that the "interference" from Skyloft/Wuhu/Delfino/Halberd is not some special character that only exists on transforming stages. It's about how all stages have certain geographies that force you to make a plan informed by what the stage does; we can't be in teh business of banning stages for interfering with our plans as long as we have a full ability to form a new plan. I mean, the game has been out for 10 days; I'm sure by now everyone has memorized the lay-out of every landing stop on Skyloft and Wuhu Island, knows all the traveling platform lay-outs, intuitively understand the transformation times and knows when the stage is going to transform, knows based on watching the background what stops are likely to come up, and already knows good baseline tactics at every landing zone with your main. It's not tough stuff; anyone who seriously plans to enter a tournament had better find that sort of thing easy and I have to imagine should already be fully ready to play on these stages (when I heard people at tournament say they didn't know all of the stops at Skyloft or Wuhu, both of which were legal, I was blown away and assumed they just entered for the purpose of making a pot donation; you might as well not know what moves all of the characters can do). I don't see any difficulty at all in fighting on this style of stage; it in no way whatsoever impedes my ability to play my game or at the very least impedes less so than most static stages do (I honestly find FD and SV really obstructive to the gameplay stuff I'm usually looking for; they force me way further out of my comfort zone than any other stages).

I really don't understand why I should have to play a worse game with stages like Skyloft as banned or a "counterpick" (banned in game one, small starter lists are really the absolutely most terrible thing) when it's just so easy and natural to fight on such a stage. It's easier and more natural than to fight on that stage than any other stage in the game from where I'm sitting since I can incorporate the maximum number of my gameplay ideas by utilizing the different landing zones and platform lay-outs while soaring while still always having a competence in what's going on in the match and an ability to pre-emptively account for everything going on with the stage in precisely, exactly the same way I do on Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, or any other should be legal stage. Really, what's the problem?

I honestly think it is more of a philosophical argument more than anything else. As an outsider to the competitive scene I know I will naturally want to play on more stages, but I still would want to respect the choice of being able to avoid stages that are not as static. They are used to having simpler stages, but do you think stages like Halberd or Delfino would be legal if they were not in Brawl? I bring this up because Brawl seems to be the game where this is still being allowed (from what I heard). Haberd seem to be viable in brawl despite hazards being present. I'm not well versed in smashes history but was it due too the whole idea that the Brawl community wanted to set itself apart from melee?

I think people are only willing to try new things when they are in a situation when the have to. Smash 4's competitive community (the popular TO's and vets) from what I see would rather stick with the equivalent of a Brawl-esqu stage list because it is what they are used to. They see no reason to change, it is what worked last time right? People want jump in the game asap instead of studying the contents of it but doing so may create a concrete standard without seeing what possibilities the game has to offer. This only is good for shot term gain, but I don't think they know any better. Thing is I don't want scare players who only want simple stages away, but outright banning stages that may have a chance of working may turn other players away from the scene. It's a mess really.

 

[Piford]

I honestly think it is more of a philosophical argument more than anything else. As an outsider to the competitive scene I know I will naturally want to play on more stages, but I still would want to respect the choice of being able to avoid stages that are not as static. They are used to having simpler stages, but do you think stages like Halberd or Delfino would be legal if they were not in Brawl? I bring this up because Brawl seems to be the game where this is still being allowed (from what I heard). Haberd seem to be viable in brawl despite hazards being present. I'm not well versed in smashes history but was it due too the whole idea that the Brawl community wanted to set itself apart from melee?

I think people are only willing to try new things when they are in a situation when the have to. Smash 4's competitive community (the popular TO's and vets) from what I see would rather stick with the equivalent of a Brawl-esqu stage list because it is what they are used to. They see no reason to change, it is what worked last time right? People want jump in the game asap instead of studying the contents of it but doing so may create a concrete standard without seeing what possibilities the game has to offer. This only is good for shot term gain, but I don't think they know any better. Thing is I don't want scare players who only want simple stages away, but outright banning stages that may have a chance of working may turn other players away from the scene. It's a mess really.

Halberd wasn't legal in Brawl because it wanted to be different than Melee; Halberd was legal in Brawl because its a fair stage. The thing is having a stage legal doesn't force you to play on it. If I don't want to play on Final Destination and you don't want to play on Final Destination, then we are not going to play on Final Destination. All Banning a stage does is restrict players options. Lets say we ban Battlefield because people don't like it (obviously not realistic). Battlefield is a fair stage, but we banned it because people don't want to play on it. Now someone comes to a tourney and wants to play on Battlefield, but he can't. He can't play on a fair stage just because people don't like it and we banned it for no reason. If a stage is fair (as it it will determine who the best player is), then a stage should not be banned because we want to give players as many options as possible. Like I said before if we ban a fair stage, thats just like banning a character. And having less fair stages will lower the skill ceiling, which we should want to be as high as possible. The best competitive games have a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling.

