Meta Stage Legality Discussion Thread:

[Ghostbone]

If PS1 is unpopular then why do people still CP to it?

If temple was legal people would CP it lol.

 

[T4ylor]

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.

What if some of the ice creams are bad and it's not your choice as to which one you're going to get? What if your mom buys you poo flavor or something?

By the way, are we still talking about stage selection?

 

[Illuminose]

My second point, however, still stands - if you are fighting someone with an early vertical kill on Halberd, you're doing something wrong.

If the fact that you can or should ban a stage is being used as a point in favor of allowing it, the stage is not good in the first place. There's too many characters with good vertical kill options in this game for such a low ceiling to be acceptable. This isn't something that relates to individual characters. It's actually something that relates to much of the cast. Halberd is a very favorable stage for Sheik (dthrow -> uair kill at 80), Rosalina & Luma, Luigi (dthrow -> tornado kills earlier), Zero Suit Samus, Fox, Yoshi, and Diddy Kong. It's also a very good stage for Pikachu and Ness. That's 9 characters out of the top ~12. That's not even mentioning low tier characters with good vertical kill options. The fact that Halberd can be almost an autoban against so many characters is pretty unacceptable. This is why ultra low ceilings are bad for the game.

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.

IMO, instead of having a small selection of balanced stages, we should have a large variety of stages, which would test players knowledge of stages, matchups, and how the stages affect matchups, as well as evening out the matchs played between stages, trying to stop a particular few stages from centralizing the metagame, like we have now with FD SV BF

Also, 13 is not a large number. Even if it is, we can use the random stage selection switches to track it, or hell, just write it down on paper and put one by each set so stages are displayed.

We actually do have a workable definition for stage balance, at least in a rough sense. It is for this reason that we actually ban stages in the first place! A stage's balance is determined by the factors on the stage that affect gameplay. This is mostly in regards to whether a stage promotes or enables gameplay that we would define as degenerate. Degenerate gameplay is basically gameplay in which the game is simplified or made unplayable in a certain sense. This is mostly applicable to stages with hazards that interfere with gameplay and stages that promote and/or enable camping, especially stages that allow for circle camping or have barriers that actively discourage approaching. We also usually apply this to walkoffs, especially permanent ones, because of walkoff camping and characters with powerful horizontal strings that can easily carry characters into the blastzones, such as Sheik and Ness. We have over a decade of Smash as a whole and almost a year of Smash 4 already that back up these balanced-related determinations. This mindset that we have to try everything only prevents our metagame from developing.

The issue with a stage list that's too large is that it becomes messy. Having too many stages makes them difficult to keep track of and think about all at once, especially when banning and selecting counterpicks. This is an inconvenience and moreover a time concern for major tournaments. Counterpicks are meant to give an advantage or comfortable pick, not an autowin or overbearing advantage. Having all these different stages causes this, unless we want to increase the number of bans which complicates the stage selection process more and is not a point in favor of adding more stages. The only reason a specific more hazardous stage could potentially be thought of as sort of neutral is because both players have to fight the stages. We're also not here to test stage knowledge. We're here to test player vs player skill in Smash. Stages are simply a platform on which for this to occur. A somewhat centralized stage list isn't a problem because the amount of stages players choose to play on is completely irrelevant to player vs player interaction. The goal of the stage list is to provide a balance of different types of stages so that characters can actually have appropriate stages on which to play the first match neutrally (hence starter stages) and the proceeding matches with the loser of each gaining a slightly improved chance of winning due to their counterpick stage. The reason that early kills are a bad thing is because they reward the ability of a player to capitalize on specific opportunities presented by the stage rather than their ability to consistently win in neutral, punish effectively, edgeguard well, or any other aspect of gameplay that relates to consistency and player skill.

This is why I don't like adding stages for the sake of adding them. Stages should be added because they add something meaningful and positive to the stage list. Melee has 6 legal stages, all of which add positive elements to gameplay. We don't need to add stages just to have more stages. We also want to make sure that the positives of a stage outweigh the negatives of a stage. This is why PS1 is a good stage in Melee. Sure, you have things like shine infinites on the ground transformation, but apart from that, everything else about the stage is pretty much hazard-free and adds interesting elements to gameplay via the stage layouts. I'm saying this because I want to make it very clear that we can't just look at the positives or negatives of a stage. Not just what's wrong with the stage or what isn't wrong with the stage, but what the stage actually brings to competitive gameplay.

