Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread: Round II

[Ghostbone]

DH is unbearable against a campy shiek, being closer to the blast zone sucks vs any shiek (needle bouncing fish setups kill you significantly sooner). It also ruins little mac totally. And any character that can outcamp is encouraged to there.

The distance from the ledge to the blastzone is the exact same as FD.

 

[Megamang]

Oh, well TIL. I still always get demolished by needly shieks there, is the stage longer than FD at least? Or is it all placebo destroying me?

 

[Pazx]

Oh, well TIL. I still always get demolished by needly shieks there, is the stage longer than FD at least? Or is it all placebo destroying me?

The stage is longer, all of this information is in the OP of this thread.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Guys, I literally tested PS2 ON TOURNAMENT.
Surprise surprise, nothing too eventful happened on it, on any transformation.

I think you are overinflating the impact of the Flying stage, it is a very small portion of the battle, and with 2s/6m you'll spend most of the time on the Neutral stance of the stage anyway.
Heck, I even think it would be unrealistic to expect a top tier to actually get the kill on neutral, wait for Flying to get a chance for a cheese kill on a portion where it is EASIER to avoid grabs, get hit by mostly unconsequential moves and get off of % where the setup works.

 

[Megamang]

I may be overestimating peoples tendency to ZtD, blame mk, but i think you slightly underestimate peoples desire to learn to use it. Im neutral on its legality, i think it makes for good spectating though.


Anyways, i saw on ESAM's stage video that the lylat kill box apparently tilts with the stage. This can lead to situations where the box moves as someone is launched, causing an early or late kill. Know anything about this? I didn't notice it in the lylat research link, is why i ask.

Not saying it should be banned, just a nuance more people should know. I personally think it is a cool mechanic, smash someone on the high part towards a decending part for an early kill.

 

[Yikarur]

Germany had PS2 in Brawl legal but in Smash 4 no one wants to play those stages anymore.
I don't know what happend but everyone is heavily against everything.
Might be the newcomers

 

[Loota]

Why should we be concerned with 1/5 of PS2 having precise death combos with plenty of counterplay? Stage and % dependant guaranteed death combos aren't new to the game and players should know when they actually got outplayed and not getting "janked".

Whatever happens elsewhere, I'm continuing to run it since the stage is ****ing marvelous.

 

[Yikarur]

It's always getting janked if you die before 130% and if it's not by the strongest killmove a character posses. (except on Smashville, dying below 70% on Smashville is totally fine, because it's Smashville)

 

[Ghostbone]

Wind death combos aren't precise, and they're certainly not acceptable. (counterplay of "don't get hit" doesn't count btw)

Like you can run the stage if you want, it will be fine as long as people are too lazy to abuse it, but it will never be legal at a major tournament.

 

[Megamang]

If you want a laugh/ perspective on how set on this some posters are Ghostbone , Look through some of the older posts. Someone actually suggests that people must be brain damaged to not want a larger stage list.

You guys have to recognize that people who want different things aren't automatically wrong, and offending them is more likely to alienate them than convert them.


Yikarur i wanted more stages in brawl because the gameplay itself didnt really satisfy me. Im happier with it now, so i dont need stages to jumble everything up. Im ok with them, but im not a vocal advocate for them anymore.

 

[Loota]

Well, for starters you can do a lot to prevent from getting critically hit in the first place so honestly it actually isn't that far off from truth. Getting grabbed in the phase requires some serious screw ups or just intentionally taking the risks, and it's just as risky to go after you to the air as just floating around since the situation can quickly flip around. And if you feel you're at these dangerous %'s, the sides and ledges are pretty safe to stall time, nothing forces you to put yourself at needless risk if you don't want to. And if you aren't at the specific %'s that may result in these death combos, then you don't even have to look out for those setups at all and just do whatever you please. Seems all-around pretty fair to me, especially when considering it's only temporary and appears once per match on average?

