Relic of the Past
- Sep 14, 2002
- The Netherlands
I believe FoD is generally a better starter, but that and YS are definitely a tad below BF and DL in terms of ideal first stages.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
That's because Battlefield is the most neutral stage in the game. Should stage select even be a skill we care about?Now I feel so progressive... Rat and I were arguing 3 stage strikes when the new MBR first opened lol.
Honestly, I don't like 3 stage strikes anymore. Its really boring, there no data mining you can do about your opponent during the strike, and almost every single time it will go battlefield.
It is true that Fox doesn't have a disadvantage on any stage that isn't like Brinstar or Mute City with its hazards. Striking as Fox is more of a "what do I feel like" sort of thing. Most other characters have more clear-cut problems on certain stages.If we move down to 3 stages, it would probably be better to just random from there. Double blind has the problem of requiring a 3rd party or a way to write down the choices, either of which would be cumbersome.
I find stale strike order only comes into play if players play each other often. For example, if I were to play against you as fox, I wouldn't mind any stage. I would actually be confused at you striking FD and expect you to strike towards a stage where you could keep me away better. Depending on how i'm feeling that day, I could choose any stage except probably FD. From my last few sentences you can probably guess how I plan to approach the match-up. On the other hand if you play the opponent a lot, you will know how they intend to approach the match-up and probably agree to play battlefield (or strike there just by knowledge of the other's strengths).
the walls argument i think is untrue, although related. typically the playable wall stages like corneria and peach's castle were banned because camping the walls themselves were thought to be overly effective. for example, i think it was falco bair/laser camping that got peach's castle banned.Here's the list of known problems with Stadium:
1. The mountain coming up during an edge guard is a thing that randomly happens and favors a certain player. The grass stage is similar, but some characters do not benefit from a sloped edge.
2. There is a glitch on the stage that, though rare, can make players fall through the floor and lose a stock.
1. The flow of the game is broken on certain transformations because of the strong defensive positions that are created.
2. The left side is at an inherent disadvantage because they have to be the aggressor or eventually be forced into a worse position unless they have a means of forcing the opponent to engage (projectiles). One player starts on the left side, thus that player is at a disadvantage from the start of the game depending on the matchup.
3. Some transformations have walls, and stages with walls have all been banned with the walls being part of the reasoning behind the ban.
Argue against the ones that are up for debate, and argue why the ones that are known are not a big deal. Anecdotes are not arguments.
I think walls were banned for a lot of reasons. Onett was banned because it was Fox's playground, Corneria, Peach's castle and Venom were banned because of defensive positions (with Marth being a huge deal on castle and venom or something).the walls argument i think is untrue, although related. typically the playable wall stages like corneria and peach's castle were banned because camping the walls themselves were thought to be overly effective. for example, i think it was falco bair/laser camping that got peach's castle banned.
i think the main point of the stage list is determining how we want the interactions of the game to look like, or in another sense, to encourage interaction as much as possible. so for example, we banned hyrule temple because it encourages the players to interact with each other as little as possible. some characters also interact very little if possible, and non-interactive strategies have shown to be the best ones in the game (dashdancing, falco laser, chaingrabs).
i'd be closer to arguing that stadium's lack of a high middle platform makes it a favorable stage, as the problem characters (fox falco) are so very good at using those top platforms. how is a character like peach supposed to interact with a character on the top platform of battlefield?
i agree that the effectiveness of the stage is overstated. as a zelda player, i have never lost to a fox/falco player solely because we went to stadium, it's always because of the MU disparity or my own lack of ability.
also, fox's bans are alarmingly easy. if the opponent can chaingrab you, ban FD. if not, don't ban FD because you'll be the better character on that stage every time with your dashdance.
The fire and mountain benefit certain characters too much while providing a really strong defensive position for people who don't want to fight. I rarely see people actually fight unless they have the advantage on those transformations, and then they tend to just get camped by the other person. I know I'm uncomfortable on them in most MUs and will usually just camp it out if possible.I read "the stage transformations are just so terrible that most people camp it out", and think "most people are so bad at playing on unfamiliar/non-standard terrain that they just camp it out".
I don't view the fire transformation as being problematic on the same level as the mountain transformation. The mountain is an issue due to it completely cutting off the stage and leaving that minute space on the left side, which is abusable if it happens to transform during a sequence involving the opponent or you being off stage. Falling through the tree is difficult to reproduce, and in the 6-7 years I've been playing, I've never experienced it, and after finding out its a possibility, I know to avoid that area in tournament play.
