Stage Analysis & Discussion Thread

[The_Jiggernaut]

"Transitions give no indication of where the new stage will appear"

In the middle. Where they appear every single time you play this stage.

There is less degenerate play on the second transformation than on a walkoff stage because it transforms (so you can't camp bad positioning blah blah) and because the statues prevent forcing approaches with projectiles.

Of course the stage appears in the middle, but the uniformity of the transitions and the camera centering on the players with no respect to the stage, it gets really unclear where the stage is going to be in practice. In some places, the floor can be halfway to the blastzone before the stage comes clearly into view. This is a result of how the camera gets inappropriately zoomed in if the characters are anywhere close to one another. It honestly gets so bad that stage transitions can happen completely off-screen. Characters with poor vertical recoveries can't even live at this point, due to the speed at which the floor drops.

This means that player have to get skilled at being spatially aware in a white void and reading a problematic camera in order to do well on this stage. This is an otherwise useless, non-transferable skill and as such, it doesn't relate to the rest of the game in any way. People can believe that Smash would be a better game without this interaction and that's a valid opinion, just like claiming that Smash without Castle Siege would be a worse game is a valid opinion. I think debates in this thread would go a lot better if everyone realized disagreeing with popular opinion doesn't make you an idiot.

If you tried adapting and got annoyed by practice, you deserve to get wrecked by every single gimmick that exists.

That includes dynamic stages and obscure characters with bizarre combos that shouldn't work.

There is a reason why practice is a thing.

This is an attitude I'm tired of seeing all over this thread, as I go over briefly above. It assumes anyone who wants to ban one of the 13 "must-use" stages is a scrub and has no valid opinion.

No one in this thread is claiming we should remove stages because they take time to learn. If a stage requires a large amount of practice of skills that don't apply to any other stage, it's possible that removing it from the game will create more satisfying and deep experience. I'm not sure putting a few hours into learning how to manipulate Nabbit's AI or memorizing visual cues in Mario Kart 8 to avoid sudden hitboxes makes for a better game. The idea that something that is possible to learn must be learned by all players is flawed. Gimmicks are not sacred.

With this logic, people in this thread should be against people replacing FD with Palutaina's Temple. There's nothing about the obscuring light that people can't learn their way around. Animations that produce the problem projectiles are still clear, and certainly distinctive sounds can be learned to make up for the obscured visuals. And not to mention the stages aren't identical so we're losing out on an entire stage. However, people don't want to learn all of that because it's not meaningful, and the game is better off without this. There are other "learnable" things in the game that similarly don't enhance competition or enjoyment of the game.

Do I need to appeal to Brawl again?

No you don't need to, and you should stop doing so. It is not valid proof that a stage should be legal to show that a stage was functional in a previous game. I feel that it should go without saying, but Smash 4 and Brawl aren't the same game. They have differences in physics and mechanics and so you have to show that the stage isn't degenerate in this game in order for an argument to be valid. Especially since the stages aren't the same at all.

This is the main differences in the new Castle Siege: The transitions are much faster (due to loading times decreasing) and the camera doesn't properly telegraph where the stage pops up, due to it's tenancy to zoom close onto characters that are within grab range. By illusion due to this or by actual mechanic, the floor falls at an extreme rate and can lead to to character deaths.

You have to show that this new interaction isn't a problem in THIS game in order to have a valid argument. Also, I'm not claiming that it is or it isn't, I feel I must clarify. Only that someone doesn't have to be like the SV FD BF crowd to suggest that Smash 4 would be better off without Castle Siege.

Temporary walkoffs are different than permanent walkoffs in a fundamental way, it's not a matter of degree. The walkoff camp strategy is the reason walkoffs degenerate, and the strategy fails to function properly in a fundamental way if you can wait until a walkoff is over to start interacting with your opponent.

I happen to disagree with this. There is certainly a level of degree in certain situations.


The most notable situation is if a transformation with a walkoff is present when the timer runs out. Even if one could not abuse walkoffs the entire game, a match can still be closed out by camping a walkoff.


Another situation is when a walkoff appears close to the end of the match, but not as the timer runs out. Let's use an example where there is 1:15 on the clock and the walkoff will remain for the next minute. If I have a large percentage lead, I can opt to camp the walkoffs to force my opponent either approach me, or be forced to make up the percent difference in only 15 seconds. Although I can't use walkoffs for the last 15 seconds, I have still used degenerate play to force my opponent into a situation that isn't possible to overcome if I simply play a decent defensive game. I never have to over-commit because I am no longer required to land a kill move to win the game. This is still degenerate play. Clearly it's not as bad as ending a match beside a walkoff, but that's my point. There are degrees to degeneracy and they can occur with temporary walkoffs.

 

[Pyr]

Wait wait wait. Castle Siege? http://www.ssbwiki.com/Castle_Siege THAT Castle Siege? You're saying the stage where the entire thing becomes a black and white and shakes for 3 seconds isn't a clear enough transition that screams "get closer to the middle brah!" You can't tell me that 2 seconds is too little time to jump and react during the ending of the transition. That said, while there is no indication that the stage will appear here or there, it appears at consistent locations. The camera doesn't center always on the characters. It does take the sides into account. That is more then enough indication to let you know your relative position on the stage in a transition. It really isn't unclear if you keep a presence of mind about you.

It's harder to memorize when Randel will come out on Yoshi's in melee then your relative position to the stage, both pre-transition and during. It's a poor argument.

As for walkoffs on this stage, it becomes degenerate if you use it only near the end of a match. Otherwise, like others have said, it puts you in a worse position. Also, it only lasts 43 seconds. Add in 3 seconds for a transition and 2 seconds for the end of the transition, that's 48 seconds for each "phase." In a standard match, you reach that transition at 0:48, 3:12, and 5:36. If it's a 5 minute match, you won't see it at the end. If 6 minutes, it'll begin with 24 seconds left. If it's making it to 24 seconds left with a 2 stock match on this stage, those 24 seconds weren't going to change much. Edge cases like that aren't a viable reason to ban this stage.

