Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread:

[Ghostbone]

I wouldn't even say that they randomly extend or end combos early. All three hazards of the stage are telegraphed beforehand, and it's up to the player currently on offence to make a decision on whether to continue applying pressure and taking the risk of mis-spacing and getting hit, or backing off in order to maintain stage control. I've intentionally used both the laser and cannonball hazards as combo extensions before, as well. If you get hit by any of the hazards, that means you lacked proper control of the stage.

So by having the stage legal you're forcing players into coin flip situations with the stage.

You might as well legalise items or ask Sakurai for tripping back, it's the same sort of risk reward that you get with Halberd's hazards.

Also, just because Delfino has positive aspects, doesn't make up for the negative aspects, the same way Mario Kart isn't legal because of the walls and people randomly getting stuck in the stage, despite having a unique layout.

 

[T4ylor]

Both players being able to use hazard's to their advantage does not make the hazard any less worse for competitive sets. So long as players want to win, something is going to happen to shift one into an advantageous position. The problem with Halberd is that the hazards and low ceiling make these advantageous positions too strong in relation to our other legal stages. It doesn't sit right with me that I can be getting horizontally combo'd by Captain Falcon which isn't a kill set up. Just damage. But the Claw kills me off the side, because luck happened to favor my opponent.

Delfino is more or less in the same boat with its low ceiling kills. It's not something you can just avoid. If it was then I'd use Fox, get % advantage with a Lasers, and then proceed to take my guaranteed win through timeout.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

It isn't a coin flip situation, though. At least, in that example I gave, it's another decision to be made, along with the numerous other you already have to make over the course of the match. If you make the wrong decision, either from a lack of stage knowledge or failing to recognize the signs the stage gives you, you probably deserve whatever outcome happens from that mistake.

Maybe if the hazards executed significantly faster, or you had no indication they were about to happen. But you should be able to recognize when the stage is about to do something. If you go for a risky play and die because you didn't respect the stage, that's on you. Knowing how to work with the hazards is a player skill, especially when they aren't particularly over-centralizing. I will admit the stage is a little extreme, but it's something that can be played around AND that can exist in a match with minimal interruption. It's not nearly as disruptive as the Yellow Devil, or even Stadium 2's transformations.

Now you could probably have a healthy meta without Halberd or Delphino, but banning them means you favor some character's strengths over others, as well as removing unique but healthy interactions. I personally like having these stages on the list, because they have an element of depth to them.

 

[MajorMajora]

And I find it hard to take comparisons to Melee seriously since it's a different game with a higher stock count and more volatile risk/reward in general.


Lmao
You really think people don't know about the changing blastzones?
Everyone knows, and everyone plays around it, but guess what, people still get killed by it/get kills of it because there's an opponent. (**** these are these same arguments people tried to use to get Pictochat legal in Brawl -_-)
And these low % kills do introduce extreme variance (the reason people counterpick delfino is to try and get lucky early % KOs, that's very telling in itself)
Telling people to educate themselves is hilarious, the fact that you think that most people don't know how the stage works is fairly delusional.

Melee and 4 are more alike than you think. Yeah, there are differences, and I suppose the stock difference is a legitimate point, but the fact that there are differences doesn't override the far greater number of similarities. You did make a good point about the stocks, though, so I'll concede that one.

...When did I say anything about changing blastzones? There's more to the stage than that. And even then, with the blastzones, there's a difference between knowing that a blast zone has changed and knowing when it will change. That will effect your behavior.

Another thing to consider is that, even if there is some minor variance between people who understand a stage, you have to consider more than just that. Complex stages add a higher skill cap. Giving more to learn means that people have more to take advantage of on the stage, so learning to do so (which is a skill) is rewarded. It adds depth to the metagame, which is positive. Not so much of an excuse but more of an additional advantage of keeping/adding complex, dynamic stages.

 

[Ghostbone]

You say they "add depth", but really that's just equivalent to "bypass neutral". And with less emphasis on the neutral game, the game as a whole is of lower quality (top players have the best fundamentals, and the best way to win more is to improve your fundamentals, and fundamentals are all about the neutral game, so with less emphasis on fundamentals the game becomes less competitive)

Stage transitions just automatically put one player in a disadvantaged situation (generally the character with worse mobility will always get sharked whenever delfino is landing).
Halberd's claw forces one player to shield which gives the other player a grab opportunity or at least an easy roll read > punish.

