Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread:

[wizrad]

DSR isn't really what's being discussed here.

 

[Pazx]

DSR isn't really what's being discussed here.

Have you read the last two pages?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Have you read the last two pages?

Maybe "shouldn't be focused on quite so hard" would be a better phrasing.

 

[wizrad]

^ yeah. DSR is a separate debate. It might even warrant its own thread. If it's still being discussed with relevance to the legal stage list, it can stay here, but this seems to be heading off on a tangent.

Back on topic! I'd personally like to hear someone tell me about Kongo Jungle.

 

[M15t3R E]

^ yeah. DSR is a separate debate. It might even warrant its own thread. If it's still being discussed with relevance to the legal stage list, it can stay here, but this seems to be heading off on a tangent.

Back on topic! I'd personally like to hear someone tell me about Kongo Jungle.

Kongo Jungle 64 is alright for a CP for 1v1. It's one of those decent stages that have been overlooked.

 

[dav3yb]

I keep getting the feeling that we'll end up with a stage list that includes a few custom stages. not sure why i feel that, but it seems like where things might end up.

unless some DLC stages come in to round out the list.

 

[Yikarur]

Kongo Jungle 64 is alright for a CP for 1v1. It's one of those decent stages that have been overlooked.

Sadly not. The Stage consists of circle camping, plattform camping and barrel camping. If you have the stock lead, you should win in that instant. The stage is not competitive at all.

 

[M15t3R E]

Sadly not. The Stage consists of circle camping, plattform camping and barrel camping. If you have the stock lead, you should win in that instant. The stage is not competitive at all.

Fair enough, but there are some stages that are overlooked, like wuhu island.
Question: what is wrong with wii fit studio? Is it bad because it's a walk-off stage with no off-stage area?

 

[Kamtheman56]

Fair enough, but there are some stages that are overlooked, like wuhu island.
Question: what is wrong with wii fit studio? Is it bad because it's a walk-off stage with no off-stage area?

It's considered "bad and not legal" due to the fact that walkoffs are very prominent and players can camp the sides of the stage and throw people into the blastzone.
An I might be wrong here but I'm pretty sure the stage also has pretty big blastzones.

 

[M15t3R E]

It's considered "bad and not legal" due to the fact that walkoffs are very prominent and players can camp the sides of the stage and throw people into the blastzone.
An I might be wrong here but I'm pretty sure the stage also has pretty big blastzones.

I was wondering about how people would feel about walk-off stages ever since I learned that this game would have no chaingabs. I suppose the decision is for the best. Still, our starter and CP list could be larger.

 

[Yikarur]

Permanent Walk-Offs are an absolute no-go. The Game centralizes on walk off camping and super high risk super high reward Situations.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

Additionally to the cheese grater and the bumper the layout is just not thaat suited for competitive play.
Everytime I play on this stage the battle is about who can camp the lowest section (the moving tiles) the most, because the position is insanely advantagous. For that reason I personally would not like to play on that stage. It creates a certain, defensive playstyle with an odd risk/reward ratio if you follow a certain strategy that doesn't make it seem like a fair competition.

I like the stage but yeah, the bottom layout really does that. Only redeeming factor of the bottom part is that you're at disadvantage if you're standing on the moving part and it disappears because you have to commit to a jump.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It's considered "bad and not legal" due to the fact that walkoffs are very prominent and players can camp the sides of the stage and throw people into the blastzone.
An I might be wrong here but I'm pretty sure the stage also has pretty big blastzones.

Wii Fit Studio actually has small blast zones. Incidentally, they're identical to Coliseum.

Both stages would be instantly legal if they just applied their platform stuff to the Omega forms, IMO. The walkoffs are really their only flaw.

 

[ぱみゅ]

All things considered, I think Peach's Castle is a great stage as it incentives stage knowledge, stage control, and rewards the ability of chose which terrain to fight on (either higher or lower ground). It is pretty polarizing as you need decent mobility to stand a chance, but then again, what is the point of a counterpick system if certain strategies are to be kept in check while others do not (as long as they're not degenerative like circle camping)?

