Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread:

[webbedspace]

Speculative question: when Peach's Castle 64 is added, and if it turns out to be a decent counterpick (slanty obstructions be willing) which stage would you opt to swap for it, if any?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Speculative question: when Peach's Castle 64 is added, and if it turns out to be a decent counterpick (slanty obstructions be willing) which stage would you opt to swap for it, if any?

I'm not worried about it right now. That stage's gameplay implications are non-obvious, and by the time it comes out, there will probably be another round of character balance changes or even DLC characters that may be relevant as well. For now, I think it's best to worry about the stages in the game right now and to address whatever patches do when the patches actually come out. There's just too much we don't know about unreleased content, and if we always worry about what's coming in the next patch, we'll never be able to work with what we have at the moment.

I also think that having 13 legal stages with good procedural choices (FLSS, several stage bans per player) is actually more important than the particular stages. A lot of people say "stage X does bad thing Y; ban!" without realizing that a good stage procedure with a diverse array of stages allows for so much wiggle room and tends to average out stage choices to fair stages in match-ups since problem stages in any particular situation get struck and banned. Like I mentioned I would like Halberd legal even though it's not. I'd obviously have to ban something to do that, probably PS2. Would it make the game meaningfully better? Honestly probably not; the big wins are already realized in stage count and procedure, and talking about which particular 13 stages is honestly small potatoes with any one stage of the thirteen having a minor effect. Even when before we had the honestly awful stage Windy Hill Zone legal, it didn't really hurt us much because the procedure and stage count is more important to the point that including a bad stage didn't matter (WHZ was struck and banned with an extremely high rate, a few brave souls were willing to risk it, and things worked out just fine with every tournament having perfect integrity as a competition). If a new stage is added that is quality enough to use, I don't think replacing any stage with it would be a terrible mistake; I'd be thrilled to see more TOs embrace the big wins and unconcerned with those smaller preference points.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I would like Halberd, but Lux really dislikes Halberd so I didn't win that battle but overall the list's form is about right for this game. It doesn't cause any problems to run this stage list; it's kinda a surreal experience whenever people talk about practical needs to ban some of these stages since our real gameplay on all of them has been consistently pretty legit and when people actually use the stage procedure rules no one has any real reason to john about what stages they end up playing on (the closest was when a crewmate of mine forgot to ban PS2 against me and threw it away on something like Skyloft, but he acknowledged quickly once the match started that he just made an error on the stage select screen which was mostly his fault).

Does your area do any streaming? I'd like to see some (current) examples of how Skyloft etc. play out in practice.

 

[Pazx]

I'm not worried about it right now. That stage's gameplay implications are non-obvious, and by the time it comes out, there will probably be another round of character balance changes or even DLC characters that may be relevant as well. For now, I think it's best to worry about the stages in the game right now and to address whatever patches do when the patches actually come out. There's just too much we don't know about unreleased content, and if we always worry about what's coming in the next patch, we'll never be able to work with what we have at the moment.

I also think that having 13 legal stages with good procedural choices (FLSS, several stage bans per player) is actually more important than the particular stages. A lot of people say "stage X does bad thing Y; ban!" without realizing that a good stage procedure with a diverse array of stages allows for so much wiggle room and tends to average out stage choices to fair stages in match-ups since problem stages in any particular situation get struck and banned. Like I mentioned I would like Halberd legal even though it's not. I'd obviously have to ban something to do that, probably PS2. Would it make the game meaningfully better? Honestly probably not; the big wins are already realized in stage count and procedure, and talking about which particular 13 stages is honestly small potatoes with any one stage of the thirteen having a minor effect. Even when before we had the honestly awful stage Windy Hill Zone legal, it didn't really hurt us much because the procedure and stage count is more important to the point that including a bad stage didn't matter (WHZ was struck and banned with an extremely high rate, a few brave souls were willing to risk it, and things worked out just fine with every tournament having perfect integrity as a competition). If a new stage is added that is quality enough to use, I don't think replacing any stage with it would be a terrible mistake; I'd be thrilled to see more TOs embrace the big wins and unconcerned with those smaller preference points.

Can you explain from an unbiased perspective why having the system you like implemented well is more important that individual stage choices? While I like large stage lists so I'm with you here it seems a tiny bit like you're saying the end justifies the means with "I don't care if bad stages are used as long as we do it my way".

I also feel as though having a bad stage on the list turns striking into a game of chicken. Pre-patch I saw it with Lylat in 5 stage starter lists where assuming neither party wants Lylat at all the player who decides to strike it is at a significant disadvantage. I was able to make the most of this by never striking Lylat. I think I started on the stage maybe 3 times and I boxed my opponent into picking either Lylat or T&C far too many times for a Diddy main. If you had a definite "bad stage" that nobody really wanted to play on (I want to use Temple or GCO as examples but they both certainly benefit certain characters so let's pretend WHZ is "neutral" but still the worst stage on the list) included in your 13 stage starter list then whoever bans it with a "comfort ban" is at already 1 ban behind. Is that scrubby? Yes. Does anyone really want to play on [Bad Stage]? Not really. Should [Bad Stage] really be played on for game 1? Probably not.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Does your area do any streaming? I'd like to see some (current) examples of how Skyloft etc. play out in practice.