Source: http://smashboards.com/threads/castle-siege-stage-research.384873/

As for the players having to have spacial awareness as a skill: How the ****ing **** hell is that not already a requirement? It's nothing new or special that needs to be learned to pay on this stage.

I, for one, HEAVILY disagree with you. Not because I think you're an idiot, but because I know you lack research and playtime on this stage. 1 minute cycles? Really? Those 12 seconds change the entire dynamic of your argument for the latter points. The 3 second transition and 2 second time to "come back" to the stage and start the next transition timer is more then enough time to get to a safe position or into a position where you don't die. This is keeping in mind that 1/3 of the time the transition is irrelevant for this point.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Wait wait wait. Castle Siege? http://www.ssbwiki.com/Castle_Siege THAT Castle Siege? You're saying the stage where the entire thing becomes a black and white and shakes for 3 seconds isn't a clear enough transition that screams "get closer to the middle brah!" You can't tell me that 2 seconds is too little time to jump and react during the ending of the transition. That said, while there is no indication that the stage will appear here or there, it appears at consistent locations. The camera doesn't center always on the characters. It does take the sides into account. That is more then enough indication to let you know your relative position on the stage in a transition. It really isn't unclear if you keep a presence of mind about you.

It's harder to memorize when Randel will come out on Yoshi's in melee then your relative position to the stage, both pre-transition and during. It's a poor argument.

As for walkoffs on this stage, it becomes degenerate if you use it only near the end of a match. Otherwise, like others have said, it puts you in a worse position. Also, it only lasts 43 seconds. Add in 3 seconds for a transition and 2 seconds for the end of the transition, that's 48 seconds for each "phase." In a standard match, you reach that transition at 0:48, 3:12, and 5:36. If it's a 5 minute match, you won't see it at the end. If 6 minutes, it'll begin with 24 seconds left. If it's making it to 24 seconds left with a 2 stock match on this stage, those 24 seconds weren't going to change much. Edge cases like that aren't a viable reason to ban this stage.

Source: http://smashboards.com/threads/castle-siege-stage-research.384873/

As for the players having to have spacial awareness as a skill: How the ****ing **** hell is that not already a requirement? It's nothing new or special that needs to be learned to pay on this stage.

I, for one, HEAVILY disagree with you. Not because I think you're an idiot, but because I know you lack research and playtime on this stage. 1 minute cycles? Really? Those 12 seconds change the entire dynamic of your argument for the latter points. The 3 second transition and 2 second time to "come back" to the stage and start the next transition timer is more then enough time to get to a safe position or into a position where you don't die. This is keeping in mind that 1/3 of the time the transition is irrelevant for this point.

I would really appreciate it if you didn't swear at me. Some regions have banned Castle Siege, and I'm only trying to give reasons as to why they're trying to do that besides the standard of "they're stupid people." Am I mistaken to think I can partake in a debate without having people jump down my throat, or should I be abandoning this thread, condemning it as an eco-chamber that only supports the loudest opinion?

You clearly didn't read my post properly, because I never claimed Castle Seige has single-minute cycles or would end with 15 seconds remaining. @popsofctown claimed that temporary walk offs were fundamentally non-degenerate, so I provided a hypothetical counter-example where a degree of degeneracy took place. I was not talking about Castle Siege.

I'm honestly shocked that you're trying to excuse 6 minute Castle Seige ENDING on a walk off as not a problem. A situation that takes place every single match when someone stalls is absolutely not an edge case. I'm certain people will pick this stage with this exploit in mind. It's not exactly hard to stall a 6 minute timer on this stage, considering there are walk offs on the stage beforehand. Honestly, knowing this, I'm changing my stance from being neutral on the issue to feeling that we shouldn't be using this stage.

 

[LiteralGrill]

@ The_Jiggernaut while I'm not 100% sure I agree on your stances always, I for one want to specifically thank you for giving them. Being surrounded by "yes men" in things like this wont get people anywhere. We need differing opinions so we can all come to a proper compromise on all issues and really understand the outside perspective.

The idea of Castle Siege on a 6 minute timer is something I really hadn't thought of too! That's honestly a really notable change from playing on it with 8 minutes. I don't know if it's wroth banning it, but the idea that people would pick that stage strictly to stall isn't impossible to me. I wonder if it would work well in tournament...

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Hammering them out fast these days. Onett is done. Did you know that the van can't kill anyone anymore?

 

[Shadó Chimera / シャドーキメラ]

It couldn't in Brawl either.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

@ The_Jiggernaut while I'm not 100% sure I agree on your stances always, I for one want to specifically thank you for giving them. Being surrounded by "yes men" in things like this wont get people anywhere. We need differing opinions so we can all come to a proper compromise on all issues and really understand the outside perspective.

The idea of Castle Siege on a 6 minute timer is something I really hadn't thought of too! That's honestly a really notable change from playing on it with 8 minutes. I don't know if it's wroth banning it, but the idea that people would pick that stage strictly to stall isn't impossible to me. I wonder if it would work well in tournament...

Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that

As far as Castle Siege goes, luckily this is the type of problem we can approach with a "Wait and see" attitude. We can just wait until someone starts exploiting this at tournaments before making a decision. However, if I need to make a prediction, I think it's certainly something we'll be seeing if we leave it. And I'd rather have as few tournament matches ruined by it as possible.

 

[ぱみゅ]

So I'll reply to the part that quoted me.

This is an attitude I'm tired of seeing all over this thread, as I go over briefly above. It assumes anyone who wants to ban one of the 13 "must-use" stages is a scrub and has no valid opinion.

First of all, I refuse to call anyone an idiot or scrub no matter how much they disagree with my views, what's important is their argument. If it's strong enough to stand on its own is valid. If it cannot, it's simply a scrubby opinion. Let's find out about this one.