 

[teluoborg]

It doesn't reward your ability to choose the terrain to fight on, it rewards your ability to take control of the lower part and keep it. There is no reward for choosing to fight on the higher part when your opponent is under you. Ever.
You say that you need decent mobility to take advantage of it but KJ64 is the same : if you get enough mobility you can get from one platform to the other or from one edge of the stage to the other with just one jump, making yourself very hard to catch without limiting your options.

Think about it on what options it gives to players, and if you want those options to be victory factors in competitive play.

@ M15t3R E : even without chaingrabs there are a lot of character who gain ridiculous chains and combos due to the ability to walk off tthe stage. Sheik, Pikachu and Falcon come to mind immediately but many characters can abuse walk offs in an over polarizing way.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

One of the things I like about walkoffs in theory is that it changes how recovery is considered, which benefits characters without good recoveries. However, that one benefit doesn't outweigh the massive downsides of a permanent walkoff. I would have liked to see stages experiment with the walkoff model, but alter it in ways that actually make competitive sense.

Like maybe a stage that has lava or spikes in the lower area, preventing any death by bottom blastzone but still punishing players who can't make it back. Or a walkoff stage with hills on either side (think right side of Melee Yoshi's Island) so being near the blastzone becomes a disadvantageous position to be in. Or a stage where the walkoffs appear and disappear, discouraging walkoff camping and rewarding players who choose stage control over cheap kills. Unova Pokemon League satisfies both of the second ones iirc, and would be an interesting stage if not for the hazards. Alas, the only stages that do this are the traveling ones, and even then variable walkoffs aren't the main feature, so idk.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Unova Pokémon League's hazards aren't too extreme either. The worst they can do is Reshiram's fire forcing characters to camp for like 10 seconds.
Other than that, Siege, Delfino, Wuhu and Skyloft all cover your criteria.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

Unova Pokémon League's hazards aren't too extreme either. The worst they can do is Reshiram's fire forcing characters to camp for like 10 seconds.
Other than that, Siege, Delfino, Wuhu and Skyloft all cover your criteria.

And I like all four stages. (with Unova, even if the hazards are light, I still find them to be a bit much) But I'm talking about a stage where the walkoff dynamic is the primary feature on an otherwise flat+plat stage. With Seige, only one of the three forms has walkoffs, and the transformation doesn't leave the camper in as bad a position as I would like. (the optimal would be how the walkoffs would come in and leave in the Water form of Kalos League) The three traveling stages are great and I will defend Delfino and especially Wuhu to the death, (skyloft's building hitboxes are a flaw I totally get but Wuhu is amazing) but they both have transformations that don't use walkoffs, and the ones that do are flat and campable. (Though a stage that always had water would fit what I'm looking for, but delfino doesn't always have water) Plus the temporary walkoffs aren't the main draw of those stages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

One of the things I like about walkoffs in theory is that it changes how recovery is considered, which benefits characters without good recoveries. However, that one benefit doesn't outweigh the massive downsides of a permanent walkoff. I would have liked to see stages experiment with the walkoff model, but alter it in ways that actually make competitive sense.

Like maybe a stage that has lava or spikes in the lower area, preventing any death by bottom blastzone but still punishing players who can't make it back. Or a walkoff stage with hills on either side (think right side of Melee Yoshi's Island) so being near the blastzone becomes a disadvantageous position to be in. Or a stage where the walkoffs appear and disappear, discouraging walkoff camping and rewarding players who choose stage control over cheap kills. Unova Pokemon League satisfies both of the second ones iirc, and would be an interesting stage if not for the hazards. Alas, the only stages that do this are the traveling ones, and even then variable walkoffs aren't the main feature, so idk.

Another idea: scrolling walkoff? I imagine it would be harder to camp the sides when the floor's constantly moving under your feet.

The lava floor idea's actually doable as a custom stage.

 

[wizrad]

I just want Metal Cavern 64 as DLC. We need more small stages and we need more non-flat stages. Metal Cavern 64 would be both.

 

[Ghostbone]

Another idea: scrolling walkoff?

I mean, mushroomy kingdom is a pretty awful stage.

 

[ZeGlasses!]

I think the problem with walkoffs in general is the remove of an integral part of the game: Offstage Play.

