Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[infomon]

Oh, I actually meant that as a genuine question. I almost edited it to say "just interested to know what you mean" and then didn't bother lol.

I like your definition. Many people talk about character balance or "balanced as in no wacky stuff (inappropriately defined)" so it's hard to discern which people actually have the same goals or different goals with their stage lists.


It sounds like we have the same goals, and I would advocate that we ban the stages that prevent us from determining the most skilled smash bros. player. Skill at smash bros. includes skill at navigating platforms, hazards, and other wonky stuff. But when that stuff prevents us from determining which player is most skilled, then we have to exclude them from consideration.

The best way for us to get shared consensus (or at least appreciation) for stage bans is to collect videos of competitive play on all the stages, to show why banned stages deserve their bans.

 

[Second Power]

Just throwing this in: We should not legalize stages that don't provide a balanced competitive arena, just because we want more legal stages. It's the game's fault for not having enough competitively balanced and fair stages, and we shouldn't feel as if having 'too few' legal stages is our fault. It's the developers'.

That's so suggestive. Is fighting Icies in Melee and Brawl on Final D fair and balanced? How about platforming camping Kirby (or any other character with a poor U-Air) on Battlefield, is that balanced and fair?

 

[Conda]

That's so suggestive. Is fighting Icies in Melee and Brawl on Final D fair and balanced? How about platforming camping Kirby (or any other character with a poor U-Air) on Battlefield, is that balanced and fair?

Because the players are providing the challenge to the opponent, not the stage? Stages are obviously fine if they synergize or don't synergize with a character's strengths and weaknesses. That's what counterpicks are as a dynamic in competitive games, and is why players can strike off certain stages, and can counterpick a stage. Nobody is against stages resulting in a different fight challenge - the way BF, Yoshi's Story, Animal Crossing, Dreamland, etc do.

So long as they do not parttake in the actual combat elements directly, the fight can remain player-focused. At least thats how most people I've spoken to at tournaments agree on. If the champion can be decided accurately - in a way we can agree on - then that's what matters. Nobody feels the need to play on Norfair in the bracket just because it'd be fun - that's what side events are for. Not everyone agrees on where the line is, but what's important is that most people find a place they can mostly agree so we can let the tournament scene continue operating and growing.

I'm not sure why you think people don't like counterpicks as a mechanic, which would be the only reason I can imagine causing you to feel jugglers on BF is hated by anyone. I'm confused as to we're actually discussing anymore :/ Bowing out.

 

[infomon]

That's so suggestive. Is fighting Icies in Melee and Brawl on Final D fair and balanced? How about platforming camping Kirby (or any other character with a poor U-Air) on Battlefield, is that balanced and fair?

Player balance vs. Character balance.

Fighting ICs on FD is player-balanced. You both had the option to choose Ice Climbers. If that would have helped you win, why didn't you pick them?

I don't think it's our role to pick stages that try to enforce an idea about character balance.

 

[Unkown Hero]

This is just get confusing for me

 

[Second Power]

Player balance vs. Character balance.

Fighting ICs on FD is player-balanced. You both had the option to choose Ice Climbers. If that would have helped you win, why didn't you pick them?

I don't think it's our role to pick stages that try to enforce an idea about character balance.

I'm somewhat at a loss for what you're saying here. Could you be a bit more verbose?

What I was saying is that banning a stage just because it's unbalanced is misguided because nearly every stage is unbalanced in certain scenarios.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

That's so suggestive. Is fighting Icies in Melee and Brawl on Final D fair and balanced? How about platforming camping Kirby (or any other character with a poor U-Air) on Battlefield, is that balanced and fair?

As much as I see your point, we're talking the wrong kind of balance here. Unfair in regards to stages refers not to stages in which one character has no chance as a result of stage design, but to stages in which one or more unforeseeable, near-instantaneous, random events can occur to greatly affect the outcome of a match. The perfect example of this is WarioWare. If you complete the minigame that comes up, it might give you invincibility for a time... or it might give you 9% healing when you're already at 0%. There's no way to determine which is going to occur. It is 100% random, and invincibility is a powerful effect to gain at random, especially multiple times in one match while the RNG continues to spite the other player by giving them minor healing (or even nothing at all) instead. Another good example of this is Mario Bros, with high-damage hazards that are somewhat randomized and can easily combo you from 0 to death with no warning whatsoever. Fireball while you're in hitstun > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > KO. I've seen it happen. It's stupid. It's not fun for the victim. And it involved no real input on the part of the opponent other than landing a single attack which randomly happened to be at the right time.

 

[kylexv]

Starter:

Battlefield
Final Destination (All Omega too? Keep in mind that some of them are shaped slightly differently then the actual FD)
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Prism Tower

Conterpick:

Arena Ferox
Tomodachi Life
Mute City (Although the road could intrude into gameplay)

Let me know your thoughts on this.

 

[infomon]

The word "balance" can mean different things, which is why I asked @ Conda what he meant.

He said that he wanted stages to be "competitively balanced" meaning: "most accurately and fairly determines who the more skilled player was and who outplayed their opponent".

I call this "player-balanced". A fight on the stage tells us which player is better, assuming they had all the same options going into the match.

"Character balance" is a different thing. Some stages are better for some characters over others.

Final Destination is a player-balanced stage; a fight on the stage will determine the better player. It is not a character-balanced stage; it provides significant advantages to some characters over others.