That's how I've approached the stage since the beginning and it has been working pretty great. You can tell me that it will be "abused" the instant it becomes legal but so far all the evidence I've seen points to the other direction. We need that proper testing before anyone can call it broken or something similar but that's ways off since we would need people to get accustomed to it and then have it legal at a large scale tournament.

It's not something I'm hopeful to actually see happening but I refuse to consider the stage broken until something like that happens.

 

[jespoke]

From people's arguments here, it definitely seems PS2 legality is something to look into testing at various tournaments to see what happens (I vote for doing it when we start testing Umbra).

As it is not a stage that is commonly used right now it is certainly not something to be suggesting for EVO and co. at this point though. If we think it is better than the stages currently complained about, we should put in the groundwork so that we after the EVO stagelist can say "Hey, we think this stagelist is better, our tests indicate it is not as abusive as people think, try it out"
A bit like what was done with customs but in reverse

 

[Megamang]

My friends and i built a custom recreation of ps2 to play on. Its a really cool and unique platform layout.

Its a great stage, except vs Rosa, meta knight, ZSS, and shiek.

As someone who plays a gimpable character, being told to just go to the ledge is laughable. If it werent for the roofio characters, way more stages would be viable.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

www.twitch.tv/riptidesmash

Come hop on if you wanna see some high level play on some unusual stages!

 

[Yikarur]

From people's arguments here, it definitely seems PS2 legality is something to look into testing at various tournaments to see what happens (I vote for doing it when we start testing Umbra).

There are a lot of stages you can play competitively on. You can play 1000 matches on them and barely something ridiculous will happen.
But people just dislike the variance, the possibility that something could happen, plattforming etc.
Most people prefer the fighting nature. They just want to test skills of my character vs. your character.

I personally think Smash is amazing. It is so unique and we should catter to that. I really dislike when people reduce the stages more and more to make it more like a fighting game. This is a plattformer-fighting game and the terrain is one of the most important aspects.
Stages like Kalos League, Mushroom Kingdom U, Skyloft, Delfino, Wuhu Island and Pokemon Stadium 2 could always be considered legal, because you can play real competitive 1on1 fights on those stages and the better player will most likely win on all of them.
But people just want flat 1on1s and thats sadly the super majority.

I'm alwas a bit sad in tournament matches when I'm about to select a stage because they are so non-unique that it's really trivial what stage I want to play on.
I hope Umbra Clock Tower will be legal, because this stage and the stages music is amazing.

 

[ProtomanVX]

My region is moving to a more limited stagelist (Basically the 5 starters + Lylat as a CP), and that's disheartening. I'm looking to start TOing again, and I'm planning to run PS2 in my stagelist in an effort to show that the stage isn't going to affect competitive sets as much as previously thought.

 

[Pazx]

My region is moving to a more limited stagelist (Basically the 5 starters + Lylat as a CP), and that's disheartening. I'm looking to start TOing again, and I'm planning to run PS2 in my stagelist in an effort to show that the stage isn't going to affect competitive sets as much as previously thought.

Pick your battles wisely, fight for Duck Hunt before you fight for PS2 (although if you're running your own events go for both).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

And so it was tested.
Unfortunately half of the used Wii Us lacked the DLCs so they were not used, but here are some impressions:

1. Mushroomy Kingdom U
Surprisingly popular. The deeper into the bracket, the better the players dealt with Nabbit by both avoiding and killing it, rarely getting any grab at all. Icicles were barely an inconvenient.
2. Mario Circuit (Wii U)
I have mixed opinions about this stage, the only real issue was the part where the track formed a ceiling and caused all kinds of crazy interactions, but it felt overall fair.
3. Skyloft
By far, the most popular stage of the event. The fear of pineapple was real at almost every stop of the stage, and players often missed punishes because they didn't pay attention to the changing terrain, but nothing, absolutely nothing made competition impossible; not even difficult.
4. Norfair
Barely picked at all, but when it was players frequently knew what to do. The most extreme thing it has, and possibly its only problem, is that the Lava Plume animation does not match the actual hitbox, which is unfortunate for such a powerful one.
5. Orbital Gate Assault
I personally disliked it a lot, but it was too a very used stage. If the stage gave you any sign of when it is going to change it would be amazing, but lacking markers, the only thing fairly easy to avoid is the Ship's explosion. I didn't double-check if it works on a timer tho.
6. Kalos Pokémon League
Possibly the 3rd most picked stage, everybody seemed to be prepared for it except one kid who died to Registeel's Stomp and was completely stunned by it. Every single person who got hit by its hazards knew they were at a bad spot already anyway and didn't get mad at the stage, but on their own performance. It was amazing.
7. Pokémon Stadium 2
The second most picked stage. Nothing crazy, "janky" or even notable happened. Players used the Electric transformation to somewhat add safety to their smashes, and Flying had one case of Sonic Uthrow>SpringUair being a true kill combo at like 70% but that's about it. There were no cases of zero-to-death, nor complains on "taking too long to land".
8. Gamer
Hard to gauge. It was picked quite often too, and layouts were indeed problematic at times, and while most of the time players seemed to be well aware of 9-Volt, the punishment for her hits were quite strong.
9. Windy Hill Zone
Another perfectly fair stage.... except for the offstage springs. They disrupted recoveries, some characters' options to recover low were nullified forcing them to go up, players going low were spiked by it, and sometimes the spring appeared just too suddenly to try to avoid it. Oh, and one time the Windmill dragged a player to the blastzone, and he was so close to it that he would've died whether he teched it or not.

Overall, Skyloft, Kalos and PS2 presented little to no problems and MKU is very close to them on that regard.
Norfair, Mario Circuit and Windy Hill Zone had few but major downsides.
OGA and Gamer are difficult to judge for me.

I might try another experiment like this later.

At the very least everyone agreed it was extremely fun.

Please tell me there are videos of these matches. I'd love to see them. I'm surprised Mushroom Kingdom U in particular was well liked. Pleasantly surprised, but still surprised. (Did the urchins pose any problems? You didn't mention them.)

Did anyone get caught out by Mom's thing where she walks back and forth? That's the #1 surprise she has for players new to the stage in my experience.

 

[Eisal]

My knowledge about the game isn't too large.

I like the idea of having more available stages to play on though, but I can understand if some people don't like some of the stage hazards, because they only want character & skill versus each other, and nothing else.

Of course this needs more tinkering in my opinion. It's so easy to just ban and not allow and just go on with, without a second thought. It's a shame in its own way, because we should enjoy Smash as much as we can while playing it seriously.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Please tell me there are videos of these matches. I'd love to see them. I'm surprised Mushroom Kingdom U in particular was well liked. Pleasantly surprised, but still surprised. (Did the urchins pose any problems? You didn't mention them.)

Did anyone get caught out by Mom's thing where she walks back and forth? That's the #1 surprise she has for players new to the stage in my experience.

From what I saw, Urchins rarely hit anyone. They were extremely obnoxious to deal with, but rare.
I made sure to warn pretty much everyone about 9-Volt's "scan" before they played. I am unsure if it caused uproars.

And there are videos, but school just started this week so they might take a while to get uploaded. I will share them here as they are up.

I like the idea of having more available stages to play on though, but I can understand if some people don't like some of the stage hazards, because they only want character & skill versus each other, and nothing else.

I'll just comment a bit on this, but stage knowledge and using it for your own advantage IS a skill. a very rewarding one.

 

[Das Koopa]

The thing people continuously miss over and over and over again is that people don't pick stages with random elements because nobody wants to be the victim of the stage itself. The game, as with every other FG ever, is based around your skill and knowledge with the characters. This is why static stages are preferred and have been preferred in every iteration of Smash.

