Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[Conda]

Are some of those stages not part of our stage testing tournament in saturday? Are you considering revising the list, or going with it to not only show good stages, but likely bad ones too

 

[HavocThunder]

Whoa, I think there might've been a miscommunication somewhere. I think everyone agrees with me, but in a really weird way. Let me slow it down a bit and separate what I want to say. Two things:

I am not arguing to remove the time limit. Camping's not going anywhere. If it drags matches out too long, so we should keep it and shorten it. That way no one has to sit through a million 8 min. matches when someone feels comfortable camping out their matches.

I'm pointing out a contradiction with the rules, too. If camping to win is illegitimate, then make the rules match that. Kill the time limit because it's giving campers a win condition. That clearly makes no sense, so camping to win is undeniably supported by the rules. If camping to win is supported by the rules, it shouldn't be used as a reason to ban stages.

Let me phrase it like this:

Keep things as they are:

Aggressive players - 3-4 min.
Defensive players - 8 min.

There's a really big difference between the two type of matches, and defensive players have to hold out for 4 minutes longer than the usual match to win.

Or shorten it so it's like this:

Aggressive players - 3-4 min.
Defensive players - 4-5 min.

Defensive players have to be able to hold out for 1 min. longer than the usual match. That seems like a much more reasonable win condition.

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.

It's like this for any match that has a time limit. It's like this right now. You should always be looking at the time. The length wouldn't change any strategies unless you weren't looking at the time before. It's probably misleading anyways to define matches as "aggressive" and "campy". There a time limit win condition and a KO win condition. I'm specifically proposing that the time limit is a little longer than average matches so your decisions in matches where time limits are important have the same amount of weight that they usually have in matches where KO's are important. I'd like to nail down a specific time, but this would actually need to be tested.

The only reason I brought up the whole time thing is because it's cited all the time that stages are too big, they drag out matches, so they should be banned! I'm addressing the issue directly.

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.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, I agree with you! I'm pointing out that the vast difference in time between types of matches is creating the perception that camping is a drag. Enough to ban stages around that philosophy.

No one wants matches determined be who can get the first hit and avoid conflict for 8 minutes.

I agree with you too! Unfortunately, the reality is you can do it RIGHT NOW with the current ruleset, regardless of legal or illegal stage. Everyone just ignores the time limit for some reason. In fact, you can do it on any stage with any time limit. It's perfectly legal, but the fact that it has a negative stigma is why I'm proposing something different. I'm not going to complain without proposing a solution. I don't like 8 minutes either, so that's why I'm shooting for something like 5 or 6 minutes.

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.

I want to agree with you but the logic doesn't make sense. Think about how this would happen in an actual match. Match starts, you got hit, the opponent uses their knowledge of the stage to run away, you let them get away the whole time, match ends. They win.

To say the stage is broken is completely ignoring the mistakes you made in the match, getting hit a lot, so much that you couldn't come back, and letting them get away the entire time. Who's fault is that? It's not the stage. The opponent has access to the same stage as you. What were they doing and did you really have no options? With some good reads, you can predict where they'll go. Lowering or raising the time limit will never help you against this opponent who's apparently downloaded your habits, but at least it stings less with a lower time limit.

You know you can apply this to any timed out match on literally every stage, right? It doesn't even matter what the time limit is. The only time where this is a legit issue are times where you have a tie. That's why tiebreakers exist, though.

The default game actually has a solution to this, surprisingly. You have to get a whole stock lead to win by time, so getting a couple hits and running won't work. In sudden death, if you make the decision to run, you'll throw your one fair chance to win away by getting randomly bombed. That...sounds almost poetic....LOL

 

[Piford]

I want to agree with you but the logic doesn't make sense. Think about how this would happen in an actual match. Match starts, you got hit, the opponent uses their knowledge of the stage to run away, you let them get away the whole time, match ends. They win.

To say the stage is broken is completely ignoring the mistakes you made in the match, getting hit a lot, so much that you couldn't come back, and letting them get away the entire time. Who's fault is that? It's not the stage. The opponent has access to the same stage as you. What were they doing and did you really have no options? With some good reads, you can predict where they'll go. Lowering or raising the time limit will never help you against this opponent who's apparently downloaded your habits, but at least it stings less with a lower time limit.

You know you can apply this to any timed out match on literally every stage, right? It doesn't even matter what the time limit is. The only time where this is a legit issue are times where you have a tie. That's why tiebreakers exist, though.

The default game actually has a solution to this, surprisingly. You have to get a whole stock lead to win by time, so getting a couple hits and running won't work. In sudden death, if you make the decision to run, you'll throw your one fair chance to win away by getting randomly bombed. That...sounds almost poetic....LOL

I don't think you understand how powerful camping can be. If I am the first one hit and lost because you ran away, I didn't let you run away; it was impossible for me to catch you.
Look at this set. It shows the potential for how bad camping can be, and if this was a serious tournament match, I would guarantee that the camping would be much worse.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Are some of those stages not part of our stage testing tournament in saturday? Are you considering revising the list, or going with it to not only show good stages, but likely bad ones too

Those stages aren't, because from other tournaments or analysis we already know they are too broken to test.

Anyways:

Snip'd

I was going to respond but @ Piford funny enough went and got the exact video i was going to look for. This kind of gameplay is bad, and if they'd have taken that match even more seriously it would have been ridiculous.

 

[HavocThunder]

Ok too many points to talk about @_@

I don't think you understand how powerful camping can be. If I am the first one hit and lost because you ran away, I didn't let you run away; it was impossible for me to catch you.
Look at this set. It shows the potential for how bad camping can be, and if this was a serious tournament match, I would guarantee that the camping would be much worse.