It isn't a coin flip situation, though. At least, in that example I gave, it's another decision to be made, along with the numerous other you already have to make over the course of the match. If you make the wrong decision, either from a lack of stage knowledge or failing to recognize the signs the stage gives you, you probably deserve whatever outcome happens from that mistake.

It's not a coin flip situation?
The claw is a literal coin flip, 50% of the time it targets you, 50% of the time it targets your opponent, and the ideal play in either of these situations is vastly different and by the time you know (ie. the claw is already moving to hit someone) it's too late to adjust.
This isn't saying people can't powershield/air dodge the claw on reaction, that's fairly easy, but most of the time your opponent will punish you for choosing that option, which isn't fair.
There's no wrong or right decision, since the correct decision is random.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Kind of a weak argument, but if you setup your opponent so he can't act when the Claw triggers, you're effectively taking advantage of the 50/50, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with limiting/nullifying your opponent's options.
Also, if there is really no way to tell who will the claw hit, your opponent is likely to make a defensive maneuver too, and he'd be less likely to punish yours.

I said it's kind of weak because thus far, no argument has been able to convince others that a given stage is fair.
These debates become pointless.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

This is honestly something to try out. They are pretty damn small compared to actual caves of life like stages like Gamer can have, but they might be a problem - or not at all. They're really unique, and there aren't really any stages in games with teching with similarish ceilings up high (the closest you get is something like Reset Bomb Forest or maybe Skyworld, but they have much more area with ceilings and have other issues), so the only way to see is to play a bunch on it.

I'd love for it to be legal because it's such a unique layout on the bottom part.

Hey, me too, I'm happy for every legal stage (aside from Congo Jungle 64, **** that stage).
I'm taking the pessimistic approach because I get disappointed less.
At my local scene we test unconventional stages and rules all the time exactly to figure stuff like that out.

 

[MajorMajora]

You say they "add depth", but really that's just equivalent to "bypass neutral". And with less emphasis on the neutral game, the game as a whole is of lower quality (top players have the best fundamentals, and the best way to win more is to improve your fundamentals, and fundamentals are all about the neutral game, so with less emphasis on fundamentals the game becomes less competitive)

Stage transitions just automatically put one player in a disadvantaged situation (generally the character with worse mobility will always get sharked whenever delfino is landing).
Halberd's claw forces one player to shield which gives the other player a grab opportunity or at least an easy roll read > punish.



It's not a coin flip situation?
The claw is a literal coin flip, 50% of the time it targets you, 50% of the time it targets your opponent, and the ideal play in either of these situations is vastly different and by the time you know (ie. the claw is already moving to hit someone) it's too late to adjust.
This isn't saying people can't powershield/air dodge the claw on reaction, that's fairly easy, but most of the time your opponent will punish you for choosing that option, which isn't fair.
There's no wrong or right decision, since the correct decision is random.

A lot wrong with the top part.

First of all, even if all that was being tested in the current smash meta on nothing but SV (exaggeration) was neutral and nothing else, adding a new skill to that does not make the game less competitive. The definition of good competition should be "How well does it test skill", not "how well does it test neutral".

Second, There's already more to the game than just neutral. You have the game when one person is in advantage vs disadvantage too, you have mixups at the ledge, you have custom villager.

Third, what makes you think that what the stage adds has no effect on neutral? Take DP, for example. What version of the stage you'll be in so and what version you are on directly effects how you want to act in neutral. This adds depth to neutral, increasing the skill ceiling.

 

[cot(θ)]

When the claw is waving around, it points at who it's going to target. However, if the target goes out of the claw's range (e.g. far enough offstage), it will target the other player, which is what leads some people to believe it's actually random.

Disclaimer: This claim is from memory, and I didn't do any immediate testing before posting this.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

When the claw is waving around, it points at who it's going to target. However, if the target goes out of the claw's range (e.g. far enough offstage), it will target the other player, which is what leads some people to believe it's actually random.

I didn't know this. May do a spot of testing this weekend if I remember.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

It's not a coin flip situation?
The claw is a literal coin flip, 50% of the time it targets you, 50% of the time it targets your opponent, and the ideal play in either of these situations is vastly different and by the time you know (ie. the claw is already moving to hit someone) it's too late to adjust.
This isn't saying people can't powershield/air dodge the claw on reaction, that's fairly easy, but most of the time your opponent will punish you for choosing that option, which isn't fair.
There's no wrong or right decision, since the correct decision is random.

