Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[KlefkiHolder]

Don't want to discredit you but... we still lack evidence of this glitch being consistent....so far is still anecdotal.

Yeah I understand what you're saying. However that video showcases what I was talking about. I think I'll try to replicate it tomorrow

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I posted this on a few fourms beforehand but though I'd probably get a better response here. Has anyone seen this happen on lylat Cruise before? It seems asif the stage has a glitchy terrain and It makes you fall down like whats shown in the video.

Just thinking this could cause some problems with the stage being a starter and such. If anyone can provide a good explanation as to why this happened let me know.

Thanks

@Amazing Ampharos was putting together a post about how Lylat's tilting makes certain attacks put the user in an airborne state, but that doesn't look like quite the same thing. All the same I'd wager he knows a bit more about the stage than most of us, so hopefully that tag will summon him for a look-see.

 

[HavocThunder]

(Whew ok, these posts feel like they're getting longer and longer)

@ LiteralGrill Firstly, thank you very much for hosting these tournaments so people can play on these underused stages. Please don't think I'm saying they shouldn't be tested. I'm concerned about the stages dismissed as banned and how they will be addressed and evaluated now and in the future.

If you want, list every stage on that list you think should be legal and we in the thread can discuss why or why not it should be.

You don't have to call me out like that. I've been discussing them right here in this thread, doing the research myself on Wrecking Crew/Wily's Castle, and posting my findings. I've been arguing for their legality for most of my post history. What else should I be doing in here? I'll happily talk about any stage I feel comfortable with, but I can only talk about so many stages at once. I'm prioritizing Wrecking Crew because it's my favorite stage in the game and hardly see it discussed anywhere. Is there anything you can do to help contribute to the Wrecking Crew or Wily's Castle discussion? Right now, as it stands, Wrecking Crew is a clear cut counterpick due to being a predictable stage.

The ability for a highly mobile character to nail a hit and run around a massive stage is one of those things.

Since you're claiming this and ruling on it, can you describe a specific scenario that makes it impossible for person A to catch up to person B on Wrecking Crew because it's too big? Applying a generic "massive" without mentioning any other important characteristic about the stage tells me nothing about how this ruling is being determined for Wrecking Crew and stages like it.

I've listed many different options that a player has to deal with folks running away. Keep bringing the stage down and cut off escape routes with bombs and barrels until a layout with some ladders comes up, use the platforms, use barrels, time explosions so the opponent is standing on the stage when it falls, etc. Where won't any of these work? Help me here because I'm not seeing it.

Maybe even the match can happen if both players pick the same characters but we also don't want to centralize the game that way either, so stages that make the game revolve around only one strategy are also going to be banned.

This is a case of rules overstepping their bounds and trying to dictate what the metagame SHOULD look like. I've seen this overcentralizing argument before but it's missing something really important: Players are battling against other players. No one's forcing anyone to play a specific character on any stage. Ever. There's always great characters to pick and bad characters to pick, popular and unpopular, but at least you have the choice to go with whoever feels the most comfortable. It's ok with having a clear defined metagame centered around a top tier character. *looks at * There's nothing wrong about playing him or not playing him even though he's very good and popular at the moment.

It's impossible to force anyone to play a specific way either. There's clearly great strategies, clearly useless strategies, weird strategies, aggressive strategies, campy strategies, let the players figure out the metagame and let the rules dictate that there's always a reasonable win condition. The time limit is there, so no matter how much everyone ignores it, people will use it to win if they know they can, and there's nothing illegal about it because it's there every match.

If some stages are legal, lots of people wont even show up to an event, you can't compete with no people. So those stages are not on the radar for testing.

The possibility people won't show up to events in protest is enough to ban a stage? Huh? Why are you even having these experiments if you're unsure about something like that? People can leave events all they want, but that has nothing to do with stage legality at all.

 

[Conda]

You can't host in person tournaments if your ruleset is not one people like. Part of experimentation in Capps (online) tournament (which I will be commentating at) is to see if there's a stage or two that would be great for competitive play that we are ignoring, and to educate everyone else on this discovery (if it is made).

Stage legality is a big part of the ruleset, and being strict and disciplined is important for tournament organizers. Not everybody gets this, but in practice it's only important that TOs do.