Pretty sure their twitch is still Legendoflux

 

[Swampertrulz]

So is this gonna get locked?

 

[ぱみゅ]

So is this gonna get locked?

Why should it be? There's tons of discussion yet to make, a consensus to be reached, educating people to be resumed, and there's not even an unfriendly ambient here.

 

[Swampertrulz]

Why should it be? There's tons of discussion yet to make, a consensus to be reached, educating people to be resumed, and there's not even an unfriendly ambient here.

Okay just tryin' to make sure since you were here.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Okay just tryin' to make sure since you were here.

A mod's job is to keep threads in place, but that doesn't mean we can't participate in discussions

 

[Swampertrulz]

A mod's job is to keep threads in place, but that doesn't mean we can't participate in discussions

Okee dokee

 

[Mr. Escalator]

It's refreshing to hear @ Amazing Ampharos tell of the success in his region when it comes to the stage striking process, as well as the number of stages ran.

My state (New Hampshire) operates with a 13 stage list, similar to AA's list - the notable exception being that we always have included Halberd on our list. Much like his list, the 13th stage was always the 'trouble' stage, and we cycled through a lot of experimental stages in our list. We started with the 13th stage being Windy Hill Zone (great for Doubles, kinda obnoxious otherwise), then the next event was Pokemon Stadium 2 (and everyone came out of the woodwork and showed much disgust for the stage), and then we tested out WII FIT STUDIO.

Wii Fit Studio was a proof of concept to test that broken stages could still be run on large stage lists with several stage bans, and it proved to be manageable despite all odds. Yes, many people struck/banned it, but it actually was run in a few matches. I remember playing in WSF and our Game 1 was Wii Fit Studio, and everything went just fine in the match. It was a cool addition to balance out many aerial-based stages, and gave a big grounded 'haymaker' for several characters - it balanced out the stages beneficial to Windkong and Explosive Villager. In practice, it wasn't picked unless it was fairly benign for both characters chosen. One other thing that helped it's inclusion was that characters were locked before stage was selected.

Regardless, Wii Fit Studio was removed anyway due to being too radical. With customs, many characters can abuse the stage too simply (Dragon Rush Zard & Wind Kong's punch). Dreamland took it's place, and all was well.

One thing I noticed was that many players would complain after the fact about theorycrafted issues with the stage, despite the stages being perfectly fine and competitive in practice. We had Wuhu in every tournament, and I had many players approach me and tell me that it was a surprisingly good stage. It didn't stop random complaints several tournaments later from players who blatantly never played the stage haha

Anyway, I just wanted to share that 13 stages with a fairly liberal outlook on the individual stages has been successful and well-received in a region known for being very conservative (East Coast). Give it a try! It works amazingly well and it is, in some ways, more skill-based when it comes down to selecting stages.

 

[Ulevo]

http://smashboards.com/threads/wii-u-stage-blastzone-data.408643/

So I thought it was interesting that some of the blast zones on Delfino can get as low as 13 ft.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

I also think that having 13 legal stages with good procedural choices (FLSS, several stage bans per player) is actually more important than the particular stages. A lot of people say "stage X does bad thing Y; ban!" without realizing that a good stage procedure with a diverse array of stages allows for so much wiggle room and tends to average out stage choices to fair stages in match-ups since problem stages in any particular situation get struck and banned. Like I mentioned I would like Halberd legal even though it's not. I'd obviously have to ban something to do that, probably PS2. Would it make the game meaningfully better? Honestly probably not; the big wins are already realized in stage count and procedure, and talking about which particular 13 stages is honestly small potatoes with any one stage of the thirteen having a minor effect. Even when before we had the honestly awful stage Windy Hill Zone legal, it didn't really hurt us much because the procedure and stage count is more important to the point that including a bad stage didn't matter (WHZ was struck and banned with an extremely high rate, a few brave souls were willing to risk it, and things worked out just fine with every tournament having perfect integrity as a competition). If a new stage is added that is quality enough to use, I don't think replacing any stage with it would be a terrible mistake; I'd be thrilled to see more TOs embrace the big wins and unconcerned with those smaller preference points.

I have to say that I disagree that 13 stages and FLSS are the be-all and end all for what rulesets need to have in order to be considered "good," especially in the sense that these features override the need for the individual stages to be quality stages.