Alright, correction: it's a coin flip situation you know the results of well in advance. The claw DOES telegraph who it is targeting (although if @ cot(θ) is correct you can force it to change targets?). Besides that, you can control where the claw attacks. If you get hit by the claw, that's usually just your fault. Even if you're the one begin targeted, there's no reason you couldn't use that to your advantage by playing well enough.

 

[b2jammer]

I'd like for Halberd to be legal too, but one thing - can multiple hazards activate at the same time, or can there only be one out in play at once? (e.g. The claw or laser looking for a target while the cannonball falls down)

 

[A_Kae]

I'd like for Halberd to be legal too, but one thing - can multiple hazards activate at the same time, or can there only be one out in play at once? (e.g. The claw or laser looking for a target while the cannonball falls down)

Only one hazard can be active at one time as far as I know.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

I decided to play a couple matches on each of the suspect stages so I can add my two cents on them the rules were as follows:

• I used the Gamepad as my controller.
• I used the default controls except tap to jump was turned off.
• I fought a level 9 CPU that used Dr. Mario in every match.
• I used Mario in every match.
• The rules for each match were 3 stock, 8 minutes, no items.

And now for my opinions: (No spoilers, but it's a bit long)

Spoiler

Kongo Jungle 64: This stage will probably be legal. The only thing that I find bad about the stage is the fact that you can shoot yourself offstage with the cannon, however, if you are paying attention to the cannon, you most likely won't be doing that. I have been saved by the cannon a couple of times, but I don't think it will make the match that much longer. Especially since it is usually on the other side of the stage when you need it.
Mario Circuit: This stage will probably not be legal. In at least two out of the three of the battles I fought I was stage spiked by the ceiling (usually resulting in death), and the wall covering the right blast zone saved me more often than not. I was Koed by the stage in two out of the tree matches, so I think it's safe to say it would be a common occurrence.
Wuhu Island: This stage may or may not be legal. I was only KOed by the stage once, and that was because I wasn't paying attention and didn't get on to the floating platforms before they took off. That said they do leave pretty quickly. Certain areas have walk offs for you to take advantage of, but most of the time you won't be on one of those layouts.
Pokémon Stadium 2: This stage will probably not be legal. Conveyor belts, and low gravity. Nuff said... Ok not really. The stage transforms about three times each match, and each match, I usually get Electric or Flying at least once, and both of those interrupt the flow of the match. On the Electric form of the stage, I always found me and the CPU getting onto the ledge, falling off, rinsing and repeating. At which point you are basically fighting the stage. The Flying form of the stage has saved my but a couple of times, but it also makes you a sitting duck in the air, because you can't fall very fast.
Skyloft: This stage will probably be legal. I was never KOed by the stage (or even hurt by it), and the only walk off that I encountered while fighting was the bridge one, and of course, it didn't last very long.
Windy Hill Zone: This stage may or may not be legal. This stage is weird because while you can have a match without touching the springs, or windmill, if they come into play they can do some weird things. The windmill can set up a very cheap kill over the top blast line, however, the top blast line is pretty low, as you can easily jump off screen by using any of the higher platforms. The springs can save you, but they don't really help, as when you can hit the top of them you usually won't need them. When you do need them they send you to your death.
Kalos Pokémon League: This stage will probably be legal. This stage is also weird. Under normal circumstances, the Fire form doesn't affect much, though I can see some people getting saved by the fire that sometimes comes up from the sides of the stage. The Dragon form doesn't do much either (I don't think I have ever gotten hit by the dragon statue). The Steel form can keep players from dying, but only for a little while, and as soon as the transformation ends it's usually easier to KO the opponent because of the damage they racked up. The Water form can be dangerous if you aren't careful, but it doesn't force you to head for the hills if you know what I mean. There are walk offs as well but they don't affect much. On the off chance that you will find Rayquasa, Registeel, Ho-oh, or Manaphy, things change. Rayquasa still doesn't do much, I have never had Registeel impact the fight, Ho-oh could probably allow a player to camp for a short period of time, and Manaphy completely breaks the stage.

I'd like for Halberd to be legal too, but one thing - can multiple hazards activate at the same time, or can there only be one out in play at once? (e.g. The claw or laser looking for a target while the cannonball falls down)

No. I have never had that happen in Brawl, or ssb4.

 

[b2jammer]

Only one hazard can be active at one time as far as I know.

Okay, that's what I thought. Other than that, the stage is fine, if a bit cramped.

 

[Ghostbone]

When the claw is waving around, it points at who it's going to target. However, if the target goes out of the claw's range (e.g. far enough offstage), it will target the other player, which is what leads some people to believe it's actually random.