 

[LiteralGrill]

(Whew ok, these posts feel like they're getting longer and longer)

No worries, debate posts tend to be long it just happens! I know you aren't mad that I'm testing stages at all, so don't worry about that one either. But let's get to the meat of things.

You don't have to call me out like that. I've been discussing them right here in this thread, doing the research myself on Wrecking Crew/Wily's Castle, and posting my findings. I've been arguing for their legality for most of my post history. What else should I be doing in here? I'll happily talk about any stage I feel comfortable with, but I can only talk about so many stages at once. I'm prioritizing Wrecking Crew because it's my favorite stage in the game and hardly see it discussed anywhere. Is there anything you can do to help contribute to the Wrecking Crew or Wily's Castle discussion? Right now, as it stands, Wrecking Crew is a clear cut counterpick due to being a predictable stage.

I wasn't trying to call you out in some mean way, I was honestly just trying to invite you to start discussion. So let's discuss these few stages.

Wily Castle is bad becuase of the Camping the Yellow Devil Creates, as he makes a huge wall between you and your opponent, and then attacks the opponent when he disappears. On top of that, if your opponent tries to attack him you can just wait till the last hit to get the explosion for yourself. Because of this, no one would ever destroy him.

This one was already explained. So I wont do it again. The stage is bad for competition so it's not going to be legal.

The possibility people won't show up to events in protest is enough to ban a stage? Huh? Why are you even having these experiments if you're unsure about something like that? People can leave events all they want, but that has nothing to do with stage legality at all.

Actually players not showing up with some stages legal IS a reason like it or not. If people don't come to my tournaments, they simply wont exist. No competition will take place if no one comes. As much as that sucks it's a fact of running events so if no one will come if a stage is legal, it's going to get banned.

Why do I bring this up first? You keep mentioning that if time out is available it should be able to be used. I want to again remind you WE ONLY HAVE A TIMER SO EVENTS CAN FINISH ON TIME. We want matches to go to time out as little as possible since we don't event want to have the rule in the first place but have to. Players do NOT like time outs.

So maybe a player can manage to make hits happen on some of these big stages, but when a Wooly World match has a total for 30% damage done and no lost stocks with only 2 minutes left in the match we have an issue. Stages that big even if you can catch people cause that kind of gameplay and people just plain don't enjoy it.

So if they don't enjoy it they wont show up. Then there's no competition, no tournaments, no scene. So unless I want to host tournaments no one will attend and lose folks to other events. I can't leave these stages legal and no one else is going to either.

Even worse, if people find the gameplay boring they wont watch it on stream either. So the game is going to just stagnate and die with those stages legal.

It may not always be fair but that's the way it is and there's nothing that can honestly be done about it.

 

[atomicblast360]

Are there really people who want to have Pyrosphere and Wily's Castle Legal?.....
Imagine this, you're about to win a match in a tournament and you end up losing because Ridley killed you the entire game.... Why would you want that?

 

[Man Li Gi]

All these problems would've have been avoided if there was a "Stage Hazard" option. People wouldn't be arguing to keep clearly flawed and inferior stages for the sake of the universe it represents.

 

[Shadó Chimera / シャドーキメラ]

Pretty sure that's what omega stages are for. lol

 

[ぱみゅ]

All these problems would've have been avoided if there was a "Stage Hazard" option. People wouldn't be arguing to keep clearly flawed and inferior stages for the sake of the universe it represents.

I swear, if there were a way to turn off only Ridley and only Yellow Devil, those stages would be legit as heck.

 

[wildvine47]

I swear, if there were a way to turn off only Ridley and only Yellow Devil, those stages would be legit as heck.

I dunno, Pyrosphere still has the zero bugs, the electro-bomb guys and the turret-copters.

 

[Pazx]

My least favourite thing about Wrecking Crew is the ladders honestly, they frustrate me to no end when I accidentally grab onto one.

 

[Uniit]

No worries, debate posts tend to be long it just happens! I know you aren't mad that I'm testing stages at all, so don't worry about that one either. But let's get to the meat of things.




I wasn't trying to call you out in some mean way, I was honestly just trying to invite you to start discussion. So let's discuss these few stages.



This one was already explained. So I wont do it again. The stage is bad for competition so it's not going to be legal.