I totally understand what you're trying to show me. In the second match, I can't think of any options that M2K or ZeRo could use to catch up when they were tied. They were both fully aware of the stage and there was nothing to be done...right? (Although I'm wondering something, if you really wanted to win, why would you camp out a match at a tie?) This is a pretty clear cut example for Temple in Brawl.

Not that I really care for Temple in general, but this video can't be used as proof to ban Temple in Smash Wii U. Considering the change in mechanics, how do we know this is possible there? MK's Up-B got drastically changed, remember?
This is where I want to see the proof and explanations for Smash 4, because I think there was a different philosophy for how everything was designed for it. There's the ledge changes, everyone's glides being cut, all of that makes a big difference.

(Honestly, I really do think Temple can be lumped with WarioWare as an uncompetitive stage.) It's a pretty clear example. The proof still needs to be shown for Smash Wii U, though, just in case. Every other stage needs to be shown with a scenario like this too with 2 players using their options to the fullest to show it's impossible. My possibly terrible play should not be used as grounds to ban Wrecking Crew and I'm not letting it. (Although I'm down for a match for learning the stage anytime!)

I really, 100% honestly want to know, what is the core of the problem behind camping that makes it grounds to ban a stage? Is it that it's making matches too long? That can be fixed. Is it a illegitimate tactic? It can't be. Does it make the loser feel bad? Errr...that can't be it <_< It's too good of a tactic? Are we still playing to win?

If 1 hit isn't enough to make the win legit, how many hits does it take? People getting hit is their fault. If you have the lead, you block, run away, and don't take unnecessary risks if you can. This is a little frustrating because no one's really explaining why this is actually *uncompetitive*, and I'm honestly not getting it. I fully understand it stinks to be at the receiving end of it, though. There's a million competitive articles out there that talk about using time limits as a weapon, so I guess I'm wondering where the line's being drawn.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

Ok too many points to talk about @_@



I totally understand what you're trying to show me. In the second match, I can't think of any options that M2K or ZeRo could use to catch up when they were tied. They were both fully aware of the stage and there was nothing to be done...right? (Although I'm wondering something, if you really wanted to win, why would you camp out a match at a tie?) This is a pretty clear cut example for Temple in Brawl.

Not that I really care for Temple in general, but this video can't be used as proof to ban Temple in Smash Wii U. Considering the change in mechanics, how do we know this is possible there? MK's Up-B got drastically changed, remember?
This is where I want to see the proof and explanations for Smash 4, because I think there was a different philosophy for how everything was designed for it. There's the ledge changes, everyone's glides being cut, all of that makes a big difference.

(Honestly, I really do think Temple can be lumped with WarioWare as an uncompetitive stage.) It's a pretty clear example. The proof still needs to be shown for Smash Wii U, though, just in case. Every other stage needs to be shown with a scenario like this too with 2 players using their options to the fullest to show it's impossible. My possibly terrible play should not be used as grounds to ban Wrecking Crew and I'm not letting it. (Although I'm down for a match for learning the stage anytime!)

I really, 100% honestly want to know, what is the core of the problem behind camping that makes it grounds to ban a stage? Is it that it's making matches too long? That can be fixed. Is it a illegitimate tactic? It can't be. Does it make the loser feel bad? Errr...that can't be it <_< It's too good of a tactic? Are we still playing to win?

If 1 hit isn't enough to make the win legit, how many hits does it take? People getting hit is their fault. If you have the lead, you block, run away, and don't take unnecessary risks if you can. This is a little frustrating because no one's really explaining why this is actually *uncompetitive*, and I'm honestly not getting it. I fully understand it stinks to be at the receiving end of it, though. There's a million competitive articles out there that talk about using time limits as a weapon, so I guess I'm wondering where the line's being drawn.

It's frustrating. If something is frustrating, then people won't play it. Why waste your time on something that just frustrates you? The type of game we want to create is something that people want to play, want to spend the money to travel and compete in. Trust me, people are not going to spend money to watch people hit each other once then run away for 8 minutes.

 

[Uniit]

On side note @ LiteralGrill , I didn't forget about the poll that you run, i simply said that this sort of poll needs to have explaination about every stage, and make proof that people didn't have a good one since Wuhu was so far away.

On the subject of time-limit and running away, you can't be serious about it being a valid strategy. Brawl wasn't that good because of mechanics allowing it in (pretty much) every cases (Well, considering the meta was MK), and you surely don't want to see that in smash4. The time limit is here just because tournamenet have time issues, it wouldn't be otherwise. Heck, i wonder if timeless match can be good in this game, since planking is mostly gone. As someone said earlier (sorry about being lazy for the name) : Incressing time limit indeed increase the worst case total time, but it reduce the average time because people tend to run away/play defensive when there's not much time left.

 

[ぱみゅ]

After watching that poll.... I kinda still wonder why people dislike Yoshi's Island that much....

 

[Pazx]

Keep things as they are:

Aggressive players - 3-4 min.
Defensive players - 8 min.

There's a really big difference between the two type of matches, and defensive players have to hold out for 4 minutes longer than the usual match to win.

Or shorten it so it's like this:

Aggressive players - 3-4 min.
Defensive players - 4-5 min.

Defensive players have to be able to hold out for 1 min. longer than the usual match. That seems like a much more reasonable win condition.

Reducing the time limit of matches makes runaway/campy/defensive/timeout play the unquestioned best option. We know that on our legal stage list in previous games it is not the best option as at high level play it does not dominate the metagame. With an 8 minute timer, we see aggressive play being the dominant force forcing timeout play to be a valid but less used option. It is viable on a somewhat limited number of stages and will be employed on an even smaller number of stages, however it is still a valid strategy.