No one in this thread is claiming we should remove stages because they take time to learn. If a stage requires a large amount of practice of skills that don't apply to any other stage, it's possible that removing it from the game will create more satisfying and deep experience. I'm not sure putting a few hours into learning how to manipulate Nabbit's AI or memorizing visual cues in Mario Kart 8 to avoid sudden hitboxes makes for a better game. The idea that something that is possible to learn must be learned by all players is flawed. Gimmicks are not sacred.

The entire point of my previous post is to practice.
How do you avoid misinputs, tech errors, fingers tripping, etc? You practice tech skill.
How do you avoid losing an obscure matchup? You practice as many characters as possible.
How do you get the best out of your character despite its potentially high learning curvature? You practice with it.
And so, how do you avoid stage gimmicks? You play on them.

For a lot of people stages are a trivial skill that does not translate to a majority of the game, but then again, there are many matchup tactics that are so specific to an individual character or matchup, but they're must-know tactics to get the best out of it. So I can not see how stage play is different.

With this logic, people in this thread should be against people replacing FD with Palutaina's Temple. There's nothing about the obscuring light that people can't learn their way around. Animations that produce the problem projectiles are still clear, and certainly distinctive sounds can be learned to make up for the obscured visuals. And not to mention the stages aren't identical so we're losing out on an entire stage. However, people don't want to learn all of that because it's not meaningful, and the game is better off without this. There are other "learnable" things in the game that similarly don't enhance competition or enjoyment of the game.

Not to cherrypick, but I do not consider replacing FD is the way to go.
I use to play a game with a lot of stuff happening on the background, and am used to ignore it and focus on the main picture.
I've practiced to achieve it, I've learned how to do it, I do not get blinded by the background, so why should I care about people that do? It's a skill that I've acquired and I expect other players to have it too specially BECAUSE IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO GET.

Now, no stage property is too extreme to learn, at least not among the recommended 13, further than that there are some that are way more difficult, but still every single one of them is very manageable (bar MK maybe?).

Not wanting to get this practice/knowledge is sheer laziness and I fail to see how people expect that laziness to be appealed to.
You want to win? You need practice. As simple as that.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Interesting points about Castle Siege. It's not just the walk-offs either, the statues also absorb projectiles and create safe spots from approaches with them. I've always had an issue with this stage, and is definitely my most banned stage when I win game 1.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Whatever Castle Siege's faults may be, it's leagues better than The Great Cave Offensive. I thought it would be easy since it's static. Oh how wrong I was, I forgot it has a bunch of hazards.

(It was still kind of easy, just tedious.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Of course the stage appears in the middle, but the uniformity of the transitions and the camera centering on the players with no respect to the stage, it gets really unclear where the stage is going to be in practice. In some places, the floor can be halfway to the blastzone before the stage comes clearly into view. This is a result of how the camera gets inappropriately zoomed in if the characters are anywhere close to one another. It honestly gets so bad that stage transitions can happen completely off-screen. Characters with poor vertical recoveries can't even live at this point, due to the speed at which the floor drops.

Hey, you know how you're sick of me comparing to brawl? Guess what - this happens in Brawl too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82uVs2RbFGs

No, seriously, exact same problem. The main issue being, it's been something like 7 years since then. Players who care about competitive play and who want to not lose learned how not to kill themselves on the stage. How is this even an argument? "If you're not paying attention and also are bad and have a lousy recovery, you might end up in a bad position, therefore this stage should be considered to be banned". I mean, sure, if we're just gonna say "ban anything for any reason", then that's fine, but if we're gonna say that, why bother justifying it in the first place? Just say "I'm gonna ban Castle Siege because I want to". I don't think people are calling others idiot because they disagree with popular opinion; they're calling others idiots because they're saying phenomenally stupid things.

Like, what is the point of your argument here? Seriously, what is the point? If you're trying to make an argument to the crowd that wants to not ban things unless they're broken or random, you're wasting your time. If you're trying to make an argument to the "we'll do whatever the **** we want" crowd, then okay, but I'd think they're at least beyond that kind of reasoning.

I'm not sure putting a few hours into learning how to manipulate Nabbit's AI or memorizing visual cues in Mario Kart 8 to avoid sudden hitboxes

10 minutes for MK8. Seriously. The stage always follows the same path, and there's a handful of places.

No you don't need to, and you should stop doing so. It is not valid proof that a stage should be legal to show that a stage was functional in a previous game. I feel that it should go without saying, but Smash 4 and Brawl aren't the same game. They have differences in physics and mechanics and so you have to show that the stage isn't degenerate in this game in order for an argument to be valid. Especially since the stages aren't the same at all.

The point is that everything you're complaining about is something we dealt with in Brawl.

You have to show that this new interaction isn't a problem in THIS game in order to have a valid argument. Also, I'm not claiming that it is or it isn't, I feel I must clarify. Only that someone doesn't have to be like the SV FD BF crowd to suggest that Smash 4 would be better off without Castle Siege.

...Yeah............

On a side note, a solid majority at my ranking battles want PS2 banned. Suggestions?

 

[J_the_Man]

Now, no stage property is too extreme to learn, at least not among the recommended 13, further than that there are some that are way more difficult, but still every single one of them is very manageable (bar MK maybe?).
.

I wouldn't even say that the hitboxes on Mario Circuit 8 are random. The race course is the only hit box on the stage that's not being thrown out by a playable character. If it's to the left or right or above you, it's in play. I can only really think of three areas where that's the case: the two bridges and the anti-gravity section. I would say if offstage hitboxes aren't enough to ban Skyloft, then the offstage hitboxes on Mario Circuit 8, which are more obvious, shouldn't be enough to ban it. The only slight against the stage is the one-hit KO glitch that any character can perform on any character. Even then, in my opinion, that shouldn't be enough to warrant a ban until actual evidence shows it to be a serious problem.

