Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread:

[b2jammer]

So I need a bit of a reality check. /r/smashbros is having a discussion on Delfino and the comments seem to be strongly leaning toward banned.

Without any lolreddit, can someone explain to me what mortal sin Delfino has committed?

Low ceiling, the walkoffs last longer than in other transforming stages and there are more of them.

 

[Infinite901]

So I need a bit of a reality check. /r/smashbros is having a discussion on Delfino and the comments seem to be strongly leaning toward banned.

Without any lolreddit, can someone explain to me what mortal sin Delfino has committed?

"It's too jank."

 

[Kel]

It's not part of the flat + plat agenda

 

[MachoCheeze]

I'm not seeing Peach's Castle 64 discussed much, but I've played a decent amount of matches on and it with real people and it seems like a strong CP contender. Very fun stage with a unique layout and decent sized blast zones.

The WV Regional we're hosting at the end of the moth will probably be allowing it. Final verdict will come after a smashfest from a bunch of us this Saturday.

We'll also be running Hyrule Castle as a Squads (4 v 4 stage)

 

[Krysco]

I had this huge lovely post made but decided to cut it and shorten it to this: what exactly is 'jank' and why are short blastzones a problem? Shouldn't they fall under the idea of stage knowledge? I can see having too many short blastzone stages being a problem but to outright call short blastzones a reason to ban a stage seems odd to me.

 

[b2jammer]

I had this huge lovely post made but decided to cut it and shorten it to this: what exactly is 'jank' and why are short blastzones a problem? Shouldn't they fall under the idea of stage knowledge? I can see having too many short blastzone stages being a problem but to outright call short blastzones a reason to ban a stage seems odd to me.

"Jank" is a 4chan term that, from what I get out of it, is used to describe anything remotely cheap or unfair.
Shorter blastzones mean earlier KO's, which mean higher variance, which skews results in tournaments.

 

[Krysco]

"Jank" is a 4chan term that, from what I get out of it, is used to describe anything remotely cheap or unfair.
Shorter blastzones mean earlier KO's, which mean higher variance, which skews results in tournaments.

Okay so that clears up jank for me but I still feel shorter blastzones should fall under stage knowledge. I can see arguments for Halberd's random hazards and camping/stalling on certain transformations of Delfino but to point out the short blastzones as a flaw or a reason to ban a stage seems odd to me. People want less variance and less skewed results, wanting the best player to come out on top without a stages 'jank' cutting them short and having some low(er) skilled player win a tournament. That makes sense but to say that short blastzones immediately encourage that seems...odd. Having numerous stages with short blastzones I can get, sure. If you're fighting a Fox and you only have 1 ban and both Delfino and Halberd are options, I could see that 'skewing' results perhaps but unless T&C is considered low enough for Fox (or any other vertical killer) then I don't see a problem with having at least one of these 'problematic' low ceiling stages legal.

I'm largely ignorant towards this kinda thing so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

"Jank" is a 4chan term that, from what I get out of it, is used to describe anything remotely cheap or unfair.

>go to /vg/ ssbg
>over 700 posts
>search for jank
>0 results
no

Okay so that clears up jank for me but I still feel shorter blastzones should fall under stage knowledge. I can see arguments for Halberd's random hazards and camping/stalling on certain transformations of Delfino but to point out the short blastzones as a flaw or a reason to ban a stage seems odd to me. People want less variance and less skewed results, wanting the best player to come out on top without a stages 'jank' cutting them short and having some low(er) skilled player win a tournament. That makes sense but to say that short blastzones immediately encourage that seems...odd. Having numerous stages with short blastzones I can get, sure. If you're fighting a Fox and you only have 1 ban and both Delfino and Halberd are options, I could see that 'skewing' results perhaps but unless T&C is considered low enough for Fox (or any other vertical killer) then I don't see a problem with having at least one of these 'problematic' low ceiling stages legal.

I'm largely ignorant towards this kinda thing so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Results get more consistent the longer the game takes. It's a big argument for 3stock over 2stock. Same basically goes with short blastzone instakills being shortcuts. I am slowly questioning Halberds legal status but if you die early on Delfino you just downright ****ed up.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

I had this huge lovely post made but decided to cut it and shorten it to this: what exactly is 'jank' and why are short blastzones a problem? Shouldn't they fall under the idea of stage knowledge? I can see having too many short blastzone stages being a problem but to outright call short blastzones a reason to ban a stage seems odd to me.