The huge problem with the "standard" stage procedure is that there are only static (or "neutral") stages on the starter list. As many of you know, the problem with this is that characters who thrive on dynamic and/or transforming stages are given the short end of the stick. If you play a character that is good on transforming stages, then you're out of luck because you can only guarantee a single such stage in a Bo3. It won't come up game 1, and although you can go to one as your CP, your opponent doesn't have to take you to one. Since you need to win 2 games in order to win a set, you're at a major disadvantage from picking that character.

Additionally, characters that do well on static stages don't need to care about doing poorly on dynamic stages because they can guarantee at least 2 static stages every set. Transforming stages are therefore not relevant in the metagame, and neither are characters that need them to preform well. This effects the meta so much, that I don't think there's a single character in the top 10 who's optimal CP wouldn't be a stage that's also on the starter list. This sort of thing is not news, but it's important I review this.

FLSS is a system that solves this problem, but it's not the only one. If you had 9 starters with 13 stages, and Delfino and Wuhu were starters but Skyloft was CP? Then Skyloft is a relevant stage (despite being a CP) because characters that are typically good on Delfino and Wuhu are also good on Skyloft. The Starter list only has to contain a representation of the CP stages in order to fix the problem. A while back @ MrGame&Rock even came up with a 5-stage starter list that fixes this problem; FD, BF, SV, Skyloft, Wuhu. FLSS isn't the only option.


With similar logic, we see that Windy Hill Zone, PS2, and Kongo Jungle are stages that are not relevant to the metagame, even in FLSS. If you need WHZ's grass and curvature to win a match, you're not going to win a set with that character because those properties are not coming up in any other stage. If you need Kongo's blastzones to thrive, you're not going to win a set, as you're not going to find a stagelist with another big stage. If you or your character needs PS2's physics changes to win a match, you aren't going to win a set either. Rather than 13 being some optimal number of stages, I think that this phenomenon is the one you're noticing. Switching between a few stages that aren't relevant isn't going to change the meta.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

FLSS is a system that solves this problem, but it's not the only one. If you had 9 starters with 13 stages, and Delfino and Wuhu were starters but Skyloft was CP? Then Skyloft is a relevant stage (despite being a CP) because characters that are typically good on Delfino and Wuhu are also good on Skyloft. The Starter list only has to contain a representation of the CP stages in order to fix the problem. A while back @ MrGame&Rock even came up with a 5-stage starter list that fixes this problem; FD, BF, SV, Skyloft, Wuhu. FLSS isn't the only option.

I feel honored to have my starter list mentioned again as a good idea :D

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

@ Pazx I think you're missing a few things. My whole point was that the procedure is more important than the particular stages, like radically so. The statement "I don't care if bad stages are used as long as we do it my way" is kinda missing the point I was making in that it has an undertone that including bad stages is the worst thing a stage list can do when, in reality, it's a relatively minor error compared to being too small or otherwise gumming up the procedure. A good procedure and appropriate diversity smooth out results so that even bad stages won't damage tournaments. I think a lot of people in stage legality assume that every set will be played on the worst stage legal so if they can't imagine playing on a stage in the MU where it's at its most offensive the stage must be banned. My underlying point is that that's backwards and that the fear of "bad stages" is really overblown and further that in practice large stage lists work very well. I don't endorse bad stages being legal; I just don't think it actually hurts things much if they are so we should collectively be less timid about the possibility occurring.

As per the game of chicken point, there are two further things to consider. One is that larger lists make spending strikes a less big investment (spending 1/2 strikes on Lylat stings a lot more than 1/6!). Two is that regardless of which 13 you pick 13 stages isn't that many especially compared to the 55 characters you have to learn about. Some stages are stages you'll always strike for tactical reasons (you sure don't see me leaving FD around), but if you choose not to learn a stage that could help you, I don't really see a good basis for complaint when you have to "waste" strikes and bans on it. If I can't be bothered to figure out Lylat's ledges, I don't see how it's anyone's fault but my own that I'm tactically disadvantaged in stage striking by my need to avoid Lylat all of the time. Maybe I'm so good at other things that I can win on a somewhat less optimal stage; honestly the stages in this game are so tame that it's not even that big of a deal if I play on the 8th best stage instead of the 7th best one. Maybe I'm rational for investing my efforts elsewhere instead of Lylat. I just don't see the unfairness here though, and if both players are simultaneously afraid of one stage, I see it as a positive that the one who has the courage to face the unknown comes out ahead.

