Stage Information Database and Q&A

[T-block]

Olimar's grab is strong precisely because it follows the ground. Most other characters don't have a move that reaches below diagonally like that, so being lower on the slope tends to be really safe. He has f-smash to cover aerial approaches.

The research is on hold for the moment =x I've only looked at Dedede, but it looks like he CAN chain grab most of the characters he normally can up the slope. Marth is the only one who can be CG'd normally but cannot up the slope from what I've seen so far. The window is ridiculous though... for some characters it's a one-frame window (can't use buffering for these CGs) so I'm not sure how practical it is.

I also failed to take into account staleness, so I kinda have to go back and redo stuff x.x

 

[Tesh]

LGL + shield push beats camping the pipe.

Olimar would be great here, but camping the sides isn't THAT strong for him. Most of the characters he might be dealing with at high level play can do some things safe on shield and in this situation they would be BELOW upsmash range and grabbing wouldn't work. Olimar has a bunch of other better strategies here and its such a ground based stage that being anywhere is good for him.

 

[Scatz]

I don't think Fsmash is as good when covering space because the pikmin (save for yellow and purple) don't have nearly as much priority. Also, being lower to the stage is better than being higher up the stage, but then the spinning blocks should come into play and give another option of approaching. Then if Oli hits the block, it can cancel our shield and allow us to punish while he's in cooldown (provided that he doesn't hit us after hitting the block).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Still not seeing why walk-off camping is broken...

 

[sunshade]

Has anyone tested walk-off camping ever? I still don't think that walk-off camping is a worth while tactic when fighting someone that is aware of the situation, but beyond my own experience with it I have no backing to my opinion.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well, in theory (I know, I know - theory)...

There is no reason a static defensive position should be any stronger next to a blast-zone than anywhere else, so unless I'm out-of-touch with the current meta-game and pressuring defensive players without getting hit yourself is impossible, then I really don't see the issue.

 

[theunabletable]

^So by that note, do you think that means that there is no change in strength of defense or offense relative to distance to the ledge?

Walk offs are bad because it detracts from focus because of its gimmicky nature, through completely changing the risk:reward of every option in pretty much every matchup.

It's too different from the skills that we foster on every other non-walkoff stage in the game for having stages with walkoffs to be beneficial to the metagame.

imo

anyways I haven't responded to anything recently 'cause I haven't had much time lol.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why do you think walk-off camping would actually become any more common than other forms of combat if it is a high risk:high reward situation?

I mean, it'd be like if there was an item that either automatically takes a life from you, or from your opponent. Because it is balanced in how powerful it is, it wouldn't necessarily be always picked up instantly, using it would be a gamble, just like walk-off camping.

 

[theunabletable]

Why do you think walk-off camping would actually become any more common than other forms of combat if it is a high risk:high reward situation?

I'm not addressing walk-off camping, I don't know much about that, as I haven't tested it.

What I do know, is that the complete and utter lack of a ledge game makes it gimmicky in its nature, and causes the stage to test completely different skills than are required everywhere else in the game.

It's not a matter of it being more common, or being done more, it's a matter of it causing the game, and the matchups, and the options used, and the safety behind the options, and the mindset, and the things we use our innate focus on (an important resource), and our mindset to be different than they are on every other stage in the game that has ledges.

It is probably not beneficial to the metagame to have a stage that is so completely different than the rest of the game, in the same token that Mario Bros is bad.

Mario Bros is a fine stage in itself (circle camping is nerfed because of constantly moving items, and the ability to throw items), if it were a game by itself. Walk off camping is weak there, due to the power of the items, and the inability to get them while near a walkoff, and the risk associated with sitting there allowing your opponent to grab an item.

However because of the way our metagame is, it would be damaging to have a stage that completely detracts from your focus due to being completely different than everywhere else, and that doesn't value in the same skills that every other stage in the game values, and values in other skills far more than everywhere else values.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ratio of Walk Off Stages/Non-Walk Off Stages:
13:29

Note that I didn't count temporary walk-offs, if I did:
16:26

I'd hardly call walk-offs "gimmicky".