If the timer was reduced to 4 minutes (assuming 3 stocks) this forces the campy, runaway style of play in one of two ways. It makes running the clock down far easier, as it's less of a difficulty to avoid getting hit for 4 minutes than 8 minutes thus encouraging people who have considered runaway play to try it out in a situation where they are far less likely to get punished for it (as the opponent simply has half as much time to catch up to them) and makes it a more dominant strategy.

The second way this running-the-clock style of play will be used is by aggressive players. If the average time for a match is 3 minutes and has an 8 minute timer, the players will likely play their standard aggressive playstyle, whether they have a lead or not. If the timer was for some reason reduced to 4 minutes, if either player gets the lead it's in their best interest to stall out the match as the choice becomes "camp out for 10/20/30/90/540/whatever seconds or try to take another stock(s)?". Trying to run the clock arguably has less risk associated with it the less time remaining in a match, so the shorter the time limit the more frequently we will see high level matches become a game of keepaway as soon as one player takes a lead.

 

[Piford]

Ok too many points to talk about @_@



I totally understand what you're trying to show me. In the second match, I can't think of any options that M2K or ZeRo could use to catch up when they were tied. They were both fully aware of the stage and there was nothing to be done...right? (Although I'm wondering something, if you really wanted to win, why would you camp out a match at a tie?) This is a pretty clear cut example for Temple in Brawl.

Not that I really care for Temple in general, but this video can't be used as proof to ban Temple in Smash Wii U. Considering the change in mechanics, how do we know this is possible there? MK's Up-B got drastically changed, remember?
This is where I want to see the proof and explanations for Smash 4, because I think there was a different philosophy for how everything was designed for it. There's the ledge changes, everyone's glides being cut, all of that makes a big difference.

(Honestly, I really do think Temple can be lumped with WarioWare as an uncompetitive stage.) It's a pretty clear example. The proof still needs to be shown for Smash Wii U, though, just in case. Every other stage needs to be shown with a scenario like this too with 2 players using their options to the fullest to show it's impossible. My possibly terrible play should not be used as grounds to ban Wrecking Crew and I'm not letting it. (Although I'm down for a match for learning the stage anytime!)

I really, 100% honestly want to know, what is the core of the problem behind camping that makes it grounds to ban a stage? Is it that it's making matches too long? That can be fixed. Is it a illegitimate tactic? It can't be. Does it make the loser feel bad? Errr...that can't be it <_< It's too good of a tactic? Are we still playing to win?

If 1 hit isn't enough to make the win legit, how many hits does it take? People getting hit is their fault. If you have the lead, you block, run away, and don't take unnecessary risks if you can. This is a little frustrating because no one's really explaining why this is actually *uncompetitive*, and I'm honestly not getting it. I fully understand it stinks to be at the receiving end of it, though. There's a million competitive articles out there that talk about using time limits as a weapon, so I guess I'm wondering where the line's being drawn.

You can do the Reverse Hyrule Jump in Temple with a lot of characters in Melee, Brawl, and Smash 4. I'm not sure if Meta Knight can still do it (He likely can, but I've never tried). Just think of a Match that's like R.O.B., Olimar, or the Villager against a character like the Wii Fit Trainer. It'd be impossible for you to not loose by camping. They can use their projectiles to safely get a bit of damage and then use their amazing recover to perform the Hyrule jump over and over again.

 

[LiteralGrill]

After watching that poll.... I kinda still wonder why people dislike Yoshi's Island that much....

Pipes? Just making sure we're talking about the Melee version. I can see it a bit, it's got some oddities to with early kills are weirder walkoff camping with the slope (though usually it's easier to approach since grabs wiff up there) but it does seem people don't like it. I'd play there at least for some friendlies for sure as I know the stage pretty well.

I really, 100% honestly want to know, what is the core of the problem behind camping that makes it grounds to ban a stage? Is it that it's making matches too long? That can be fixed. Is it a illegitimate tactic? It can't be. Does it make the loser feel bad? Errr...that can't be it <_< It's too good of a tactic? Are we still playing to win?

If 1 hit isn't enough to make the win legit, how many hits does it take? People getting hit is their fault. If you have the lead, you block, run away, and don't take unnecessary risks if you can. This is a little frustrating because no one's really explaining why this is actually *uncompetitive*, and I'm honestly not getting it. I fully understand it stinks to be at the receiving end of it, though. There's a million competitive articles out there that talk about using time limits as a weapon, so I guess I'm wondering where the line's being drawn.

We do not want to test how well someone can land a hit and run away to kill the timer in a tournament setting. We want to see who's the best at actually fighting each other for the win. These kinds of strategies are degenerate to seeing actual competition on the stage. This is why we ban them.

A timeout may be a "legit" win but no one wants a meta where we all see who is best at getting a timeout. Player preference in the rules IS a thing you have to slightly consider as mentioned before if no one will come to your events, no one will be competing. People wont show to have it be a camp fest.

 

[HavocThunder]

On side note @ LiteralGrill , I didn't forget about the poll that you run, i simply said that this sort of poll needs to have explaination about every stage, and make proof that people didn't have a good one since Wuhu was so far away.

On the subject of time-limit and running away, you can't be serious about it being a valid strategy. Brawl wasn't that good because of mechanics allowing it in (pretty much) every cases (Well, considering the meta was MK), and you surely don't want to see that in smash4. The time limit is here just because tournamenet have time issues, it wouldn't be otherwise. Heck, i wonder if timeless match can be good in this game, since planking is mostly gone. As someone said earlier (sorry about being lazy for the name) : Incressing time limit indeed increase the worst case total time, but it reduce the average time because people tend to run away/play defensive when there's not much time left.

I'm saying decrease the time limit, so it can be guaranteed that tournament time issues will never happen on any stage. Never, ever, am I saying take the time limit out or make the time limit longer. I want to make that very, very, very clear.