Disclaimer: This claim is from memory, and I didn't do any immediate testing before posting this.

You can only actually tell who the claw will target when both players are fairly far away from each other, basically in situations where you don't even need to know who the claw will target because neither player is threatening the other.

When characters are actually close to each other, which is the case in most games of smash, predicting who the claw will attack is essentially impossible since it sways around (especially since people are focusing on each other mostly), so it's still effectively random.

I could get into why even a non random claw is still bad for competitive play but most of my arguments have been ignored thus far because nobody here actually wants to debate, so whatever.

 

[Jaxas]

I personally think Halberd is the most 'questionably legal' stage I've ever run in my tournaments, and I've had Pokemon Stadium 2 in my stagelist (it's honestly not that bad; I didn't particularly love it but it wasn't terrible like people say).

The issue I have with Halberd is the strength of the hazard combined with the fact that it's entirely random who gets targeted, and therefore put in a disadvantageous (or advantageous!) state.

The Cannon is fine; there's so much advance heads-up time and it's not controllable by either player.
The Claw has issues, but they've already been covered by people so I'll skip over that.

The Laser, on the other hand, I feel is too influential of a hazard to be assigned randomly. It's not 'fair' (nor is it helpful for determining the 'better player', which is the point of competition) for me to have a laser I can position over the ledge against a (fuel system) or someone to all but guarantee an edgeguard kill at extremely low percents for no other reason than RNG favoring me.

If I were to go out and use my (selected) character tools gimp them, then that's perfectly fine of course. But it's sort of like the issue with Warioware: "Hey look I got invincibility and you got nothing! Yay RNG!"

Sure you may have to use said invincibility(/Laser) correctly, but the fact is that you did nothing to earn the advantage/tool.


(Hopefully this wasn't too ramble-y)

 

[MajorMajora]

I personally think Halberd is the most 'questionably legal' stage I've ever run in my tournaments, and I've had Pokemon Stadium 2 in my stagelist (it's honestly not that bad; I didn't particularly love it but it wasn't terrible like people say).

The issue I have with Halberd is the strength of the hazard combined with the fact that it's entirely random who gets targeted, and therefore put in a disadvantageous (or advantageous!) state.

The Cannon is fine; there's so much advance heads-up time and it's not controllable by either player.
The Claw has issues, but they've already been covered by people so I'll skip over that.

The Laser, on the other hand, I feel is too influential of a hazard to be assigned randomly. It's not 'fair' (nor is it helpful for determining the 'better player', which is the point of competition) for me to have a laser I can position over the ledge against a (fuel system) or someone to all but guarantee an edgeguard kill at extremely low percents for no other reason than RNG favoring me.

If I were to go out and use my (selected) character tools gimp them, then that's perfectly fine of course. But it's sort of like the issue with Warioware: "Hey look I got invincibility and you got nothing! Yay RNG!"

Sure you may have to use said invincibility(/Laser) correctly, but the fact is that you did nothing to earn the advantage/tool.


(Hopefully this wasn't too ramble-y)

...yeah, halberd's pretty much the sketchiest legal stage we have. If we were just looking at the stages without halberd's history as a stage, I would even put Kalos (predictable, nondiscriminatory hazards, with the exception of random targets in the dragon area) and OGS (No random factors) before it for legality.

I'd honestly not mind a 13 stage list without them, but I'd sooner push for more stages than the exclusion of halberd. It's problems, while legitimate, are minor and far less impactful than they sound. I can see the argument for it being a good stage in an expanded stage list of 13 or 17, but that it's in instead of, say, wuhu, PS2, or skyloft, is rather sad.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

You can only actually tell who the claw will target when both players are fairly far away from each other, basically in situations where you don't even need to know who the claw will target because neither player is threatening the other.

When characters are actually close to each other, which is the case in most games of smash, predicting who the claw will attack is essentially impossible since it sways around (especially since people are focusing on each other mostly), so it's still effectively random.

I could get into why even a non random claw is still bad for competitive play but most of my arguments have been ignored thus far because nobody here actually wants to debate, so whatever.

The camera zooms out when the claw starts to activate. I don't think it is all that bad so long as at least one combatant runs back a bit before jumping back into the thick of things.
EDIT: Either way, if both players are wary of the claw, they can both dodge it with little consequence.

I personally think Halberd is the most 'questionably legal' stage I've ever run in my tournaments, and I've had Pokemon Stadium 2 in my stagelist (it's honestly not that bad; I didn't particularly love it but it wasn't terrible like people say).