 

[WritersBlah]

I think people are only willing to try new things when they are in a situation when the have to. Smash 4's competitive community (the popular TO's and vets) from what I see would rather stick with the equivalent of a Brawl-esqu stage list because it is what they are used to. They see no reason to change, it is what worked last time right? People want jump in the game asap instead of studying the contents of it but doing so may create a concrete standard without seeing what possibilities the game has to offer. This only is good for shot term gain, but I don't think they know any better. Thing is I don't want scare players who only want simple stages away, but outright banning stages that may have a chance of working may turn other players away from the scene. It's a mess really.

This. So much this. I mean, no, I don't think you understand how much this. I don't know what the tourney scene is looking like to the rest of you guys, but down here in the South Florida area, the stagelists are obscenely small. Here, let me give you an example.

Smash 4 Wii U @ArcadeOdyssey

Stage List

Starters:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise
Town and City
Smashville

Counterpicks:
All Omegas(except PacLand and Kalos Pokémon League)
Castle Siege
Halberd
Delfino Plaza
Kongo Jungle 64

So not only are Omegas being considered a separate stage from Final Destination, but even relatively tame stages like Duck Hunt, Wuhu, Windy Hill, and Skyloft are all being banned for super arbitrary reasons. And no, it's not just this tourney. Almost every tournament within an hour's drive of my place has near identical stage lists. It's really unnerving to me that these stage lists are so prevalent and thinking opposite to this mindset gets you labeled as a scrub. I mean, I'm not a particularly skilled player (heck, I can't even make it past a single match at locals), but I can't help but feel like this kind of thinking is only going to hurt the community in the long run. Not to mention they also have custom moves banned, but that's an entirely different discussion. I really wish I could go to tournaments with Amazing Ampharos right now.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

This. So much this. I mean, no, I don't think you understand how much this. I don't know what the tourney scene is looking like to the rest of you guys, but down here in the South Florida area, the stagelists are obscenely small. Here, let me give you an example.



So not only are Omegas being considered a separate stage from Final Destination, but even relatively tame stages like Duck Hunt, Wuhu, Windy Hill, and Skyloft are all being banned for super arbitrary reasons. And no, it's not just this tourney. Almost every tournament within an hour's drive of my place has near identical stage lists. It's really unnerving to me that these stage lists are so prevalent and thinking opposite to this mindset gets you labeled as a scrub. I mean, I'm not a particularly skilled player (heck, I can't even make it past a single match at locals), but I can't help but feel like this kind of thinking is only going to hurt the community in the long run. Not to mention they also have custom moves banned, but that's an entirely different discussion. I really wish I could go to tournaments with Amazing Ampharos right now.

Related, when will we hear about the Apex ruleset? Whatever they go with will almost certainly have a large impact and I can see most regions adopting it in a case of follow-the-leader.

 

[Deleted member]

The springs aren't a problem because they are on a timer (all the time I'v checked they've been the same, I guess I could just be lucky though). It's easy to punish someone who uses them since you always end up in the same spot, so you know exactly where the person using the springs will be. Then you just punish with an aerial. The springs are basically a latch ditch effort for recovery because of how unsafe they are. The windmill isn't a problem because its never advantageous to be there. If you are on the windmill, you have to keep moving in order to not be killed, which means your movements are easy predictable and therefore punishable. If you try to camp on it, your opponent will always come out on top since they are under you, which is the more advantageous positions.

I don't think you answered these problems I have with it-

The springs aren't a problem because they can boost recovery, although it isn't in the plus column. The springs are a major problem since its an OHKO spike that can be hit fairly easily anytime the springs are alive. I have literally been able to get KOs without taking 30+% using the springs, and vice versa. I've also managed to be KOed by a Usmash into an offscreen windmill platform that proceeded to star KO me when I would've lived otherwise. The windmill is close to the blast zone. Thats not good for campers, but in my experience it has added a section way to close to the blast zone for comfort (same for the vertical blast zone while on the way up). The blast zones as a whole, even without the windmill taken into account, has small horizontal blast zones.