Now that I learned how to take pictures, let me see if I can explain what's specifically wrong with Temple in Smash 4, leaving no room for doubt with playstyles or anything. This will keep the focus on the stage and not the players involved. Just like I did with WarioWare:

There's no direct path from Blue MK to White MK. It even doesn't matter what character you are, any person at Blue MK's position will never be able to catch up to White Metaknight's position when there's a tie between players. There's a literal circle, hence circle camping. This means that there will never be a clear winner or loser for any matches played on this stage with 2 players who are aware of this situation. Blue MK's options are to try to go up the left or go up the right, but in both cases, the other player has more than enough time to "continue" the circle around.

If there was a way to stand in the middle of the circle and threaten the entire loop, or if at some point there was a hazard that would threaten the loop, that would show that this stage does not have circle camping. I can't see it, so yes, this stage should definitely be banned. Remember that this is a really old stage, so I'm not surprised that there's issues like this in it.

(I want to note Wrecking Crew, like Tomodachi Life, does not have this problem, even ignoring bombs, ladders, and barrels, since every platform can be dropped through. It's ideal to be in the center so every part of the stage can be accessed. I have pictures for this too, I'll bring it up later when I have a chance.)

SECOND EDIT: This whole argument gets thrown out the window if there's more than 2 players on the stage in a free-for-all. Player 3 can be any character, any kind of player, standing anywhere in this circle, and a direct path between players is created. The issue comes back if there's 2 teams, since everyone in a team could be standing in the same area and run in a circle against the other team.

As a side note, since I could kinda recreate it:

What happened in the second match in the video before with the Reverse Temple Jump is actually impossible in Smash 4 because of the ledge changes. Blue MK snaps to the ledge when he up-b's there, so he'll force White MK off the ledge and the usual ledge situation is created. This should happen for any character who up-b's at that spot.

EDIT: Also because of the ledge changes and how much air time you get before getting up there, White MK will get stuck on the ledge with a lot of invincibility for a while, giving Blue MK a nice window of time to kick him off.

If the jump is made the other way, I actually think it's possible for White MK to catch up to Blue MK. You can't go in a circle with limited jumps over a pit, and if Blue MK keeps going back to the ledge, he loses all his invincibility. (He's not going in a circle either) Regardless, the first example is all that's needed to prove circle camping exists on the stage.

I'd like to see an explanation like this for the other stages in Smash 4 It's something very informative that leaves no room for interpretation. It also provides a possible scenario that would show the stage could be allowed, so people who don't agree can prove the explanation wrong.

 

[Piford]

I'm saying decrease the time limit, so it can be guaranteed that tournament time issues will never happen on any stage. Never, ever, am I saying take the time limit out or make the time limit longer. I want to make that very, very, very clear.

Now that I learned how to take pictures, let me see if I can explain what's specifically wrong with Temple in Smash 4, leaving no room for doubt with playstyles or anything. This will keep the focus on the stage and not the players involved. Just like I did with WarioWare:

There's no direct path from Blue MK to White MK. It even doesn't matter what character you are, any person at Blue MK's position will never be able to catch up to White Metaknight's position when there's a tie between players. There's a literal circle, hence circle camping. This means that there will never be a clear winner or loser for any matches played on this stage with 2 players who are aware of this situation. Blue MK's options are to try to go up the left or go up the right, but in both cases, the other player has more than enough time to "continue" the circle around.

If there was a way to stand in the middle of the circle and threaten the entire loop, or if at some point there was a hazard that would threaten the loop, that would show that this stage does not have circle camping. I can't see it, so yes, this stage should definitely be banned. Remember that this is a really old stage, so I'm not surprised that there's issues like this in it.

(I want to note Wrecking Crew, like Tomodachi Life, does not have this problem, even ignoring bombs, ladders, and barrels, since every platform can be dropped through. It's ideal to be in the center so every part of the stage can be accessed. I have pictures for this too, I'll bring it up later when I have a chance.)

SECOND EDIT: This whole argument gets thrown out the window if there's more than 2 players on the stage in a free-for-all. Player 3 can be any character, any kind of player, standing anywhere in this circle, and a direct path between players is created. The issue comes back if there's 2 teams, since everyone in a team could be standing in the same area and run in a circle against the other team.

As a side note, since I could kinda recreate it:

What happened in the second match in the video before with the Reverse Temple Jump is actually impossible in Smash 4 because of the ledge changes. Blue MK snaps to the ledge when he up-b's there, so he'll force White MK off the ledge and the usual ledge situation is created. This should happen for any character who up-b's at that spot.

EDIT: Also because of the ledge changes and how much air time you get before getting up there, White MK will get stuck on the ledge with a lot of invincibility for a while, giving Blue MK a nice window of time to kick him off.

If the jump is made the other way, I actually think it's possible for White MK to catch up to Blue MK. You can't go in a circle with limited jumps over a pit, and if Blue MK keeps going back to the ledge, he loses all his invincibility. (He's not going in a circle either) Regardless, the first example is all that's needed to prove circle camping exists on the stage.

I'd like to see an explanation like this for the other stages in Smash 4 It's something very informative that leaves no room for interpretation. It also provides a possible scenario that would show the stage could be allowed, so people who don't agree can prove the explanation wrong.

Circle Camping can still happen with they (Reverse) Hyrule Jump because we can't assume every match is going to be a mirror match. In a mirror match, sure maybe it's harder (but still possible depending on how far away you circle camp). But if you take other matchups into account, one character is faster than the other.