The issue I have with Halberd is the strength of the hazard combined with the fact that it's entirely random who gets targeted, and therefore put in a disadvantageous (or advantageous!) state.

The Cannon is fine; there's so much advance heads-up time and it's not controllable by either player.
The Claw has issues, but they've already been covered by people so I'll skip over that.

The Laser, on the other hand, I feel is too influential of a hazard to be assigned randomly. It's not 'fair' (nor is it helpful for determining the 'better player', which is the point of competition) for me to have a laser I can position over the ledge against a (fuel system) or someone to all but guarantee an edgeguard kill at extremely low percents for no other reason than RNG favoring me.

If I were to go out and use my (selected) character tools gimp them, then that's perfectly fine of course. But it's sort of like the issue with Warioware: "Hey look I got invincibility and you got nothing! Yay RNG!"

Sure you may have to use said invincibility(/Laser) correctly, but the fact is that you did nothing to earn the advantage/tool.


(Hopefully this wasn't too ramble-y)

The lazer is really easy to avoid though. The only problem is you can get smacked into it, usually resulting in death. I've never seen it strategically placed though. (Mostly because I just dodge it when I need to, and the CPU is like: "OMG the laser has targeted me! Get to the top of the stage immediately!"

(predictable, nondiscriminatory hazards, with the exception of random targets in the dragon area)

The dragon isn't hard to avoid. It takes a while to start up the attack, the attack is in a fixed position (Left, Middle, or Right), and don't let the size of the explosion fool you. You pretty much have to be standing on top of it to get hit.
EDIT: Still: I'm surprised that Halberd is legal. It has some pretty devastating hazards if you aren't paying attention, and other stages have been banned for less.

 

[Piford]

I personally think Halberd is the most 'questionably legal' stage I've ever run in my tournaments, and I've had Pokemon Stadium 2 in my stagelist (it's honestly not that bad; I didn't particularly love it but it wasn't terrible like people say).

The issue I have with Halberd is the strength of the hazard combined with the fact that it's entirely random who gets targeted, and therefore put in a disadvantageous (or advantageous!) state.

The Cannon is fine; there's so much advance heads-up time and it's not controllable by either player.
The Claw has issues, but they've already been covered by people so I'll skip over that.

The Laser, on the other hand, I feel is too influential of a hazard to be assigned randomly. It's not 'fair' (nor is it helpful for determining the 'better player', which is the point of competition) for me to have a laser I can position over the ledge against a (fuel system) or someone to all but guarantee an edgeguard kill at extremely low percents for no other reason than RNG favoring me.

If I were to go out and use my (selected) character tools gimp them, then that's perfectly fine of course. But it's sort of like the issue with Warioware: "Hey look I got invincibility and you got nothing! Yay RNG!"

Sure you may have to use said invincibility(/Laser) correctly, but the fact is that you did nothing to earn the advantage/tool.


(Hopefully this wasn't too ramble-y)

I actually think the Laser is one of the best hazards for competitive play. It's random who gets assigned, but it doesn't favor one player over another. Both have the tools to use it effectively. The person being targeted has the ability to place the laser in an advantageous spot, but the person not being targeted has the ability to pressure the person who is into getting hit by it. I love the asymmetrical strategy it brings. If both players are equally good at doing their job, then the laser won't hit either. If one is better than another, then the worse player will get hit.

 

[webbedspace]

http://smash4u.net/recommended-ruleset/ - One interesting point about this ruleset that doesn't involve flying battleships: the notion of allowing omegas as starters, apparently letting whoever does the last strike make the choice of omega. Not many places have adopted this omegas policy, instead relegating omegas to FD-equivalent counterpicks only. Thoughts?

 

[b2jammer]

http://smash4u.net/recommended-ruleset/ - One interesting point about this ruleset that doesn't involve flying battleships: the notion of allowing omegas as starters, apparently letting whoever does the last strike make the choice of omega. Not many places have adopted this omegas policy, instead relegating omegas to FD-equivalent counterpicks only. Thoughts?

Kind of an odd ruling. I can see what they're getting at, but the undersides (and blast lines IIRC) are different enough to have some impact in the meta, especially with characters that can wall jump, so lumping them together isn't that great. I'd just have them out of the ruleset altogether.

 

[ぱみゅ]

No wonder that list doesn't have Halberd (or a lot of stages).

It's run by a bunch of conservative players and Delux and his known dislike for Halberd.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

I could get into why even a non random claw is still bad for competitive play but most of my arguments have been ignored thus far because nobody here actually wants to debate, so whatever.