It isn't out of some "necessity" to "be like Melee". Even when the games play differently, the concept of neutral/advantage are universal. It's preferable if you can follow a static chart where if you win a neutral you can return to it to build more damage or place yourself in control of the stage, with the game often coming down to a struggle to win neutral games/win stage control/take stocks/etc.

A disruptive stage disrupts the flow and makes it less about player skill and more about adapting to the stage, which can sometimes be paradoxical to the system the game has. There are times where you can't fight the stage on its own terms while you fight your opponent. Your opponent is sentient, so they take priority, but the stage's hazards or otherwise disruptive elements can present unwinnable scenarios where you take extra punishment for no fault of your own.

Predictability =/= Legal for this very reason. If people don't play around the stage and have to adjust from an advantageous position to a neutral or disadvantageous one because of an impending hazard, they've been hit by something unpreventable. At a top level where people take off entire weekends to fly out across the country to win national tournies and money, nobody (repeat: nobody) wants to see a Top 8 match dictated by one of these effectively random elements.

My solution; Leave alt. stage lists to more relaxed locals while National lists are kept as clean as possible. I think plenty of stages should be up for debate (Delfino, KJ, Castle, etc.) but, like, nobody would even pick PS2 in tournament because whatever benefits it has as a counterpick are outweighed by the movement disruption in 2/3 stage transformations.

Just my two cents. I don't agree with more stages = better especially in a game that already has 1000+ matchups.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The first problem I have with your argument is that there is no defined way to play the game.
You state the game is "about skill with their characters" and even disregard adaptation.
Why is adaptation not a good skill to have? Why is a dynamic stage bad? On most stages you can use these changes for your own advantage, specially if you can capitalize on the fact your opponent didn't, why is not a good skill to have to be able control the better terrain? I think it would even change the dynamics of when to approach or when it is safer to throw a move.
The point is that the whole game would be much different, and that's not necessarily bad as you seemed to point out.

My second problem is that most communities just blindly follow what the major events decide.
EVO runs customs? The rest will do.
Pound banned Miis? The rest will do.
Apex runs 3 stages? The rest will do.
In paper it sounds good to let locals do more complex rules, but 1) not everyone has the fortune to be in a community that likes to have fun, and 2) You get your proof that your stage is not broken at all, but most people will still not care and do take the more simplistic route. Which sucks for the game, if we keep this trend to reduce the stagelist, as it becomes repetitive people will lose interest in this game. You can quote me two years from now and prove me right or wrong.

Also, few of the R1 videos started to pop up at this channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SmashSanLuis
We had two setups recording matches, I'll link the other one when they begin to get uploaded.

 

[Das Koopa]

The first problem I have with your argument is that there is no defined way to play the game.

At its core, there is an efficient way to play the game. When I refer to a back-and-forth with neutral games and advantageous positions, that is the only method to play a competitive level because people will shift towards the most efficient way of playing in order to win.

You state the game is "about skill with their characters" and even disregard adaptation.

Adaptation and knowledge (of static stages or otherwise) falls under player skill. If we call ZeRo the most skilled player in the world, it's a reference to his ability to download playstyles, his knowledge of combos and movies, his technical skill, and so on.

I might've misworded it in my post, but I'm referring to all of these things, including adapting to scenarios/strings/combos presented on static stages like Battlefield.

Why is adaptation not a good skill to have? Why is a dynamic stage bad? On most stages you can use these changes for your own advantage, specially if you can capitalize on the fact your opponent didn't, why is not a good skill to have to be able control the better terrain?

I addressed this. Being able to adapt to a stage offers no assurance that it can't bite you anyway. Players do not play on the stage's clock, as doing so is inefficient because the bigger threat is the sentient opponent. Hence, the stage hazards can be random relative to the player vs. player combat going on. A random Shy Guy car may not hit you, but it can force you back into a neutral game you had already won. That's punishing you for nothing.