The very small timeframe to pull off the glitch and the high damage percent needed to throw your opponent into the glitch at the right time makes me think that the glitch is only effective if you practice exploiting it, and that if we slap a ban on exploiting one-hit KO glitches (EX: a stock for a stock unless the stock you take is your opponent's final stock, in which case you forfeit the game), then the glitch becomes a non-factor, because what incentive do you have to throw your opponent into a stationary ceiling at that point in the stage if you weren't going to be rewarded with a cheap KO? He could tech the ceiling, land safely, and take you out instead. The ceiling is high enough that it won't invalidate horizontal kills.

 

[Piford]

I don't get the idea of a stage (or anything) needs to "prove itself" to be legal. Like how is it supposed to do that if it's banned, and what's considered proving itself anyways? Like how is having nothing unfair not good enough?

Also I don't like the recent movement of "we need to ban stages because Smash 4 tournaments are taking too long." People think that too much time is spent between matches contemplating counterpick, so we need to limit players options so they hurry up. Like even if people didn't pick Smashville all the time, that would still be a horrible reason to ban stages. Stop complaining how Smash 4 isn't competitive and then trying to change the ruleset to make it less competitive. Banning stages isn't going to make tournaments run faster, it's just going to make characters who are good on the stages that you don't ban better.

 

[Krysco]

In regards to Castle Siege, even though it was in Brawl and has similar attributes to Brawl, Smash 4 is not Brawl. Brawl had 3 stock, 8 minute matches compared to 4's current 2 stock 5/6 minute matches. Brawl was also a slower game. 4 isn't Melee or P:M speed by any means but there's more combos in 4 than just grab -> grab (which ironically is gone). Fighting on Castle Siege is much slower than most other stages (which is bad for a game that's faster than it's predecessor). Just the fact that you can camp behind the statues and the walk offs slow it down. Sure you can say camping the walk off makes you give up stage control but if you have the percent/stock lead and you're just waiting out the timer, why the heck should you be worried about stage control? Heck, the stage shakes before it transforms so even if you are camping the walk off you're given a notice of when to stop and there's a platform right above you that can help certain characters get back to the middle.

I'm personally fine with Castle Siege but it has obvious flaws (like being an 8 player stage...seriously why?), flaws that may be large enough for some people to want it gone.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Yet another one done, I've been doing them sort of fast these days. Hopefully the quality isn't suffering as a result. Here's Flat Zone X.

 

[Pazx]

Just asked Zero what he thinks of KJ64 on stream, his response was in a setting where he was playing to win he would camp the **** out of it (as Diddy) which he believes to be bad for competitiveness. I'm not entirely sure it's as viable a strategy as he thinks it is, but I'd like opinions.

 

[Jaxas]

Just asked Zero what he thinks of KJ64 on stream, his response was in a setting where he was playing to win he would camp the **** out of it (as Diddy) which he believes to be bad for competitiveness. I'm not entirely sure it's as viable a strategy as he thinks it is, but I'd like opinions.

My question would be how? If it were as Jiggs or Villager I could see barrel camping (always ban it against them), but as Diddy? What?

Edit: On another note, what about MK? Can he barrel camp? I know that the barrel restores your midair jump, but does it restore all of them for those who have multiple?

 

[Piford]

Just asked Zero what he thinks of KJ64 on stream, his response was in a setting where he was playing to win he would camp the **** out of it (as Diddy) which he believes to be bad for competitiveness. I'm not entirely sure it's as viable a strategy as he thinks it is, but I'd like opinions.

I'd like to actually see someone camping on KJ64 in Smash 4 (because people always link to the Melee one, I mean it's so much smaller in Smash 4, even Town and City is bigger than KJ64).

 

[JehJehKeyblade]

I have no idea what the legality of some stages are. For example, I think Duck Hunt is a good doubles stage and a decent singles stage, but I'm not sure about the current legality. Same with Kongo Jungle 64.

 

[ぱみゅ]

@ JehJehKeyblade I merged your post here so it can get an answer.

Spoilers: there is no official list.

 

[JehJehKeyblade]

@ JehJehKeyblade I merged your post here so it can get an answer.

Spoilers: there is no official list.

Oh, ok then. I'll just stick with mine for the time being.

 

[Pazx]

Oh, ok then. I'll just stick with mine for the time being.

Duck Hunt is (almost) always legal in Doubles and Singles, KJ64 is (almost) always legal in Doubles and somewhat controversial in singles. I think it's a good stage.

 

[Slyshock]

May as well post a stage list used for a few online tournaments.

STARTERS

1. Battlefield
2. Final Destination
3. Lylat Cruise
4. Smashville
5. Town and City

COUNTERPICKS

1. Castle Siege
2. Delfino Plaza
3. Duck Hunt
4. Halberd
5. Kongo Jungle 64
6. Skyloft
7. Wuhu Island
8. Ω*

*If you ban a stage, you also ban its Ω form. If you ban Final Destination, you also ban all Ω forms.
Final Destination and all Ω forms are considered the same by Dave's Stupid Rule.

Some notes:

Tried FLSS with 13 stages before, didn't turn out so well. The people who struck were annoyed at how long it took, most others just gentlemanned to Smashville. Only one set started on a non-starter stage, and it was because of purposefully striking the starters to get something new. Would be interested in trying again with 9 starters, but don't want to upset the players for the time being.

Used to have Windy Hill Zone and Pokémon Stadium 2 legal. The former was banned primarily due to runaway issues, but the close side blast zones and the unpredictable springs were also problematic. The latter was banned due to the transformations lessening the importance of character knowledge in favor of stage knowledge. Both were incredibly unpopular throughout their runs.