Come on now. Don't say we've been ignoring your arguments, that's just poor form. I've been giving my own reasons for why I think Halberd is a healthy stage for competitive play. And when you chose to specifically pinpoint a (perhaps poorly-worded) example of mine I elaborated on why I thought that it was still okay.

You can only actually tell who the claw will target when both players are fairly far away from each other, basically in situations where you don't even need to know who the claw will target because neither player is threatening the other.

When characters are actually close to each other, which is the case in most games of smash, predicting who the claw will attack is essentially impossible since it sways around (especially since people are focusing on each other mostly), so it's still effectively random.

As for this, I only think you tend to see characters that so far up close to each other when someone is exerting some sort of offensive pressure. At least in neutral, or when playing footsies, I don't think it's too uncommon to see characters playing within a safe range from each other. Especially when you get to characters like Sonic, or zone-heavy fighters like Villager.

But even so, I still honestly don't think this is an issue. It's another decision for the player to make when they notice the claw is moving. The game gives you visual cues to pick up on when the stage is about to do something. In MOST cases getting hit by the claw is the fault of the player, I still stand by this.

As a side note, I don't think I would even mind that much if we didn't use Halberd to be honest. But I would hope it'd be because we found objective proof that the stage was broken rather than having subjective debates on the nature of its hazards. Really, I would almost say that its low ceiling is a bigger problem because of how certain top tiers (Rosalina and Luigi especially) have kill confirms that go off the top.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No wonder that list doesn't have Halberd (or a lot of stages).

It's run by a bunch of conservative players and Delux and his known dislike for Halberd.

Bruh, am I super conservative to you? I've fought the fight for larger stagelists a good bit in my life, but I never thought Halberd was good simply for the claw deciding its target at random. That is something that as always bugged me. I get you can try to play around it and such, and I said while we discussed I'm totally okay if it's legal, just wouldn't much care if it wasn't.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Don't take it personal, I was generalizing (and mostly pointing fingers to Lux). (:

 

[DeLux]

I actually protested the ruleset being released for multiple reasons, none of them including Halberd.

Since I protested, the S4U team is going to release discussions on why they feel certain rules should be the way they are, both in support and against.

I think I'm prominently going to be discussed in the "against".

 

[Ghostbone]

Come on now. Don't say we've been ignoring your arguments, that's just poor form. I've been giving my own reasons for why I think Halberd is a healthy stage for competitive play. And when you chose to specifically pinpoint a (perhaps poorly-worded) example of mine I elaborated on why I thought that it was still okay.

Yea sorry, I was kinda mad for other reasons, my bad.

As a side note, I don't think I would even mind that much if we didn't use Halberd to be honest. But I would hope it'd be because we found objective proof that the stage was broken rather than having subjective debates on the nature of its hazards. Really, I would almost say that its low ceiling is a bigger problem because of how certain top tiers (Rosalina and Luigi especially) have kill confirms that go off the top.

I have a bunch of vids from Brawl where Halberd basically took someone's stock with nothing they could do about it. (ie. they're recovering, or they're on the upper platform, shield the claw but then get punished by their opponent for it)
In my mind even a few games where Halberd's hazards decide the game in an essentially unavoidable way (Never get hit offstage? Never be grabbed by your opponent? Never be put in a disadvantageous situation? etc.) should result in it being banned.

The low ceiling is icing on the cake (and more of an issue in this game than Brawl) as it leads to more variance in results, which is counterproductive for a tournament (same reason we don't have items on).

Also, all stage bans are subjective, there isn't really an objective reason to ban any stage, it's just levels of uncompetitive gameplay, what you consider uncompetitive, and where you draw the line.

 

[Piford]

Also, all stage bans are subjective, there isn't really an objective reason to ban any stage, it's just levels of uncompetitive gameplay, what you consider uncompetitive, and where you draw the line.

Completely false. There are definitely objective reasons to ban stages. Things like CIrcle Camping on Great Cave Offensive doesn't determine who the better player is, but who picked the faster character. There's 2 reasons why a stage should be banned

1) It presents overcentralising strategies. That means it gives a strategy that is the only viable way of playing in a competitive environment. If a strategy presents itself, it should be given time to see if counters are available.

2) It marginalizes player skill. This means the player's skill is made unimportant due to certain elements of a stage such as, but not limited to, excessively random and unavoidable elements.