--------
(Not replying to anybody in particular anymore)
What I think will be legal-

• Battlefield
• Final Destination + Omegas
• Kongo Jungle
• Lylat Cruise
• Halberd
• Delphino Plaza
• Wuhu Island
• Castle Siege
• Duck Hunt
• Skyloft
• Town and City
• Smashville
• Norfair

On my fence that I need more convincing for-
Windy Hill- Read the upper part of this post.
Pilotwings- The red plane's lower platform in tandem with the wall in between each part for camping. In my experience its harder to approach aerially because of the upper platform.
PS2- People have been saying its been changed from Brawl so its more tolerable, but my experience with the Flying and Electric sections is the same as Brawl. Floaty, clunky degenerate play on the Flying section and a jump fest trying to stay at the center of the stage, constantly fighting treadmills if you think of playing on the ground for the Electric section.
Wooly World- Walkoff section and the rocket.
Mario Circuit U- Taking away a blast zone with a huge wall multiple times.

 

[19_]

Halberd wasn't legal in Brawl because it wanted to be different than Melee; Halberd was legal in Brawl because its a fair stage. The thing is having a stage legal doesn't force you to play on it. If I don't want to play on Final Destination and you don't want to play on Final Destination, then we are not going to play on Final Destination. All Banning a stage does is restrict players options. Lets say we ban Battlefield because people don't like it (obviously not realistic). Battlefield is a fair stage, but we banned it because people don't want to play on it. Now someone comes to a tourney and wants to play on Battlefield, but he can't. He can't play on a fair stage just because people don't like it and we banned it for no reason. If a stage is fair (as it it will determine who the best player is), then a stage should not be banned because we want to give players as many options as possible. Like I said before if we ban a fair stage, thats just like banning a character. And having less fair stages will lower the skill ceiling, which we should want to be as high as possible. The best competitive games have a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling.

I don't disagree. I just think if we want to change the status quo we would have to resort to compromises with those who think otherwise.

I keep hearing from commentators on popular streams they want small stage list. They see all these extra stages that may be possible to play on but only find them as clutter. This is why I kind of think the way stages are picked affects legality. If you do have a large stage list with using the current counterpick system it will feel like there is an imbalance. When SNEAKY_URKEL posted his argument I saw logic in it. You say if you strike a stage you don't have to play on it, but what If I don't want to be traveling stage. Thats wuhu, defino and skyloft three stages four if you count halberd. See where I am going with this?

I believe that if we want present these stages for legality, it must be done so in a way that does not harm there options to go to there "neutral" stages regardless of our opinion on the matter.

 

[Fenrir VII]

I actually kind of agree with 19_. The main problem I have with a total stage list striking is that people can "troll the tourney players" by striking Smashville, BF, FD, T&C etc etc etc and forcing delfino game 1. Not that that's an unfair way to do it... it's just bound to aggravate some people. At least with the separate neutral and CP lists, the tourney player feels they have a fair game 1, and if they win and get CPed.... ah well, the set is tied and they can take it back to Smashville or whatever.

I don't necessarily agree with the "5 stages only!!!!" mentality at all, but at the same time, you don't want to anger a large portion of the community with rules..

 

[Piford]

I don't disagree. I just think if we want to change the status quo we would have to resort to compromises with those who think otherwise.

I keep hearing from commentators on popular streams they want small stage list. They see all these extra stages that may be possible to play on but only find them as clutter. This is why I kind of think the way stages are picked affects legality. If you do have a large stage list with using the current counterpick system it will feel like there is an imbalance. When SNEAKY_URKEL posted his argument I saw logic in it. You say if you strike a stage you don't have to play on it, but what If I don't want to be traveling stage. Thats wuhu, defino and skyloft three stages four if you count halberd. See where I am going with this?

I believe that if we want present these stages for legality, it must be done so in a way that does not harm there options to go to there "neutral" stages regardless of our opinion on the matter.

With the current counterpick system, there's so much reliance on what stage wins game one that you easily not play game 2 and still win, but that's for a different discussion. And the goal of the counterpick system should be to get an advantage by counterpicking the correct stage. Wuhu Island, Delfino Plaza, and Skyloft all are similar in concept, but there platform layouts make them completely different. And you should be doing whatever possible to win, so even if you don't like stages that travel, if they benefit you, you will still pick them. No ones forcing you to pick them, but you will because you like winning and prizes and whatnot.