A stage with an extreme random hazard, where the results are 50-50 random even when the players are of different skill, is not a "competitively (player) balanced" stage. Even if it had perfect character balance, so that the character choices at the beginning afforded no advantage or disadvantage against one another.

Many of us feel that the goal of a competitive ruleset is to determine which player is better. All players have the same choices for character, so questions of "character balance" are irrelevant for ruleset decisions.

Many people do want the ruleset to allow all the game's characters to be viable, and on as even-footing as possible. This is an entirely different goal.

Edit: And to make it clear, there's another goal we need to consider. I want a ruleset that determines who is the best at Smash Bros. And although Final Destination is player-balanced, it is not representative of the whole game. Playing on FD alone only tells us which player is better at FD, not at the whole of the game.

We have to remove stages that are not competitively balanced: random or degenerate tactics must be removed. But we should strive for a large and diverse stage-list (as large as the game allows IMO) so that we determine who's the best at the full game.

 

[Unkown Hero]

Starter:

Battlefield
Final Destination (All Omega too?)
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Prism Tower

Conterpick:

Arena Ferox
Tomodachi Life
Mute City (Although the road could intrude into gameplay)

Let me know your thoughts on this.

That seems nice and very neutral but with just enough variety to make them interest (I not an expert, so don't full trust my word)

but whats you opinion about Corneria, Unova Poke Leauge theyseem very netural with only one of two very telegraphic hazards. (sorry for harsing about the Spirit Train stage )= )

 

[Conda]

I'm somewhat at a loss for what you're saying here. Could you be a bit more verbose?

What I was saying is that banning a stage just because it's unbalanced is misguided because nearly every stage is unbalanced in certain scenarios.

The type of 'imbalanced' you are talking about is completely different than the one we are, as well as people when they are at tournaments.

FD is not 'imbalanced' because it gives an advantage to certain characters, because stage selection and counterpicks is part of the tournament skillset. You are never unfairly at the mercy of FD. Also, FD does not directly do anything for either player - it is just a battleground that may or may not play to certain character (or player) strengths and/or weaknesses.

Again, there are two disjointed conversations about two very different ideas of what the word 'balance' means in a competitive scenario, so I can't really discuss much here to try and continue along a thread that will cause anyone to learn anything.


------------

The word "balance" can mean different things, which is why I asked @ Conda what he meant.

He said that he wanted stages to be "competitively balanced" meaning: "most accurately and fairly determines who the more skilled player was and who outplayed their opponent".

---------
Edit: And to make it clear, there's another goal we need to consider. I want a ruleset that determines who is the best at Smash Bros. And although Final Destination is player-balanced, it is not representative of the whole game. Playing on FD alone only tells us which player is better at FD, not at the whole of the game.

We have to remove stages that are not competitively balanced: random or degenerate tactics must be removed. But we should strive for a large and diverse stage-list (as large as the game allows IMO) so that we determine who's the best at the full game.

Exactly. It's important to keep in mind "But we should strive for a large and diverse stage-list (as large as the game allows IMO) "

We cannot be objective and make a good decision if we end up legalizing degenerative stages just because we want the stage-list to be bigger. If the stage-list we come up with in the future from experience and agreement ends up being smaller than we'd like, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to get worked up and demand we reconsider the more chaotic not-competitively-decisive stages.

Let's time-travel 3 years into the future.
If the stage-list we come up with in the 3ds version - through experimenting and being intelligent objective creatures - ends up being small, it will not be our fault, it will be Sakurai's. We should not start legalizing certain unfitting stages (and starting 'advocacy' movements that vilify the scene as a whole *cough*) just because we want MOAR stages, and choose to wilfully pretend that people haven't already been down this road. It's about quality, not quantity, especially if it diminishes the quality of our competitive matches and skillsets.

We all know that though, and we're cool with it. Which is the the actual tournament scene is very chilled out and reasonable, and heated arguments like we may or may not see often on smashboards and reddit are not at all representative of the wider community.

 

[Second Power]

As much as I see your point, we're talking the wrong kind of balance here. Unfair in regards to stages refers not to stages in which one character has no chance as a result of stage design, but to stages in which one or more unforeseeable, near-instantaneous, random events can occur to greatly affect the outcome of a match. The perfect example of this is WarioWare. If you complete the minigame that comes up, it might give you invincibility for a time... or it might give you 9% healing when you're already at 0%. There's no way to determine which is going to occur. It is 100% random, and invincibility is a powerful effect to gain at random, especially multiple times in one match while the RNG continues to spite the other player by giving them minor healing (or even nothing at all) instead. Another good example of this is Mario Bros, with high-damage hazards that are somewhat randomized and can easily combo you from 0 to death with no warning whatsoever. Fireball while you're in hitstun > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > crab > fireball > turtle > KO. I've seen it happen. It's stupid. It's not fun for the victim. And it involved no real input on the part of the opponent other than landing a single attack which randomly happened to be at the right time.

If that's the case, I agree with you. Stuff like Wario Ware, Mario Bros, etc. should be banned. Games shouldn't come down to stuff that you can't react to. However, while Spirit Tracks has a lot going on hazard wise, it's all stuff you can react to.

The word "balance" can mean different things, which is why I asked @ Conda what he meant.