One last thing: it looks really bad for stages and the game as a whole when players get killed by the stage or get down throw up air'd by Rosalina and die at 30%. It makes the game look janky, not gonna sugarcoat.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

If the fact that you can or should ban a stage is being used as a point in favor of allowing it, the stage is not good in the first place. There's too many characters with good vertical kill options in this game for such a low ceiling to be acceptable. This isn't something that relates to individual characters. It's actually something that relates to much of the cast. Halberd is a very favorable stage for Sheik (dthrow -> uair kill at 80), Rosalina & Luma, Luigi (dthrow -> tornado kills earlier), Zero Suit Samus, Fox, Yoshi, and Diddy Kong. It's also a very good stage for Pikachu and Ness. That's 9 characters out of the top ~12. That's not even mentioning low tier characters with good vertical kill options. The fact that Halberd can be almost an autoban against so many characters is pretty unacceptable. This is why ultra low ceilings are bad for the game.

We actually do have a workable definition for stage balance, at least in a rough sense. It is for this reason that we actually ban stages in the first place! A stage's balance is determined by the factors on the stage that affect gameplay. This is mostly in regards to whether a stage promotes or enables gameplay that we would define as degenerate. Degenerate gameplay is basically gameplay in which the game is simplified or made unplayable in a certain sense. This is mostly applicable to stages with hazards that interfere with gameplay and stages that promote and/or enable camping, especially stages that allow for circle camping or have barriers that actively discourage approaching. We also usually apply this to walkoffs, especially permanent ones, because of walkoff camping and characters with powerful horizontal strings that can easily carry characters into the blastzones, such as Sheik and Ness. We have over a decade of Smash as a whole and almost a year of Smash 4 already that back up these balanced-related determinations. This mindset that we have to try everything only prevents our metagame from developing.

The issue with a stage list that's too large is that it becomes messy. Having too many stages makes them difficult to keep track of and think about all at once, especially when banning and selecting counterpicks. This is an inconvenience and moreover a time concern for major tournaments. Counterpicks are meant to give an advantage or comfortable pick, not an autowin or overbearing advantage. Having all these different stages causes this, unless we want to increase the number of bans which complicates the stage selection process more and is not a point in favor of adding more stages. The only reason a specific more hazardous stage could potentially be thought of as sort of neutral is because both players have to fight the stages. We're also not here to test stage knowledge. We're here to test player vs player skill in Smash. Stages are simply a platform on which for this to occur. A somewhat centralized stage list isn't a problem because the amount of stages players choose to play on is completely irrelevant to player vs player interaction. The goal of the stage list is to provide a balance of different types of stages so that characters can actually have appropriate stages on which to play the first match neutrally (hence starter stages) and the proceeding matches with the loser of each gaining a slightly improved chance of winning due to their counterpick stage. The reason that early kills are a bad thing is because they reward the ability of a player to capitalize on specific opportunities presented by the stage rather than their ability to consistently win in neutral, punish effectively, edgeguard well, or any other aspect of gameplay that relates to consistency and player skill.

This is why I don't like adding stages for the sake of adding them. Stages should be added because they add something meaningful and positive to the stage list. Melee has 6 legal stages, all of which add positive elements to gameplay. We don't need to add stages just to have more stages. We also want to make sure that the positives of a stage outweigh the negatives of a stage. This is why PS1 is a good stage in Melee. Sure, you have things like shine infinites on the ground transformation, but apart from that, everything else about the stage is pretty much hazard-free and adds interesting elements to gameplay via the stage layouts. I'm saying this because I want to make it very clear that we can't just look at the positives or negatives of a stage. Not just what's wrong with the stage or what isn't wrong with the stage, but what the stage actually brings to competitive gameplay.

One last thing: it looks really bad for stages and the game as a whole when players get killed by the stage or get down throw up air'd by Rosalina and die at 30%. It makes the game look janky, not gonna sugarcoat.

First problem is that it is not difficult to stage strike. At all. There is literally a built in way to do it using the random stage selection switches, setting omega to the stage lists and striking off the regular.