Actually players not showing up with some stages legal IS a reason like it or not. If people don't come to my tournaments, they simply wont exist. No competition will take place if no one comes. As much as that sucks it's a fact of running events so if no one will come if a stage is legal, it's going to get banned.

Why do I bring this up first? You keep mentioning that if time out is available it should be able to be used. I want to again remind you WE ONLY HAVE A TIMER SO EVENTS CAN FINISH ON TIME. We want matches to go to time out as little as possible since we don't event want to have the rule in the first place but have to. Players do NOT like time outs.

So maybe a player can manage to make hits happen on some of these big stages, but when a Wooly World match has a total for 30% damage done and no lost stocks with only 2 minutes left in the match we have an issue. Stages that big even if you can catch people cause that kind of gameplay and people just plain don't enjoy it.

So if they don't enjoy it they wont show up. Then there's no competition, no tournaments, no scene. So unless I want to host tournaments no one will attend and lose folks to other events. I can't leave these stages legal and no one else is going to either.

Even worse, if people find the gameplay boring they wont watch it on stream either. So the game is going to just stagnate and die with those stages legal.

It may not always be fair but that's the way it is and there's nothing that can honestly be done about it.

Sooo... stages lagelity are based on popularity ? Then make a poll and be done with it !

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sooo... stages lagelity are based on popularity ? Then make a poll and be done with it !

Read it again. It is not ONLY popularity but unfortunately popularity IS a factor whether we like it or not. Let's face it, if I legalize Kalos Pokemon League or Skyworld at an event (even though some wanted em tested) people are not going to be happy. If I kept stages that were broken legal all the time like Wily's Castle and Pyrosphere people aren't going to come to events anymore.

There comes a point where popularity stops mattering. Pokemon Stadium 2 and Wuhu Island aren't always super popular right now, but we have yet to see them be really broken yet. People aren't leaving my events because they're legal either. These stages are obviously doing just fine. Maybe a few of the testing stages will manage to join their ranks by either not being broken or causing issues. But other then that if players refuse to come and play if a stage is legal it will be banned. It's just a fact, no players = no competition.

 

[Uniit]

Isn't that my point here ? If, for some reason, everybody's hate Wuhu, and we made it legal, nobody's gonna come to a tournament allowing it.

Stage poll we be telling on what stage people wants to play. All that is needed is to explain why a stage is healthy or not.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Read it again. It is not ONLY popularity but unfortunately popularity IS a factor whether we like it or not. Let's face it, if I legalize Kalos Pokemon League or Skyworld at an event (even though some wanted em tested) people are not going to be happy. If I kept stages that were broken legal all the time like Wily's Castle and Pyrosphere people aren't going to come to events anymore.

There comes a point where popularity stops mattering. Pokemon Stadium 2 and Wuhu Island aren't always super popular right now, but we have yet to see them be really broken yet. People aren't leaving my events because they're legal either. These stages are obviously doing just fine. Maybe a few of the testing stages will manage to join their ranks by either not being broken or causing issues. But other then that if players refuse to come and play if a stage is legal it will be banned. It's just a fact, no players = no competition.

For the record, I wouldn't mind playing on Kalos Pokemon League. <.<

 

[Piford]

Well to be fair if everyone hates a stage and its legal, then no ones going to play on it. If no ones playing on it, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it legal.

 

[Thinkaman]

Well to be fair if everyone hates a stage and its legal, then no ones going to play on it. If no ones playing on it, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it legal.

Well, not quite.

Imagine the hypothetical stage "coin flip", where the winner is always 100% random.

Everyone would despise this stage, including me. But I would always counterpick it against the absolute top players, as should all non-top players with brains.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Well, not quite.

Imagine the hypothetical stage "coin flip", where the winner is always 100% random.

Everyone would despise this stage, including me. But I would always counterpick it against the absolute top players, as should all non-top players with brains.

I imagine that having hazards intrusive and severe enough to make player skill irrelevant would be grounds for a stage ban anyway.

 

[Thinkaman]

I imagine that having hazards intrusive and severe enough to make player skill irrelevant would be grounds for a stage ban anyway.

Sure, I'm just pointing out that whether people want to play on a stage or not is irrelevant to optimal play. Players who want to win may be forced to pick legal stages they hate playing on.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Sure, I'm just pointing out that whether people want to play on a stage or not is irrelevant to optimal play. Players who want to win may be forced to pick legal stages they hate playing on.