You can point out things like this on most of the stages that should be banned for camping (I only say most because I can't specifically say things for Big Battlefield, Woolly World, and a few other. I'd want to see video footage for those "blurry" stages). Palutena's Temple has Circle campable area's all over it; same with the Great Cave Offensive. 75m has several powerful stationary camping spots where approach becomes impossible, most notably the bottom left corner. Boxing Ring has the lighting fixture. Basically every platform in Skyworld (although video footage would still be nice as a lot of people like that stage form some reason). Gaur Plains has a pretty powerful camping spot in the bottom left corner as well. Mario Circuit (Brawl) has extremely powerful camping spots at the two corners because of how the stage limits approach options with the platform layout and car hazards.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm saying decrease the time limit, so it can be guaranteed that tournament time issues will never happen on any stage. Never, ever, am I saying take the time limit out or make the time limit longer. I want to make that very, very, very clear.

I already know that. But when you decrease the time limit, as we've said multiple times, timeouts become MUCH easier, so you actually encourage more people to time out matches.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

To interrupt briefly since I think you guys are just arguing in circles:

We do not want timeouts to actually be a valid win condition, mostly because it's possibly the most boring way imaginable to win a match. To perhaps phrase it better, we would much prefer players not win by timeout. However, if time limits are not enforced then it can lead to literally infinite stalling and excessively long matches if neither player is particularly inclined to approach. (Seriously, there's a video of a single round on the N64 version that lasted literally a half hour. My Google-fu is weak, though.) Therefore a time limit has to exist, but we also want it to be long enough to disincentivize using it as a win condition. This has the unfortunate side effect of abnormally long matches when they do go to time for whatever reason, but them's the breaks.

That's how I've always seen it, at least. Possibly wrong I suppose but that's an outsider's perspective.

 

[HavocThunder]

To interrupt briefly since I think you guys are just arguing in circles:

We do not want timeouts to actually be a valid win condition, mostly because it's possibly the most boring way imaginable to win a match. To perhaps phrase it better, we would much prefer players not win by timeout. However, if time limits are not enforced then it can lead to literally infinite stalling and excessively long matches if neither player is particularly inclined to approach. (Seriously, there's a video of a single round on the N64 version that lasted literally a half hour. My Google-fu is weak, though.) Therefore a time limit has to exist, but we also want it to be long enough to disincentivize using it as a win condition. This has the unfortunate side effect of abnormally long matches when they do go to time for whatever reason, but them's the breaks.

That's how I've always seen it, at least. Possibly wrong I suppose but that's an outsider's perspective.

I fully agree with everything you're saying. It's what I've been saying the whole time, I'm not sure how folks are misinterpreting my posts, but everyone's saying the same thing. ._. I'm never, ever saying abolish the time limit. I'm saying shorten it so that TOs can actually put their foot down on the rarely long matches that give camping a bad look. Every match will be guaranteed to be shorter at their very worst. It's not going to change 90% of matches unless it's cut too short. It seems like a "Why not?" sort of thing unless there's a specific reason it HAS to be 8 minutes.

I need to go find the quote, but it makes no sense to say that cutting the time limit down will make people camp more. You're projecting your choice onto other people. I'm a tournament player too so that directly refers to me. Let me make my own decisions about how to play my matches. If it's on a legal stage there shouldn't be any legitimate problems with camping in the first place.

Ok, let me drag Wrecking Crew into this now. Wrecking Crew is a perfectly fine stage with no circle camping. Nothing like Temple's issues. Here's a layout with three set layouts on it. The first one is 2 floors up. The second is on the third floor, The last one is the top 2 floors. Exhibit A:

This is about as far as two players will get on this stage. Assume that both players have the same health. This would make you think, man how would DK ever catch up to Mario? On top of taking the direct path to him, there's a surprisingly obvious solution. Exhibit B:

Move yourself into the center! Think about how much area over you control over the whole stage if you're standing there compared to Exhibit A. Not only does DK have influence the entire stage, he can blow it up whenever he wants. He might even be able to use that barrel right next to Mario. From the center, DK can pretty much react to anything the cornered Mario wants to do and end the stalemate. It's pretty clear who has the advantage and who doesn't. This is one of many layout combos, but I have no clue how anyone could circle camp here when there is no circle.

This is a great big character stage despite its seemingly large size, but I will note that DK and Charizard can't hit the platforms above them with their up-tilts :<

NOTE: Every character can both run and jump through barrels. There's a little resistance but it's pretty simple. They can also be stood on. A lot of character's forward moving specials go right through, too. Bowser's Up-B is the only one I've found so far that has trouble going through. Projectiles go through them as well, but this is still a terrible projectile character stage.

What if there's no platform in the center? I think it's fine since the floor will always be there, but a closer look wouldn't hurt. It'd be lovely if people could help me brainstorm some troublesome pattern layouts. Luckily, if there is one, all it takes is one bomb to get rid of it

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I fully agree with everything you're saying. It's what I've been saying the whole time, I'm not sure how folks are misinterpreting my posts, but everyone's saying the same thing. ._. I'm never, ever saying abolish the time limit. I'm saying shorten it so that TOs can actually put their foot down on the rarely long matches that give camping a bad look. Every match will be guaranteed to be shorter at their very worst. It's not going to change 90% of matches unless it's cut too short. It seems like a "Why not?" sort of thing unless there's a specific reason it HAS to be 8 minutes.

It makes no sense to say that cutting the time limit down will make people camp more. You're projecting your choice onto other people. I'm a tournament player too so that directly refers to me. Let me my own decisions about how to play my matches. If it's on a legal stage there shouldn't be any legitimate problems with camping in the first place.

Ignoring the Wrecking Crew stuff since I care very little about it either way.

The problem with what you're proposing is this. Currently the time limit is long enough to make camping and trying to win by timeout basically infeasible. Not impossible, but you need to drag out a match for a very long time in order to do so, and odds are you can win faster just by attacking. (A few specific matchups where both sides want to zone each other out may run into issues, but those are rare.) This is generally seen as a Good Thing(TM) because winning by time is boring, at least for the spectators, and frustrating for the other player.