What exactly are all the other skills in the game as well that walk-off stages don't test? I can guarantee you that M2K and Ally would **** me on Distant Planet just as much as they'd **** me on Smashville (even though they've probably spent next to no time on the stage), so they can't be THAT different.

In fact, that reasoning doesn't make a very strong case for a stage that is out-numbered 40:1, like say... hmm... Final Destination (Only stage with no platforms)?

Or even Battlefield, one of 3 stages which is completely static.

 

[theunabletable]

Ratio of Walk Off Stages/Non-Walk Off Stages:
12:29

Note that I didn't count temporary walk-offs, if I did:
15:26

I'd hardly call walk-offs "gimmicky".

Yeah, if we were living in 2008 (actually it was largely melee players, so that would've been gimmicky even then, so you probably should've been back at metagame development in 2001), that wouldn't be gimmicky.

Now, however, it's gimmicky, because our metagame, the one that we as a community have created, does not have anything to gain from having stages that have no walkoffs in our stagelist.

In the game itself, it's not THAT gimmicky. In the metagame that we live in now, it IS gimmicky. An example of an idealistic, quixotic, mindset, leading to the belief that we should only base our decisions only on what the game was like 3 years ago, and not whether that'd be beneficial to the metagame, or "human/player" aspect of the game.

What exactly are all the other skills in the game as well that walk-off stages don't test?

Ledge play, and gimping, and recovery. It completely changes how stage control works.

I can guarantee you that M2K and Ally would **** me on Distant Planet just as much as they'd **** me on Smashville (even though they've probably spent next to no time on the stage), so they can't be THAT different.

Of course they can **** you on Distant Planet. They're really good.

Just because an issue can be overcome does not mean we should HAVE to overcome it for the sake of it.

"While you spend your time counting seconds on Japes, I'm learning to not suck ****."

Also I bet M2K plays on Distant Planet. I played him on ****in' Mario Bros once, and he knows that stage really damn well lol

In fact, that reasoning doesn't make a very strong case for a stage that is out-numbered 40:1, like say... hmm... Final Destination (Only stage with no platforms)?

Or even Battlefield, one of 3 stages which is completely static.

It would likely not be beneficial to the metagame to remove Final Destination or Battlefield based on them being gimmicky by being completely static. They aren't gimmicky, they're part of the metagame. The way the game is played by people, the level of gimmickiness on those stages is minute enough that they don't detract from your focus, or test skills that aren't present on any other stage in the game.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So we're basing what is gimmicky now on what we baselessly decided was gimmicky at the game's release?

 

[theunabletable]

If that's what we can rationally say leads to the best metagame, then I'd say yes.

Here's an example of why legalizing walkoff stages could be bad: If we legalize all the stages with walkoffs (or all the stages that are gimmicky, but not broken otherwise, which includes Mario Bros), and it causes a slew of people to quit the game because they don't enjoy it anymore, and we don't have a stream of new people entering the community (because there's not really a community of people who are holding out on playing competitively because Mario Bros isn't legal lol), then the metagame is probably worse off for having those stages legal, regardless of if there's other reasoning behind it.

Now that is a slippery slope to an extent, but do you really think that we'd have more people happy than not with the legalization of Mario Bros?

It's kind of like in the US, ****in' incest is illegal, for no real reason. However if we suddenly legalized incest, the amount of problems we'd gain from religious people causing as much (or more due to the combined nature of it) havoc as they have with the legalization of abortion, in contrast to the small amount of gain due to the very small amount of people who are in love with their brother, it wouldn't be worth it to society to do that. What we would do instead is work on the little things, change the overall mindset, so that something like the legalization of incest could be more well recieved.

