Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread: Round II

[Ulevo]

With 8 legal stages, I think 2 bans + DSR are doable.

2 bans + DSR is too limiting. You could do it, but why would you want to? What merit is there? 2 bans worked in previous formats because people always had to waste a ban on Halberd and either Delfino or Castle Siege.

 

[Yikarur]

We had 11 Stages legal im early Brawl and we've never wanted more than 1 ban.
1 ban should be enough. Always. Bans are not for whiny players "I don't want to play on this". Bans are adjustments for match-ups.
2 Bans + DSR doesn't work with 8 Stages
If you use the traditional ban rules (no banned stages may be picked) then in Game 5 of a Bo5 you have 4 stages banned, 2 blocked through DSR and 2 your opponent won on. So you have no stage to pick from except stages your opponent won on.
The german ruleset uses "you ban 2 stages your opponent is not allowed to pick" so you can counterpick at least your own banned stages but this would force you to either pick a stage you've banned (probably for a reason) or pick a stage your opponent won on.

As you can see, both kinds of "stage ban" rules do not work with 8 Stages in a Bo5. It doesn't even work with 9.
We should play with 1 ban, always.

 

[Ulevo]

I concur. Also, any ruleset that results in players attempting to default to Gentlemen's Rule due to restrictions is a flawed ruleset in my book.

 

[Ajimi]

I feel at this point the best format would be to revert back to five stage striking, with SV/BF/FD/TC/LC and DL/DH/UCT as counters, 1 Ban and DSR in effect.

Dreamland to counterpick to avoid game 1 redundancies with Battlefield. While I like the 2-3-1 format with 7 stages, I do not see the purpose in having only one counterpick, and I do not feel bringing back Castle Siege or Delfino Plaza is beneficial nor feasible. Though I think Castle Siege has the most merit for a return appearance.

Or again, keeping 7 stages FLSS by merging BF and DL. I know you didn't agreed to it earlier, but just let's imagine it.

A character may prefer one stage over the other (as they have differences), but if he likes the layout he will feel comfortable on both. Inversely, if a character hates one of those two, he will probably not like the other one either. You said it yourself, the two are kind of redundant and we do not want them both on a 5-starters list.

So in regard to game 1, it changes nothing. A 5-starters list without DL or having BF+DL considered the same, in both cases DL is unavailable game 1 (unless both players explicitly agree to it of course).

Now for later games, the only thing that changes is that the winner is not forced to use two bans to get rid of one general layout he does not like (IF the ruleset allows two bans in the first place, otherwise he will probably be taken to the non-banned stage of the two, which kind of defeat the purpose of his ban). If the winner prefers to ban another stage, then fine, the loser is still free to take him to DL if he wishes since he chooses the stage, similar to how we proceed today with Miiverse and Omegas.

The two methods (5 or 7 starters) are functionally almost identical, the only change is IMO a good one, and all the while keeping an (IMO again) superior method which is FLSS. Right now my ruleset (who hasn't included Umbra yet) gives two bans (no DSR) to the winner, but if I end up merging BF and DL it won't bug me to go down to 1 ban.

Edit Yikarur : I always thought the the winner's bans lasted only one match, not the whole set ? (Also why keeping the DSR ?)

 

[Xeze]

I thought stage bans didn't carry over to the next rounds. Which would mean in game 5 of a bo5 set, with 8 stages, you would have 2 banned stages and 2 blocked by DSR.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I thought stage bans didn't carry over to the next rounds. Which would mean in game 5 of a bo5 set, with 8 stages, you would have 2 banned stages and 2 blocked by DSR.

It seems to vary by region? Personally I've never been to an event where bans carry over between rounds...

 

[Xeze]

It seems to vary by region? Personally I've never been to an event where bans carry over between rounds...

Perhaps. In all tournaments I've been to, both as a player and as a TO, the bans never carried over. Does someone know how it is done at the big tournaments (like Genesis, CEO, etc.)?

 

[Ulevo]

Or again, keeping 7 stages FLSS by merging BF and DL. I know you didn't agreed to it earlier, but just let's imagine it.

A character may prefer one stage over the other (as they have differences), but if he likes the layout he will feel comfortable on both. Inversely, if a character hates one of those two, he will probably not like the other one either. You said it yourself, the two are kind of redundant and we do not want them both on a 5-starters list.

So in regard to game 1, it changes nothing. A 5-starters list without DL or having BF+DL considered the same, in both cases DL is unavailable game 1 (unless both players explicitly agree to it of course).