...Which can happen to either player. The idea of a counterpick is that it provides a specific benefit to the player who chooses it, mainly through character matchups linked to specific stages. In Mario Circuit, there is no inherent advantage, and whatever thing you're capitalizing on wasn't something you actually earned if you threw them into the wall because the stage was right there at the time.

So even if you can adequately adapt to stages in certain situations you cannot 100% of the time adapt because the demands of the stage and the gameplay the game demands are at a conflict. There will be scenarios on stages like Kalos, Port Town, Circuit, Kingdom U, etc which are unavoidable and provide disproportionate advantage for what otherwise would've just been a neutral game you won.

It's not as bad when the non-static "randomish" elements are completely mundane since usually you get second chances without insane punishments. Randall in Melee on Yoshi's Story is a good example. It can save players on an edgeguard, but the player it saved is still at a serious disadvantage rather than Randall outright resetting the position of both players.

I think it would even change the dynamics of when to approach or when it is safer to throw a move.

The point is that the whole game would be much different, and that's not necessarily bad as you seemed to point out.

The difference is that the competitive aspect becomes PvE+P, yet the game isn't built or suited for that in a way that allows it to remain totally skill based. You can have a lot of stage knowledge and it can benefit you in a skillful way, but the conclusion is that it has a ceiling as to how skilled/adaptive it can be before what more or less amounts to a dice roll kicks in and sometimes you're punished for circumstances beyond your control even if you have an intricate knowledge of the stage and played well.

This is fine and all but it's clearly not what the majority of the competitive community wants. I say that people should get together, create a well-reasoned argument as to why they want a game that involves more stage interaction, and try and build something from there. If the support exists, you can go as far as side events at majors with extended stage lists emphasizing the alternative style of play. If you really do have a point on certain stages being viable but unlooked at, it might grab people's attention.

if we keep this trend to reduce the stagelist, as it becomes repetitive people will lose interest in this game

Every other Smash game has survived on highly limited stage lists. If the game reduces in popularity in the next two years it will be because the character meta (i.e. what most people play the game for) has become stale/tired for people, not the stagelists.

You can quote me that if the game has a significant falloff it will be because the meta evolves to a point where only 4-5 characters are viable and the game becomes exceedingly campy/slow. Given Sm4sh isn't Brawl, I'd like to think we're relatively safe from this, because even our worst (Sheik) isn't showing the intricate level of rule-change needing dominance Meta Knight had, and we lack the janky Chaingrab nonsense that made characters like Ice Climbers so absurd.

 

[Yikarur]

Everyone who uses Dreamland over Lylat as Starter are probably the same type of people who call Starters "Neutrals"
If you're playing with 6 Stages, Lylat should always be starter. The point of having starters is to have a balanced game 1 and Dreamland as starter makes the whole starter list unbalanced.

 

[Das Koopa]

Yeah, I don't see the point in having 2 layouts on the same starting list if we're doing the CP system.

Starter:
Battlefield
Smashville
Town & City
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise

Counterpick:
<Omega Stage>
Dream Land
Castle Siege
Duck Hunt

Trim DH and Siege if you have to go for 7. I think if we include Dream Land as a counterpick that we should include an Omega, but that might just be me.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I was about to make a super lengthy post to address yours, but then I realized it was pointless because it's an argument I can't possibly win because the simplistic view is always the one that wins at large.
Even if I manage to somehow convince you that dynamic stages are perfectly fair, this sole post will be drowned within the thousands of players who do not care and simply go Smashville 5 times a set.
So, keep your ideas, I'll keep mine.


Also, Brawl died because MK limited the stagelist, which artificially boosted ICs' viability.
Have more stages, ICs' strategy gets weakened.
But I think it's easier to blame MK for Global Warming.

 

[Respect38]

I still think that the main problem is that people are biased in favor of hazards which don't give damage over hazards that do give damage.