He said that he wanted stages to be "competitively balanced" meaning: "most accurately and fairly determines who the more skilled player was and who outplayed their opponent".

I call this "player-balanced". A fight on the stage tells us which player is better, assuming they had all the same options going into the match.

"Character balance" is a different thing. Some stages are better for some characters over others.

Final Destination is a player-balanced stage; a fight on the stage will determine the better player. It is not a character-balanced stage; it provides significant advantages to some characters over others.

A stage with an extreme random hazard, where the results are 50-50 random even when the players are of different skill, is not a "competitively (player) balanced" stage. Even if it had perfect character balance, so that the character choices at the beginning afforded no advantage or disadvantage against one another.

Many of us feel that the goal of a competitive ruleset is to determine which player is better. All players have the same choices for character, so questions of "character balance" are irrelevant for ruleset decisions.

Many people do want the ruleset to allow all the game's characters to be viable, and on as even-footing as possible. This is an entirely different goal.

Thanks for the explanation. And see the above; I do agree that stuff which is random and can drastically swing matches isn't okay.

The type of 'imbalanced' you are talking about is completely different than the one we are, as well as people when they are at tournaments.

FD is not 'imbalanced' because it gives an advantage to certain characters, because stage selection and counterpicks is part of the tournament skillset. You are never unfairly at the mercy of FD. Also, FD does not directly do anything for either player - it is just a battleground that may or may not play to certain character (or player) strengths and/or weaknesses.

Again, there are two disjointed conversations about two very different ideas of what the word 'balance' means in a competitive scenario, so I can't really discuss much here to try and continue along a thread that will cause anyone to learn anything.

It seems like our views are just to contrary. You view a stage as a layout, with anything else being 'extra' and in most cases unwanted, correct? I view stages in their entirety, with the layout being on the same level as the other elements such as hazards.

Even if we can't agree on which view is 'correct' (because such a thing is subjective anyways), I'd like to say that both our opinions are valid. Would you be willing to concede that?

 

[Unkown Hero]

So, why is this thread be watch? Is it because it is such a sensitive topic and a fire fight could happen at any moment with just one bad comment?

 

[Conda]

If that's the case, I agree with you. Stuff like Wario Ware, Mario Bros, etc. should be banned. Games shouldn't come down to stuff that you can't react to. However, while Spirit Tracks has a lot going on hazard wise, it's all stuff you can react to.



Thanks for the explanation. And see the above; I do agree that stuff which is random and can drastically swing matches isn't okay.



It seems like our views are just to contrary. You view a stage as a layout, with anything else being 'extra' and in most cases unwanted, correct? I view stages in their entirety, with the layout being on the same level as the other elements such as hazards.

Even if we can't agree on which view is 'correct' (because such a thing is subjective anyways), I'd like to say that both our opinions are valid. Would you be willing to concede that?

In the case of spirit tracks - you are right. Stages like that are more arguable and may be competitively fitting. But it is still up to the community to play and decide after a while if it's something anyone really wants to keep playing, if bad things continue to happen that cause winners to not be as decisive as they should ideally be. I'm speaking of what we've done with brinstar and such in the past, after years of using them in tournaments.

If the community decides we'd rather not play on spirit tracks down the road, then it's important to remember to not get fired up over it because "But I love spirit tracks!" It's not about individuals, it's about everyone and the flow of the scene. There is a lot on the line, and decisions simply have to be made to benefit the growth and health of the game's competitive scene. Sometimes some cool stages will not be viable, but you can still play them in friendlies and side events. So attend those and have fun


My point is only time will tell if certain stages actually help the scene grow, and help the meta improve and improve to the point where we have skilled players that impress viewers worldwide -- thus promoting the health of our scene and the ability for more people to dedicate themselves to competitive play.

That is the big picture, and whatever stage-list and ruleset allows that dynamic Smash Bros competitive scene to exist is the clear winner.

The point of testing stages and rulesets and stock counts etc is to FIND that perfect ruleset that can allow that future to become a reality.


Heck, that's a big reason I became a commentator and content maker - I want to see this scene grow and have a responsibility to help it along. My natural perspective is to keep in mind the implications of rulesets on how smash operates as a competitive game on a larger scale.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

If that's the case, I agree with you. Stuff like Wario Ware, Mario Bros, etc. should be banned. Games shouldn't come down to stuff that you can't react to. However, while Spirit Tracks has a lot going on hazard wise, it's all stuff you can react to.



Thanks for the explanation. And see the above; I do agree that stuff which is random and can drastically swing matches isn't okay.



It seems like our views are just to contrary. You view a stage as a layout, with anything else being 'extra' and in most cases unwanted, correct? I view stages in their entirety, with the layout being on the same level as the other elements such as hazards.

Even if we can't agree on which view is 'correct' (because such a thing is subjective anyways), I'd like to say that both our opinions are valid. Would you be willing to concede that?

The reason to ban stages that have excessive amounts of overpowering random effects is to prevent a weaker player from choosing those stages and just hoping that the stage elements happen to defeat their opponent, removing the skill focus from the game. Additionally, removing such anti-competitive stages from the list allows the opponent to not have to ban them during the counter-picking process, thus allowing him to actually ban the stage that is legitimately bad for his character in the matchup.