Jank is what happens when a player doesn't like a a stage, custom move, etc. but is unable to articulate exactly why, so instead of explaning what their problem is they call it jank and move on

 

[Krysco]

Results get more consistent the longer the game takes. It's a big argument for 3stock over 2stock. Same basically goes with short blastzone instakills being shortcuts. I am slowly questioning Halberds legal status but if you die early on Delfino you just downright ****ed up.

I suppose that makes sense, though with that logic, a match with a Fox or a Ganondorf will have more consistent results than a match with a Duck Hunt or Villager, regardless of stage. Again, I'm fine with the reasoning of 'Halberd or Delfino should be banned because if left legal, we'll have too many low ceiling stages. but to ban them just off the low ceiling alone seems wrong. I can see Halberd kicking the bucket first though since it has hazards and random ones at that.

Jank is what happens when a player doesn't like a a stage, custom move, etc. but is unable to articulate exactly why, so instead of explaning what their problem is they call it jank and move on

See, that's my problem with the word. It's derogative towards whatever it's associated with but doesn't...explain anything. 'Wind Kong is jank!' okay...meaning? 'It's bad!' Okay...why is it bad? And then the reasoning comes out. To be more on topic, the same applies to stages. Calling a stage jank is shorter and easier than explaining its flaws but then you just get people asking what's jank about it. Seems like a foolish word that's just easy to throw around :/

 

[b2jammer]

>go to /vg/ ssbg
>over 700 posts
>search for jank
>0 results
no

Okay, I'll admit it was a pretty big assumption. I've never been there myself. 4chan wasn't my point either way, just in case it wasn't clear

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

Okay, I'll admit it was a pretty big assumption. I've never been there myself. 4chan wasn't my point either way, just in case it wasn't clear

I just like ********.
Fun fact: times Jank posted on 4chan: 6226
times top kek posted on 4chan: 215906

I suppose that makes sense, though with that logic, a match with a Fox or a Ganondorf will have more consistent results than a match with a Duck Hunt or Villager, regardless of stage. Again, I'm fine with the reasoning of 'Halberd or Delfino should be banned because if left legal, we'll have too many low ceiling stages. but to ban them just off the low ceiling alone seems wrong. I can see Halberd kicking the bucket first though since it has hazards and random ones at that.

The problem with halberd is that a majority of high tier profits heavily of the low ceiling of halberd thanks to hoo hah being common among them, and you have that low ceiling all the time, unlike on Delfino for example.

 

[Krysco]

The problem with halberd is that a majority of high tier profits heavily of the low ceiling of halberd thanks to hoo hah being common among them, and you have that low ceiling all the time, unlike on Delfino for example.

That makes sense. Halberd's is a consistent problem while Delfino's is only temporary. The top tier bit also makes sense but it hardly means much imo. Top tiers are used a lot simply because they're top tier and Halberd being legal would just make them used more so all it does is give the lower tiers less reason to be used...bit off topic but come to think of it that might partly explain the lack of relevance most characters past the top 8 had in Brawl, stages getting banned that hindered the top tiers.

 

[Piford]

So now that it seems a lot of places are banning Halberd, Castle Siege, and Delfino Plaza, do I have to start arguing why Town and City, Battlefield, Duck Hunt, and Lylat Cruise deserve to be legal stages? I saw a lot of complaints about Duck Hunt (Tree is tall, Duck's block projectiles, Dog interrupts stuff) and Lylat Cruise (Tilting, ledges) before (probably more than Delfino Plaza up until like last week), but most people just shrugged it off. Town and City also had a lot of complaints since the platforms can kill you, it transforms, and the ceiling is lower than Smashville's. Battlefield had a lot of complaints about having too big blastzones, having weird ledges (granted Miiverse fixes this), people falling through it, way to similar to Dreamland, platforms are weird (heard it, don't know what it means).