You propose a shorter time limit. This makes winning by timeout more feasible, more possible, more likely, simply because it would now take less time to do so. This is seen as a Bad Thing(TM) because again, winning by time is boring to the spectators and frustrating to the loser.

Therefore it is preferable to have a longer time limit than a shorter one. This does double duty and both prevents infinite stalling and makes aggression a more attractive option for both players, even the one in the lead who would win if he managed to run away for the rest of the time limit. This, in turn, makes the match more exciting to watch and play because the players are in constant conflict instead of a "get back here" chase for 7 minutes.

In order for your idea to gain traction, you need to first convince people that winning by timeout should be a valid strategy.

 

[Locke 06]

I fully agree with everything you're saying. It's what I've been saying the whole time, I'm not sure how folks are misinterpreting my posts, but everyone's saying the same thing. ._. I'm never, ever saying abolish the time limit. I'm saying shorten it so that TOs can actually put their foot down on the rarely long matches that give camping a bad look. Every match will be guaranteed to be shorter at their very worst. It's not going to change 90% of matches unless it's cut too short. It seems like a "Why not?" sort of thing unless there's a specific reason it HAS to be 8 minutes.

I need to go find the quote, but it makes no sense to say that cutting the time limit down will make people camp more. You're projecting your choice onto other people. I'm a tournament player too so that directly refers to me. Let me make my own decisions about how to play my matches. If it's on a legal stage there shouldn't be any legitimate problems with camping in the first place.

With money on the line and a sizeable lead, I might start playing extremely defensively at 2 minutes left in the match.
If the time limit is 5 minutes, I'll start doing that at 3 minutes. If the time limit is 8 minutes, I'll start doing that at 6 minutes. Even if it might take me only .5 minutes to finish off my opponents' last stock, it's much safer to play defensively for 2 minutes. This lengthens the game 5 minutes while if the time limit was 8 minutes. I'm not going to play as defensively and try to time out in the 8 minute condition because 4.5 minutes of defensive play is difficult. It's a viable strategy, but you never have initiative and you are mostly reacting to your opponent's attacks. If I'm playing as Sonic, I'm no longer going to approach except to get across the stage. The number of encounters between opponents will decrease, reducing the chance that someone will take a stock to end the game. The risk-reward analysis of camping for 2 minutes vs trying to take the last stock pushes me towards camping.

This is a prime example of how changing the length of the match changes the match.

Long matches are not rare. Mega Man v Duck Hunt can EASILY take 6-8 minutes and nobody's purposefully trying to time out. Meanwhile, Little Mac games take 3-4 minutes because stocks are lost so easily. Even defensive Little Mac games will likely take shorter than aggressive Mega Man Duck Hunt games, so it's not just a player thing, it's a character thing as well. Your analysis of "aggressive players vs defensive players" is black and white, which is wrong. Aggressive players will turn defensive if they think they have a better chance of timing out than finishing their opponent. Therefore, by creating more defensive players, you increase the time of the match.

Ok, let me drag Wrecking Crew into this now. Wrecking Crew is a perfectly fine stage with no circle camping. Nothing like Temple's issues.

Wrecking crew has other problems. Notably, you can sit very close to the vertical blast zone allowing for a coin flip chance of who dies and who lives. This marginalizes player skill, which is generally perceived as bad. Also, up-throws that leap into the air (Charizard/Kirby/MK?) are buffed to the point where it becomes a dominant strategy, much like circle camping is in Temple.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Wrecking crew has other problems. Notably, you can sit very close to the vertical blast zone allowing for a coin flip chance of who dies and who lives. This marginalizes player skill, which is generally perceived as bad. Also, up-throws that leap into the air (Charizard/Kirby/MK?) are buffed to the point where it becomes a dominant strategy, much like circle camping is in Temple.

Actually, Kirby/Meta Knight/Charizard's up throws are...pretty weak. Landing on the top floor of Wrecking Crew, they didn't start killing a Mario training dummy (Level 3) until about 120% (Kirby/Meta Knight) or 200% (Charizard).

That said, they do offer an instant position change that all 3 can probably take advantage of with usmash or similar, but their throws alone aren't dangerous unless you're already in kill range. And the rest of the stage may or may not work out but that's not what I'm here to debate ATM.

 

[Locke 06]

Actually, Kirby/Meta Knight/Charizard's up throws are...pretty weak. Landing on the top floor of Wrecking Crew, they didn't start killing a Mario training dummy (Level 3) until about 120% (Kirby/Meta Knight) or 200% (Charizard).

That said, they do offer an instant position change that all 3 can probably take advantage of with usmash or similar, but their throws alone aren't dangerous unless you're already in kill range. And the rest of the stage may or may not work out but that's not what I'm here to debate ATM.

Ahh, my mistake. That's probably by design and a good one at that. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sideslick]

I feel like I should share the official stage-list for the Pacific Northwest Regionals/Northwest Majors this Saturday (tomorrow).

Starters:
Battlefield
Final Destination (No Omegas)
Smashville

Counterpicks:
Delfino Plaza
Yoshi's Island
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Town and City

Yoshi's Island shocked the heck outta me. What's the opinion on its apparent-legality?

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

I feel like I should share the official stage-list for the Pacific Northwest Regionals/Northwest Majors this Saturday (tomorrow).

Starters:
Battlefield
Final Destination (No Omegas)
Smashville

Counterpicks:
Delfino Plaza
Yoshi's Island
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Town and City

Yoshi's Island shocked the heck outta me. What's the opinion on its apparent-legality?

...
...What? This stage list is incredibly conservative AND they include Yoshi's island? I mean, I didn't test it so it could have untapped potential, but it before Wuhu island, kongo jungle, Windy hill, and duck hunt?