In the case of spirit tracks - you are right. Stages like that are more arguable and may be competitively fitting. But it is still up to the community to play and decide after a while if it's something anyone really wants to keep playing, if bad things continue to happen that cause winners to not be as decisive as they should ideally be. I'm speaking of what we've done with brinstar and such in the past, after years of using them in tournaments.

My point is only time will tell if certain stages actually help the scene grow, and help the meta improve and improve to the point where we have skilled players that impress viewers worldwide -- thus promoting the health of our scene and the ability for more people to dedicate themselves to competitive play.

That is the big picture, and whatever stage-list and ruleset allows that dynamic Smash Bros competitive scene to exist is the clear winner. The point of testing stages and rulesets and stock counts etc is to find the perfect ruleset balance that can allow that future to become a reality.

While I'm not convinced by the removal of stages like Brinstar from Melee and Brawl, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post. (Poké Floats in particular was a weird choice of ban as, to the best of my knowledge, no element of the stage is random, nor is there any particular likelihood of "caves of life" or similar.)

I do like to see me some stage hazards when watching tournament play, though. It's pretty cool to see kiss-the-floor combos on places like Brinstar.

 

[Conda]

It seems like our views are just to contrary. You view a stage as a layout, with anything else being 'extra' and in most cases unwanted, correct? I view stages in their entirety, with the layout being on the same level as the other elements such as hazards.

Even if we can't agree on which view is 'correct' (because such a thing is subjective anyways), I'd like to say that both our opinions are valid. Would you be willing to concede that?

Validity of opinions isn't something that concerns me, it's the implications and effects each opinion would have if acted out. That's all I really see, I'm a weirdo.

Now to address this topic in general.

We cannot ignore that Smash is also a party game, and it is clear that many stages are meant to be played for party-mode-shenanigan-fun purposes. We cannot try to force them into our ruleset if we discover they simply don't fit and, instead, hurt the scene and growth of our playerbase and viewership. This scene is many people's jobs, and 'taking it seriously' means not being selfish and taking more time to unemotionally and objectively discuss and test things.

We have to not be selfish and have to keep the greater good of the scene in mind - that greater good requires some sacrifice on an individual level, because we have to work together and come up with something that works for everyone and works over time. It's a big responsibility, and I doubt most of the people who voice harsh criticism upon certain rulesets would actually want to be in the shoes of large-venue TOs and top-level teams.

A good stage list and ruleset is crucial, and it takes more work, compromise, and real life experimentation than I believe some of us are taking into account when we point blame around. We've all been criticized for our ruleset decisions in the past, yet we know to be confident in our game because it has a ruleset that has grown and changed into one that works best.

Smash Bros has that challenge, and players from other competitive games may not understand it - since their games are not also party games. We have to ban things by design, and that makes our ruleset-making process unique. It can be rocky, and we may legalize things that years down the road we realise we shouldn't have legalized.

It is not easy - it is never easy, and people have put in a lot more work into running tournaments and deciding upon rulesets over the years than we give them credit for. And they'll continue to - WE'LL continue to, as a community. Just don't become 'advocators' or 'warriors' for certain ruleset changes and be generally antagonising of others - that isn't how people who work in this scene do it, and that isn't how it should be done as it would not work as a process.

 

[Second Power]

The reason to ban stages that have excessive amounts of overpowering random effects is to prevent a weaker player from choosing those stages and just hoping that the stage elements happen to defeat their opponent, removing the skill focus from the game. Additionally, removing such anti-competitive stages from the list allows the opponent to not have to ban them during the counter-picking process, thus allowing him to actually ban the stage that is legitimate.

And I agree with you, as I said in my previous post.

A good stage list and ruleset is crucial, and it takes more work, compromise, and real life experimentation than I believe some of us are taking into account when we point blame around. We've all been criticized for our ruleset decisions in the past, yet we know to be confident in our game because it has a ruleset that has grown and changed into one that works best.

And I agree that we need some testing and experimentation to see what works.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

(I thought this was pointless before, but apparently it isn't.)

Conda, your warnings seem unneeded. No one is asking for a larger stage list just for the sake of it. We are asking for each and every stage to be given a fair analysis before striking it and down. All your warnings are doing is deriding the focus of this conversation, and bringing up pointless argument, when we are all on the same page: we all want fairness. And just saying, "THAT'S BANNED" is as unfair as just allowing a stage just because.

So why don't we just drop this pointless topic of two sides arguing they want the same thing and just look at stages some more? This is an analysis topic after all.

 

[kylexv]

That seems nice and very neutral but with just enough variety to make them interest (I not an expert, so don't full trust my word)

but whats you opinion about Corneria, Unova Poke Leauge theyseem very netural with only one of two very telegraphic hazards. (sorry for harsing about the Spirit Train stage )= )

Corneria could work, but I haven't seen enough of the Unova Pokemon League to make a good judgment on it.

 

[infomon]

Corneria could work, but I haven't seen enough of the Unova Pokemon League to make a good judgment on it.

Then you should allow it, until you have reason to think that it should be banned.

You'll never be able to make a good judgement on it if it isn't allowed.

 

[Conda]

Then you should allow it, until you have reason to think that it should be banned.

You'll never be able to make a good judgement on it if it isn't allowed.

I just want to point out that competitive players DO play banned stages when trying them out. I imagine his list is for when people actually spend a day organizing and running an irl tournament. You can't just experiment, because you have a responsibility to the attendees and commentators. As a good TO, you have to guarantee that the tournament will be worthwhile and have thought put into it, not a lab rat experiment that players are subjects in. You are spending money, getting others to help (especially if you are streaming), and asking players to compete for money.