I don't even know how to start defending these stages as these complaints are going to be taken more and more seriously as we get stricter and stricter. Like with things like "temporary walk-offs are bad and worth banning a stage over," I had a well thought out argument that I could refute with; however, with complaints on these stages I feel like my arguments can really only be there not issues. I mean they don't make the better player lose, so it's not. I feel like the arguments are just going to develop into "they are issues" "no they're not" "yes they are" kind of arguments, which will result in the stages getting banned because there's not good reason to keep them legal. I'm especially worried about Duck Hunt and Lylat Cruise because they are counter-picks. Counterpicks really just mean "soon to be banned." I really just don't know how to argue for these stages, so how should I go about doing so. I'm afraid we're going to be seeing a Dreamland, Final Destination, and Smashville only list, which at that point doing Omega only would probably just be better because of For Glory.

Sorry for the slight rant.

 

[Illuminose]

I think all of the other stages are here to stay. Delfino, Siege, Halberd though...those are on their way out I think.

 

[san.]

I think Delfino is okay, but I still prefer Skyloft to it.

Castle siege would be alright if the transitions weren't so wacky in this game. I think it's annoying but fine because of that.

I still think Halberd is bannable, but I'm going to wait and see for a little while more to see how the patch affected things.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

So now that it seems a lot of places are banning Halberd, Castle Siege, and Delfino Plaza, do I have to start arguing why Town and City, Battlefield, Duck Hunt, and Lylat Cruise deserve to be legal stages? I saw a lot of complaints about Duck Hunt (Tree is tall, Duck's block projectiles, Dog interrupts stuff) and Lylat Cruise (Tilting, ledges) before (probably more than Delfino Plaza up until like last week), but most people just shrugged it off. Town and City also had a lot of complaints since the platforms can kill you, it transforms, and the ceiling is lower than Smashville's. Battlefield had a lot of complaints about having too big blastzones, having weird ledges (granted Miiverse fixes this), people falling through it, way to similar to Dreamland, platforms are weird (heard it, don't know what it means).

I don't even know how to start defending these stages as these complaints are going to be taken more and more seriously as we get stricter and stricter. Like with things like "temporary walk-offs are bad and worth banning a stage over," I had a well thought out argument that I could refute with; however, with complaints on these stages I feel like my arguments can really only be there not issues. I mean they don't make the better player lose, so it's not. I feel like the arguments are just going to develop into "they are issues" "no they're not" "yes they are" kind of arguments, which will result in the stages getting banned because there's not good reason to keep them legal. I'm especially worried about Duck Hunt and Lylat Cruise because they are counter-picks. Counterpicks really just mean "soon to be banned." I really just don't know how to argue for these stages, so how should I go about doing so. I'm afraid we're going to be seeing a Dreamland, Final Destination, and Smashville only list, which at that point doing Omega only would probably just be better because of For Glory.

Sorry for the slight rant.

The tree is on the far left side of the stage, unless someone recovers high, or is launched close to the ceiling, the tree doesn't affect things. The ducks usually aren't in the way. The dog can throw you off guard a bit, but it's not like it's going to kill anyone.

The tilting is not enough to kill you unlike in Pilot Wings, and the only thing it throws off is projectile based characters. Most of which can change their strategy slightly and be fine. (Shot Put gets extra distance when sliding down a slope, Crash Bomber can be attached to the floor to limit movement options, etc.)

I'm sorry but you either have to not be paying attention, or a CPU to get killed by Town & City's platforms. (Though they should patch in the ability to walk off those platforms as they leave. It's weird that you can't.) Also, why is transforming suddenly the worst thing in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong but both Pokémon Stadiums were considered to be one of the most neutral stages at some point because of transformations.

I've never had that happen.

It made sense for Super Smash Bros. since there were only a few stages, but with the plethora of stages we have now (many of which were legal in the past games) it is kinda silly to have only three stages available. We shouldn't ban stages just because they look funny.

 

[Ghostbone]

"It's too jank."

It's not part of the flat + plat agenda

And here we see the disconnect between the stage discussion thread and the real world
How could anyone possibly disagree with our opinion on stages and have valid arguments? They must be scrubs who only won't to play on static stages, rather than playing the real smash bros!


I'm not specifically saying Delfino should be banned (still up to preference), but to blatantly ignore all the problem's Delfino has and all the arguments against it... really guys?