Characters with weak recoveries or weak offstage/edgeguarding game are made inherently stronger with the removal of, yknow, OFFSTAGE.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I mean, mushroomy kingdom is a pretty awful stage.

Mushroomy Kingdom has...a lot going on. But a completely flat walkoff, with a modest scroll speed? Maybe some non-scrolling platforms for stability?

EDIT:

I think the problem with walkoffs in general is the remove of an integral part of the game: Offstage Play.

Characters with weak recoveries or weak offstage/edgeguarding game are made inherently stronger with the removal of, yknow, OFFSTAGE.

I don't think this is inherently a bad thing.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

Another idea: scrolling walkoff? I imagine it would be harder to camp the sides when the floor's constantly moving under your feet.

The lava floor idea's actually doable as a custom stage.

Yes, and I made that custom stage. Two of them, in fact, one flat + plat + lava, and one that was the same thing except the stage itself was also slanted slightly. Alas, I don't see custom stages actually being used in tourneys.

I mean, mushroomy kingdom is a pretty awful stage.

It is, but the Balanced Brawl version of 1-1 is good. It raises the ceiling and halves the scrolling speed. I think a scrolling stage could work if it scrolled fairly slowly.

I think the problem with walkoffs in general is the remove of an integral part of the game: Offstage Play.

Characters with weak recoveries or weak offstage/edgeguarding game are made inherently stronger with the removal of, yknow, OFFSTAGE.

The same could be said for FD and its unique lack of platforms. Characters that lack good vertical killing options are made inherently stronger with a high ceiling. A stage in which characters who aren't good offstage could be okay in isn't THAT far off from stage selection in the first place.

Mushroomy Kingdom has...a lot going on. But a completely flat walkoff, with a modest scroll speed? Maybe some non-scrolling platforms for stability?

Im imagining Wii Fit Studio, with the floor replaced with a slow-moving treadmill. Yes. Or even have the treadmill portions be at the end of the stage, taking up the space where the offstage would be. I would be 10000% hype for that.

I just want Metal Cavern 64 as DLC. We need more small stages and we need more non-flat stages. Metal Cavern 64 would be both.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES PLEASE. And while we're at it, bring back the Melee Battlefield theme for it

 

[Ghostbone]

Scrolling stages like that are also bad because one player is automatically at an advantageous position because the other person will end up at the blastzone first.

If you've ever played on mushroomy kingdom 1-1, it's ridiculous to be the person starting on the left because you're already at a massive disadvantage positionally. I've probably played on every single stage in Brawl looking for how to abuse them and mushroomy kingdom is definitely one of the easiest, and and stage like it (walk-off side-scroller) would be pretty much just as bad.

 

[Pazx]

A walkoff stage will have walkoff-specific issues (walkoff camping, no offstage game, etc) whether it scrolls or not. If anything, scrolling amplifies these issues.

 

[Xeze]

I don't know how anyone would even consider a scrolling stage for tournament legal.

I'd be 100% up for Metal Cavern 64 as a DLC though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't know how anyone would even consider a scrolling stage for tournament legal.

I'd be 100% up for Metal Cavern 64 as a DLC though.

IIRC Rainbow Cruise was legal for a while in Brawl until Meta Knight started tearing everything up and they banned it in an attempt to curb his dominance. Not sure about Melee.

 

[wizrad]

Rainbow Cruise was also legal in Melee for years until Fox became dominant and it was banned because he's so mobile and that stage heavily favors mobile characters. I'd say it should be legal if it were in this game.

Also, VOTE METAL CAVERN 64 IN SMASH BALLOT!

 

[Yikarur]

Rainbow Cruise was a terrible stage. I was timing people out on there all the time. It was a fun time 8)

 

[teluoborg]

Why is this place turning into a stage version of the character ballot forum ? I thought we were here to discuss stages that actually exist and if they should be used in competitive play.

Scrolling stages are like walk off stages except if your opponent is camping the walkoff you get punished for not approaching.

Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar were legal in Brawl until everybody discovered what options they gave to MK and other aerial characters (GW comes to mind too). Mute City was legal in Melee at some point too, and was banned for the same reasons.

It's okay to have one stage that boosts the gameplay of a certain classe of character, it's not okay to have 3.