@ The_Jiggernaut You're not completely wrong, but I think the suggestion is a solution looking for a problem. You correctly note the fundamental problem with most small lists of starters (clustering play onto the most similar stages, narrowing the meta), but instead of FLSS which is a complete solution you go for a representative model. While this would be far superior to a conventional 5 list, it still pigeon-holes stages into particular dynamics that may or may not be the most relevant in any situation. Like let's say I was trying to decide whether to include SV or T&C on that list of five and was thinking from the position of a Rosalina main. If I'm imagining the Sonic match-up, SV is way more favorable to me since the platform's defensive position is hard for Sonic to approach. If I instead imagine the Mii Brawler match-up, the proximity of the SV platform to the side blastzones is very bad while I have nothing but love for the slightly low ceiling of T&C. Then again, maybe I'm thinking of the Yoshi match-up where the two stages are pretty comparable in merit so I don't care which one is included. Stuff like this is all over the place, and trying to pick out five stages that represent all relevant aspects is just not going to be realistic since every stage has a lot of different reasons it could be best or worst for specific MUs. More unique stages like Kongo can still be the winner in FLSS as well just depending on what else people are dodging and the asymmetry of player valuations; I had a set at a tournament this weekend that struck to Pokemon Stadium 2 which is a very unique stage since both of us had reasons we wanted to play on six other stages less. This kind of compromise might still be worth it if FLSS were otherwise inconvenient, but experience shows us that striking from 13 is pretty easy so I just don't see the upside that compensates for the downside.

As per what's relevant, I'd say that I think in a 13 stage list every stage is equally relevant but 13 is enough that it doesn't matter too much if you have the "wrong 13". Like sure if you replace PS2 with Halberd it would be more AA approved, but at the same time, you're substituting a valid and playable 1/13 of the stage meta for a different valid and playable 1/13 of the stage meta which isn't shifting much. Yeah for sure if you "need" anything very specific you're in trouble since good procedure is all about not guaranteeing anyone very particular stages, but if you're merely "willing" to play on stages like PS2 and Kongo and know how to use them to your advantage when appropriate, they very much do matter. In practice, every stage of the 13 will see some play; even WHZ back when we had it legal was played significantly more often than never.

 

[webbedspace]

Pretty sure their twitch is still Legendoflux

http://www.twitch.tv/Legendoflux/profile/past_broadcasts - No VODs ;_;

 

[Piford]

Then Skyloft is a relevant stage (despite being a CP) because characters that are typically good on Delfino and Wuhu are also good on Skyloft.

While Skyloft and Delfino do tend to favor similar characters (but not entirely), Wuhu is pretty different than the other two. Wuhu has significantly fewer platforms than Delfino and Skyloft, which obviously benefits characters who like fewer platforms. Skyloft and Delfino obviously still have their differences with different platform layouts, landing spots, and delfino's hugely shrining blastzones.

 

[DeLux]

http://www.twitch.tv/Legendoflux/profile/past_broadcasts - No VODs ;_;

Check youtube.com/kansasstockmarket or youtube.com/nextlevelstreaming
KSM events are split between the two, with more recent stuff on NLS

 

[MajorMajora]

You know, It's rather ironic how few people use customs in AA's region. I mean, 2 villagers in bracket opted to use default. (I also can't find sets that use the expanded stage list. Ahh.)

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

@ Amazing Ampharos I sort of don't see why the small, character-specific differences of stages matter more in a representative model than in FLSS, as if a character has a known advantage on a stage it's going to be struck by their opponent anyways. Every single aspect of competitive play does not have to be present on the list in order for game 1 to be played on a fair stage.

My main point about relevant stages is why bother including irrelevant stages in the first place? Since irrelevant stages do not help you win a full set, they are essentially false choices. Padding out the list so it must be the arbitrarily chosen number of 13 seems like a pretty poor reason. I understand 13 is one of the "proper" striking numbers, but is there honestly that much of an advantage given to player 2 when striking from as many as 11 stages? How "bad" is the situation with 9 starters and 10-11 stages really? The fact of the matter is that although your region has had success with striking from as many as 13 stages, there are several other regions claiming difficulty in doing so. I think it's important to discuss alternatives to FLSS for regions it did not work in that aren't 3-5 static stages.

I feel you're using the fact that the less favored stages, like PS2, get chosen as starters sometimes as proof of the absolute success of FLSS. All it shows is that PS2 is certainly on the list of stages, nothing more. There's nothing to show that FLSS picks the fairest stage for a matchup more often than a 9-starter representative model, though if there is proof it's certainly not that Windy Hill Zone got picked a non-zero amount. Don't forget that the point of stage striking is, in fact, to make a list of stages that provides the fairest stage for Game 1. Unfortunately for us, this is hard to make as it is, in essence, an arbitrary choice. There's nothing fundamentally better about choosing a list with every stage, it's actually just as arbitrary to use 13 as it is to use 9.

Although 13 stages + FLSS is a pretty good (if not unwieldy) system, there is absolutely nothing fundamental or sacred about it.