Of the other stages, unconvinced that any of them are broken enough to be banned. Haven't seen Kongo jungle 64 abused to an extreme extent, and Wuhu Island has a few bad transformations but nothing too severe as to invalidate the rest of the stage. Skyloft is the weakest of the 12, with hazards that are difficult to predict and a surprisingly common stock-ending glitch in one of the transformations, but ultimately still viable.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The latter [PS2] was banned due to the transformations lessening the importance of character knowledge in favor of stage knowledge.

Care to elaborate on this? I keep hearing this, and it makes no sense to me.

The ground phase is like any other "stage with a hill in the middle" transformation (like on any of the other traveling stages).
The ice phase changes the way your character works. Far from lessening the importance of character knowledge, this demands that you understand your character and their options, and how those options change with lowered traction.
The air phase, again, changes the way your character works. You have to understand your character and their options more fully, and how those options change with lowered traction. Far from lessening the importance of character knowledge, this makes it more necessary.
The electric phase requires a certain degree of stage knowledge, but if you don't know how to handle your character in that situation, you're going to end up in trouble. Similarly, it shows up at most once per 6-minute match, lasts 30 seconds, and in most cases leads to people just stalling it out, not unlike parts of Skyloft and Delfino.

So... What?

 

[Slyshock]

The ground phase is like any other "stage with a hill in the middle" transformation (like on any of the other traveling stages).

The ground phase doesn't change anything, it's not controversial in the same way as the others. It's still not a very good transformation in terms of layout and it's prone to camping, however.

The ice phase changes the way your character works. Far from lessening the importance of character knowledge, this demands that you understand your character and their options, and how those options change with lowered traction.
The air phase, again, changes the way your character works. You have to understand your character and their options more fully, and how those options change with lowered traction. Far from lessening the importance of character knowledge, this makes it more necessary.

In both cases, as you noted, the way characters work is changed. The knowledge of how the base character usually operates is altered, with the ice transformation affecting a character's ground game and the flying transformation affecting a character's air game. Combos and techniques normally ingrained in a player's muscle memory are made inaccessible. It's like playing a different game entirely. You can end up with whiffed rests going unpunished due to sliding or Little Macs made completely unusable due to wind.

The electric phase requires a certain degree of stage knowledge, but if you don't know how to handle your character in that situation, you're going to end up in trouble.

The most common scenario for both players in the electric transformation is to have one stall in the middle and the other stall on the ledge. Either location is far too difficult to hold a proper fight in, so the only alternative is to use the conveyor belts. The conveyor belts, again, alter the way the game is played, with a constant push to either side of the stage making the ground game much more confused.

Similarly, it shows up at most once per 6-minute match, lasts 30 seconds, and in most cases leads to people just stalling it out, not unlike parts of Skyloft and Delfino.

Having a bad transformation for the last 30 seconds of a match is a concern for 6 minutes, though these are 8 minutes. If one player chooses to fight instead of wait out the transformation, then the other is also forced to fight on it. If both players stall out the transformations, then the match becomes much less entertaining to both play and spectate. Regardless of the length of time the transformations are around for, the way some of them change the base game is hard to overlook.

In the end it comes down to personal philosophy, whether or not you think a change in physics is something that should be adapted to, or something that violates the core gameplay of a game. Used to believe the former, was converted to believing the later. Perhaps there's value in both viewpoints, so it may be a good thing that the stage remains controversial.

 

[Pazx]

@ Slyshock glitch on Skyloft? I haven't heard of one, unless you mean touching the "ground" before the platform finishes travelling or something.

 

[Slyshock]

@ Slyshock glitch on Skyloft? I haven't heard of one, unless you mean touching the "ground" before the platform finishes travelling or something.

I believe that's the one, yes. the right side of the "Residential District" transformation has some collision issues, and it's not uncommon for players to get stuck in the ground and lose a stock. Thankfully it's specific enough that players can be warned about it beforehand, but it's still problematic whenever it happens.

 

[webbedspace]

I have no idea what the legality of some stages are. For example, I think Duck Hunt is a good doubles stage and a decent singles stage, but I'm not sure about the current legality. Same with Kongo Jungle 64.

The dominant ruleset at the moment is Apex, which is identical to Brawl's stagelist but with Town and City and Duck Hunt replacing Yoshi's Island, PS1 and Frigate Orpheon. (Yes, that does mean Smash 4 has less legal stages than Brawl, somehow).

Although, the advent of EVO means that Town and City and Lylat are being slowly moved back to starter status, which is an improvement (although whether Duck Hunt should take Lylat's spot is another question).

Doubles is almost always identical to singles but with KJ64 added. Triples takes Doubles's set and adds 8P-Pyrosphere, 8P-Stadium 2, and 8P-Norfair, and bans stages without an 8P form (Delfino Plaza, Halberd, Final Destination).

Squads takes Triples's set and replaces Battlefield with Big Battlefield and, I dunno, bans Smashville maybe?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In both cases, as you noted, the way characters work is changed. The knowledge of how the base character usually operates is altered, with the ice transformation affecting a character's ground game and the flying transformation affecting a character's air game. Combos and techniques normally ingrained in a player's muscle memory are made inaccessible. It's like playing a different game entirely. You can end up with whiffed rests going unpunished due to sliding or Little Macs made completely unusable due to wind.

Little Mac is always such a questionable example; we're talking about a character who's foiled by a single high platform, one with numerous matchups that are just straight-up unwinnable due to how he's built, and one who already loses on almost every stage; in this case, it doesn't work because PS2 is actually pretty good for Mac - he can assert ground dominance on most of the stage, Electric and Ice are pretty awesome for him, and surprisingly enough, he's also good on the air stage. No, seriously - the air stage is all about "how can I dominate the ground" - because air-to-ground spacing (AKA the shorthopped aerials so many characters seem to rely so heavily on) is not really an option. Mac gets you in the air once, and your best bet is heading for the ledge, because that usmash is killing at 80. Oh, and his upB kills pretty fast too. I'd sooner go to PS2 than, say, Smashville as mac.