 

[MrGame&Rock]

Also, VOTE METAL CAVERN 64 IN SMASH BALLOT!

Already did.

@everone saying why scrolling stages are a bad idea: touche. But I'd like to raise again one of my ideas: A walkoff stage, with a platform layout similar to wii fit studio or something, with conveyor belts. The stable part of the stage has the width of FD, and then from the ends of the stable portion to the blastzones are conveyor belts that point towards the blastzone. So camping the walkoff would only get you killed. IDK

 

[ぱみゅ]

It's okay to have one stage that boosts the gameplay of a certain classe of character, it's not okay to have 3.

Are we really going to count how many stages favor certain kind of strategies?

 

[teluoborg]

Are we really going to count how many stages favor certain kind of strategies?

well mindlessly flopping together all the stages deemed legal has shown its limits hasn't it ? But I agree it's much easier to turn your brain off and repeat the mistakes from the past.

 

[chaos11011]

What about a walk off stage in vein of Final Destination + Pokemon Stadium 2? What I mean by that is, the stage itself is an omega stage with walls (like Onett) and the offstage itself is replaced with conveyor belts that push people back to the stage as opposed to PS2 pushing them out. Make the conveyor belt section big enough that you cant just Fair chain someone to the blastline because half way through, theyll hit the belt and itll ruin their positioning. Maybe add a cool platform layout in it (maybe the Wii Fit / Coliseum). It can be a CP that benefits characters who are easily gimped vs characters who rely on gimping. You couldnt camp the blastline because you would be pushed back to the stage.

 

[ぱみゅ]

look, the thing is that we should not be banning stuff to cater or diminish characters' attributes.
We allow stuff that are fair.
If tons of dynamic stages are fair, characters that can't adapt to these changes and depend on static environments would be bad, that's not a reason to ban the change.

But guess what? That's what has been done for the last Smash iterations.

 

[teluoborg]

But you're wrong. Just take a look at Brawl's history
-Rainbow Cruise, banned because it enabled MK's ability to air camp even more than regular stages. Some other characters with high air mobility could abuse the platform layout and the scrolling
-Brinstar, banned because of how powerful the sharking was on the stage (MK but also Jiggs and GW)
-Jungle Japes, banned because the multiple ledges and the very spread horizontal layout gave characters like Falco (and to some extent DK) broken mobility options
-Norfair, banned because the stage layout and the multiple ledges encouraged defensive play and gave certain characters the option to circle camp
-And let's not even talk about how DDD and other chaingrabbers (like Falco and Pikachu) straight out forbad that we even consider walkoffs or permanent walls.

So I'm asking you : if this is not "banning stuff to cater or diminish character's attributes" then what is it ?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

But you're wrong. Just take a look at Brawl's history
-Rainbow Cruise, banned because it enabled MK's ability to air camp even more than regular stages. Some other characters with high air mobility could abuse the platform layout and the scrolling
-Brinstar, banned because of how powerful the sharking was on the stage (MK but also Jiggs and GW)
-Jungle Japes, banned because the multiple ledges and the very spread horizontal layout gave characters like Falco (and to some extent DK) broken mobility options
-Norfair, banned because the stage layout and the multiple ledges encouraged defensive play and gave certain characters the option to circle camp
-And let's not even talk about how DDD and other chaingrabbers (like Falco and Pikachu) straight out forbad that we even consider walkoffs or permanent walls.

So I'm asking you : if this is not "banning stuff to cater or diminish character's attributes" then what is it ?

It also didn't work. Meta Knight remained dominant throughout Brawl, and banning Rainbow Cruise et al led directly to the rise of the Ice Climbers since the now-banned stages were basically auto-lose counterpicks. I would also tentatively hypothesize that Jigglypuff and G&W probably could have used the boost from having those stages legal since AFAIK neither was particularly amazing in Brawl, so banning the stages to curb Meta Knight also nerfed some characters that really didn't need the nerfing.

Walkoffs I'll grant, but they have other things working against them besides simply chaingrabs as proven by the fact that they remain banned en masse in 4 despite chaingrabs being nonexistent. So clearly it wasn't just Dedede's chaingrab.