It just seemed a bit poorly framed. A stage that's unpopular because reasons but doesn't actually influence the match outcome doesn't deserve to be banned (IMO) just because it's unpopular. Your example suggested a stage that influenced the match to the point where player skill is literally irrelevant.

I mean, the end result is the same (popularity shouldn't influence stage legality) so we're in agreement and I'm just splitting hairs.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Isn't that my point here ? If, for some reason, everybody's hate Wuhu, and we made it legal, nobody's gonna come to a tournament allowing it.

Stage poll we be telling on what stage people wants to play. All that is needed is to explain why a stage is healthy or not.

I did a poll with over 400 responces. The results are in this thread even, and I used it to decide which stages we'd test at all.

 

[Piford]

Well, not quite.

Imagine the hypothetical stage "coin flip", where the winner is always 100% random.

Everyone would despise this stage, including me. But I would always counterpick it against the absolute top players, as should all non-top players with brains.

I was assuming the stage that people hated was completely fair.

 

[guedes the brawler]

i just noticed ridley never shows up on all-star. damn. warioware also never goes to minigames... why sakurai? why must you tease us like that?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

i just noticed ridley never shows up on all-star. damn. warioware also never goes to minigames... why sakurai? why must you tease us like that?

Are you saying you want Ridley to show up in All Star mode?

 

[guedes the brawler]

Are you saying you want Ridley to show up in All Star mode?

you know, one could jusr run away and leave ridley to OHKO everyone in that mode, if your character can do that. that'd be pretty great, since there is a chance all-star's round 2 will default do Mario Circuit which is just hellish with that perfect teching everywhere... but you know what i meant.

ridley should appear in every stage

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Kalos Pokemon League now has a research topic. It's so pretty!

 

[Piford]

Kalos Pokemon League now has a research topic. It's so pretty!

You should do Delfino Plaza next. I think the stage is slightly more random than Wuhu and Skyloft, but still semi-predictable. Specifically with what the second floating platform layout is.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

You should do Delfino Plaza next. I think the stage is slightly more random than Wuhu and Skyloft, but still semi-predictable. Specifically with what the second floating platform layout is.

I love it when people suggest stages. Saves me the trouble of picking one myself.

 

[HavocThunder]

Why do I bring this up first? You keep mentioning that if time out is available it should be able to be used. I want to again remind you WE ONLY HAVE A TIMER SO EVENTS CAN FINISH ON TIME. We want matches to go to time out as little as possible since we don't event want to have the rule in the first place but have to. Players do NOT like time outs.

Ok, yes! Now we're getting exactly where I want this discussion to go. The whole problem is the TIME LIMIT. Maybe my earlier post was being misinterpreted, but I think it's the giant pink elephant in the room. Innocent stages are being skewered in the process of fixing the issue.

The main complaint behind camping is that it drags on matches too long. I completely understand, it drives me nuts in those rare Melee Young Link/Jiggly matches I see on streams, too. I love the game, but jeez. There's two solutions, one that decisively solves the issue and one that doesn't:

1) Hard ban situations or stages where you have literally no options to approach, even with a good read. This should definitely happen, but I honestly believe that Nintendo would never intentionally allow this in Smash 4. Things like the ledge changes, those springs + Metal Face's existence on Gaur Plains, or the very smartly designed rules + layout of Wrecking Crew are proof of that.

Anyways, hard banning stages will never change the fact that players can consciously make the decision to not approach on any stage and therefore drag any match out the whole 8 minutes. Players can also choose to be aggressive on these big stages, too. Ultimately, no one should have to worry about outside match consequences for in-match decisions (getting their stage or character banned).

2) Decrease the time limit to about or a little more than the average length of a match. So for any stage, if you decide to back off, you don't have to worry about the consequences of getting your favorite stage banned or pissing people off. It's a win-win for literally everyone anyways. Aggressive players don't need a time limit, defensive players have to do WAY less work for their wins, way more stages can be allowed, and TOs can guarantee their tournament matches will never drag out for 8 minutes again. ^_^

TO SUM IT UP: I think all the decisions to ban stages have completely forgotten about how the time limit affects a match. So it should be decreased instead of banning ones that favor being defensive (camping). Definitely not increased!