If you are arguing Halberd should be banned, your saying it violates rule number 2. I disagree with that as all the hazards are telegraphed way in advance. If your opponent hits you into the hazard or hits you because you were avoiding the hazard, then it's still your fault because you could've done something to your opponent to avoid them putting you into that situation.

 

[Ulevo]

Lmao
You really think people don't know about the changing blastzones?

One of the reasons I made this thread is because most people are ignorant of how the stages actually work, including the blast zones on Delfino. I still have people argue with me that Omega stages have different blast zones, that Town and City has a super low ceiling.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Completely false. There are definitely objective reasons to ban stages. Things like CIrcle Camping on Great Cave Offensive doesn't determine who the better player is, but who picked the faster character. There's 2 reasons why a stage should be banned

1) It presents overcentralising strategies. That means it gives a strategy that is the only viable way of playing in a competitive environment. If a strategy presents itself, it should be given time to see if counters are available.

2) It marginalizes player skill. This means the player's skill is made unimportant due to certain elements of a stage such as, but not limited to, excessively random and unavoidable elements.

If you are arguing Halberd should be banned, your saying it violates rule number 2. I disagree with that as all the hazards are telegraphed way in advance. If your opponent hits you into the hazard or hits you because you were avoiding the hazard, then it's still your fault because you could've done something to your opponent to avoid them putting you into that situation.

I really can't agree that these are objective reasons to ban stages. Whether or not something "Marginalizing player skill" is inherently subjective, so long as players can still control their characters. Circle camping on GCO is something we have strong feelings against as a community, but those feelings are still subjective in nature.

That being said, I really think the fact that certain characters gain early kill set-ups that other characters don't have access to is a good enough reason to ban the stage. For these choice characters, (like Luigi, ZSS, Rosa, and ROB), the stage gives a much larger advantage to them than any other legal stage gives any other character. Banning it in order to normalize how powerful stage advantage is a strong reason to consider, because for these cases, it's possible for the worse of the two players to win, simply because they played Luigi.

 

[Piford]

I really can't agree that these are objective reasons to ban stages. Whether or not something "Marginalizing player skill" is inherently subjective, so long as players can still control their characters. Circle camping on GCO is something we have strong feelings against as a community, but those feelings are still subjective in nature.

That being said, I really think the fact that certain characters gain early kill set-ups that other characters don't have access to is a good enough reason to ban the stage. For these choice characters, (like Luigi, ZSS, Rosa, and ROB), the stage gives a much larger advantage to them than any other legal stage gives any other character. Banning it in order to normalize how powerful stage advantage is a strong reason to consider, because for these cases, it's possible for the worse of the two players to win, simply because they played Luigi.

It's an objective reason to ban a stage, but it's subjective whether or not a lot of stages violate the rule.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

It's an objective reason to ban a stage, but it's subjective whether or not a lot of stages violate the rule.

We're really getting into semantics here... but it's impossible for things to subjectively fit into an objective criteria. The rule is logical and well-accepted, but it isn't objective.

 

[Ghostbone]

Completely false. There are definitely objective reasons to ban stages. Things like CIrcle Camping on Great Cave Offensive doesn't determine who the better player is, but who picked the faster character. There's 2 reasons why a stage should be banned

You dislike circle camping, character selection is still a skill. If you don't pick Sonic, or you lose the lead, or you're not frame perfect in traversing the circle that's your fault. (at least temple isn't random like halberd >.>) The stage still tests that skill.
A ruleset that bans no stage and has you strike from every stage in the game is still possible, and if you want to talk about objectivity, that's what you should be going for.

2) It marginalizes player skill. This means the player's skill is made unimportant due to certain elements of a stage such as, but not limited to, excessively random and unavoidable elements.

If you are arguing Halberd should be banned, your saying it violates rule number 2. I disagree with that as all the hazards are telegraphed way in advance. If your opponent hits you into the hazard or hits you because you were avoiding the hazard, then it's still your fault because you could've done something to your opponent to avoid them putting you into that situation.

Again, it's just the degrees of which skill is made less important.
By their nature, stages that introduce randomness or have walk-offs/ridiculously close blastzones introduce variance into results, which is equivalent to making skill less important. You guys can go on about how using blastzones and hazards is skillful and ignore that if you want, but the quintessential example of a stage making skill less important is that it makes results closer to a coin flip. Results that are more varied prove that skill is less important.