 

[dav3yb]

So I just had an interesting idea about the current stage strike system... or perhaps an alternative...

First off, this kind of assumes there are 15 decent stages to select from, which is not a huge stretch:

Battlefield
FD (Omega)
Delfino Plaza
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Skyloft
Town and City
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Halberd
Duck Hunt
Wuhu Island
Kongo Jungle 64

which we've had for a while now, and maybe add:

Dreamland 64
Peaches Castle 64

So you have 15 total stages, and now, you break them into groups of 5 (I'm not sure which stages would go where here, but they would probably have a nice balance of the "neutral" stages in each group.

So you have these 3 groups, A, B, and C, each with 5 maps in them. When you sit down for match, each player first strikes a group, then proceeds to 1-2-1 the final set for the first match.

Game 2, Winner will start by striking a single set of stages, then one or two stages from the remaining groups (or one from each maybe? Or even just striking the set and leaving the remaining 10 to choose from), and the losing opponent will pick a stage from the remaining stages.

Game 3 would follow suit like any normal stage bans/pick method.

It might seem a bit... out there, but it came to me randomly and I honestly just felt the need to share the idea, and get feedback on.

Obviously the stages and which set they go into would need to be carefully determined, but it might lead to more stage diversity, since it would be a bit quicker than striking 13 stages from the full list, and also allow for a strike of a lot of stages all at once. The issue i can see here is the potential power in striking so many stages at once, but thats where carefully thinking out which stages go into which set comes in.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

So I just had an interesting idea about the current stage strike system... or perhaps an alternative...

First off, this kind of assumes there are 15 decent stages to select from, which is not a huge stretch:

Battlefield
FD (Omega)
Delfino Plaza
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Skyloft
Town and City
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Halberd
Duck Hunt
Wuhu Island
Kongo Jungle 64

which we've had for a while now, and maybe add:

Dreamland 64
Peaches Castle 64

So you have 15 total stages, and now, you break them into groups of 5 (I'm not sure which stages would go where here, but they would probably have a nice balance of the "neutral" stages in each group.

So you have these 3 groups, A, B, and C, each with 5 maps in them. When you sit down for match, each player first strikes a group, then proceeds to 1-2-1 the final set for the first match.

Game 2, Winner will start by striking a single set of stages, then one or two stages from the remaining groups (or one from each maybe? Or even just striking the set and leaving the remaining 10 to choose from), and the losing opponent will pick a stage from the remaining stages.

Game 3 would follow suit like any normal stage bans/pick method.

It might seem a bit... out there, but it came to me randomly and I honestly just felt the need to share the idea, and get feedback on.

Obviously the stages and which set they go into would need to be carefully determined, but it might lead to more stage diversity, since it would be a bit quicker than striking 13 stages from the full list, and also allow for a strike of a lot of stages all at once. The issue i can see here is the potential power in striking so many stages at once, but thats where carefully thinking out which stages go into which set comes in.

Seems too complicated. Overall FLSS is the simplest way to do it, but even Starter/Counterpick is simpler, and no one is going to want to go through that monstrosity of a procedure.

It's an interesting idea, but just too complicated compared to already exsisting systems

 

[dav3yb]

Seems too complicated. Overall FLSS is the simplest way to do it, but even Starter/Counterpick is simpler, and no one is going to want to go through that monstrosity of a procedure.

It's an interesting idea, but just too complicated compared to already exsisting systems

might be true, but you're still striking, just in a slightly different way. I could see it taking a bit to get people to understand the exact procedure, but as we saw with EVO, people just dont care to sit there FLSS (some anyways). To new people, the starter/counter-pick method i feel would be just as complicated as this would be. I might try and flesh it out some more, and have some of my local friends give it shot to see. Might end up a flop, or a decent alternative.

 

[[Deuce]]

Stage Bans: After each game of the set, before counterpicking, the player who won the previous game may ban one stage from the stagelist. This rule is not in effect for best-of-5 sets. All stage bans affect both players, meaning players who banned a stage may NOT counterpick that stage themselves later in the set.

What do people think of this rule

 

[Ghostbone]

It's dumb
Stage bans should be updated after every game.
Though I'm pretty sure that rule is the way it's worded at most tournaments.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

And here we see the disconnect between the stage discussion thread and the real world
How could anyone possibly disagree with our opinion on stages and have valid arguments? They must be scrubs who only won't to play on static stages, rather than playing the real smash bros!