 

[LiteralGrill]

@ HavocThunder by decreasing the time limit you just make timeouts even easier. So all I'd ever do is pick the stage I can time you out on, do so, then win. It does make it was easier for the defensive players, in such a way it ONLY promotes degenerate runaway. No one will go on the offense because it's simple easier and better to be on the defense. We're going to play to win.

Nintendo also made stages for 8 Player Smash. They didn't care about only 1v1, some stages just plain are going to be too big for a 1v1. So stages where approach is pretty much impossible? Oh yeah they exist. They've existed since Melee added in Temple and there's just been loads since then (many others in Melee even).

The large majority of players not only do not want to have timeouts be so common, and find that kind of play boring. Not only this, but the gameplay is so degenerate as there is only one strong strategy left so anyone playing to win will use it.

 

[New_Dumal]

This thread is a example of why would be nice to have 2 sections for competitive discussion (one for smash U, other for smash 3ds).

About Smash for Wii U, what I think about stage list now :

Legal, for first round stage-strike:
->Final Destination
->Battlefield
->Town and City
->Smashville
->Lylat Cruise

Counterpicks (the winner can ban 3 stages in this scenario , or 2 and erase a walk-off stage) :
-> All 5 above
->Delphino Plaza
->unfortunately Duck Hunt.
->Kongo Jungle 64
-> Skyloft
-> Wuhu Island
-> Pilot Wings
-> Coliseum
-> Wii Fit Studio
-> Halberd
-> Castle Siege

A lot of variety and not a single one "unplayable" stage.With the power of banning three stages, I think a list like this is a very good option.There are stages that some people don't like to play because of walk-off, but you could ban them (and one more).
Again, we don't have chaingrabs anymore, and projectiles are nerfed, so I'm pro walk-off stages.

Other stages like Big Battlefield, Norfair and Mario Circuit can bring problems.
And we have enough stages already with 5 legal and 6~10 counterpicks to add them.
In Smash for Wii U, I'm against using omega stages for competitive, because again, we don't need this.
But that's just my opnion
A serious poll would be fine... (I'm a bit worried about certain stages in a poll, but yet I want to see)

 

[LiteralGrill]

EVERYONE KEEPS FORGETTING I RAN A POLL GOSH DARN IT! ;-;​

There, a link to the results @_@

Anyways @ New_Dumal Pilot Wings is definitely banned. Go back in this topic a bit and you'll us mention how it creates severe broken camping issues with not only the red plane but the yellow plan as well by landing on it's engines. I'm unsure on walk off stages, but we're testing them out this Saturday in a big /r/smashbros tournament, so we'll see how they go.

 

[Pazx]

Your list is missing PS2 and Norfair, and the inclusion of more than one walkoff stage is quite absurd in my opinion.

Also ban the **** out of PW one of my matches went to time on it at Zeal this past weekend.

 

[New_Dumal]

Oh... That's bad news for Pilot Wings.
It's a shame, such a nice stage. But okay, if **** happens in Pilot Wings, banned.
About more than one walk-off, it should be one less than ban number in my opnion.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Oh... That's bad news for Pilot Wings.
It's a shame, such a nice stage. But okay, if **** happens in Pilot Wings, banned.
About more than one walk-off, it should be one less than ban number in my opnion.

So 1 ban = 0 walkoffs, 2 bans = 1 walkoff, etc.?

 

[HavocThunder]

@ HavocThunder by decreasing the time limit you just make timeouts even easier. So all I'd ever do is pick the stage I can time you out on, do so, then win. It does make it was easier for the defensive players, in such a way it ONLY promotes degenerate runaway. No one will go on the offense because it's simple easier and better to be on the defense. We're going to play to win.

Do you understand how time limits work? Making them shorter or longer doesn't make winning or losing any easier. It does makes winning easier against people who forget to look at the clock, though.

If you have a life lead and there's a time limit, you win if you avoid conflict. If you don't have a life lead and there's a time limit, you lose unless you do something about it. Following this, if there is a time limit and someone is winning, the other person is losing. This means someone has to be aggressive. The power swing begins right when someone gets hit. It would totally be different if you were arguing a case where both players had 0% and someone literally could not get a hit. Stop saying that no one will go on the offense because that's wrong if they lost the percentage advantage, know how time limits work, and want to win.