Second, stage knowledge is an important part of any smash players repertoire. Smashvilles platform has a set timer, as does randall, and a player who used that knowledge more effectivly will beat an equally skilled player who doesn't know that. Stages require time and effort to learn, and they should be seen as an important part of the metagame, not just an unfortunate thing we tolerate to get to the good part, like the crunchy outside of a twix bar compared to the gooey caramel inside, but instead the glorious choclate peanut butter fusion of a reeses peanut butter cup.

Three, you say melee did fine with six stages. However, why should we be selective with our stage listings. Smash 4 has plenty of legal stages, and many of them contribute to gameplay in great ways, especially the travel stages, which test players ability to adapt to circumstances and maintaining good positioning.

Also, lets face it. Melee had a **** tier stage selection, like Melee Kirby bad. In many ways I hate Melee being the first hugely competitive smash, as the gradul killing off of stages seems to have led to this idea that stages are a necesary evil that would be ignored if possible

Also, PS1 fire is literally a put down your controller campfest, it has it's faults.

And if you're being killed early by Rosalina on Halberd, get better. Learn to respect grabs, postion yourself better. Whatever, worst comes to worst and you can't deal, burn a ban. A few characters with good options doesn't mean Halberd needs to be banned. It means players need to learn how to get around early stages. Education is key.

Also, stop saying janky. It's stupid and means nothing. Articulate your problems, don't just call things Janky

 

[T4ylor]

I can use that same git gud argument and apply it to any stage.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

I can use that same git gud argument and apply it to any stage.

And I would most likely agree with you. If a stage does not promote degenerate game play, a player should be expected to know the basics of a stage and how to either take advantage or stop the opponent from taking advantage.

 

[Illuminose]

First problem is that it is not difficult to stage strike. At all. There is literally a built in way to do it using the random stage selection switches, setting omega to the stage lists and striking off the regular.

Second, stage knowledge is an important part of any smash players repertoire. Smashvilles platform has a set timer, as does randall, and a player who used that knowledge more effectivly will beat an equally skilled player who doesn't know that. Stages require time and effort to learn, and they should be seen as an important part of the metagame, not just an unfortunate thing we tolerate to get to the good part, like the crunchy outside of a twix bar compared to the gooey caramel inside, but instead the glorious choclate peanut butter fusion of a reeses peanut butter cup.

Three, you say melee did fine with six stages. However, why should we be selective with our stage listings. Smash 4 has plenty of legal stages, and many of them contribute to gameplay in great ways, especially the travel stages, which test players ability to adapt to circumstances and maintaining good positioning.

Also, lets face it. Melee had a **** tier stage selection, like Melee Kirby bad. In many ways I hate Melee being the first hugely competitive smash, as the gradul killing off of stages seems to have led to this idea that stages are a necesary evil that would be ignored if possible

Also, PS1 fire is literally a put down your controller campfest, it has it's faults.

And if you're being killed early by Rosalina on Halberd, get better. Learn to respect grabs, postion yourself better. Whatever, worst comes to worst and you can't deal, burn a ban. A few characters with good options doesn't mean Halberd needs to be banned. It means players need to learn how to get around early stages. Education is key.

Also, stop saying janky. It's stupid and means nothing. Articulate your problems, don't just call things Janky

Yes, stage striking itself is facilitated by the game. The issue at hand is that stage striking itself becomes a much more arduous and difficult process when you have so many stages to deal with because it seems like all of the people who want a big stage list also want FLSS. FLSS is a waste of time, but that's not the only issue. Even if we still distinguish starters and counterpicks, we are complicating the banning process by forcing players to consider and think about all these stages, especially seeing as we'd need at least one more ban for adding stages to be reasonable.

There's a world of difference between learning basic features of commonly played stages than having to learn a whole manner of information about stages that will ultimately be somewhat rare counterpicks. Learning the time for Randall in Melee and learning how to use the moving platform on Smashville (which is pretty intuitive lol, idk what timer stuff there is but it's pretty irrelevant when you can just watch the platform) are nowhere near in the same realm as these different stages that you have spend extensive amounts of time researching and playing on to actually understand. All of these unique transforming stages place heavy emphasis on experience playing on the stages and stage research rather than actual player vs player skill. For the transfoming stages, you have to learn all of the transformations and various stage-specific gimmicks that aren't really relevant to anything else. The ability of players to abuse stage-specific gimmicks is not a manifestation of their player vs player skill, but more their willingness to tolerate those stages. Stage knowledge is important, but there's a difference between having to learn a couple things and having to learn the layouts of 10 transformations with all the specific features about them.