The better place to experiment and test things is when organizing online tournaments or smaller socials where pros fight each other and try things out. You get better results because people are focused on what you're testing, and not as easily frustrated if things get chaotic or don't turn out like they should in a well designed tournament ruleset.

It's a lot more work than some people may think - it's about more than "turn things on, see how the tournament goes." TOs would lose their job if they were as slack as that. At small tournaments and socials, however, it's not as problematic to do this so long as players are aware.


But yes I agree - we all have to try things out before coming to a conclusion. But it should be assumed that we will, because we always have.
What I don't understand is the apparent default idea that people are hasty to ban things and don't want to test things out. I've never been under that impression.

 

[infomon]

I think that many players and TOs are happy to ban things they don't like, or that they expect are competitively problematic, without much investigation at all. Tournaments are not experiments, and I agree the rules need careful consideration. But it's all too easy to default to banning things that are questionable. They should be played out instead. If we don't know that it's ban-worthy then it isn't ban-worthy, it's the game. It takes the competitive metagame to eke out a reason for the ban; sometimes the assumed degenerate strategy simply isn't actually overpowered.

We see it already: smash4 tournaments are happening with very small stagelists even though the game has been out for less than two weeks and only to very few players. The bans happen early and are very difficult to recover from. There is a reason that many people are "afraid" of TOs banning interesting aspects of smash4 (stages, Miis, custom moves), even if sometimes it's a little naive.

When you start small, you stay small, because the metagame develops around the stages that are allowed. It's not an "experiment" for the TO to say: these are the stages in the game, prove that you're the best. No pre-conceived notion about what degenerate strategies might occur. Maybe a hazard seems too powerful only because the players are bad at the game? Prove you're better by avoiding it. Let's play this out.

To my knowledge, videos demonstrating degenerate competitive play on banned/questionable stages has never really been a thing in previous smash titles. I think they would do a lot to help the community and avoid silly debates. I've had way too many discussions with players that think we should have simple stages only "because that's what we all like", and this perception easily disenfranchises players that are outside the competitive scene.

I don't think finding the best ruleset should be the TO's job, that's why I like smashboards / threads like this where we can actually explore the stages in depth and figure out what works. To help remove some of the burden off the TO's.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

But yes I agree - we all have to try things out before coming to a conclusion. But it should be assumed that we will, because we always have.
What I don't understand is the apparent default idea that people are hasty to ban things and don't want to test things out. I've never been under that impression.

It's sometimes due to bad explanations of the justifications for banning. (Video evidence would help in the future.)

Not only that, a lot of it is stemming from the kneejerk reactions when all these stages were revealed and people played them. It also stems from how no one has seemed to make an attempt to stream these experiments recently.

It's also important to remember a lot of new people are getting into the Smash scene, and are bearing witness to a lot of kneejerk reactions. It's a combination of things. just do your daily work and it will contract. Just please stop trying to justify what you do, because we want the same thing and the convo just stops getting the job done.

 

[Unkown Hero]

Yeah @ Conda sorry for being one of those "But I love the Spirit track Stage", it just that I really do like it and the game it came from. However, if it does end up being banned while sad, I can see what that decisions was chosen. *sigh*

 

[Conda]

Yeah @ Conda sorry for being one of those "But I love the Spirit track Stage", it just that I really do like it and the game it came from. However, if it does end up being banned while sad, I can see what that decisions was chosen. *sigh*

It's alright. Keep in mind that doesn't mean we're deleting the stage or never playing it. Side events and online tournaments will allow different rulesets. But, understandably, large competitive spotlight tournaments will have to be strict, because the health of our community is always on the line at events like that.

I think that many players and TOs are happy to ban things they don't like, or that they expect are competitively problematic, without much investigation at all. Tournaments are not experiments, and I agree the rules need careful consideration. But it's all too easy to default to banning things that are questionable. They should be played out instead. If we don't know that it's ban-worthy then it isn't ban-worthy, it's the game. It takes the competitive metagame to eke out a reason for the ban; sometimes the assumed degenerate strategy simply isn't actually overpowered.

We see it already: smash4 tournaments are happening with very small stagelists even though the game has been out for less than two weeks and only to very few players. The bans happen early and are very difficult to recover from. There is a reason that many people are "afraid" of TOs banning interesting aspects of smash4 (stages, Miis, custom moves), even if sometimes it's a little naive.

When you start small, you stay small, because the metagame develops around the stages that are allowed. It's not an "experiment" for the TO to say: these are the stages in the game, prove that you're the best. No pre-conceived notion about what degenerate strategies might occur. Maybe a hazard seems too powerful only because the players are bad at the game? Prove you're better by avoiding it. Let's play this out.

To my knowledge, videos demonstrating degenerate competitive play on banned/questionable stages has never really been a thing in previous smash titles. I think they would do a lot to help the community and avoid silly debates. I've had way too many discussions with players that think we should have simple stages only "because that's what we all like", and this perception easily disenfranchises players that are outside the competitive scene.

I don't think finding the best ruleset should be the TO's job, that's why I like smashboards / threads like this where we can actually explore the stages in depth and figure out what works. To help remove some of the burden off the TO's.