While Skyloft and Delfino do tend to favor similar characters (but not entirely), Wuhu is pretty different than the other two. Wuhu has significantly fewer platforms than Delfino and Skyloft, which obviously benefits characters who like fewer platforms. Skyloft and Delfino obviously still have their differences with different platform layouts, landing spots, and delfino's hugely shrining blastzones.

All 3 stages still transform, which de-emphasizes stage control and aids good areal maneuverability. They certainly have differences, but that is the true core of those stages. Battlefield, Smashville, and Final Destination are all completely different stages, but when they form a starter list alone, they give an advantage to characters with heavy stage control.

 

[DeLux]

The point of including all the stages instead of deeming some "irrelevant" is because it's the job of the TO to determine what is legal or illegal. It is up to the players to determine what is relevant and irrelevant by the choices they make.

So for your arguments to be valid you have to pigeon-hole characters into archetypes which may or may not be true. Like your argument for "characters on dynamic stages" isn't necessarily true. For example, ZSS is godlike on Delfino, but kind of sucks on Skyloft and Wuhu for a variety of reasons. So while ZSS does very well in a standard 13 FLSS setup, she gets pooped on in the proposed "let's arbitrarily pick stages on how we feel the game should be played" list of FD, SV, BF, Skyloft, Wuhu by having to play on one of her three worst stages in the game 1 "neutrally struck to stage", she does well across a 13 stage list.

FLSS ensures that the first game is played on the most neutral stage of the legal stages assuming skillful decisions by the players every time because of competitive game theory. Using a Starter/CP distinction, despite trying to make it "fair", turns the game into what the arbitrarily drawn line feels the game ought to be. In the similar way that we can't determine what a character matchup is to a concrete level to write handicaps into the rules for "balance", we can't determine what stages are "relevant" for the purposes of balance on game 1.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

The point of including all the stages instead of deeming some "irrelevant" is because it's the job of the TO to determine what is legal or illegal. It is up to the players to determine what is relevant and irrelevant by the choices they make.

So for your arguments to be valid you have to pigeon-hole characters into archetypes which may or may not be true. Like your argument for "characters on dynamic stages" isn't necessarily true. For example, ZSS is godlike on Delfino, but kind of sucks on Skyloft and Wuhu for a variety of reasons. So while ZSS does very well in a standard 13 FLSS setup, she gets pooped on in the proposed "let's arbitrarily pick stages on how we feel the game should be played" list of FD, SV, BF, Skyloft, Wuhu by having to play on one of her three worst stages in the game 1 "neutrally struck to stage", she does well across a 13 stage list.

FLSS ensures that the first game is played on the most neutral stage of the legal stages assuming skillful decisions by the players every time because of competitive game theory. Using a Starter/CP distinction, despite trying to make it "fair", turns the game into what the arbitrarily drawn line feels the game ought to be. In the similar way that we can't determine what a character matchup is to a concrete level to write handicaps into the rules for "balance", we can't determine what stages are "relevant" for the purposes of balance on game 1.

I think the main thing you don't realize is that the choice of striking from 13 stages is still an "let's arbitrarily pick stages on how [you] think the game should be played" list. There's nothing fundamental about the 13 stages you've picked, especially since you refuse to include Halberd, a stage that is clearly not degenerate, in your list.

I don't really understand your ZSS example, as I'm entirely sure someone against her would use one of their 6 strikes in 13+FLSS to remove Delfino from play. What's an example of the stage that would be struck to in your method? I doubt it would be much different than "the worst of" FD, BF, SV. The thing is, you're assuming that your method produces the fairest stage, when really it just provides the 7th least hated stage. There's nothing to say that this "7th worst stage" provides a more even matchup than "The worst of FD, BF, SV" in any of ZSS's matchups, or in any matchup at all.

I don't understand your problem with pigeon-holing characters into archetypes, as it's something you definitely have to do to motivate the "need" for FLSS. The given argument is that the current 5 neutral starters hands a significant advantage to a certain group of characters, as the stages have similar aspects. However, there is a great breadth of features across these "static" stages and there isn't a member of the cast that can use none of these to their advantage. If it's flawed to call some characters "good" and some characters "bad" like this, what exactly is the community's need for FLSS?

 

[MrGame&Rock]

So for your arguments to be valid you have to pigeon-hole characters into archetypes which may or may not be true. Like your argument for "characters on dynamic stages" isn't necessarily true. For example, ZSS is godlike on Delfino, but kind of sucks on Skyloft and Wuhu for a variety of reasons. So while ZSS does very well in a standard 13 FLSS setup, she gets pooped on in the proposed "let's arbitrarily pick stages on how we feel the game should be played" list of FD, SV, BF, Skyloft, Wuhu by having to play on one of her three worst stages in the game 1 "neutrally struck to stage", she does well across a 13 stage list.