I'm not specifically saying Delfino should be banned (still up to preference), but to blatantly ignore all the problem's Delfino has and all the arguments against it... really guys?

Well, when the arguments against Delfino and Wuhu that I've seen in the past couple of days on Reddit boil down to "these transformations are too weird" then my only real rejoinder is yes...that's sort of the point.

I mean, someone says the boat transformation on Wuhu should singlehandedly be enough to ban the entire stage. Never mind that it's tied for rarest transformation (literally 1 out of every 16 forms), you don't start getting pulled along by the water until you surface and start treading water, most characters are kind of screwed over if they're caught offstage below the ledge anyway, and you can avoid the whole thing by...gasp...recovering high. What a novel concept, a stage (transformation, really) that encourages alternate recovery patterns. Stop the presses, we need to ban this right now.

Sorry for the snark, I'm just getting a bit worn down over this. Smash 4 has roughly 50 stages and at this rate we'll only be playing on 5 or 6 of them.

 

[[Deuce]]

Sorry for the snark, I'm just getting a bit worn down over this. Smash 4 has roughly 50 stages and at this rate we'll only be playing on 5 or 6 of them.

A damn shame too. Sakurai keeps upping the stage output and our community only has the patience (capacity?) for 6/7.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

A damn shame too. Sakurai keeps upping the stage output and our community only has the patience (capacity?) for 6/7.

I posed the question earlier (maybe even in this thread? I'm not going to dig around and look) about what we would do if, somehow, we got a stage list of 20+ unique stages, all of which were stable/non-janky/pick your positive descriptor of choice. IIRC the answer was still "just use a few of them".

 

[Infinite901]

I posed the question earlier (maybe even in this thread? I'm not going to dig around and look) about what we would do if, somehow, we got a stage list of 20+ unique stages, all of which were stable/non-janky/pick your positive descriptor of choice. IIRC the answer was still "just use a few of them".

In fact, this has happened with Project M. I've seen people rejoicing 3-stage starter lists.

For Project M.

Let that sink in.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

In fact, this has happened with Project M. I've seen people rejoicing 3-stage starter lists.

For Project M.

Let that sink in.

Let me guess. FD/BF/SV?

 

[KeithTheGeek]

While I'm all for bigger stage lists and covering a wider breadth of stage types, I do believe that there can be such a thing as too many stages to work with. As mentioned, PM has sort of ran into the issue where they have too many potential legal stages to work with that, while all technically unique from one another, may not offer enough meaningful differences to really warrant a particularly large stage list. That said, I've never seen a PM tourney run a 3 stage starter list, and that's just so silly...it veers too far into the opposite end of this discussion.

But, regardless, PM is a different game. As for Smash 4, I don't even think I would mind a smaller stage list as long as we covered all of the bases. We need those stages that people might not like as much because of what they bring to the table for the meta. For example, stages like Delfino and Skyloft can counter act ledge stalling strategies and force character movement. I disagree with SoCal's current list though, I think that's too small and way too samey to offer any real benefit over other stage lists we've used, like the one for EVO.

 

[Balgorxz]

I don't want to live in a future where dreamland isn't a starter, I'm scared someone please hold me.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't want to live in a future where dreamland isn't a starter, I'm scared someone please hold me.

If Dreamland and Battlefield are both starters, then that starter list is biased in favor of characters that like that specific platform layout. I'd argue a starter list should aim for maximum variety within the legal stage list so that the greatest number of characters have something to work with for game 1. To do otherwise is to indirectly buff/nerf some characters based on how much they benefit/suffer from the starter list.

Consider FD/BF/SV/T&C/Lylat vs. FD/BF/SV/T&C/DL64 as starter lists. FD/Lylat are horizontally oriented, BF/T&C/DL64 are vertically oriented, and let's say Smashville is somewhere between the two. The first list has 2 horizontal, 2 vertical, and 1 in-between stage, while the other has 1 horizontal, 3 vertical, and 1 in-between stage.