I agree. But at the end of the day, when a TO goes through the effort of hosting a tournament, they are responsible and the one blamed if things are disliked with how things are run. Smashboards is not the authority on how tournaments are run, because smashboards' career is not on the line if a tournament goes awry.

I'm not saying TOs should do whatever they want, but please understand why they may sometimes decide to keep it simple when it comes to early Smash 4 tournaments - they want it to be a success, to become a popular tournament hoster, and want to represent Smash 4 in a good light (without having a stage legalization backfire and embarass their entire tournament).

 

[Unkown Hero]

Keep in mind that doesn't mean we're deleting the stage or never playing it. Side events and online tournaments will allow different rulesets. But, understandably, large competitive spotlight tournaments will have to be strict, because the health of our community is always on the line at events like that.

Yeah, thanks for understanding.

Just curious, hypothetically, if you could one one stage, any stage, legal, which one would if be and why?

 

[<π]

At first melee stages were banned because fox was too strong later on stages started getting banned because fox did bad on them. Both are dumb reasons to ban a stage, and the logicn behind those bans still haunt us today.

Dame thing with brawl a majority of the stages that saw bans early were because of D3 (thought to be one of the best characters then) and in the later half of its life were a direct result of Metaknight being over whelming on the stage(s) in question. Stupid reasons to ban stages when IC are chain grabbing people from 0 to death and Wario is stalling above the stage instead of under it but I dirgress...

Stage shouldn't be banned because of how "people feel" I don't feel like FD is a good stage, that isn't a compelling reason to ban it though. People should make a list of rules and stick to that list.

No stage hazards, No solid walls, No walk offs. No if someone made a list and ran their tournement with that list that is fine. I can argue about their rules but at least they give and stick to laws for why they chose to only play on 4 stages.

One shouldn't pick and choose through the stages they "feel good about" because feelings are subjective and feelings cause splits when there don't need to be any. When someone shows up to a tournament and asks why spirit tracks is legal and mute city isn't, the answer shouldn't be "well... I feel like mute city isn't fair for competitive play." My mom should be able to come to an event and look at the rules and understand why things are the way they are even if they don't agree with the logic behind it.

That way when 12 year old tommy comes to an event and wants to play on his favorite stage he isn't shot down because he is "too casual" and just doesn't get it. He has a list of criteria his stage didn't meet. and even if he doesn't agree with the why he knows it isn't a personal attack on him and his mindset.

If I could choose one stage to make legal it would be...
3D Land

 

[Piford]

GameXplain uploaded a couple of matches on stages that weren't FD, BF, and Yoshi's Island. They're all 1v1 with no items on , so this is great to start seeing how some of these stages work. In order here are the stages

Balloon Fight
Yoshi's Island
Reset Bomb Forrest
Tomodachi Life
Gerudo Valley
Distant Planet
Final Destination (Battlefield Ω)

So I'd like to go over each of these (Besides Yoshi's Island and FD)

Balloon Fight
I would say this stage can't be legal. The fact that there are multiple arrangements that you can't choose and the intrusive flipper and fish make it pretty bad. The walk offs on this stage are particularly bad, because the blast zone seems to be about the edge of the screen.

Reset Bomb Forrest
This stage is looking good. Odd platform arrangement shouldn't be reason to ban a stage. The wall seems to be breakable by one weak attack (we see Captain Falcon's uncharged down smash and up? ariel break them). I'd guess that most attacks, besides maybe little mac's ariels, would break them. The fish didn't get in the way of the fighting at all, and since it's on a timer (9 seconds I believe) it could even be used to the players advantage by forcing the opponent to go near it.

Tomodachi Life
This stage looks great. The background really wasn't distracting from the fighting, since it's covered unless you're in a room. There wasn't evidence that'd it be easy to circle camp, but this would need to be tested. I'd guess that a couple characters, mainly Sonic and Shulk, might be able to pull this off, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. If it was, we should've banned FD cause Ice Climbers can get infinites on it. Bowser Jr.'s toy koopa thing gets hidden behind the walls, as would R.O.B.'s Top, Peach's Turnips. ect, but if you're paying attention it shouldn't be an issue/strike it against those characters.

Gerudo Valley
The hazards on this stage are extremely telegraphed, to the point where you can just move to the other side. Its actually cool cause you can try to force you're opponent over there. The blast zones are much farther than balloon fights, but camping still might prove a problem. This needs to be tested.

Distant Planet
This looks mostly unchanged from brawl, but it actually looks good. The bulba (I think thats what its called) wasn't intrusive to the battle, and could be abused to help the smarter player win. The blast zones seem the farthest of the three walk offs, and the upward slope and rain make it seem like walk off camping shouldn't be an issue. The pellets are an item, but they aren't to powerful and both players have the opportunity to grab them. Overall, this stage actually looks good.

 

[TheMasterDS]

The best player doesn't always win because no one has a win rate of 100%. There is no such thing as a best player universally, only a player that performed better given the circumstances.