I want to address this because the BF, FD, SV, Skyloft, Wuhu starter list was initially my proposal. It's by no means the best or only possible representative selection of 5, and in truth, I chose Skyloft and Wuhu over delfino for personal reasons: Delfino was legal at APEX and EVO, the other 2 are not. There's also the matter of ceiling height shenanigans on Delfino but I digress. If Delfino is a more neutral stage than its counterparts, a list like BF, FD, SV, and say, Wuhu and Delfino might be more appropriate. Hell, a seven-stage starter list that includes all the aforementioned stages plus T&C could work. The example Jiggernaut is citing is just a hypothetical. (but it is as good of one as any and I'm still honored he's using it)

Having said that, I have no problems with FLSS save for some procedural difficulties, (taking too much time, memorizing and keeping track of 13 stages for striking purposes, etc) but I think the Starter/Counterpick system has advantages too. It's simpler and takes less time which is essential for big events, and it allows players to prioritize learning some stages over others when practicing, regardless of their character. So FLSS could work, but I feel a representative starter system would be easier for large tournaments and new players to use and would be more acceptable in a community used to CPs. Personally, either would make me a happy camper.

What I DON'T want in a stagelist is the creating of Complacent Gamer Syndrome, which stales gameplay, and what the current model creates. Under a 3-starter or most 5-starter lists, a good deal of players will just default to Smashville. Which is a hideous stage aesthetically, and more importantly, stagnates gameplay by promoting characters that do well there over ones that do not. A 5-7-stage starter pack that includes traveling stages that de-emphasize stage control and have net neutral layouts would fix the issue. Instead of defaulting to Smashville you may see Wuhu or Delfino or Skyloft get chosen. Gameplay becomes more varied and more characters that do well on those stages see some love. Victory.

Gameplay de-stagnation is the goal, and FLSS or a better starter list would both help achieve that. And a 7-starter list really wouldn't be so bad if it would contribute to that end goal. After all, 7 is still a lower and simpler number for game 1 than 13

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I should clarify how we actually do striking mechanically. We insist that every set-up actually unlocks every stage (including Pac-Land). We use the random stage select screen and keep track of things on there. The tournaments are well TO'd so there are always people close at hand who know the ruleset, and we don't change the rules often so it's not like there's a lot to keep track of as time goes on (the WHZ stage list we started using within a month or so of the Wii U version's release, and we only just switched to the DL64 list when the new DLC came out). This means that you either already know which 13 to turn on or have someone close at hand who does. You strike with the game keeping track of it for you using the random stage select screen, and it's pretty easy. The time taken is pretty negligible. Lux's events (with the longer stage procedure) consistently run faster than other events with shorter stage procedure, and even within Lux's events, smash 4 tends to be the fastest running game. People imagine many tedious difficulties, but when you actually just do it, none of the difficulties manifest.

13 is not a magic number, but experience shows it's practical. Right when the Wii U version came out we did experiment with 17 stage striking, and unlike 13, that really was very tedious and time consuming. The balanced striking numbers are 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21... In the absence of reasons to do otherwise, more stages are better since it creates more gameplay variety and more fair on average outcomes. That last point is definitely true incidentally; if we assume most match-ups that are competitively realistic are fair on most stages, striking from N stages has an obvious increased probability of landing on a fair stage near the middle of the "true" match-up when N is large since any of the few bad stages that seep in will have much less chance to severely influence the final outcome. There are certainly at least 13 quality stages in this game. Therefore, 13 is best. Unbalanced striking odd numbers aren't too bad if they're large (like 11 or 15), but it is unbalanced striking, will take longer on average as it will become optimal for players to rps to decide who strikes first (instead of agreeing), and we simply don't have a reason to accept that kind of disadvantage when there isn't a substantial downside to 13.

As per what gets played at our locals, it's pretty volatile and, as is probably true in most places, the stream is often not representative of the whole event. The vast majority of our players use customs at least sometimes, but many players have 1111 sets they find optimal for some of the characters they play at least some of the time (I think I'm the strongest local who never uses 1111 sets, but that's mostly a function of the fact that I play Rosalina/Charizard/Shulk, all of whom should pretty much never run 1111). Some players don't like to strike and agree on Smashville. I offer Battlefield since many players strike me down to it, and IMO it's a really good Rosa stage so I'm very unlikely to strike it myself. I know Junglechief offers Town & City since he finds (as a Sonic player with his stage preferences) that striking usually ends up there. You see all kinds of things actually happen with various players though, and I consistently feel that all of the stages being present very much makes a difference. I'm not surprised at any point to play on any stage... other than FD of course since I always strike and ban that garbage.

 

[MajorMajora]

I wonder if it would be possible to run, say, 17, if some other method besides random stage select was used. I mean, there is time used up moving to each stage to select it, and then resetting it between matches. What if there was some laminated sheet of paper with all of the stages in squares and 2 dry erase markers that could be used for striking (or something to that effect), and then it just takes a swipe with a paper towel to clean it for the next match.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

@Amazing Ampharos Out of curiosity, could you explain why 13 stages is a better number than 11 or 15?