We don't want to force interaction. The gap between encouraging interaction and forcing it is a large one.
You can't complain about PS killing floaties slightly earlier on PS, then advocate for RC, where Falco kills nearly everyone at whatever percent he wants thanks to shine->shine and the super low ceiling during half of the stage rotation.
Don't be vague and say "certain characters". Be specific about which characters, and be specific about in what matchups and why it is too big of an advantage in either offense or defense.The fire and mountain benefit certain characters too much while providing a really strong defensive position for people who don't want to fight. I rarely see people actually fight unless they have the advantage on those transformations, and then they tend to just get camped by the other person. I know I'm uncomfortable on them in most MUs and will usually just camp it out if possible.
I only bring up the fire transformation insta-kill because I've fallen through it in friendlies while camping under the fire tree. If that happened to me in a tournament I'd be super pissed.
Fox ***** the universe on both Fire and Mountain stages due to his platform and wall game. His combos are disproportionately rewarded when he lands hits on those transformations, and it's easier for him to land hits unless his opponent is camping one of the extremely strong defensive positions.Don't be vague and say "certain characters". Be specific about which characters, and be specific about in what matchups and why it is too big of an advantage in either offense or defense.
Regarding the stage hole, I suggest getting a collection of clips that show it happening to continue the conversation around if the fall-through is a legitimate concer for youn, because its rare enough for me to consider it as insignificant.
Fox is rewarded more than Fox usually is for getting hits on Fire and Mountain though, it's just how it is. Fox usually can't infinite you, and PS is the only legal stage where that becomes possible. One hit can be a guaranteed infinite combo assuming no big mistakes from Fox on Fire or Mountain, which is pretty crazy when getting dair -> shined or whatever kids are doing these days into shine just ends in a grab or something.There is no such thing as disproportionate hit reward. Wobbling would be banned. Rest would be banned. Peach's downsmash would be banned. The maximum amount of damage any first hit can lead into is 1 stock.
Fox and Falco gain an advantage in pressure game on those locations if they can manage to break through a defense. It's not inherently easier for Fox/Falco to land hits on the transformations. Once they break past neutral and get on someone's shield, the opponent has less escape options. Marth's defense on those transformations is very strong. Peach's defense on them is very strong. Sheik's is very strong. Ganon and Falcon both have crazy large uair for defense. IC's have disjointed hitboxes to protect them. Etc.
Again, what I ended up reading there, was "If the opponent has no idea how to defend on PS, spacies will dominate them". This is implied if the opponent doesn't know how to play any stage, not just PS.
but are the occurrences on stadium completely random? same thing with YS and DL. None of it is really random they can all be accounted for. I think it is more of a question as to whether it is better for the community to not deal with them in game.I think randomness that can save a recovery or crush momentum is not acceptable for a legal stage, especially when we have banned stages that have 0 randomness.
The transformations, both in which one will occur and when they will occur (except that they can't occur for the first 30 seconds or something), are completely random as far as I know.but are the occurrences on stadium completely random? same thing with YS and DL. None of it is really random they can all be accounted for. I think it is more of a question as to whether it is better for the community to not deal with them in game.
I do fall on that side of the spectrum that likes less obstacles to overcome (stage-wise) in singles so I can see your plight. I think that PS should be removed because the transformations can either tilt the match heavily or disrupt the flow of the game. YS and DL64 stage hazards do not effect players as much but if there is a hierarchy I would say that YS and DL64 are next on that list of stages with obstacles.
1) 4 of the 6 current stages have shifting elements that can screw up or help with edgeguarding.If you take no issue with the play stopping and the stage screwing (or helping) with potential edge guards then yeah, I see why you'd think PS is fine.
I think randomness that can save a recovery or crush momentum is not acceptable for a legal stage, especially when we have banned stages that have 0 randomness.
Plus, I believe having a 3 stage neutral list and 2 CPs would be better for the game than 5 neutrals and 1 CP. As-is we have two small stages in the neutrals, two mediums, one large and one counterpick. I think tossing out PS and going to "YS/FoD, BF and DL are neutrals while FoD/YS and FD are counterpicks" would ultimately be better for the game than keeping a stage that is flawed in some pretty serious ways.
I think the "go to a 3 neutral, 2 CP system" is probably worth a different thread.