Way I see it there are two critera for legality. Fair and fun. Simple. A little subjective, yes, but simple.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

GameXplain uploaded a couple of matches on stages that weren't FD, BF, and Yoshi's Island. They're all 1v1 with no items on , so this is great to start seeing how some of these stages work. In order here are the stages

Balloon Fight
Yoshi's Island
Reset Bomb Forrest
Tomodachi Life
Gerudo Valley
Distant Planet
Final Destination (Battlefield Ω)

So I'd like to go over each of these (Besides Yoshi's Island and FD)

Balloon Fight
I would say this stage can't be legal. The fact that there are multiple arrangements that you can't choose and the intrusive flipper and fish make it pretty bad. The walk offs on this stage are particularly bad, because the blast zone seems to be about the edge of the screen.

Reset Bomb Forrest
This stage is looking good. Odd platform arrangement shouldn't be reason to ban a stage. The wall seems to be breakable by one weak attack (we see Captain Falcon's uncharged down smash and up? ariel break them). I'd guess that most attacks, besides maybe little mac's ariels, would break them. The fish didn't get in the way of the fighting at all, and since it's on a timer (9 seconds I believe) it could even be used to the players advantage by forcing the opponent to go near it.

Tomodachi Life
This stage looks great. The background really wasn't distracting from the fighting, since it's covered unless you're in a room. There wasn't evidence that'd it be easy to circle camp, but this would need to be tested. I'd guess that a couple characters, mainly Sonic and Shulk, might be able to pull this off, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. If it was, we should've banned FD cause Ice Climbers can get infinites on it. Bowser Jr.'s toy koopa thing gets hidden behind the walls, as would R.O.B.'s Top, Peach's Turnips. ect, but if you're paying attention it shouldn't be an issue/strike it against those characters.

Gerudo Valley
The hazards on this stage are extremely telegraphed, to the point where you can just move to the other side. Its actually cool cause you can try to force you're opponent over there. The blast zones are much farther than balloon fights, but camping still might prove a problem. This needs to be tested.

Distant Planet
This looks mostly unchanged from brawl, but it actually looks good. The bulba (I think thats what its called) wasn't intrusive to the battle, and could be abused to help the smarter player win. The blast zones seem the farthest of the three walk offs, and the upward slope and rain make it seem like walk off camping shouldn't be an issue. The pellets are an item, but they aren't to powerful and both players have the opportunity to grab them. Overall, this stage actually looks good.

Good information on Balloon Fight. Definitely, if the blast lines are pretty much at the edge of the screen then this stage is not viable.

Gerudo Valley has one major design problem, but it'd be a design problem if this didn't occur, too: The lower blast line rises suddenly when the bridge repairs itself. Whether this breaks it for tournaments I am uncertain, as the bridge repair is probably on a timer relative to when it broke. Of course, if this didn't happen then people would be able to stall below the bridge, so I dunno.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

GameXplain uploaded a couple of matches on stages that weren't FD, BF, and Yoshi's Island. They're all 1v1 with no items on , so this is great to start seeing how some of these stages work. In order here are the stages

Balloon Fight
Yoshi's Island
Reset Bomb Forrest
Tomodachi Life
Gerudo Valley
Distant Planet
Final Destination (Battlefield Ω)

So I'd like to go over each of these (Besides Yoshi's Island and FD)

Balloon Fight
I would say this stage can't be legal. The fact that there are multiple arrangements that you can't choose and the intrusive flipper and fish make it pretty bad. The walk offs on this stage are particularly bad, because the blast zone seems to be about the edge of the screen.

Reset Bomb Forrest
This stage is looking good. Odd platform arrangement shouldn't be reason to ban a stage. The wall seems to be breakable by one weak attack (we see Captain Falcon's uncharged down smash and up? ariel break them). I'd guess that most attacks, besides maybe little mac's ariels, would break them. The fish didn't get in the way of the fighting at all, and since it's on a timer (9 seconds I believe) it could even be used to the players advantage by forcing the opponent to go near it.

Tomodachi Life
This stage looks great. The background really wasn't distracting from the fighting, since it's covered unless you're in a room. There wasn't evidence that'd it be easy to circle camp, but this would need to be tested. I'd guess that a couple characters, mainly Sonic and Shulk, might be able to pull this off, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. If it was, we should've banned FD cause Ice Climbers can get infinites on it. Bowser Jr.'s toy koopa thing gets hidden behind the walls, as would R.O.B.'s Top, Peach's Turnips. ect, but if you're paying attention it shouldn't be an issue/strike it against those characters.

Gerudo Valley
The hazards on this stage are extremely telegraphed, to the point where you can just move to the other side. Its actually cool cause you can try to force you're opponent over there. The blast zones are much farther than balloon fights, but camping still might prove a problem. This needs to be tested.

Distant Planet
This looks mostly unchanged from brawl, but it actually looks good. The bulba (I think thats what its called) wasn't intrusive to the battle, and could be abused to help the smarter player win. The blast zones seem the farthest of the three walk offs, and the upward slope and rain make it seem like walk off camping shouldn't be an issue. The pellets are an item, but they aren't to powerful and both players have the opportunity to grab them. Overall, this stage actually looks good.

Good stuff, I'll have to watch those videos.

And the Distant Planet critter is called a Bulborb.

 

[Nintendrone]

GameXplain uploaded a couple of matches on stages that weren't FD, BF, and Yoshi's Island. They're all 1v1 with no items on , so this is great to start seeing how some of these stages work. In order here are the stages

Balloon Fight
Yoshi's Island
Reset Bomb Forrest
Tomodachi Life
Gerudo Valley
Distant Planet
Final Destination (Battlefield Ω)

So I'd like to go over each of these (Besides Yoshi's Island and FD)

Balloon Fight
I would say this stage can't be legal. The fact that there are multiple arrangements that you can't choose and the intrusive flipper and fish make it pretty bad. The walk offs on this stage are particularly bad, because the blast zone seems to be about the edge of the screen.