Norfair banned for "encouraging defensive play," while probably accurate, seems really childish to me, as if the powers that be decided that defensive play is something that shouldn't be viable.

Also, kyokoro said we should not ban stages in an attempt to balance characters, not that it never happened. Because Brawl is an obvious counterexample. And frankly Brawl is an amazing case study showing how it can have unforseen consequences. Did anyone actually expect the Ice Climbers to become #2 the way they did afterwards? (Honest question, I don't know the answer.)

Lastly, fair warning that I'll be super busy all day today so I probably won't be able to engage in a back-and-forth on this.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Everything I would reply with was already stated by the kids' favorite Drone.

Catering/nerfing playstyles via the stagelist has been done in the past... with poor results.
Then again, shaping the list to reflect that is simply NOT FAIR.
Why would you ban Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise on a MetaKnight-less game? Because 3 or less not incredibly popular characters are good?


And yes, Ice Climbers' rise was, for the most part, a result of shrinking the stagelist in order to keep Meta Knight in check.

 

[teluoborg]

It also didn't work. Meta Knight remained dominant throughout Brawl, and banning Rainbow Cruise et al led directly to the rise of the Ice Climbers since the now-banned stages were basically auto-lose counterpicks.

That last sentence is a very bold statement. I've known and seen IC players win on RC, just because a grab doesn't result in a stock loss doesn't mean damage can't be done.

I would also tentatively hypothesize that Jigglypuff and G&W probably could have used the boost from having those stages legal since AFAIK neither was particularly amazing in Brawl, so banning the stages to curb Meta Knight also nerfed some characters that really didn't need the nerfing.

This is true and was an argument that was brought multiple times by stage liberals but the answer was always the same : MK was just too strong in Brawl. Remember we're talking about a character that had a rule created just for him and was temporarly banned at some point. Allowing those stages wouldn't have given Jiggs/GW better chances in tournaments since MK was there.

Walkoffs I'll grant, but they have other things working against them besides simply chaingrabs as proven by the fact that they remain banned en masse in 4 despite chaingrabs being nonexistent. So clearly it wasn't just Dedede's chaingrab.

Yes but as you can see people are discussing their viability in smash 4. In brawl there was no discussion because the CGs brought everyone to a consensus.

Norfair banned for "encouraging defensive play," while probably accurate, seems really childish to me, as if the powers that be decided that defensive play is something that shouldn't be viable.

Well let me develop then : Norfair and its multipleledges promoted a kind of defensive play that had no competitive value (ledge camping and circle camping). There's a limit to how much defensive play should be rewarded in a fighting game, and though where to put this limit is subjective circle and ledge camping are beyond any grey area.

Also, kyokoro said we should not ban stages in an attempt to balance characters, not that it never happened. Because Brawl is an obvious counterexample. And frankly Brawl is an amazing case study showing how it can have unforseen consequences. Did anyone actually expect the Ice Climbers to become #2 the way they did afterwards? (Honest question, I don't know the answer.)

I said in my previous posts that it's not just Brawl. It happened in Melee too where at some points Corneria and Mute City were legal. I won't talk much about Melee because I wasn't active in its prime but it happened too.

Everything I would reply with was already stated by the kids' favorite Drone.

Catering/nerfing playstyles via the stagelist has been done in the past... with poor results.
Then again, shaping the list to reflect that is simply NOT FAIR.
Why would you ban Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise on a MetaKnight-less game? Because 3 or less not incredibly popular characters are good?


And yes, Ice Climbers' rise was, for the most part, a result of shrinking the stagelist in order to keep Meta Knight in check.

"Catering/nerfing playstyles via the stagelist has been done in the past... with poor results". I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand what you're writing : catering to playstyles is the essence of banning stages. You ban Palutena, Onett, Port town or GCO because they cater to a playstyle that is not fit for competitive play.
"Why would you ban Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise on a MetaKnight-less game? Because 3 or less not incredibly popular characters are good?" Just because there isn't a character as overcentralizing as MK doesn't mean there aren't overcentralizing strategies. What ZSS can do with a low ceiling, or what Sheik can do with walkoffs isn't less stupid than what MK could do on Delfino's main platform.