This can be applied to a lot of things, such as legalizing, say, pot in ****ing Texas or something. The mindset in Texas (well this one I'm slightly unsure of, as I don't know how well received pot is in Texas lol. But if it couldn't get legalized in California, which is significantly more liberal than Texas, I'd assume that it wouldn't be good lol) would cause that to create significantly more harm than the good we'd gain. Instead we would work on changing the mindsets in places surrounding Texas, working on desensitizing our selves to pot, and attempting to legalize it (as an issue like this is bound to eventually end up with pot being legal in California), eventually it'll spread to Texas, and we'll get the right outcome without the huge backlash, and further stigma.

Or for a more smash related example, it'd be like suddenly turning on all items again if we found our 2003 principles to be incorrect. Or like going for the grab release to spike in tournament matches EVERY time when you never get it. In an ideal world you'd always get it, but in the real world, the issues that arise from trying it would hold you back as a player.

Now I'm not especially sure about the pot example, that one was a random one that came to mind, it's more to get the concept across. The incest one is meant to be the more legitimate example.

There's no reason to suddenly switch to a completely (and probably overly) idealistic view when it wouldn't even cause the best results.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not suggesting we immediately legalize every walk-off stage, but that is what we should be working towards.

It's what we've always done here, take it slow.

 

[Ghostbone]

Walk-off camping is pretty dam broken.....

I mean there are some characters that can get around it depending on which character is actually doing the walk-off camping, but still, it massively mitigates skill, in that one can pretty much ignore many skills that are required to win on other stages.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ice Climbers can also do that.

 

[Ghostbone]

Not really

If an Ice Climber player focuses solely on getting a grab they're never going to get it and they're going to be destroyed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

And if a player focuses entirely on walk-off KOs, the same thing will happen.

 

[Ghostbone]

Except it won't lawl.

Ice Climbers =! walk-off camping and you can't really compare them outside 1 grab = death, the situations are completely different.

 

[Ussi]

Ike can bthrow > dash attack with walk off camping... As a legit combo on the whole cast at mid % (30-80 in general) higher you are, the more Ike can be away from the blast zone tp bthrow > dash attack

Mk's shuttle loop will kill pretty early if you try to walk off camp him, so that's a no go against him, pr a very risky one.

You still need projectiles or a way of forcing an approach (stock lead) to walk off camp.

You have to mentally be prepared to be a douche :| (some people aren't)

I personally don't like it, it can really turn around a match...

But anyways, on YI:M TL can dsmash on the left edge to kill people instantly

 

[T-block]

What the hell am I reading? Why are we talking about incest? x.x

The issue of popularity/player base satisfaction is a fair point. But as you said, we should work on changing the mindsets of people, and open them up to the idea of more stages, and that's exactly what we're trying to do =\

 

[theunabletable]

I'm just pointing out that talking about walk-offs is getting way ahead of yourselves lol.

 

[T-block]

It's not like we're unable to spare the time =P

I think you're exaggerating the resistance to walkoffs though... they aren't actually perceived to be all that gimmicky from what I've seen.

Remember in Melee there was Fox, who was probably the reason why Yoshi's Island and Onett were banned. I don't think walkoffs were banned because they removed off-stage play.

 

[theunabletable]

I think you're exaggerating the resistance to walkoffs though... they aren't actually perceived to be all that gimmicky from what I've seen.

Really? Maybe it's just because I'm in socal, but like from what I've noticed... everything that's not the standard is seen as pretty ridiculous, especially stages with walkoffs.

Like I used to ask people if they wanted to test Mario Kart with me (and btw the stage is gay as **** after testing lol), and the looks and responses I'd get always gave me the impression that stages like that were not welcome lol

 

[T-block]

I just take issue with the word "gimmicky" tbh... I didn't mean to imply that people would be willing to have them legal. From what I've seen, people are uncomfortable with Dedede when it comes to walkoffs (and some who dislike walkoff camping), rather than being uncomfortable with the lack of off-stage play.