Reset Bomb Forrest
This stage is looking good. Odd platform arrangement shouldn't be reason to ban a stage. The wall seems to be breakable by one weak attack (we see Captain Falcon's uncharged down smash and up? ariel break them). I'd guess that most attacks, besides maybe little mac's ariels, would break them. The fish didn't get in the way of the fighting at all, and since it's on a timer (9 seconds I believe) it could even be used to the players advantage by forcing the opponent to go near it.

Tomodachi Life
This stage looks great. The background really wasn't distracting from the fighting, since it's covered unless you're in a room. There wasn't evidence that'd it be easy to circle camp, but this would need to be tested. I'd guess that a couple characters, mainly Sonic and Shulk, might be able to pull this off, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. If it was, we should've banned FD cause Ice Climbers can get infinites on it. Bowser Jr.'s toy koopa thing gets hidden behind the walls, as would R.O.B.'s Top, Peach's Turnips. ect, but if you're paying attention it shouldn't be an issue/strike it against those characters.

Gerudo Valley
The hazards on this stage are extremely telegraphed, to the point where you can just move to the other side. Its actually cool cause you can try to force you're opponent over there. The blast zones are much farther than balloon fights, but camping still might prove a problem. This needs to be tested.

Distant Planet
This looks mostly unchanged from brawl, but it actually looks good. The bulba (I think thats what its called) wasn't intrusive to the battle, and could be abused to help the smarter player win. The blast zones seem the farthest of the three walk offs, and the upward slope and rain make it seem like walk off camping shouldn't be an issue. The pellets are an item, but they aren't to powerful and both players have the opportunity to grab them. Overall, this stage actually looks good.

THANK YOU for this! This is exactly the type of thing we need, since many of us actually know very little about the stages and their workings. This is the attitude I hope the Back Room and TOs have when they go to the stages that conservatives will kneejerk ban.

 

[san.]

Free Distant Planet 2014.

On a more serious note, is there anything addressed about in-game attempts to stop walk-off camping such as Gerudo Valley and Distant Planet? Distant planet is one of the riskiest walkoffs to camp. The stage gives you projectiles if you have none, the hill makes it easy to safely poke + difficult to grab, you can VI into the ground to avoid some early kills, and the occasional rain enforces playing at the center of the stage.

The stage was banned in Brawl for both walkoffs and sharking, but sharking as a tactic is much worse in this game when characters can more freely attack below this stage. You can't abuse ledge invincibility in this game.

The bulborb doesn't attempt to eat someone unless you touch it during the phase where it has its mouth open. Any character can make use of this and it's easy to avoid.

 

[Hitzel]

I keep reading that the walk-off stages have large blast zones and camping near the edge to throw people into the blast zones at low %'s doesn't work, because you have to stand offstage and take damage% over time in order to get that close to the blast zones.

Can anybody confirm this?

Also, any hazards that are consistent, aren't netting early% kills, and aren't causing stalling tend to be fine in my opinion. Being able to control the tools of your environment in your favor is a respectable skill in videogames.

It's too bad the jumping man on the Earthbound level hits so hard, because controlling him as he spawns (if his timer is consistent) and taking advantage of him while he lasts (just like controlling weapon spawns in a shooter or buff spawns in a moba) is another valued skill.

 

[Piford]

I keep reading that the walk-off stages have large blast zones and camping near the edge to throw people into the blast zones at low %'s doesn't work, because you have to stand offstage and take damage% over time in order to get that close to the blast zones.

Can anybody confirm this?

Also, any hazards that are consistent, aren't netting early% kills, and aren't causing stalling tend to be fine in my opinion. Being able to control the tools of your environment in your favor is a respectable skill in videogames.

It's too bad the jumping man on the Earthbound level hits so hard, because controlling him as he spawns (if his timer is consistent) and taking advantage of him while he lasts (just like controlling weapon spawns in a shooter or buff spawns in a moba) is another valued skill.

The blast zones vary stage by stage.

 

[Hitzel]

The blast zones vary stage by stage.

Do we know of any good walk-offs with large enough blast zones to be legal?

 

[Piford]

Do we know of any good walk-offs with large enough blast zones to be legal?

Like I said a couple post back, Distant Planet's blast zones seem large enough to be legal, and Gerudo Valleys need to be tested. Balloon Fight is so far the only one that completely out of the question.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Like I said a couple post back, Distant Planet's blast zones seem large enough to be legal, and Gerudo Valleys need to be tested. Balloon Fight is so far the only one that completely out of the question.

I used to think the wraparound mechanic on Balloon Fight would help deal with walkoff camping since you could just approach from "behind," but Bowser killed Peach at 14% with a bthrow while still onscreen, so...yeah.

 

[infomon]

But could the Peach have DI'd to avoid such an early % kill?


.... probably not :[ especially with VI lol.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

But could the Peach have DI'd to avoid such an early % kill?


.... probably not :[ especially with VI lol.

Does that even matter? It's a BThrow at 14%. All he'd have to do is add a few more percent and then it would KO regardless.