 

[LiteralGrill]

I feel like I should share the official stage-list for the Pacific Northwest Regionals/Northwest Majors this Saturday (tomorrow).

Starters:
Battlefield
Final Destination (No Omegas)
Smashville

Counterpicks:
Delfino Plaza
Yoshi's Island
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Town and City

Yoshi's Island shocked the heck outta me. What's the opinion on its apparent-legality?

Who made this list? Can you get them in here? Because this list looks a little bit yucky. As mentioned above stages missing and Pipes of all stages is legal? What?

 

[Starcutter]

So guys, What's your opinions on Luigi's Mansion?

I say it's a good counterpick.

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

So guys, What's your opinions on Luigi's Mansion?

I say it's a good counterpick.

I do think it has potential myself. I don't think we found any issues of camping, and caves of lives are dealt with by destroying the mansion.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

@ Raziek

I've seen about a million people mentioning Pilot Wings. Do you have the video of how that stage is prone to circle camping on the first transition (every other minute being unable to interact with the opponent) and the second stage has a functionally unapproachable safe zone that is likely circle-campable in the same matter if the opponent could even approach it? I can't remember if you recorded it.

 

[Starcutter]

@ Raziek

I've seen about a million people mentioning Pilot Wings. Do you have the video of how that stage is prone to circle camping on the first transition (every other minute being unable to interact with the opponent) and the second stage has a functionally unapproachable safe zone that is likely circle-campable in the same matter if the opponent could even approach it? I can't remember if you recorded it.

OH I HAVE A REPLAY OF THAT

I'll go upload it.

 

[Piford]

@ Raziek

I've seen about a million people mentioning Pilot Wings. Do you have the video of how that stage is prone to circle camping on the first transition (every other minute being unable to interact with the opponent) and the second stage has a functionally unapproachable safe zone that is likely circle-campable in the same matter if the opponent could even approach it? I can't remember if you recorded it.

I don't think Pilotwings is circle-campable. Overpowerfully campable yes, but it's all stationary camping. The first transformation blocks nearly all methods of approach, but it's able to be dealt with. The second transformation causes problems where you can camp under the wings in an extremely powerful position.

 

[Starcutter]

oh wait, circle-campable? I'm not sure if that was in the video, but it's really easy to do as R.O.B.


Either way, this stage shouldn't be up for debate. it's banned.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So guys, What's your opinions on Luigi's Mansion?

I say it's a good counterpick.

Funny enough I'm testing it to see if it will be a good counterpick! What a coincidence! I'm rather curious to see how it will turn out.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I don't think Pilotwings is circle-campable. Overpowerfully campable yes, but it's all stationary camping. The first transformation blocks nearly all methods of approach, but it's able to be dealt with. The second transformation causes problems where you can camp under the wings in an extremely powerful position.

What do you call it when, on both transitions, the only method of approach you have is to jump far over me and go to the side to come in horizontally only so that I can jump and go to the opposite side.

 

[Starcutter]

Funny enough I'm testing it to see if it will be a good counterpick! What a coincidence! I'm rather curious to see how it will turn out.

I played a few matches with @Backgammon and it seems like a really good counterpick! it favors close-range characters rather than projectile users (minus a few, for example R.O.B's laser and Thoron should still pass through the beams.)

Other than that, the solid floors don't get in the way much, and even then they are destructible, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

[Piford]

What do you call it when, on both transitions, the only method of approach you have is to jump far over me and go to the side to come in horizontally only so that I can jump and go to the opposite side.

I can see how maybe on the red plane you could circle camp (I still think Stationary Camping would be much safer). On the yellow plane it's definitely safer just to sit on the engine. If they attempt to approach then you just shield their attack since there is no grabbable ledges for them to grab and they can't grab you in the air. Only maybe in matchups like Jigglypuff dittos would it be circle-camping, but its much more of a problem in matchups where it your opponent can't reach you safely (or at all).

 

[Starcutter]

well, I've finally uploaded that one pilotwings match that I was talking about.

As you can see, there's massive camping throughout the video, and it could have been worse.

 

[Shadó Chimera / シャドーキメラ]

I don't think Pilotwings is circle-campable. Overpowerfully campable yes, but it's all stationary camping. The first transformation blocks nearly all methods of approach, but it's able to be dealt with. The second transformation causes problems where you can camp under the wings in an extremely powerful position.

The yellow plane definitely has pseudo circle camping, as in the camping isn't shaped like a circle but is fundamentally the same (The aggressor can approach from 2 directions and the camper can go 1 direction to avoid all conflict). Here's how the situation plays out:

Aggressor and Camper play the match "normally" until it gets to the yellow plane. Camper decides to go to the engine to provoke Aggressor into a bad position. Aggressor takes the bait and gets KOd.
notes: If Camper is killed instead, then they will switch roles in the next paragraphs. Also this section can be skipped if a large (stock) lead is made on the red plane.

Camper now having the lead, knowing how easy it is to die on the engine and knowing how to camp well decides it's time to run away and goes to an engine. Aggressor has 2 options in this situation. The first option is to approach the same way. Camper's response to this is jump away onto the wing and stay at the opposite side of the engine Aggressor is on. Aggressor's 2nd option is to approach from the other engine. Camper's response to this is to jump up mirroring the result from the other option.

Aggressor has 2 options in this situation. The first option is to go to the other engine (Camper can just run to the other side), and the other option is to jump up onto the wing to chase Camper. If that happens then Camper runs to the other engine and resets the situation to match the last paragraph.

Repeat until the red plane comes back.

 

[madworlder]

I think Pilotwings promotes what I would consider degenerate gameplay. I love the stage, but I don't think it has what it takes to cut it in tournament. Nobody in my circle fights at all on the red plane, and if someone is able to get on the yellow plane's engine, nobody fights there either.