But that aside, let's say that players suddenly can't rely 100% on muscle memory. This is supposedly a bad thing.

Uh... So what?

As is always the case, the better player will adapt. I keep hearing this from people and my immediate thought is, "Huh, I have no problem dealing with this, am I somehow in the top 0.1% of players who have no problem adapting to different environments?" Of course I'm not. I'm no genius. I have a hard enough time adapting to someone spamming rolls at me. If I can do it, anyone can. I know how to pilot my character. This includes knowing what to do with lowered gravity, increased/lowered traction (for an example of the former, check out Omega Great Cave Offense), slightly altered dodge timing and hitboxes (Duck Hunt, due to it being 2D), and the like. I don't want to sound like an asshole, but people who can't deal with this are one of two things:

1. Really bad at this game
2. Unwilling to spend the 20 minutes it takes to get used to it

It really boils down to that. They're either so bad at adapting to different situations that they stand no chance of succeeding in a tournament environment anyways, or they just don't want to figure out how to play on the stage.

The most common scenario for both players in the electric transformation is to have one stall in the middle and the other stall on the ledge. Either location is far too difficult to hold a proper fight in, so the only alternative is to use the conveyor belts. The conveyor belts, again, alter the way the game is played, with a constant push to either side of the stage making the ground game much more confused.

But will the better player win? Well, yes. And for me, that's sort of where the discussion ends. The better player will win, and the skill ceiling is pretty similar, ergo the stage is not broken.

In the end it comes down to personal philosophy, whether or not you think a change in physics is something that should be adapted to, or something that violates the core gameplay of a game. Used to believe the former, was converted to believing the later. Perhaps there's value in both viewpoints, so it may be a good thing that the stage remains controversial.

What does that mean, "violates the core gameplay of the game"? I mean, we're playing Super Smash Bros, this is a stage in Super Smash Bros; ... What am I missing here? What is the core gameplay?

I just don't see how we can consider the former false if the game we're playing is "Super Smash Bros", any more than we could say that "a character with extended air combos, extra jumps, and airdashes violates the core gameplay of Street Fighter" - sure, it's not typical for the series, and it takes a lot of getting used to, but if it's part of the game, it's part of the game, and it's up to us to adapt to that. The fact is that changes in scenery, platform layout, traction, character model depth, and yes, even gravity belong to the core gameplay of the game. Would you explain what, in your eyes, qualifies as "the core gameplay" of Super Smash Bros?

(For the record, I don't even think Palutena's Temple violates the core gameplay. How could it? It merely trivializes it to the point where competition is impossible, and therefore must be banned - not because it's not part of the game, but because it breaks the game.)

And depressingly, people at my local ranbats are clamoring en masse to get rid of it, for exactly the same reasons. And I just don't see it. I also don't know what to do. :/

 

[J_the_Man]

In the end it comes down to personal philosophy, whether or not you think a change in physics is something that should be adapted to, or something that violates the core gameplay of a game. Used to believe the former, was converted to believing the later. Perhaps there's value in both viewpoints, so it may be a good thing that the stage remains controversial.

Explain to me how ice mechanics violates the core gameplay of Smash Bros., but DKWill tossing his opponent into the waters of Delphino Plaza and mercilessly dunking the to their demise as they are helpless to do anything isn't? The fact of the matter is, they don't. By virtue of being a stage, PS2 is part of the core mechanics of Smash Bros. Unlike most fighter games, stages are meant to be more than merely aesthetics and music. They actually play a role in the match. As competitive players, obviously we want to make it so that we can take advantage of the role stages play without it breaking the game. Thus, we ban stages because of the way they compromise a competitive match.

Banning stages because of unwillingness to learn physic changes to characters is a silly reason to ban a stage. If you don't want to learn it, then expect to get rekt.

 

[Slyshock]

Little Mac is always such a questionable example; we're talking about a character who's foiled by a single high platform, one with numerous matchups that are just straight-up unwinnable due to how he's built, and one who already loses on almost every stage; in this case, it doesn't work because PS2 is actually pretty good for Mac - he can assert ground dominance on most of the stage, Electric and Ice are pretty awesome for him, and surprisingly enough, he's also good on the air stage. Mac gets you in the air once, and your best bet is heading for the ledge, because that usmash is killing at 80. Oh, and his upB kills pretty fast too. I'd sooner go to PS2 than, say, Smashville as mac.

Admittedly don't see Little Macs on the stage often, might not be aware of his capabilities on the stage.

No, seriously - the air stage is all about "how can I dominate the ground" - because air-to-ground spacing (AKA the shorthopped aerials so many characters seem to rely so heavily on) is not really an option.

This quote illustrates the problem with the transformations - things that should work, don't.

But that aside, let's say that players suddenly can't rely 100% on muscle memory. This is supposedly a bad thing.

Uh... So what?

As is always the case, the better player will adapt. I keep hearing this from people and my immediate thought is, "Huh, I have no problem dealing with this, am I somehow in the top 0.1% of players who have no problem adapting to different environments?" Of course I'm not. I'm no genius. I have a hard enough time adapting to someone spamming rolls at me. If I can do it, anyone can. I know how to pilot my character. This includes knowing what to do with lowered gravity, increased/lowered traction (for an example of the former, check out Omega Great Cave Offense), slightly altered dodge timing and hitboxes (Duck Hunt, due to it being 2D), and the like. I don't want to sound like an *******, but people who can't deal with this are one of two things:

1. Really bad at this game
2. Unwilling to spend the 20 minutes it takes to get used to it

It really boils down to that. They're either so bad at adapting to different situations that they stand no chance of succeeding in a tournament environment anyways, or they just don't want to figure out how to play on the stage.

Asking players to learn the different physics changes is rather extreme, considering how much slow fall speed or low traction change the game. The transformations also flat-out invalidate some tactics. Learning the transformations would involve growing two new metagames in addition to the normal one. The other stages you mentioned are curious cases, but at least their changes are subtle.