EDIT: Transforming stages could also be a valid archetype, although getting people to agree to any of Delfino/Skyloft/Wuhu as a starter is probably a lost cause. Unless you consider T&C to be a transformer. (It technically is, I guess, but it misses out on what I consider a key property in that the main platform doesn't come and go. Halberd comes closer to this definition, but once again good luck getting people to agree to it as a starter.)

 

[Infinite901]

Let me guess. FD/BF/SV?

PS2 instead of FD, yeah.

I don't want to live in a future where dreamland isn't a starter, I'm scared someone please hold me.

A local I went to recently (now, they were all cool and all, don't get me wrong) were using this starter list:
FD/Battlefield/Smashville.Town & City/Miiverse.

Miiverse.

On the same starter list as Battlefield. Forget about DL64, they were using Miiverse and claiming it was different enough to put them both as starters.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

PS2 instead of FD, yeah.

A local I went to recently (now, they were all cool and all, don't get me wrong) were using this starter list:
FD/Battlefield/Smashville.Town & City/Miiverse.

Miiverse.

On the same starter list as Battlefield. Forget about DL64, they were using Miiverse and claiming it was different enough to put them both as starters.

What you need to do is pick a character that excels on Battlefield and abuse the fact that you can double dip on the stage list.

 

[Infinite901]

What you need to do is pick a character that excels on Battlefield and abuse the fact that you can double dip on the stage list.

Actually what you need is someone who excels on Battlefield and FD or Smashville.
Which means top tiers. Again. Exemplified.

 

[chaos11011]

A starter list shouldn't be the 5 stages with the least dynamic elements but rather, a list of stages that broadly cover each stage archetype (with the counter picks going more in depth with those archetypes). FD is known as the least dynamic stage but there's a reason why a lot of characters hate that stage. The nothingness is its dynamic element in its own right, which proves that every stage is dynamic, you just have to look further than walk offs and cannons.


With that being said, since the way that starter stages work and how they opt for the "fairest" stages, you could argue that FD's nothingness is permanent compared to say, Wuhu's walk offs, which appear less than 100% of the time, and thus, Wuhu would be more neutral than FD is. Not that I want FD to be a counterpick, it's just a thought exercise. My ideal list would probably be FD/Smashville/BF/Lylat + T&C or a traditional transforming stage.

 

[Ghostbone]

Actually what you need is someone who excels on Battlefield and FD or Smashville.
Which means top tiers. Again. Exemplified.

Top tiers are good on basically every stage in the game (they have more options than everyone else, and thus more ways to abuse various stage mechanics), starters included.

 

[Infinite901]

Top tiers are good on basically every stage in the game (they have more options than everyone else, and thus more ways to abuse various stage mechanics), starters included.

Yeah, that is true. Sheik gets advantages in some way from pretty much any stage legal or up for debate (except for, I don't know, Kongo 64). It's just that some stages are noticeably less advantageous towards top-tiers, and a lot of those stages are banned.

 

[dav3yb]

So, im helping with a tournament soon, and i've already replaced halberd with dreamland. I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile to replace deflino with peaches castle. on the front end, it seems a lot less of an issue, especially with the way deflino handles transformations.

I'd ideally like to keep it to 13 stages. and halberd/delfino seem like the first ones that would need to go.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

So, im helping with a tournament soon, and i've already replaced halberd with dreamland. I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile to replace deflino with peaches castle. on the front end, it seems a lot less of an issue, especially with the way deflino handles transformations.

I'd ideally like to keep it to 13 stages. and halberd/delfino seem like the first ones that would need to go.

What is your full stage list you're running? Delfino is a pretty good stage overall, there may be a better replacement choice

 

[dav3yb]

What is your full stage list you're running? Delfino is a pretty good stage overall, there may be a better replacement choice

Battlefield/Miiverse*
Final Destination / Omega Stages**
Delfino Plaza
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Skyloft
Town and City
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland 64
Wuhu Island
Kongo Jungle 64
Duck Hunt

* these stages can be interchangeable.

i'd just be pulling delfino for peaches. I'm not crazy about how it handles its transformations, if the ceiling moved with the camera instead of what it seems to do by just jumping from one location, then back to the moving platforms, i'd be keeping it for sure. but that along with what others have said its transformations being long duration walk-off intensive, makes me feel its the next to be cut.