As for the 13 stages in question, what 13 stages are you using? How does Miiverse and Dreamland 64 fit in? I might have heard this before from you but I forgot and would very much like to know

This last question's for everyone, and is a personal curiosity of mine, why is it that some regions are much more open about stages than others? Missouri seems to be a much better place for someone who wants a lot of stages than New York, for example

 

[DeLux]

Answering since I TO the events AA staffs -
In order:
In an 11 or 15 stage system it becomes advantageous to either strike first or second. In the 13, there is a balance to going either first or second.

We use FD, SV, TC, MV, LC, DP, CS, SL, PS, WI, DL, KJ, DH.

Some regions are less scrubby than other regions in terms of normative banning criteria.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

@Amazing Ampharos Out of curiosity, could you explain why 13 stages is a better number than 11 or 15?

As for the 13 stages in question, what 13 stages are you using? How does Miiverse and Dreamland 64 fit in? I might have heard this before from you but I forgot and would very much like to know

This last question's for everyone, and is a personal curiosity of mine, why is it that some regions are much more open about stages than others? Missouri seems to be a much better place for someone who wants a lot of stages than New York, for example

Mostly tradition I feel at this point. As an NY smasher, the events I've done have all had small stagelists. It's a pain, and nearly everyone I've met seems to support the idea of small static stages promoting the gameplay mecca. I've been called non competitive a few times.

My guess is just we pick up the ideas of the smashers around us. The first NY smashers were conservative, and all the newer NY smashers pick it up by diffusion.

 

[Piford]

This last question's for everyone, and is a personal curiosity of mine, why is it that some regions are much more open about stages than others? Missouri seems to be a much better place for someone who wants a lot of stages than New York, for example

When I went to some locals, I got bullied out of liking the stages I want to. I tried to play to play friendlies on Wuhu or Skyloft and people just leave (rather than just saying hey I don't like this stage, lets not go back after it). When there were people who were willing to play on them with me, the people in the background would just make fun of us and spout random nonsense about how uncompetitive they are (Wuhu has a lower ceiling than halberd, and there are loftwing stage bosses on Skyloft). Also, if you don't gentlemen to smashville, they'll act extremely rude to you the entire match and then they won't play friendlies with you like ever. So it seems that here, if you don't like a super conservative stage list and ruleset, you are forced to to be accepted and actually have a decent time at the tournament.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

When I went to some locals, I got bullied out of liking the stages I want to. I tried to play to play friendlies on Wuhu or Skyloft and people just leave (rather than just saying hey I don't like this stage, lets not go back after it). When there were people who were willing to play on them with me, the people in the background would just make fun of us and spout random nonsense about how uncompetitive they are (Wuhu has a lower ceiling than halberd, and there are loftwing stage bosses on Skyloft). Also, if you don't gentlemen to smashville, they'll act extremely rude to you the entire match and then they won't play friendlies with you like ever. So it seems that here, if you don't like a super conservative stage list and ruleset, you are forced to to be accepted and actually have a decent time at the tournament.

I'll look out for that as I attend more locals. (NY smasher here) I remember at APEX though we almost always went game 1 to smashville, except for one time when a mac struck it and we went to battlefield instead.

The 13 stages @ DeLux mentioned sound about right, I figured it was them but I wasn't sure. The only one missing is Halberd, but something's gotta give to hit 13 I guess.

 

[DeLux]

When I went to some locals, I got bullied out of liking the stages I want to. I tried to play to play friendlies on Wuhu or Skyloft and people just leave (rather than just saying hey I don't like this stage, lets not go back after it). When there were people who were willing to play on them with me, the people in the background would just make fun of us and spout random nonsense about how uncompetitive they are (Wuhu has a lower ceiling than halberd, and there are loftwing stage bosses on Skyloft). Also, if you don't gentlemen to smashville, they'll act extremely rude to you the entire match and then they won't play friendlies with you like ever. So it seems that here, if you don't like a super conservative stage list and ruleset, you are forced to to be accepted and actually have a decent time at the tournament.

Man your scene would hate me. I make a habit of asking people what their favorite stage is and ban it. And I will not try in friendlies unless we play on Garden of Hope where I refuse to lose. If I ever have to play on FD/SV I complain the whole time that they are the jankiest stages on the list.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Man your scene would hate me. I make a habit of asking people what their favorite stage is and ban it. And I will not try in friendlies unless we play on Garden of Hope where I refuse to lose. If I ever have to play on FD/SV I complain the whole time that they are the jankiest stages on the list.

"What's your favorite stage?"
"Gamer."
"..."