The purpose of my statement about Melee was that Melee is successful despite not including a massive variety of stages. Sure, that doesn't mean that we can't have a massive variety of stages, but it invalidates the argument that stage variety is inherently beneficial or necessary for Smash. That's the point of what I said. I recognize that Melee doesn't have a great stage selection.

The 'git gud' argument is stupid. It's a meaningless statement. Explain what you think is beneficial about having extremely low blastzones. Telling players to 'git gud' is the fastest way for them to ignore what you say and take you less seriously.

Finally, I didn't just call stages janky. See my huge post on the last page. I back up what I say.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Changing the subject a bit, I have a question.

Suppose we had a Smash game where every single stage in the game was a) unique (no Miiverse reskins or "close enough" cases or Omegas or anything) and b) lacking anything that could reasonably be called "jank" or "cheap" or whatever. Also suppose that there are a total of 30 stages or so. (Smash 4 has 40-something IIRC so this is actually a step down.)

In such a hypothetical situation, what would (should?) be the ideal course of action regarding stage legalization, striking, and banning procedures? I'm asking mostly out of curiosity, but I think the answer would be helpful in identifying what we actually want from a stage list. Do we want all the stages that are acceptable for competition, or do we want to artificially restrict it to a subset for whatever reason?

 

[Pazx]

I know I'm not a full competetive player (not for lack of trying when you live in the middle of nowherewithout a single semblance of a Smash scene ), but here's the list that I would think is at least decent.

STARTER:

• Battlefield/Miiverse
  
• Smashville
• Town and City
• Omega Corneria/Omega Kalos

These are the stages that aren't particularly advantageous to one strategy and are spacious enough to let players have room to breathe, but not so enormous that camping will become prevalent. Omega Corneria is pretty much the only platformless starter, and this is because it has blastzones that aren't either way too far out or way too close; there's room for aerial play, but not so much room that characters like Jigglypuff become dominating. These are all based around being as neutral to the fighters as possible. Same with Omega Kalos, but that stage could be considered a bit more iffy due to the possibly janky edges.

COUNTERPICK:

• Omega Palutena/Omega Pyrosphere/Omega Norfair
• Maybe Halberd? If not, than Lylat Cruise.
• Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
• Dreamland 64
• Omega Wily Castle

Of course, the counterpicks are to play into advantages more, since they are counterpicks. 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.

Halberd is also kind of...no, really iffy. The walkoffs aren't the issue, those don't last long and once they dissappear they leave for the whole match. It's moreso the Deck phase, which is also not because of the obvious point (lol stege hazurd) but more because the Deck phase is a lot more aggressively involved in the fight itself than, say, Randall is on Yoshi's Island. The laser can cause a lot of pain if you aren't paying attention to it and the claw is annoying, since it deals decent knockback and can set characters like DK or Ganondorf, who already aren't the best at recovering, right up for potential spikes or gimps. That's why it's a counterpick, not a starter...but if Halberd is banned, than Lylat Cruise also works as a counterpick because of it's emphasis on platform play and smaller size.

Yoshi's Island has always tended to be relatively tame with stage hazards, with the only "hazard" being Randall (who's more of a randomized platform than a hazard). The blastzones are relatively standard, too, and it's very basic. The platforms are tame and don't interfere with the neutral game, and because of it's overall basic structure, it's a good counterpick for any kind of character (unless that's Mii Swordfighter, who overall is just not very good. ) 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.