Now for later games, the only thing that changes is that the winner is not forced to use two bans to get rid of one general layout he does not like (IF the ruleset allows two bans in the first place, otherwise he will probably be taken to the non-banned stage of the two, which kind of defeat the purpose of his ban). If the winner prefers to ban another stage, then fine, the loser is still free to take him to DL if he wishes since he chooses the stage, similar to how we proceed today with Miiverse and Omegas.

The two methods (5 or 7 starters) are functionally almost identical, the only change is IMO a good one, and all the while keeping an (IMO again) superior method which is FLSS. Right now my ruleset (who hasn't included Umbra yet) gives two bans (no DSR) to the winner, but if I end up merging BF and DL it won't bug me to go down to 1 ban.

Edit Yikarur : I always thought the the winner's bans lasted only one match, not the whole set ? (Also why keeping the DSR ?)

While there are redundancies for certain characters, like Zero Suit Samus, it is a false premise that every character that enjoys one will be fine with the other. I hate Dreamland, but from a perspective of what benefits my character, Meta Knight should never be going to Battlefield in most match ups, but Dreamland is very preferable in many of them.

They are not the same. The reasons for keeping Dreamland off the starter list with 5 or less are not the same reasons we ban Omega's when we ban Final Destination, or Miiverse when we ban Battlefield.

As for bans, they should never carry over because the requirements for bans will change from game to game and character to character, particularly if one or both players play more than one character. One temporary ban allows the strategy to be flexible and evolve as the set progresses. I see no reason players should be locked into a decision that may not benefit them at all later in the set.

 

[Yikarur]

Can someone explain what you mean by "carry over" ?

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Stage bans that are carried throughout multiple matches.

EX: If I banned FD in my first match with you because I picked a character who has a disadvantageous MU with yours, you wouldn't be able to pick Final Destination for that match. Normally, that means we can't pick FD at all during the set, even if it'd be advantageous for one of us to do so. So if I picked a character with an advantage on FD while you had one that was disadvantaged on FD, you'd ban FD.

But that means we can't pick FD for the entire set, even if both of us swap to secondaries that don't heavily crush each other on FD. Making bans on a match-by-match basis, with the ban list reseting per match, makes it so neither player is locked into one stage that their secondary doesn't do well on if they want to use them.

 

[Yikarur]

the normal rule is that you ban once after your first loss and that ban stays for the rest of the set. (a player counterpicks only once in a Bo3 set anway) but in Brawl at least the rule was always "the stage cannot be picked for the rest of the set" (By both players) which I don't like in Smash 4 at all. (because you can ban omegas because of walls while still wanting to CP a non-wall omega)

So what is the rule used in the major?.. every major states like "1 ban" in their ruleset but bans are not defined.

 

[Ulevo]

Most majors to my understanding have the winning player ban a single stage for that one game, and it resets after that game is over.

 

[Yikarur]

No one seems to be sure
Thats why I hate bad and lacking rulesets.

If you look at the german standard ruleset:
https://www.smashlabs.de/media/Standard_Ruleset_2.0EN.pdf
you'll probably won't find a single non-defined thing because I'm really picky (and the creator).

Majors should step their game up. I've never seen a ruleset with no holes because of missing explanations. I think even the apex ruleset (which was pretty in-depth) was missing some things.

 

[Pazx]

If you use the traditional ban rules (no banned stages may be picked) then in Game 5 of a Bo5 you have 4 stages banned, 2 blocked through DSR and 2 your opponent won on. So you have no stage to pick from except stages your opponent won on.

"Traditional" ban rules are bad, stage bans should only apply to the next game to be played, and the loser should ban a stage after every game, especially when character switches are so powerful in this game. When you get towards the end of a bo5 set the conversation is usually something like "Same ban?" "Same ban." unless somebody has changed character.

 

[Yikarur]

but you first choose the stage and then characters so you cannot realistically ban for a specific character MU.
And I've never heard of multiple banning phases and have never experienced them. Every tournament I've ever gone to had 1 time ban after the first loss.

We should play 3 Stocks Bo3 only to avoid this topic completely 8)

Most rules don't make sense if you change the set-format mid-tournament.

 

[Pazx]

1. Pick characters
2. Strike
3. Play game 1
4. Winner bans X stage(s)
5. Loser picks stage
6. Winner picks character
7. Loser picks character
8. Play next game
9. Winner bans, loser picks, winner picks char, loser picks char, play next game, repeat

Stage before characters but if someone switches characters early in a set after you've already made a ban for game 2/3 you might want to ban a different stage in game 4/5 with that knowledge.