But will the better player win? Well, yes. And for me, that's sort of where the discussion ends. The better player will win, and the skill ceiling is pretty similar, ergo the stage is not broken.

The better player of light gravity mode is not what your average Smash 4 tournament should determine.

What does that mean, "violates the core gameplay of the game"? I mean, we're playing Super Smash Bros, this is a stage in Super Smash Bros; ... What am I missing here? What is the core gameplay?

I just don't see how we can consider the former false if the game we're playing is "Super Smash Bros", any more than we could say that "a character with extended air combos, extra jumps, and airdashes violates the core gameplay of Street Fighter" - sure, it's not typical for the series, and it takes a lot of getting used to, but if it's part of the game, it's part of the game, and it's up to us to adapt to that. The fact is that changes in scenery, platform layout, traction, character model depth, and yes, even gravity belong to the core gameplay of the game. Would you explain what, in your eyes, qualifies as "the core gameplay" of Super Smash Bros?

The core gameplay is how the characters normally move around without any changes, unaltered by things like item effects, equipment, or special modes. For Glory, for example. Just because something is in the game doesn't mean it's part of the core of the game. You don't see many tournaments determining who's the best at Home-Run Contest. Players enjoy using their reliable tools, their characters, to solve problems, like the continued existence of their opponent's stocks. These tools should be kept sacred so players can continue to solve problems doing what they do best.

And depressingly, people at my local ranbats are clamoring en masse to get rid of it, for exactly the same reasons. And I just don't see it. I also don't know what to do. :/

Just have a chat with your players, get their reasoning, give yours. Maybe someone will learn something new. If not, then just remember who you're holding tournaments for.

Explain to me how ice mechanics violates the core gameplay of Smash Bros., but DKWill tossing his opponent into the waters of Delphino Plaza and mercilessly dunking the to their demise as they are helpless to do anything isn't? The fact of the matter is, they don't. By virtue of being a stage, PS2 is part of the core mechanics of Smash Bros. Unlike most fighter games, stages are meant to be more than merely aesthetics and music. They actually play a role in the match. As competitive players, obviously we want to make it so that we can take advantage of the role stages play without it breaking the game. Thus, we ban stages because of the way they compromise a competitive match.

Banning stages because of unwillingness to learn physic changes to characters is a silly reason to ban a stage. If you don't want to learn it, then expect to get rekt.

Physics changes compromise a competitive match because they change the competition the competitors are competing in. They're no longer just playing Smash, they're playing Special Smash.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm not going to quote and respond to that whole post, but these stood out to me:

This quote illustrates the problem with the transformations - things that should work, don't.

Asking players to learn the different physics changes is rather extreme, considering how much slow fall speed or low traction change the game. The transformations also flat-out invalidate some tactics. Learning the transformations would involve growing two new metagames in addition to the normal one. The other stages you mentioned are curious cases, but at least their changes are subtle.

Isn't this the entire point of a counterpick? Let's step back a moment and consider Sheik on Smashville.

Now, Smashville is widely considered one of the better stages in the game. But Sheik can potentially 0-death the entire cast if the platform is in the right position by using it to lengthen her fair strings and carry someone completely offscreen to their death.

If I were against a Sheik, you better believe I'd strike Smashville first thing. I want to remove the possibility of Sheik's 0-death.

Back to the original subject. How is that example any different from recognizing that PS2's transformations can help mitigate a preferred tactic of the opponent (SH aerials for Flying, general traction shenanigans for Ice, etc.) and strategically picking it for that purpose?

 

[J_the_Man]

Physics changes compromise a competitive match because they change the competition the competitors are competing in. They're no longer just playing Smash, they're playing Special Smash.

I've played on PS2 quite a bit. The map shows up on regular smash, so it's not just a unique Special Smash map. 3 stock, 8 minute matches are still 3 stock, 8 minute matches. All my moves for my characters work. The goal is to still rack up percentage damage on my opponent so that I can launch them into the blast zone. The competition is still the same competition I expect from a competitive match on PS2.

The things you listed as core mechanics aren't so much core mechanics but merely your ideal. Stages are part of the core mechanics of the game, because the stages contain the blast zones you use to KO your opponent (which is another core mechanic of the game unique to this fighting game franchise). Each stage contains features that can change the way you approach your opponent, since they aren't static, streetfighter stages. Some of these features are random and can KO you. Some of these features are really big, difficult to avoid, and can KO you. Some of these features encourage volatile strategies harmful to competitive play. We don't want those. The physic changes on PS2 do none of this. You can stand on the stage for the entire match doing nothing, and you won't be KO'd by any of the features.

As I see it, accusing PS2 of changing the core mechanics of the game is just another way of saying you don't want to learn to deal with it. I don't think that's highly esteemed logic around these parts.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

On a completely different subject, I have a thread about Skyworld now. Only 75M, Pac-Land, and Final Destination left. Probably in that order.

Carry on.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not to get into a line-by-line, but...

This quote illustrates the problem with the transformations - things that should work, don't.

The core gameplay is how the characters normally move around without any changes, unaltered by things like item effects, equipment, or special modes. For Glory, for example. Just because something is in the game doesn't mean it's part of the core of the game. You don't see many tournaments determining who's the best at Home-Run Contest. Players enjoy using their reliable tools, their characters, to solve problems, like the continued existence of their opponent's stocks. These tools should be kept sacred so players can continue to solve problems doing what they do best.

But stages always alter the gameplay, and PS2 is not somehow cordoned off. Characters are reliable tools, but their tools interact with stages in phenomenally different ways. For example, CF vs. Fox - on FD, this matchup plays phenomenally different than on BF, thanks to how hard it is for Fox to land without platforms. At least, according to Garma. It's a matter, again, of what tools work. This varies based on the stage and the opponent's character. And this seems horribly arbitrary - why would it not be equally valid to say that the core gameplay is that above, plus characters getting their physics altered? Especially when the latter removes less from the game?