 

[Scatz]

What the **** man? All I asked for was information on YI:M and this random debate about what's a gimmick ****ing bursts out. No ones trying to legalize the obvious walk-offs (hence the reason why I'm only asking why YI:M is banned), so there's no need to bring up the stupid levels (and I admit, I looked into Mario Kart and I realized how dumb it was thru my own testing). I only want to see what's overpowering on the stage that forces it to be banned. I haven't seen anything that should've warranted a ban on it considering all the tactics are beatable from what I've heard.

 

[theunabletable]

^Oh this mostly started from me replying to something grim tuesday asking about what's wrong with walkoffs, I wasn't taking into account the original post that all of that started from

Unrelated to your posts, and moreso to Grim Tuesday's haha.

 

[T-block]

Why so angry, Scatz?

We gave you your information, and then moved on... is there anything else you'd like to bring up about the stage? ._.

What is so broken about Mario Circuit? Probably the runaway tactics?

 

[Scatz]

You said you were putting the possible CGs on hold correct? I was waiting on that so that I could at least bring it up to one of the BRC members.

As for Mario Circuit, I noticed that the stage happens to allow some super fast characters (Sonic for instance) to just lap around most characters without much trouble. Plus, the walkoffs are more powerful because there's more limited options to approach. Dropping from above and trying to bait the grab is probably one of the only tactics that might work, but it's an extremely high risk for CG-able characters since both sides can give D3 the kill.

 

[T-block]

Yeah they're on hold... what do you want to know? Dedede can likely CG most of the characters he can normally CG up the slope, but in some cases it requires hitting tight timing windows. I originally wanted to disprove the myth that only six characters could, and now that I've done that, my motivation has kinda slipped.

 

[Scatz]

What about Falco and Pika? I'm pretty sure Pika can CG most up the slope, but I'd like to know about Falco too.

 

[T-block]

Pika gets a boost to his CG-ing ability.

Falco's gets nerfed on the slope.

 

[Ussi]

Pika is boosted to the point he CG's more people

 

[sunshade]

Yoshi's grab release gets boosted on distant planet so I presume it does here as well.

 

[MK26]

Simplified conclusion to this:




in other words, regardless of the stage theyre on, walkoffs provide the potential for inescapable kill combos, whether through grabs or grab releases, and thus mitigate skill to the point where a character that is able to use said combos should win 100% of the time against a character who is vunerable to them.

That is bad.

Walkoffs should be banned.




(emphasis on simplified because I don't feel like writing more than I need to to get the point across)

 

[Tesh]

Yes, lets create a criteria to justify things.

 

[ぱみゅ]

More stagebans, anyone?

 

[T-block]

Eh... Grim's gonna say it eventually, so I'll just say it for him.

What about ICs?

 

[MK26]

i was thinking about them while i wrote that

Now, how exactly does one determine whether something is overcentralizing? Here's a hypothetical scenario: If you're vastly superior to me in general Smash skill (mindgames, prediction, execution, etc.) and we're even in knowledge of a particular topic (a stage, items, a tactic), you should be able to destroy me regardless of whether the topic is present or not. If, with the topic turned on, you can't guarantee the same rate of success as with it turned off, then the topic clearly shifts the focus off of game skill and onto itself. Take note, this isn't the same as a strong player losing on a weaker player's counterpick which he knows nothing about - that case proves nothing. If you and I both know what we need to know about a specific subject, and you with all your skill can't prevent that subject from moving the tide of battle out of your favour, then it detracts from what we're trying to compete in and thus should be removed.

Can I pick up the ICs, practice the cg on your character, and destroy you? I highly doubt it.
Can I cp YI:M, practice the cg on your character, and destroy you? Just maybe.

 

[T-block]

Well... which character are we talking about?

Any non-Dedede character I would highly doubt it, because the CG would be percent dependent. I could just always stay on the left side of your character until past the death percents.

Dedede...I'm unsure about. He might break the stage in theory, but in practice probably not. For Samus, for example, he has a one frame window to input his dash grab, or he will whiff, or Samus will escape. I have always been an advocate of assuming perfect human execution when talking about legality though...