As for people wanting a smaller stage list (lets just say thats 5 stages), who gets to say what those stages are. If we have 15 objectively fair stages, then any one of those 5 could be legal. Like here's the list

Skyloft
Town and City
Battlefield
Castle Siege
Halberd

Why not use this list? If I ran a tournament with these stages, people who wanted a smaller stage list shouldn't complain right? They are all fair stages, so why is Final Destination more deserving of being on a small stage list than Halberd? The only way to make a fair stage list is to have a big stage list. We shouldn't have a small stage list just because people want it because that's hurting all the people who don't want it. While having a big stage list only provides people who want a smaller stage list with more tools to win, so it's not hurting them.

This. So much this. I mean, no, I don't think you understand how much this. I don't know what the tourney scene is looking like to the rest of you guys, but down here in the South Florida area, the stagelists are obscenely small. Here, let me give you an example.



So not only are Omegas being considered a separate stage from Final Destination, but even relatively tame stages like Duck Hunt, Wuhu, Windy Hill, and Skyloft are all being banned for super arbitrary reasons. And no, it's not just this tourney. Almost every tournament within an hour's drive of my place has near identical stage lists. It's really unnerving to me that these stage lists are so prevalent and thinking opposite to this mindset gets you labeled as a scrub. I mean, I'm not a particularly skilled player (heck, I can't even make it past a single match at locals), but I can't help but feel like this kind of thinking is only going to hurt the community in the long run. Not to mention they also have custom moves banned, but that's an entirely different discussion. I really wish I could go to tournaments with Amazing Ampharos right now.

Go to that tournament, get someone to ban Final Destination but not Omega's. Then promptly counterpick to Omega Final Destination, and point out how its not against the rules. When they come up to you and tell you that Omega Final Destination counts as Final Destination, ask them why Omega Battlefield doesn't since its identical. Then ask why Omega Gaur Plains, and so on and so forth till they realize that the differences in Omega's have less of an effect on balance than having both Omega's and Final Destination. And then bring up about them not having a large enough stage list. If you present your argument logically and in a mature way people won't think you're a scrub because you are acting mature and presenting solid arguments. They can only come up with so many BS counterarguments for stages like Duck Hunt before they realize that you are right.

I actually kind of agree with 19_. The main problem I have with a total stage list striking is that people can "troll the tourney players" by striking Smashville, BF, FD, T&C etc etc etc and forcing delfino game 1. Not that that's an unfair way to do it... it's just bound to aggravate some people. At least with the separate neutral and CP lists, the tourney player feels they have a fair game 1, and if they win and get CPed.... ah well, the set is tied and they can take it back to Smashville or whatever.

I don't necessarily agree with the "5 stages only!!!!" mentality at all, but at the same time, you don't want to anger a large portion of the community with rules..

Edit: But what if they are not trolling and Delfino is the most neutral stage for there character matchup. Lets just say Mario sucks against Luigi on Smashville, BF, FD, and TAC. He's great on Halberd, Skyloft, Duck Hunt, and KJ64. Delphino is the most neutral stage for the Mario Luigi matchup. If you have starters Smashville, BF, FD, TAC, and Duck Hunt then you are not letting characters get access to the most fair stages. Now you don't have access to the most fair stages match one.

 

[Pazx]

I don't disagree. I just think if we want to change the status quo we would have to resort to compromises with those who think otherwise.

I keep hearing from commentators on popular streams they want small stage list. They see all these extra stages that may be possible to play on but only find them as clutter. This is why I kind of think the way stages are picked affects legality. If you do have a large stage list with using the current counterpick system it will feel like there is an imbalance. When SNEAKY_URKEL posted his argument I saw logic in it. You say if you strike a stage you don't have to play on it, but what If I don't want to be traveling stage. Thats wuhu, defino and skyloft three stages four if you count halberd. See where I am going with this?

I believe that if we want present these stages for legality, it must be done so in a way that does not harm there options to go to there "neutral" stages regardless of our opinion on the matter.

When commentators say "I can't believe this stage is legal" or other things asking for a smaller stage list, they are coming from Melee's 6 stages. We have the potential to have over fifteen stages in this game. It's likely that some of them won't be played as commonly as Smashville or Skyloft, but having a wider number of stages available during the counterpick stage is only beneficial for players, spectators, and the game in general.

 

[19_]

With the current counterpick system, there's so much reliance on what stage wins game one that you easily not play game 2 and still win, but that's for a different discussion. And the goal of the counterpick system should be to get an advantage by counterpicking the correct stage. Wuhu Island, Delfino Plaza, and Skyloft all are similar in concept, but there platform layouts make them completely different. And you should be doing whatever possible to win, so even if you don't like stages that travel, if they benefit you, you will still pick them. No ones forcing you to pick them, but you will because you like winning and prizes and whatnot.