I've yet to see anyone successfully circle camp Woolly World. I imagine it'd be possible in certain matchups (Puff, Villager, Sonic, Shulk vs. Mac, Ganon?) but I don't know if how much would be enough to warrant a ban. I love the stage, so I'm definitely biased for its competitive inclusion...

 

[Piford]

The yellow plane definitely has pseudo circle camping, as in the camping isn't shaped like a circle but is fundamentally the same (The aggressor can approach from 2 directions and the camper can go 1 direction to avoid all conflict). Here's how the situation plays out:

Aggressor and Camper play the match "normally" until it gets to the yellow plane. Camper decides to go to the engine to provoke Aggressor into a bad position. Aggressor takes the bait and gets KOd.
notes: If Camper is killed instead, then they will switch roles in the next paragraphs. Also this section can be skipped if a large (stock) lead is made on the red plane.

Camper now having the lead, knowing how easy it is to die on the engine and knowing how to camp well decides it's time to run away and goes to an engine. Aggressor has 2 options in this situation. The first option is to approach the same way. Camper's response to this is jump away onto the wing and stay at the opposite side of the engine Aggressor is on. Aggressor's 2nd option is to approach from the other engine. Camper's response to this is to jump up mirroring the result from the other option.

Aggressor has 2 options in this situation. The first option is to go to the other engine (Camper can just run to the other side), and the other option is to jump up onto the wing to chase Camper. If that happens then Camper runs to the other engine and resets the situation to match the last paragraph.

Repeat until the red plane comes back.

I can see how that could happen, but it still seems more dangerous than just staying on the engine. The opponent approach can't touch you there at all, since you can just shield his attacks and he'll die. Even if it is possible to move around and camp, it's definitely far better to stay in one place and camp. You will have less of a risk of error and a lot more of a reward.

 

[Nuttre]

While I understand that the issues for stages in WiiU are different than in brawl, I feel like the following thread has a decent criteria for stages in general, and has transferrable evidence: http://smashboards.com/threads/grims-views-on-stage-legality-the-competitive-criteria.315529/

The following thread can help address some issues not so related to sm4sh perhaps, but can still be used as reasoning: http://smashboards.com/threads/why-is-this-stage-banned-a-q-a-regarding-stage-legality.278606/

hope I helped.

 

[Shadó Chimera / シャドーキメラ]

I can see how that could happen, but it still seems more dangerous than just staying on the engine. The opponent approach can't touch you there at all, since you can just shield his attacks and he'll die. Even if it is possible to move around and camp, it's definitely far better to stay in one place and camp. You will have less of a risk of error and a lot more of a reward.

This is true for some matchups, clearly. How you should handle Little Mac would be much different than say Jiggs. Characters that can fight well in the air, have a projectile or have a command grab have viable options against someone on the engine (not advantageous but more than just get shielded and punished). I would much rather deal with the stage that has set movement than an actual player who could trick me or outplay me, unlikely or not.

 

[HavocThunder]

In order for your idea to gain traction, you need to first convince people that winning by timeout should be a valid strategy.

Please listen to what you're saying. There is a VERY easy way of showing that timeouts are a valid strategy.

Look at the official ruleset for every tournament allowed since the beginning of time. Every match has a time limit of 8 minutes. At the end of this 8 minutes, what happens? The person with the life lead wins. This is winning by timeout. It's valid because there's a rule that allows it. This won't change if the time limit is 8 minutes or 5 minutes or 1 minute or 20 minutes.

Removing the time limit is a big no-no, which everyone including me has brought up and agreed with. Here's the contradiction again:

1) Stages are being labeled as broken and uncompetitive for having aspects that allow people to win a match to the full time limit with a percentage lead.

2) The rules declare that you win if you can bring a match to the full time limit with a percentage lead.

You can see examples of 1) all throughout this thread, everywhere on the internet for the past 12 years, and in the thread links in Nuttre's post. 2) is listed in literally every tournament ruleset for the past 12 years. Is everyone not reading and understanding the rules? Players are calling for bans without considering the rules they play under? TOs are making decisions without considering the own rules they make?

It would only make sense to blame the players or stages if you willingly ignore #2. Challenging me or trying to convince me to hate camping isn't going to clear up this contradiction in the rules. Everyone's been tripping over themselves trying to explain it.

This does NOT mean I'm arguing for every banned stage. Stages can still be uncompetitive, just not with this reasoning. (I explained WarioWare and Temple without using the time limit!)

Maybe bringing that up + my long posts + me being new (not really, been lurking here since at least 2006-2007) + simultaneously talking about a stage people don't like, Wrecking Crew, is making it hard for people to properly digest what I'm trying to say? Unfortunately, Wrecking Crew is being caught in the crossfire so I have to bring it up.

Wrecking Crew stuff:

Wrecking crew has other problems. Notably, you can sit very close to the vertical blast zone allowing for a coin flip chance of who dies and who lives. This marginalizes player skill, which is generally perceived as bad.

Describing it as a coin flip is a complete overexaggeration. If you're uncomfortable with the risks of being up there, hit down and fall through to the next floor. Did I really have to explain that you can fall through floors on Wrecking Crew? O____O If the opponent really wants to be up there, hit them from the bottom like you do on any stage with platforms.

(It's not even that close to the top blastzone. Since you say it's a coin flip, I challenge you to go get some kill percents and see for yourself. WC has a really high blastzone. Mario won't kill Charizard with Up-Smash til like 100% lol)

"What about barrels falling from offscre-"

Bombs never spawn on the top row so offscreen barrels will never randomly fall on anyone. Ever. All the preset layouts have barrels in the same place, so from the very beginning of the match you can know where every barrel is.

I need to hurry up and get that research thread going! I just haven't gotten pictures of all the possible patterns yet. It's only like 7 or 8 with some small variations on barrel placements.