What I mean by that is this: there are plenty of stages in the Smash series that have a temporary element which saves the player from what otherwise would have been death.

Yoshi's Story in Melee has Randall, yet is a starter.

Yoshi's Island in Brawl and 3DS have Blarggwiches, yet is a starter in both games.

There have been several transforming stages in the series that have their bottom blastzone replaced by solid ground for a period of time, yet they are often counterpicks [or are given a ban reason other than "players getting saved in a seemingly random way"] in both games.

Even though all of these reduce the neutrality of the stage [in the sense defined by Das Koopa] they are excused in this case. Ultimately, I have to ask: why is any kind of hazard worse than Randall, Blarggwich, or any transformation just because it yields damage and knockback? Is it not the case that saving someone's stock is a much bigger deal than dealing some damage and knockback in all circumstances? Why tolerate these stages [let alone tolerate them as starters] when their dynamic elements affect the gameplay in such a way as this? And if the argument is "stage knowledge" [Randall's timer] then why is stage knowledge a relevant argument for some stages, but not for others?

 

[Eisal]

I get a feeling it boils down to what people feel is a "cheap" way of killing someone. "Oh, I just have to throw you this way and the stage will spike you or finish you with a low ceiling." But it all comes down to stage knowledge, of course, which I think is important.

 

[Das Koopa]

I still think that the main problem is that people are biased in favor of hazards which don't give damage over hazards that do give damage.

What I mean by that is this: there are plenty of stages in the Smash series that have a temporary element which saves the player from what otherwise would have been death.

Yoshi's Story in Melee has Randall, yet is a starter.

Yoshi's Island in Brawl and 3DS have Blarggwiches, yet is a starter in both games.

There have been several transforming stages in the series that have their bottom blastzone replaced by solid ground for a period of time, yet they are often counterpicks [or are given a ban reason other than "players getting saved in a seemingly random way"] in both games.

Even though all of these reduce the neutrality of the stage [in the sense defined by Das Koopa] they are excused in this case. Ultimately, I have to ask: why is any kind of hazard worse than Randall, Blarggwich, or any transformation just because it yields damage and knockback? Is it not the case that saving someone's stock is a much bigger deal than dealing some damage and knockback in all circumstances? Why tolerate these stages [let alone tolerate them as starters] when their dynamic elements affect the gameplay in such a way as this? And if the argument is "stage knowledge" [Randall's timer] then why is stage knowledge a relevant argument for some stages, but not for others?

Good question

So, when you're saved by Randall in Melee, you're still in a bad situation. It is a semi-random reward/punish, but it's mundane in its nature vs., say, Mute City's cars, which can sway the entire momentum of the game.

A hazard will typically either

A: Force somebody to abandon a situation which might've been advantageous to them
B: Damage somebody, which places them into a situation that more or less is the same as a lost neutral game.

Randall will, when it works:

A: Save a player by providing a platform

In Melee's case, Randall saving you still leaves you in a disadvantageous position with a chance of recovery largely at the behest of your recovery skill vs. your opponent's edge guarding skill, whereas the hazard is an automatic reset situation (or worse)

Which is why I think terrain is more acceptable to be changed; Usually when it affects the game, it doesn't provide unwarranted or disproportionate advantage and it still requires actual player input to capitalize on. A hazard hands an opponent an extra neutral game to catch up or provides them with an advantageous position.

Like I said, "It's not as bad", but I think it's still not as neutral as other stages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I still think that the main problem is that people are biased in favor of hazards which don't give damage over hazards that do give damage.

What I mean by that is this: there are plenty of stages in the Smash series that have a temporary element which saves the player from what otherwise would have been death.

Yoshi's Story in Melee has Randall, yet is a starter.

Yoshi's Island in Brawl and 3DS have Blarggwiches, yet is a starter in both games.