Physics changes compromise a competitive match because they change the competition the competitors are competing in. They're no longer just playing Smash, they're playing Special Smash.

And this is just blatantly untrue.

 

[Locke 06]

I've played on PS2 quite a bit. The map shows up on regular smash, so it's not just a unique Special Smash map. 3 stock, 8 minute matches are still 3 stock, 8 minute matches. All my moves for my characters work. The goal is to still rack up percentage damage on my opponent so that I can launch them into the blast zone. The competition is still the same competition I expect from a competitive match on PS2.

The things you listed as core mechanics aren't so much core mechanics but merely your ideal. Stages are part of the core mechanics of the game, because the stages contain the blast zones you use to KO your opponent (which is another core mechanic of the game unique to this fighting game franchise). Each stage contains features that can change the way you approach your opponent, since they aren't static, streetfighter stages. Some of these features are random and can KO you. Some of these features are really big, difficult to avoid, and can KO you. Some of these features encourage volatile strategies harmful to competitive play. We don't want those. The physic changes on PS2 do none of this. You can stand on the stage for the entire match doing nothing, and you won't be KO'd by any of the features.

As I see it, accusing PS2 of changing the core mechanics of the game is just another way of saying you don't want to learn to deal with it. I don't think that's highly esteemed logic around these parts.

Altering the traction (ice), adding a constant windbox (wind), and, to some extent, adding a conveyor belt (electric) is not comparable to stage hazards like Halberd's Combo Cannon or MK8's track. This changes how your character is controlled, whereas stage hazards present hitboxes that follow the same rules as every other hitbox. Assuming "I don't think this is good for the game" is equivalent to "I don't want to learn/adapt" is cancerous thinking that will only lead to a one-sided discussion.

Ice & Wind are more comparable to Delfino/Wuhu's water than stage hazards. However, unlike the water, it is unavoidable.

 

[Slyshock]

Isn't this the entire point of a counterpick? Let's step back a moment and consider Sheik on Smashville.

Now, Smashville is widely considered one of the better stages in the game. But Sheik can potentially 0-death the entire cast if the platform is in the right position by using it to lengthen her fair strings and carry someone completely offscreen to their death.

If I were against a Sheik, you better believe I'd strike Smashville first thing. I want to remove the possibility of Sheik's 0-death.

Back to the original subject. How is that example any different from recognizing that PS2's transformations can help mitigate a preferred tactic of the opponent (SH aerials for Flying, general traction shenanigans for Ice, etc.) and strategically picking it for that purpose?

The issue is that PS2's transformations affect the tools every character possess. Sheik's Smashville string is something she can pull off with her usual moveset thanks to the position of the moving platform. A sensible way to counteract this strategy would be to deprive her of the platform, not deprive her of her motion.

The things you listed as core mechanics aren't so much core mechanics but merely your ideal. Stages are part of the core mechanics of the game, because the stages contain the blast zones you use to KO your opponent (which is another core mechanic of the game unique to this fighting game franchise). Each stage contains features that can change the way you approach your opponent, since they aren't static, streetfighter stages. Some of these features are random and can KO you. Some of these features are really big, difficult to avoid, and can KO you. Some of these features encourage volatile strategies harmful to competitive play. We don't want those. The physic changes on PS2 do none of this. You can stand on the stage for the entire match doing nothing, and you won't be KO'd by any of the features.

It is an ideal, a rather common one. Just because a stage doesn't KO a player doesn't mean that it's suitable for competitive play.
Speaking of stages KOing players doing nothing, Pretty sure the electric transformation does just that.

But stages always alter the gameplay, and PS2 is not somehow cordoned off. Characters are reliable tools, but their tools interact with stages in phenomenally different ways. For example, CF vs. Fox - on FD, this matchup plays phenomenally different than on BF, thanks to how hard it is for Fox to land without platforms. At least, according to Garma. It's a matter, again, of what tools work. This varies based on the stage and the opponent's character.

Those alter the gameplay by giving players different layouts to fight on, not by altering how the characters play themselves.

As I see it, accusing PS2 of changing the core mechanics of the game is just another way of saying you don't want to learn to deal with it. I don't think that's highly esteemed logic around these parts.

And this seems horribly arbitrary - why would it not be equally valid to say that the core gameplay is that above, plus characters getting their physics altered? Especially when the latter removes less from the game?

Don't see how this is a confusing distinction. Most stages are set up for players to put their learned skills to the test, utilizing a variety of platform layouts to show off what they can do. PS2's transformations change the way the characters, the vessels through which the players express themselves, behave, as opposed to simply providing a stage for them to perform on. Whether or not you agree that's an offense worth a ban, surely you can see why so many people don't see that as just an arbitrary difference.

There will never be an end to this argument since there's a disagreement about the basic premise. There's really no right or wrong answer here, just different opinions. Thankfully there are enough people who follow each train of thought that tournaments can be catered to both parties.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm getting quite close to the end. 75M is done. All that's left is...Pac-Land. Ugh. And Final Destination, which should be much easier, but I'm still undecided if I want to try and screenshot all the Omegas as well. Thoughts on that?

 

[Pyr]

I'm getting quite close to the end. 75M is done. All that's left is...Pac-Land. Ugh. And Final Destination, which should be much easier, but I'm still undecided if I want to try and screenshot all the Omegas as well. Thoughts on that?

I think, after Pac-Land, the omegas will seem like a grain in the sands of time.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I think, after Pac-Land, the omegas will seem like a grain in the sands of time.

Fortunately Pac-Land has very little in the way of hazards. It's just so much stuff in general - there's the town, the forest, the bridge, the fairy, the cliffs, the weird-ass pool, and the town v2.

...actually when I break it down like that it seems a bit better. I think I'll just split it into sections and go from there.