 

[MajorMajora]

You dislike circle camping, character selection is still a skill. If you don't pick Sonic, or you lose the lead, or you're not frame perfect in traversing the circle that's your fault. (at least temple isn't random like halberd >.>) The stage still tests that skill.
A ruleset that bans no stage and has you strike from every stage in the game is still possible, and if you want to talk about objectivity, that's what you should be going for.

Again, it's just the degrees of which skill is made less important.
By their nature, stages that introduce randomness or have walk-offs/ridiculously close blastzones introduce variance into results, which is equivalent to making skill less important. You guys can go on about how using blastzones and hazards is skillful and ignore that if you want, but the quintessential example of a stage making skill less important is that it makes results closer to a coin flip. Results that are more varied prove that skill is less important.

Well, this is partially true. Adding variance is a factor that effects how the game tests skill (I'm going to assume you mean by making games end faster and therefore affecting how much a single variant can shift who wins or loses a game, because that's what your argument sounds like to me. Correct me if I'm wrong). However, it's not the only vector. Having a wider stage list with a wider set of factors that have an effect on the match makes the game more complex, more deep, and gives an advantage to players who have the skill of knowing how to use each stage to their advantage. In this way, the addition of more stages, and of different stages, makes the game more skill based because it gives another way in which experienced players can separate themselves from less experienced players, and I say that this is to a much greater effect than what little variance is added.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

You know that instakill trick you could do with Snake, and Kirby/Meta Knight/Charizard? I was just fighting on Mario Circuit, and my opponent (Charizard), did his up throw, and killed me with the moving racetrack on the ceiling, effectively killing me. It's probably not warranting a ban on the stage, since only three characters can do it, but it is something to take note of. (If everyone knew you could do that already then ignore me.)

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

You know that instakill trick you could do with Snake, and Kirby/Meta Knight/Charizard? I was just fighting on Mario Circuit, and my opponent (Charizard), did his up throw, and killed me with the moving racetrack on the ceiling, effectively killing me. It's probably not warranting a ban on the stage, since only three characters can do it, but it is something to take note of. (If everyone knew you could do that already then ignore me.)

It's something we've run into before, but there's nothing bad about mentioning it again. It actually works with a lot more than 3 characters (you can just hit them upwards into it, or use windboxes), so it's a pretty big reason not to use the stage.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

It's something we've run into before, but there's nothing bad about mentioning it again. It actually works with a lot more than 3 characters (you can just hit them upwards into it, or use windboxes), so it's a pretty big reason not to use the stage.

I brought it up because it happened in a place where you don't normally see it (We didn't even land on the one that the Shy Guys appear on the ceiling on, and it happened after we passed it.). You probably could smack them up there before the track comes (You would have to know the stage really well though), however it is more convenient for Kirby, Meta Knight, and Charizard because they can use their up throw for the instant kill whenever they choose. (Provided the track is up there, and is able to damage you.)

Also, I have a question. I got grabbed by the Wii Fit Trainer on Castle Siege, and the end result was the Wii Fit Trainer's death, and I lived. Why? Because the stage transitioned very quickly, and she had already started using her forward throw. (Just so you know I'm not mad at this, its just poorly worded.) Is this considered non-intrusive because we can just stay in the middle or...
(In my opinion you get carried way too close to the blast zone for this not to be an issue. It doesn't exactly break the stage, but it is annoying.)

 

[Omegaphoenix]

I brought it up because it happened in a place where you don't normally see it (We didn't even land on the one that the Shy Guys appear on the ceiling on, and it happened after we passed it.). You probably could smack them up there before the track comes (You would have to know the stage really well though), however it is more convenient for Kirby, Meta Knight, and Charizard because they can use their up throw for the instant kill whenever they choose. (Provided the track is up there, and is able to damage you.)

Also, I have a question. I got grabbed by the Wii Fit Trainer on Castle Siege, and the end result was the Wii Fit Trainer's death, and I lived. Why? Because the stage transitioned very quickly, and she had already started using her forward throw. (Just so you know I'm not mad at this, its just poorly worded.) Is this considered non-intrusive because we can just stay in the middle or...
(In my opinion you get carried way too close to the blast zone for this not to be an issue. It doesn't exactly break the stage, but it is annoying.)

Castle Siege is timed. And honestly, not to hard to avoid the death zones, just keep a basic awareness of where you are, and you'll be fine 99.9% of the time. Honestly you should only die from the drop when the opponent is applying super mondo pressure, and then they earned it

 

[Ghostbone]

Castle Siege is 100% predictable so there's no reason to be surprised by the transitions.
If WFT killed herself during the transition that's no different than MK side-bing offstage and dying.