 

[MrGame&Rock]

Man your scene would hate me. I make a habit of asking people what their favorite stage is and ban it. And I will not try in friendlies unless we play on Garden of Hope where I refuse to lose. If I ever have to play on FD/SV I complain the whole time that they are the jankiest stages on the list.

Sounds disrespectful... lemme guess, ganon main?

 

[Omegaphoenix]

Wow, this place is dead. Luckily, I'm a level 20 Necromancer!

Anyway, since Stage Sharing has been a thing for quite some time, I wanted to talk about whether or not Custom Stages could become an important part of the Metagame. I know there's a custom stage project thread, but I want to drum up a discussion here on it's merits and flaws

I think custom stages could become a way to patch up stage lists with stages that have great layouts, but too many factors that make them banned, I.E say Pyrosphere. Shrink it some and it would be a good stage.

However, there are concerns, as stages would not be equal all over, as while every player can be expected to have had oppurtunity to play on PS2, but not with custom stages, and some players with low internet access may not be able to access all the stages.

Also, a personal fear of mine, given that I am a stage liberal on the East Coast, is that stages of which are seen as troublesome but legal, like Halberd, or PS2 in more liberal regions, could be recreated in stage builder while removing their more unique features. I feel this would promote a more static metagame, as if taken far enough every stage could become flat + plat, which would be not just boring to players, but to spectators as well, as the stage builder has a limited palette selection.

Those are just my thoughts. I'd like to see how everyone else feels about this.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Wow, this place is dead. Luckily, I'm a level 20 Necromancer!

Anyway, since Stage Sharing has been a thing for quite some time, I wanted to talk about whether or not Custom Stages could become an important part of the Metagame. I know there's a custom stage project thread, but I want to drum up a discussion here on it's merits and flaws

I think custom stages could become a way to patch up stage lists with stages that have great layouts, but too many factors that make them banned, I.E say Pyrosphere. Shrink it some and it would be a good stage.

However, there are concerns, as stages would not be equal all over, as while every player can be expected to have had oppurtunity to play on PS2, but not with custom stages, and some players with low internet access may not be able to access all the stages.

Also, a personal fear of mine, given that I am a stage liberal on the East Coast, is that stages of which are seen as troublesome but legal, like Halberd, or PS2 in more liberal regions, could be recreated in stage builder while removing their more unique features. I feel this would promote a more static metagame, as if taken far enough every stage could become flat + plat, which would be not just boring to players, but to spectators as well, as the stage builder has a limited palette selection.

Those are just my thoughts. I'd like to see how everyone else feels about this.

The idea of using custom stages to patch up the stage list is interesting, and it definitely appeals to my creative side, but I'm unconvinced that they will ever become a standard. You'd need a large group of people to agree that a new stage is needed in the first place, then one needs to be designed that everyone (or nearly everyone) thinks is balanced, and then it needs to be distributed which has a 30-day time limit attached to it.

What I think would be possibly more interesting (and feasible) would be to brainstorm what constitutes, for instance, an ideal stage to promote interesting offstage play (including both edgeguarding and recovery options). Custom stages could help a lot with that, although the end goal is basically "for science".

 

[DeLux]

What I think would be possibly more interesting (and feasible) would be to brainstorm what constitutes, for instance, an ideal stage to promote interesting offstage play (including both edgeguarding and recovery options). Custom stages could help a lot with that, although the end goal is basically "for science".

Bring back Rainbow Cruise DLC lol

 

[MajorMajora]

Another thing I'm worried about is that the stage list would get clogged up with more bland stages with no static elements to them, which would shift the meta far in one direction and never let people experiment with complex stages like delfino.

Not to mention it's not hard to make a 13 stage list as it is, and I feel the magic number is either that or 17.

I suppose we could try and make a new stage list entirely of custom stages, that'd be fun, but to do so to fix any percieved gaps in the current stages would be the wrong tool for the job.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Another thing I'm worried about is that the stage list would get clogged up with more bland stages with no static elements to them, which would shift the meta far in one direction and never let people experiment with complex stages like delfino.

Not to mention it's not hard to make a 13 stage list as it is, and I feel the magic number is either that or 17.

I suppose we could try and make a new stage list entirely of custom stages, that'd be fun, but to do so to fix any percieved gaps in the current stages would be the wrong tool for the job.

Yeah, transforming stages would be right out, but it's possible to make something reasonably dynamic with creative use of moving platforms.

 

[Tinkerer]

What I think would be possibly more interesting (and feasible) would be to brainstorm what constitutes, for instance, an ideal stage to promote interesting offstage play (including both edgeguarding and recovery options). Custom stages could help a lot with that, although the end goal is basically "for science".

Norfair without hazards.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Norfair without hazards.

Not actually possible since there's no way to give grabbable ledges to fallthrough platforms in the stage builder. You can make a good facsimile of course, but there will always be a small solid block or something at the end of each platform.