Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Replace small blastzones/early kills with circles/circle camping or hazards/randomness, etc.
Typically on counter pick, if you ban FD, you ban all Omega FD... if you counter pick TO FD, you can choose an Omega stage, but your opponent can refuse that and default to regular FD, or another Omega.
Halberd's ceiling is static; it has nothing in common with random elements. Circle camping is frowned upon because it revolves around degenerative strategy, such as avoiding your opponent for extensive periods of time. While you might consider kills that happen earlier as a less than ideal, it in and of itself does not result in what we would consider degenerative. It could be related to certain hazards. Some hazards in the game are predictable in nature, fair in both their involvement and risk-reward. The ones you are likely referring to are the hazards that are not ideal for competitive play, like the race cars on Port Town. These detract from the experience of competition because they make the involvement of said hazard and place it as the epitome of priority due to how dangerous they are, and they produce inconsistent results because of how easily they can swing the advantage.
Hyrule Castle 64
I could understand certain ones, for reason of mainly being difficult to see things on a certain stage (like trying to see villager sapling on green hill), but I don't understand why if its your counter-pick and you choose FD, you cant just pick any omega to replace it, given that there isn't a legitimate reason for an opponent being opposed to it, not just "it has walls that helps you and not me, you cant go there" bs. Still sounds like a ****ty rule that should be done away with (as long as omega is treated as FD anyways)
The boat down-throw bug has been gone for two months now. (Sadly, videos of the bug not happening have failed to garner 30K+ views, so this fact remains obscure.)
I think this is a little hypocritical given that you need 2 bans to eliminate both Battlefield and Miiverse under this ruleset (and apparently also need 2 bans to eliminate both Final Destination and the Omegas?)
Already off to a bad start. This list very obviously favors characters that use platforms to their advantage, it's not even funny. If a character who loves platforms (let's say, Shulk) is against a character who enjoys flat, open areas (let's go with Olimar) then Shulk is going to get a major advantage right away. Shulk would of course ban FD and Smashville, and Olimar would probably ban Miiverse and BF, which would bring them to Dreamland, which still heavily favors Shulk. Honestly, this starter list is even worse than a 3-stage starter, where they would end up on a slightly more even Smashville. (though SV would still favor Olimar)
One thing I can agree with, at least. (though, with your starter list this isn't even necessarily the case)
First of all, 7 stage starter doesn't even work. You need 4x+1, so the next step up from 5 would be 9. Second, if 7 is tedious, you're either very impatient or take way too long to strike. I've done mini-tourneys in PM with 21 stages on FLSS, and the longest striking ever took was about 2 minutes or so. And people who can't keep track of strike counts should just know better, it's their fault, not the stage lists'.
This isn't exactly a reason to make them all separate starters. They're still drastically similar enough that they still all favor the same set of characters.
Lolwut? The walk-off? It's there for 5 seconds at the beginning of the match and is never seen again. If someone kills you off that walk-off, you got outplayed. Really, really, badly outplayed. I will admit that the hazards disrupt gameplay a bit (stupid claw) and the laser can lead to some overpowered strategies, but both are easily avoidable and aren't bannable. Also, Halberd is the only legal stage at EVO just by sheer happening; it's really the only good stage that even HAS hazards (dependant on what you consider "hazards" - Skyloft, Wuhu and PS2 all have pseudo-hazards) The fact that it's the only one doesn't really mean anything.
Again, the walkoff isn't much of an issue. When it transforms the walkoff camper/abuser will be FORCED to return to center stage or face an edgeguard situation, both of which will put them in a bad position if the opponent is already center-stage. It can be camped, but, once again, camping is a useless tactic on a transforming sage. Also, if projectile users just ban it anyway, then why would harming projectile users be a bannable offense? It's just a reason for counterpicking it.
Stop saying that a stage "promotes camping." You can camp on Battlefield for s***'s sake, it's not even that hard. I've camped out on Battlefield before. Should we ban Battlefield now? Of course not. You can literally camp just about anywhere, it's not a stage-specific issue. It's exemplified on some stages, for sure, but it's not a 100% bannable reason, and KJ64' camping isn't quite strong enough to meet that level. If we banned every stage where you could camp, we'd have: (to quote d1) "No stages to play on dog!" The barrel turning you into a hitbox is not an issue either - it puts you into a lot of lag and you can be easily punished for it. The only real issue with KJ64 is barrel camping, which is completely match-up specific anyway.