The way I think about it (this is the way I'm most familiar with but I do believe it's the best way), the only stages unavailable to the loser of the previous match should be 1. The stage(s) banned BY THEIR OPPONENT (the winner) immediately after that match, which may or may not be the same as stages banned earlier in the set, and 2. any stage(s) unavailable due to (M)DSR, although I think that number should always be 1 as MDSR>DSR.

 

[Cheap Shot]

So what is the logic of putting the stage selection before the character selection? Is that a standard does it change depending on the tournament?

 

[Nul]

It is standard for the argument of that:
The stage should be the least skill-impacting yet controllable, changeable variable.

Think that a character has a supreme disadvantage on a given stage (example Mac on Kongo Jungle - think if we got Rainbow Cruise!) against a character that can take advantage of said stage. If Mac was counterpicked, then the loser picked up Kongo, the Mac is required to fight the stage with character limitations. This is considered poor as there is not considered a "demonstration of skill" to achieve a 10-30% (how you look at it) flat and instant advantage. The way we have it now, the one who stage bans can still choose to hamper their own options one way or another.

 

[Ajimi]

While there are redundancies for certain characters, like Zero Suit Samus, it is a false premise that every character that enjoys one will be fine with the other. I hate Dreamland, but from a perspective of what benefits my character, Meta Knight should never be going to Battlefield in most match ups, but Dreamland is very preferable in many of them.

They are not the same. The reasons for keeping Dreamland off the starter list with 5 or less are not the same reasons we ban Omega's when we ban Final Destination, or Miiverse when we ban Battlefield.

"Very preferable" does not mean "good". MK may prefer DL over BF while still hating both, which concur to what I said. Unless I misunderstood you, and I'll admit I don't know the actual MUs. Is there a matchup where MK actually wants to go to DL, and at the same time wants to avoid BF ? To me, it seems contradictory to say that two stages are redundant with X total stages but somehow not with Y. Either they are redundant or they are not, and if it skews the striking game 1 I do not see how it cannot also skews bans on later games.

Also +1 to "the bans are resetted after each game", it makes more sense. But please, can somebody explain to me why on earth everybody is so attached to the DSR (any version) ? It just seems to be a rule that is ignored most of the time in practice, and just grants an arbitrary "bonus ban" each time you lose. Each game after game 1 should be independent from the others and use the same procedure (the ban-reset goes that way too). The ruleset should be consistent so we are able to do a BO99 if we want to, without being worried by the number of stages available after X matches or what happened Y matches ago.

 

[MitchBerryCrunch]

Delfino and Halberd should be legal; Castle Siege and Umbra Clock Tower shouldn't be. Most omegas should be legal aside from select ****ty ones.

 

[Ulevo]

"Very preferable" does not mean "good". MK may prefer DL over BF while still hating both, which concur to what I said. Unless I misunderstood you, and I'll admit I don't know the actual MUs. Is there a matchup where MK actually wants to go to DL, and at the same time wants to avoid BF ? To me, it seems contradictory to say that two stages are redundant with X total stages but somehow not with Y. Either they are redundant or they are not, and if it skews the striking game 1 I do not see how it cannot also skews bans on later games.

Also +1 to "the bans are resetted after each game", it makes more sense. But please, can somebody explain to me why on earth everybody is so attached to the DSR (any version) ? It just seems to be a rule that is ignored most of the time in practice, and just grants an arbitrary "bonus ban" each time you lose. Each game after game 1 should be independent from the others and use the same procedure (the ban-reset goes that way too). The ruleset should be consistent so we are able to do a BO99 if we want to, without being worried by the number of stages available after X matches or what happened Y matches ago.

There are redundancies with certain characters in certain match ups, such that against certain characters in five stage strike, the opponent gets to choose between the other three options (BF/FD/SV) because you are forced to ban both Battlefield and Dreamland. Characters like Zero Suit Samus or Rosalina are good examples. This does not happen every time, but it is a problem and is easy to address by including Lylat. There are match ups where Meta Knight wants to avoid Battlefield. Most match ups are better on Dreamland than Battlefield for Meta Knight. I feel like you are largely ignoring the differences between the two stages. Just because they present a common problem when they are grouped together does not mean they are the same stage.

 

[Nul]

Is there a matchup where MK actually wants to go to DL, and at the same time wants to avoid BF ?

Also +1 to "the bans are resetted after each game", it makes more sense. But please, can somebody explain to me why on earth everybody is so attached to the DSR (any version) ? It just seems to be a rule that is ignored most of the time in practice, and just grants an arbitrary "bonus ban" each time you lose.