In addition, none of that has anything to do with time limit length. Decreasing the time limit to around the length of an average match would imply that all time outs last as long as an average match. It would also be a data-driven decision. Since average matches are generally based around aggressive matches, this would ensure generally equal times for all match types. If you want to camp out your matches, sure why not? You aren't dragging anything out anymore.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with camping, which is fine. It's not something I do much myself. However, there's two people involved in every match, and that other person is not interested in making you comfortable. I'll certainly do it if it frustrates my opponent. I hope you don't run into me online!

If you have a real, legitimate problem with people winning from camping, then kill it at the source and abolish the time limit. If you won't do it, you have no problem with it.

Nintendo also made stages for 8 Player Smash. They didn't care about only 1v1, some stages just plain are going to be too big for a 1v1. So stages where approach is pretty much impossible? Oh yeah they exist. They've existed since Melee added in Temple and there's just been loads since then (many others in Melee even).

I think you're blowing a lot of hot air with this statement. There's a huge difference between "pretty much impossible" and "is impossible." If you're going to claim that it is impossible, you need to declare what all of these stages are, what the scenario is on each stage individually, and how players have no options so we can discuss them properly. If you can't cough up the proof with situations that are recreatable for validation, you're wrong and no one should believe you. Plain and simple.

This is what I'm waiting to hear for Wrecking Crew so I can checkmate the debate on that stage. I'm hungry for some clearly defined situations that I can prove wrong. If it's that obvious and I'm being delusional, this should be easy to do.

Pilotwings sounds like another victim of the long time limit :/

EDIT: I know you brought up Woolly World a couple posts back. I'd like some more information on how the stage is causing the camping, though.

I imagine that having hazards intrusive and severe enough to make player skill irrelevant would be grounds for a stage ban anyway.

I almost agree with this. Mainly, the player skill irrelevant part and not the "intrusive and severe" enough part. I'd like to hear an example, though.

Even if a hazard did 999% or even instakilled you, why did you get hit by it? Your opponent will take advantage of your fear if they sniff it out. That certainly sounds pretty competitive, but only if the hazard gives a signal or sign before it appears. I think that signal/sign is a crucial part of making all these stages and characters reliably work.

(I wanted to bring this up earlier but it was cut)

There are (few) examples of this in Smash, though. Items create hazards that makes skill irrelevant. There's no signal or sign where bombs or anything will pop up, so the outcome of the fight is always out of the players' hands. It's sad because the items themselves are (mostly) designed really well.

There's an easy stage example of this too. WarioWare's minigames give no warning or sign of the particular powerup when a player wins. Your performance doesn't have an effect on which powerup you get, either. Someone getting invincibility and you healing at 0% really stinks because no one had control over the situation.

If there was a way your performance affected your reward, players would have control over how the reward they received. This doesn't happen so...yeah WarioWare is easy stage ban material.

I haven't seen anything in Wii U stages that has this kind of effect on matches except maybe the amount of damage it takes to own Ridley on Pyrosphere. I'd like to know exactly how that works before jumping to conclusions, though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I almost agree with this. Mainly, the player skill irrelevant part and not the "intrusive and severe" enough part. I'd like to hear an example, though.

Even if a hazard did 999% or even instakilled you, why did you get hit by it? Your opponent will take advantage of your fear if they sniff it out. That certainly sounds pretty competitive, but only if the hazard gives a signal or sign before it appears. I think that signal/sign is a crucial part of making all these stages and characters reliably work.

(I wanted to bring this up earlier but it was cut)

There are (few) examples of this in Smash, though. Items create hazards that makes skill irrelevant. There's no signal or sign where bombs or anything will pop up, so the outcome of the fight is always out of the players' hands. It's sad because the items themselves are (mostly) designed really well.

There's an easy stage example of this too. WarioWare's minigames give no warning or sign of the particular powerup when a player wins. Your performance doesn't have an effect on which powerup you get, either. Someone getting invincibility and you healing at 0% really stinks because no one had control over the situation.

If there was a way your performance affected your reward, players would have control over how the reward they received. This doesn't happen so...yeah WarioWare is easy stage ban material.

I haven't seen anything in Wii U stages that has this kind of effect on matches except maybe the amount of damage it takes to own Ridley on Pyrosphere. I'd like to know exactly how that works before jumping to conclusions, though.

It was a hypothetical, although you're right that Warioware's microgame rewards are a good example.