Final Destination removes platform play. Lylat dispromotes offstage play. See what I'm getting at? Removing a major aspect isn't inherently bad it makes a stage unique. In fact, walkoffs are even less major than those two because all these walkoffs are temporary, where FD removes platform play for the entire match.
First player strikes 2, second player strikes 3, first player picks from the 2 remaining.
The only reason PS1 is legal in Melee is because that game doesn't have enough stages, it's pretty unpopular lol.
Trent
using the hangar walk offs on Halberd as a reason at all is laughable. Ask yourself first, why should walk offs be banned in the first place? If your answer isn't that characters can camp the area close to the blast zone in order to abuse it for an easy kills, you're stuck in the Brawl days. And expecting that to happen during the ~`10 seconds of Halberd's hangar phase is hilarious.2-3-1
A little lower ceilings aren't a bannable offense if you just think about moves KOing a little bit earlier.
Yeah that's because there aren't any, but that should be the case for Halberd, because dying at any % because of combos that lead into KOs is bad.
The wind transformation has crazy 0-death-combos so that even Budget Player Cadet found them stupid enough to not have it legal.
), but here's the list that I would think is at least decent. Omega Palutena is...kinda iffy, but it's not so ridiculously big that camping is a huge issue; the more notable concern might be the rounded edges janking recoveries. Omega Pyrosphere is less janky and a bit smaller than Omega Palutena, so it might be a better pick in some instances. Omega Norfair is similar to Final Destination, but not nearly as visually distracting.) Dreamland 64 is much the same; it's always been tame and always been a good counterpick due to that. There's no reason it should be any different here. Omega Wily's Castle is decently sized, but isn't overly ridiculous.
We should not be using 2 stock. The only reason we even have been using 2 stock up to this point is For Glory, which we all already know is terrible for competitive play. Most of the community (or, at least those who voted in the ruleset poll) want to move to 3 stock.
I see the validity for 3 stock in an environment where time is not a concern. However, there are match ups in this game that when played properly or at a high level will result in long matches, some of them going to time in every instance. Now, you can adjust the stocks, or you can adjust the time limit. I do not feel that adjusting the time limit so that it is shorter in duration while upping the stock count to 3 is systemically a good idea because while some match ups are longer in duration, many of them are not. This would mean a lot of matches that generally do not go to time will. Increasing the stock count without adjusting the time limit will generally result in the same problem. It is for this reason that I feel adjusting the stock count is the more ideal alternative.
My second point, however, still stands - if you are fighting someone with an early vertical kill on Halberd, you're doing something wrong.
This is the result of characters being good. Meta Knight has a lot of stage flexibility. There are some match ups where if I lose the first game and it is my counterpick, I can take you to Delfino Plaza, Halberd, Town & City, or Duck Hunt. What do you ban? The reality is you have to cope with it, ban what you perceive to be the lesser of given evils, and play your best.
See, I find this very confusing, because I would call Dreamland the fairest stage for your given matchup of Shulk vs Olimar. If Olimar indeed likes "flat open areas," and Shulk enjoys Battlefield for being closed in, then Dreamland offers a middle ground. Not only are the platforms more spread out on Dreamland than they are on Battlefield, but they're also smaller, meaning there's quite a lot of open space between them.
I feel I should also mention that wind hitboxes seem to cause the glitch to occur more readily. It also occurs when leaving the ceiling transition, not just when arriving at it.
Bad MU example, I suppose. I admittedly don't know a whole lot about either character. The point of course still stands, that list was very heavily biased.
No.
Cool cool, didn't realize that works. Thanks.
If PS1 is unpopular then why do people still CP to it?
Bully for you then.
Does balance have a place in stage selection? And what does "balanced stages" mean anyway? If we decide to arbitrarily lock out stages because they are "unbalanced," then we need to decide exactly what is balanced and what is not. And at this, point, we really can't do that, because balance is a hard thing to determine, especially in the first year of the meta's existence.
Then I know not to get that flavor next time. Or maybe I can ask people who have been to that store before what each flavor actually is and try to get a feel for it before setting foot inside.