There have been several transforming stages in the series that have their bottom blastzone replaced by solid ground for a period of time, yet they are often counterpicks [or are given a ban reason other than "players getting saved in a seemingly random way"] in both games.

Even though all of these reduce the neutrality of the stage [in the sense defined by Das Koopa] they are excused in this case. Ultimately, I have to ask: why is any kind of hazard worse than Randall, Blarggwich, or any transformation just because it yields damage and knockback? Is it not the case that saving someone's stock is a much bigger deal than dealing some damage and knockback in all circumstances? Why tolerate these stages [let alone tolerate them as starters] when their dynamic elements affect the gameplay in such a way as this? And if the argument is "stage knowledge" [Randall's timer] then why is stage knowledge a relevant argument for some stages, but not for others?

If you'll allow me to propose a hypothetical ( Das Koopa you may have an opinion on this too), how would you feel about a hazard that by itself did literally no damage but inflicted, say, a stun effect that an opponent could then capitalize on? For ease of visualization, consider if Mom did no damage but still froze you in place for several seconds. What would be the implications of such a hazard?

 

[Respect38]

I find that it's little use to talk about these things in a vacuum in that it all depends on how avoidable the stun effect is.

Assuming it's telegraphed sufficiently enough [how much "enough" is will vary from TO to TO, with some of them finding the hazard jank by itself] then I think such a mechanic is very fascinating for the dynamic that it would provide for counterpicking--taking into account both how well your main would be able to take advantage of the free shield-break as well as how well your opponent's main would be able to take advantage of the free shield-break, obviously taking the matchup into account as well as how the match would play out for you if the hazard never came into play.

So, I guess I would see it as a fascinating counterpick, dependent on how effective the hazard is.

 

[lordvaati]

so yeah, back from nico video stream......

Umbra Clock Tower is looking legit as ****.

 

[epicnights]

The platforms fly up off the top. If they can kill you when they go offscreen, that could be a problem...

 

[lordvaati]

The platforms fly up off the top. If theycan kill you when they go offscreen, that could be a problem...

from what it looks like, they work similar to the ones on Prism Tower, which don't do that.

And as an aside, Town & City DOES have platforms that kill yet that stage got Starter status.

 

[wizrad]

The platform was slow enough, no one should die to that.

 

[19_]

We might just get another legal counterpick.

We have to see if temporary ceilings (If there in) and offstage platforms change anything. Hear is to hope.

 

[lordvaati]

and to reaffirm:

Fortitudo leaves the players be. We may have a new CP, folks!

 

[19_]

and to reaffirm:

Fortitudo leaves the players be. We may have a new CP, folks!

This is the omega form though

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Umbra Clock Tower looks completely legal. Angels don't attack, which was the biggest thing I was worried about. Platforms drop from the ceiling, stick around for a while (wasn't really counting), then fly off the top again. It's an open question if they'll kill you while standing on them since the precedent is mixed -- Kalos Pokemon League will kill you, but Wii Fit Studio won't. That said, it's not uncommon to see someone die to Town & City's platforms, so I would vehemently oppose any train of thought that suggests the potential to be carried off the ceiling by the platforms is cause for a ban.

No sign of solid platforms like we saw in her trailer, but assuming it follows the same pattern then I honestly don't think it'll be a big deal.

I'll be out of town for work through Thursday night and still have to get to the office on Friday, but come Friday night or Saturday morning at the latest I should have a thread up on Umbra Clock Tower. You know, in case anyone still cares about those things.

 

[Ulevo]

The 7 stages featured at Genesis 3 were becoming the defined standard for tournament play with players using the 2-3-1 format. With Umbra Clock Tower almost definitely becoming a legal addition, we have a dilemma. We are now totalling at 8 legal stages, which means we either need to go back to using the starter + counterpick format, or use either Delfino Plaza or Castle Siege as a 9th stage to allow for game 1 stage striking.

What are people's thoughts on the upcoming potential stage format.