While I'm not an MK player, I can speak with the perspective of Yoshi, as this is the only character where I particularly care on the difference of DL and BF. If I pick / prefer BF as Yoshi, it is because I want to take away lower wall hopping recoveries, and now Corrin's lower lance recovery. If I prefer DL, it is mostly against linear recoveries without wall hops, and potential for wind jank. If there is no difference at the time, I prefer BF because recovering is a tad easier here with Yoshi.

I remember the age in my community where "sticky bans" were a thing, and it was mostly because we had a large stage list. It got bad around finals. Those type of bans are probably limited to larger lists.

I feel that DSR tends to come in because of why this rule came to be (if the story I got a long time ago was right) just repeats itself with someone else inside the community. However if you just have another ban instead of DSR I think it would be better overall. Mostly because you can pseudo-DSR with that extra ban anyway, and clear up rule space.

 

[Yikarur]

Ideally, all matches of a tournament would be played u
nder the same rules. (all Bo3 for example). Changing the rules mid-tournament is what creates problems with certain rules.
The reason I prefer DSR is because I don't like stage bans. I think stage bans don't make a lot of sense. Stage bans have been invented at a time where there have been a lot of very very strong stages for certain characters so to avoid having to play these imbalanced stages in those match-ups you have been granted stage bans.
These problems are basically non-existent in this game because all stages are pretty balanced. There might be some favored stage here and there but they don't create auto-win situations. For that reason stage bans are not necessary in Smash 4.
1 Ban to make certain match-ups a tad balancter should be enough. No Ban would be optimal, because this would force every player to practice every stage. This would increase stage diversity by a lot.

"No DSR but 2 Bans" destroys stage diversity because people can always ban the same stages and they never have to care about those in their smash career. This would be a bad development.
With 1 Ban you have to choose carefully which stage you want to ban in a match-up. With 2 bans, you can ban too freely.

No DSR and 1 Ban would be okay as well I guess because with DSR we have an imbalanced number of stages the players are allowed to choose depending on who wins first. (who loses first has -1 stage, who loses second has -2 because of DSR)
This is one of the basic flaws of DSR.

E: The discussion belongs here: http://smashboards.com/threads/competitive-smash-ruleset-discussion.368605/unread
if you want to answer to this post you should probably do so in that thread, because this thread is about stage legality.

 

[Yikarur]

We have a stage legality thread for things like that.
www.smashboards.com/threads/stage-legality-discussion-thread-round-ii.424554/unread
But Umbra Clock Tower is perfectly fine as Counterpick if Town & City is starter.

 

[MitchBerryCrunch]

nah Umbra isn't counterpick the bottom platform is too much. T & C being a starter isn't a legitimate reason for Umbra being counter pick lol

 

[Yikarur]

nah Umbra isn't counterpick the bottom platform is too much. T & C being a starter isn't a legitimate reason for Umbra being counter pick lol

the stage is basically the counterpole to Town & City just with some very short transformations that can be camped out. But every hard-camping transformation brings you into a really bad position if you stay there after 25 seconds. Do you really want to force yourself into an edgeguard situation for no benefit? The smartest decision will probably be to stay on the main stage and fight normally.

 

[Routa]

the stage is basically the counterpole to Town & City just with some very short transformations that can be camped out. But every hard-camping transformation brings you into a really bad position if you stay there after 25 seconds. Do you really want to force yourself into an edgeguard situation for no benefit? The smartest decision will probably be to stay on the main stage and fight normally.

Unless you are Wario. He is pretty much only one who can get something out from camping on the low plathform. But for other characters it is bad place to be.

 

[Yikarur]

Unless you are Wario. He is pretty much only one who can get something out from camping on the low plathform. But for other characters it is bad place to be.

yeah it's probably strong for Wario. But if you watch Wario on other stages (especially SV and TnC) you realize that he can find ways to camp pretty easily. Wario is basically designed to camp until his fart is ready haha

 

[Nul]

So, including existing things like Wario getting to camp on legal stages, better mobility still likes UCT inherently as well as other non-legals, and it seems we've run UCT to be more like T&C as opposed to DP / HB, I'm not really seeing much to have to ban this stage.

Every "problem" is temporary, and even those isn't 100% of the time. Those "problems" give you a disadvantage if abused for too long aside of what is already there in legal stages / character combinations. These platform transformations aren't that wild or spastic. Sure, the platforms tilt over time, but Yoshi's Island is legal normally neutral, with ghosts might I add. I am against DP more than UCT because of changing blast zones and multiple walk-offs.