That said, for other stage hazards like the trifecta of bosses (Yellow Devil, Ridley, and Metal Face), even if they were completely deterministic they still completely divert the course of the match and it becomes a contest of "who can deal with the stage boss better." (Insert other hazard here.) In a very nebulous sense (because the line isn't exactly well-defined), the line between "legal" and "banned" is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of "it's more important to deal with the stage/hazard/boss than the other player" which is sort of the opposite of what we want in a fighting game.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

Do you understand how time limits work? Making them shorter or longer doesn't make winning or losing any easier. It does makes winning easier against people who forget to look at the clock, though.

If you have a life lead and there's a time limit, you win if you avoid conflict. If you don't have a life lead and there's a time limit, you lose unless you do something about it. Following this, if there is a time limit and someone is winning, the other person is losing. This means someone has to be aggressive. The power swing begins right when someone gets hit. It would totally be different if you were arguing a case where both players had 0% and someone literally could not get a hit. Stop saying that no one will go on the offense because that's wrong if they lost the percentage advantage, know how time limits work, and want to win.

In addition, none of that has anything to do with time limit length. Decreasing the time limit to around the length of an average match would imply that all time outs last as long as an average match. It would also be a data-driven decision. Since average matches are generally based around aggressive matches, this would ensure generally equal times for all match types. If you want to camp out your matches, sure why not? You aren't dragging anything out anymore.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with camping, which is fine. It's not something I do much myself. However, there's two people involved in every match, and that other person is not interested in making you comfortable. I'll certainly do it if it frustrates my opponent. I hope you don't run into me online!

If you have a real, legitimate problem with people winning from camping, then kill it at the source and abolish the time limit. If you won't do it, you have no problem with it.

Lot of issues with this.

First, the time limit is there because we can't play a match forever. I don't know about you, but I do not want to play 1-hour matches in a tournament. The stamina drain on that is too much. Players can literally just sit there and do nothing without a clear victor.

A longer/agreeable time limit also allows both players options in battle. Shortening the time limit increases the likelihood of stalling matches. As you say, all you need is 1 simple advantage to win for a time out. Why would any player want to risk a loss on an aggressive playstyle? It would be much smarter to play very defensively. When you have more wiggle room with the time limit, the losing player is suddenly given more time to take the stock back. Furthermore, it also helps the winning player to risk more as well because they can afford to.

Decreasing the stock time to the "average" match time doesn't make sense. You're now just arbitrarily shortening a match based on a statistic that is heavily dependent on player and character matchup. Matches can last as long as 1 minute to 8 minutes, depending on the ruleset.

You don't make a ruleset to limit players. You try to balance as many options as possible. I want a competitive environment where you can win by being aggressive OR defensive. Different players exist. This is the same attitude we approach with stages. We want stages that allow players to show off their skill without something arbitrarily killing them off.

 

[Piford]

Do you understand how time limits work? Making them shorter or longer doesn't make winning or losing any easier. It does makes winning easier against people who forget to look at the clock, though.

If you have a life lead and there's a time limit, you win if you avoid conflict. If you don't have a life lead and there's a time limit, you lose unless you do something about it. Following this, if there is a time limit and someone is winning, the other person is losing. This means someone has to be aggressive. The power swing begins right when someone gets hit. It would totally be different if you were arguing a case where both players had 0% and someone literally could not get a hit. Stop saying that no one will go on the offense because that's wrong if they lost the percentage advantage, know how time limits work, and want to win.

In addition, none of that has anything to do with time limit length. Decreasing the time limit to around the length of an average match would imply that all time outs last as long as an average match. It would also be a data-driven decision. Since average matches are generally based around aggressive matches, this would ensure generally equal times for all match types. If you want to camp out your matches, sure why not? You aren't dragging anything out anymore.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with camping, which is fine. It's not something I do much myself. However, there's two people involved in every match, and that other person is not interested in making you comfortable. I'll certainly do it if it frustrates my opponent. I hope you don't run into me online!

If you have a real, legitimate problem with people winning from camping, then kill it at the source and abolish the time limit. If you won't do it, you have no problem with it.