As for people wanting a smaller stage list (lets just say thats 5 stages), who gets to say what those stages are. If we have 15 objectively fair stages, then any one of those 5 could be legal. Like here's the list

Skyloft
Town and City
Battlefield
Castle Siege
Halberd

Why not use this list? If I ran a tournament with these stages, people who wanted a smaller stage list shouldn't complain right? They are all fair stages, so why is Final Destination more deserving of being on a small stage list than Halberd? The only way to make a fair stage list is to have a big stage list. We shouldn't have a small stage list just because people want it because that's hurting all the people who don't want it. While having a big stage list only provides people who want a smaller stage list with more tools to win, so it's not hurting them.


Go to that tournament, get someone to ban Final Destination but not Omega's. Then promptly counterpick to Omega Final Destination, and point out how its not against the rules. When they come up to you and tell you that Omega Final Destination counts as Final Destination, ask them why Omega Battlefield doesn't since its identical. Then ask why Omega Gaur Plains, and so on and so forth till they realize that the differences in Omega's have less of an effect on balance than having both Omega's and Final Destination. And then bring up about them not having a large enough stage list. If you present your argument logically and in a mature way people won't think you're a scrub because you are acting mature and presenting solid arguments. They can only come up with so many BS counterarguments for stages like Duck Hunt before they realize that you are right.



Edit: But what if they are not trolling and Delfino is the most neutral stage for there character matchup. Lets just say Mario sucks against Luigi on Smashville, BF, FD, and TAC. He's great on Halberd, Skyloft, Duck Hunt, and KJ64. Delphino is the most neutral stage for the Mario Luigi matchup. If you have starters Smashville, BF, FD, TAC, and Duck Hunt then you are not letting characters get access to the most fair stages. Now you don't have access to the most fair stages match one.

When commentators say "I can't believe this stage is legal" or other things asking for a smaller stage list, they are coming from Melee's 6 stages. We have the potential to have over fifteen stages in this game. It's likely that some of them won't be played as commonly as Smashville or Skyloft, but having a wider number of stages available during the counterpick stage is only beneficial for players, spectators, and the game in general.

I hope I don't sound like an *** but not everyone thinks as open minded as you do Piford. You underestimate the human ability john and have the masses john with them. In a perfect world could possibly have a large scale tournament involving just Skyloft, Town and City, Battlefield, Castle Siege, and Halberd but people are going to be people. But you may underestimate the idea of using there logic in a way that everyone wins.

Instead of having a set counterpick list why can't there be a pool of counterpicks that the players can choose from before the set begins? Sure starters like BF, smashville, and FD would still be picked more often but at least the stages would still legal without having players to give up there precious johns and stage striking. I know this does not solve the problem with people complaining about hazards but baby steps! We need to make compromises in order these stages legal.

edit: I know I'm going on about stage selection but if I do feel like stages are banned because of the isues of stage selection.

 

[Thinkaman]

@ SNEAKY_URKEL @ Thinkaman , so you said you weren't elaborating, but I have to know why KJ64 is so low (assuming your list is ordered), and Luigi's Mansion is shafted by Mario Circuit, Mushroom U, and Norfair. I actually think PS2 beating it makes sense, though I disagree.

Basically, mild circle camping. You can spend multiple minutes in many matchups running away with abnormally low penalty or risk.

Neither stage is Temple--you can expect the circle camper to eventually take SOME damage (not zero), but it's still an extreme enough effect to bump into common time limits.

For a long percentage of my Brawl career, Luigi's Mansion was the only stage I ever saw anyone timed out on in person.

 

[Piford]

Basically, mild circle camping. You can spend multiple minutes in many matchups running away with abnormally low penalty or risk.

Neither stage is Temple--you can expect the circle camper to eventually take SOME damage (not zero), but it's still an extreme enough effect to bump into common time limits.

For a long percentage of my Brawl career, Luigi's Mansion was the only stage I ever saw anyone timed out on in person.

Isn't Luigi's Mansion smaller this time around (It feels that way and every other stage from Brawl is I believe)? That would definitely help stop some of the circle camping, and it's still destructible so you can easily destroy the house if someone tries to camp.

Edit:

I made this write up to try to post on the subreddit to help show some people the benefits of a legal stage list. I thought some feedback would help, so I can make sure I don't leave any wholes or have a weak argument or something along those lines. Any feedback would be great, especially on any points I forgot to put, or any contradictions I make.