BTW I could just ban a stage and never deal with it anyway even with 1 ban - argument is pointless. I have continued on in the Ruleset Discussion thread.

 

[Ulevo]

It is actually sort of ironic. When I first researched the stage and saw the comments about Umbra Clock Tower, the last thing I considered as a legitimate argument towards its legality was that it is "distracting", and I figured it would be legal considering how reasonable it is. After playing on it several times, I do find it rather nauseating. Hopefully this is somethinf I and players will get used to.

 

[Nul]

Not for nothing, but after 2 hours of playing UCT in training (labbing Corrin + Bayo) I got rather used to the falling background, glyph hue changes, and angel (dragon) roars. Maybe this is because I played DDR / SM since early 2000's and the vertigo feeling is very apparent with long hours in these games.

The only thing where anything distracting (that I can find) was a huge deal is standard FD in Smash 4, but we have a super easy and quick fix for that anyway. And team colors, generally done for color blind players. I can't think of other "distracting" arguments.

 

[Yikarur]

The stage would make the stage list perfectly closed imo.
Like we have Small-blast-zone-wide BF (DL64), Large-blast-zone-tight BF (BF), Omega in several forms (or just FD at majors..), Duck Hunt as omega-like with plattforms possibilities and dynamic play (+only non-omega with a wall), Smashville as a stand alone-unique-type of stage, Lylat as a stand-alone unique type of stage, at low blastzone high plattform stage (TnC) and a high blastzone variant dynamic plattform stage (UTC)
That complement to TnC was just missing in this stage list imo. It's a good stage against common top tiers as well which might shake the meta a bit.

BTW I could just ban a stage and never deal with it anyway even with 1 ban - argument is pointless. I have continued on in the Ruleset Discussion thread.

you are giving up on any match-up bans if you do that, so you handicap yourself with that mindset while you are unpenetalized with 2 bans. *jumping over to the other thread*

 

[19_]

Have you guys voted yet?

+ Day 10: Umbra Clock Tower Stage
Thoughts for Tournament Play
[Testing & data phase]#Smash4 #WiiU

— Bear (@BearUNLV) February 12, 2016

This might actually have a chance.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Where is the "legal" option?
I still don't understand why people is so fixated on Starters and CPs

 

[Yikarur]

I've tried to get FLSS in germany, but everyone is against it, with no arguments :/

 

[paperchao]

Where is the "legal" option?
I still don't understand why people is so fixated on Starters and CPs

I'm guessing it's just tradition or something, as a large majority of the player base is more comfortable with the system, as it's been there for a while now.

 

[Ghostbone]

I've tried to get FLSS in germany, but everyone is against it, with no arguments :/

It's the same in Aus

It's even more dumb cos everyone's arguing over whether lylat or dreamland should be the 5th starter stage, with discussion centering around which stage leads to the more balanced game one, when you could just strike from all 7 stages and completely solve that problem.

 

[webbedspace]

Question: Is anyone keeping track of whether anyone is advocating for/against Umbra's inclusion in Evo's stagelist? That will be what prolongs or ends this stage's competitive future.

 

[Ajimi]

There are redundancies with certain characters in certain match ups, such that against certain characters in five stage strike, the opponent gets to choose between the other three options (BF/FD/SV) because you are forced to ban both Battlefield and Dreamland. Characters like Zero Suit Samus or Rosalina are good examples. This does not happen every time, but it is a problem and is easy to address by including Lylat. There are match ups where Meta Knight wants to avoid Battlefield. Most match ups are better on Dreamland than Battlefield for Meta Knight. I feel like you are largely ignoring the differences between the two stages. Just because they present a common problem when they are grouped together does not mean they are the same stage.

I get that the two stages have differences. My point was : where do you place the limit ? If they are redundant with 5 stages, why not also with 7 ? It's slightly less bad due to more stages, yes, but the problem is still the same. In fact, maybe DL should be the only counterpick, with Umbra as the 7th starter ?

I've tried to get FLSS in germany, but everyone is against it, with no arguments :/

Don't talk to me about it, France is a HORRIBLE place to debate this kind of things (also, Miis). At least you have a standard/national ruleset as a base. Here, it's chaos.

 

[Xeze]

If only they had ported Yoshi's Island (Brawl) from the 3ds to the Wii U version, we would have 5 perfect starter stages. It makes me sad just thinking about this "what if".