I think you're blowing a lot of hot air with this statement. There's a huge difference between "pretty much impossible" and "is impossible." If you're going to claim that it is impossible, you need to declare what all of these stages are, what the scenario is on each stage individually, and how players have no options so we can discuss them properly. If you can't cough up the proof with situations that are recreatable for validtiaon, you're wrong and no one should believe you. Plain and simple.

This is what I'm waiting to hear for Wrecking Crew so I can checkmate the debate on that stage. I'm hungry for some clearly defined situations that I can prove wrong. If it's that obvious and I'm being delusional, this should be easy to do.

Pilotwings sounds like another victim of the long time limit :/

EDIT: I know you brought up Woolly World a couple posts back. I'd like some more information on how the stage is causing the camping, though.

Camping is extremely powerful on some stages to the point where it needs to be banned. Take Jigglypuff to Palutena's Temple against most characters and you'll see how powerful camping can be. No one wants matches determined be who can get the first hit and avoid conflict for 8 minutes. Also removing time limits does not remove camping. Look at Smash 64, they have matches that last well over an hour on stages that aren't even close to as campy as stages like Temple and Palutena's Temple. When there are time limits, even if the player not in the lead is super offensive, if camping makes it impossible to reach his opponent it means absolutely nothing.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Do you understand how time limits work? Making them shorter or longer doesn't make winning or losing any easier. It does makes winning easier against people who forget to look at the clock, though.

This is where you are wrong. It DOES make it easier to win for people trying to run the timer, since they have less time they have to run away. And since that strategy will be stronger more people will try to do this more then other strategies since they want to win.

If you have a life lead and there's a time limit, you win if you avoid conflict. If you don't have a life lead and there's a time limit, you lose unless you do something about it. Following this, if there is a time limit and someone is winning, the other person is losing. This means someone has to be aggressive. The power swing begins right when someone gets hit. It would totally be different if you were arguing a case where both players had 0% and someone literally could not get a hit. Stop saying that no one will go on the offense because that's wrong if they lost the percentage advantage, know how time limits work, and want to win.

Yes. so after one person lands a hit the other person has to pursue. And on a stage where runaway is super easy no matter how much they chase they will just be ran away from until that timer goes out.

In addition, none of that has anything to do with time limit length. Decreasing the time limit to around the length of an average match would imply that all time outs last as long as an average match. It would also be a data-driven decision. Since average matches are generally based around aggressive matches, this would ensure generally equal times for all match types. If you want to camp out your matches, sure why not? You aren't dragging anything out anymore.

You're still dragging it out for the shorter time limit. The shorter the time limit the easier it becomes to run away. So more people will run away and drag out the match to the full time limit. So it's still going to be a long match.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with camping, which is fine. It's not something I do much myself. However, there's two people involved in every match, and that other person is not interested in making you comfortable. I'll certainly do it if it frustrates my opponent. I hope you don't run into me online!

If you have a real, legitimate problem with people winning from camping, then kill it at the source and abolish the time limit. If you won't do it, you have no problem with it.

While we're at it, we can play all matches on Hyrule Castle! Oh wait, the stage that was too big with no timer in Smash 64 that had to be banned because it caused massive problems in tournament? If someone wants to play on the deference I have zero problem with that. When it becomes the only real way to win, that's an issue.

think you're blowing a lot of hot air with this statement. There's a huge difference between "pretty much impossible" and "is impossible." If you're going to claim that it is impossible, you need to declare what all of these stages are, what the scenario is on each stage individually, and how players have no options so we can discuss them properly. If you can't cough up the proof with situations that are recreatable for validation, you're wrong and no one should believe you. Plain and simple.

1v1 me on Palutena's Temple and we'll see how the stage was meant for 1v1. Once one player gets a hit all they have to do is run away and the match becomes pointless. This is common on all of these large stages.

This is what I'm waiting to hear for Wrecking Crew so I can checkmate the debate on that stage. I'm hungry for some clearly defined situations that I can prove wrong. If it's that obvious and I'm being delusional, this should be easy to do.

Pilotwings sounds like another victim of the long time limit :/

EDIT: I know you brought up Woolly World a couple posts back. I'd like some more information on how the stage is causing the camping, though.

I'm not the best player but if I honestly have to we can go and play on those stages us two together so I can show you why tournament players do NOT want that kind of degenerate gameplay in an event and why it causes issues. Or heck, if I gotta @ Conda think you could record us playing on some stages to show why camping like this sucks?