BANNED:

• Pyrosphere
  
• Norfair
• Wily Castle
• Jungle Japes
• Palutena's Temple/Hyrule Temple
• Corneria
  
• Great Cave Offensive
• Mario Circuit (both Brawl and WiiU)
• Final Destination
• Pretty much any really janky stage or any stage with permanent walkoffs

If you noticed, all of the banned stages have very obvious reasons for being banned. To wit;
- Pyrosphere and Wily Castle have bosses that break the flow of gameplay and can devastate a match's fairness.
- Jungle Japes's water is ridiculously unfair, especially to characters with worse recoveries, which makes it pretty obviously a ban.
- Palutena's Temple and Hyrule Temple have the same issue; they are gigantic. Palutena's Temple is so absurdly large that it's no wonder it's banned (and it's also chock-full of hazards!) and Hyrule Temple has been banned since Melee because of, like Palutena's Temple, it's immense size (not to mention the potential for camping in the lower parts of the stage). They had no chance of ever being legal from the moment they were unveiled.
- Corneria (non-Omega) is really bad with camping. Like, really bad with it. There's pretty much no reason not to camp the area to the right of the fin, and it also allows for degenerate gameplay (inescapable infinites tend to do that).
- Great Cave Offensive is HORRENDOUS. The Danger Zones will instantly kill you if you're over 100 percent, which is easy if you get locked into a good combo. It's so titanic that it makes Palutena's Temple look like Yoshi's Island. It was doomed from the start.
- Both Mario Circuits are pretty bad with hazards, but those aren't the reasons they are banned. Brawl Mario Circut is really good for chaingrabbers, since they can chainthrow their opponent right into the blastzone. WiiU Mario Circuit has the issue of the stage itself being the hazard on top of the Shy Guys.
- Final Destination is the one stage many people think of when they think "tournament legal", with it's featureless arena and decent size lending itself well to the stereotype of competetive Smashers as "FOX ONLY, NO ITEMS, FINAL DESTINATION" Stop-Having-Fun-Guys. However, the new Final Destination is far too visually distracting and is essentially an unescapable stage hazard as the stage is the hazard. It's a shame, too; if it didn't have all that flashyness in the background, it would have still been legal.

I think you're getting confused between the 3DS and Wii U versions of the game.

 

[Ghostbone]

Smashvilles platform has a set timer

The platform spawns in a random location though.
Also balloons are random.
Though idk why we're talking about smashville, it's sufficiently competitive to be legal. (not without problems but definitely better than 95% of the stages in the game)

Also, lets face it. Melee had a **** tier stage selection, like Melee Kirby bad. In many ways I hate Melee being the first hugely competitive smash, as the gradul killing off of stages seems to have led to this idea that stages are a necesary evil that would be ignored if possible

Most melee stages are ****ing terrible for competition, or are hugely unbalanced.
Melee actually started out with a pretty large stage list, but over time stages were banned for being imbalanced. Walk-offs for waveshines or comboing people off the side, as well as stupid risk/reward.
Stages with random hazards because they interfere with competition and give one player an unfair advantage.
Moving stages because they favour already amazing characters (fox and falco) way too much with the ability to camp and force you into bad positions.
Corneria for a ridiculously low ceiling (hello smash 4 halberd) as well as camping under the fin and random hazards.
etc. etc.
It's not like the game started out with a conservative stagelist and never tried the stages, they started out with tonnes legal and slowly realised that only 6 stages in the game are conducive to competition (seriously, brinstar and rainbow cruise were still legal until around the time Brawl died)

And if you're being killed early by Rosalina on Halberd, get better. Learn to respect grabs, postion yourself better.

lmao
Where the **** are you supposed to position yourself.
The ceiling is low everywhere. Expecting people to never get grabbed is ridiculous, the way you have to play to avoid grabs all the time is going to lose you the game on its own. (and hint, generally it involves jumping around which will still get you uair'd....)

Whatever, worst comes to worst and you can't deal, burn a ban. A few characters with good options doesn't mean Halberd needs to be banned. It means players need to learn how to get around early stages. Education is key.

"a few", it's way more than just a few. And saying you can just ban it in your set is dumb. You can just ban temple against sonic, easy fix right?

Also, stop saying janky. It's stupid and means nothing. Articulate your problems, don't just call things Janky

Janky: Bad for competition, bad for hype, unfun to play against, unfair, etc.
It's a legitimate point if you want the game to thrive, leaving stupid/janky stuff around for the sake of it won't lead to a thriving community.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The platform spawns in a random location though.

No it doesn't. It always starts on the right side and gets about a quarter to a third of the way across the stage by the time the match countdown finishes and players can start moving. 20 seconds for a full round trip.

 

[Ghostbone]

No it doesn't. It always starts on the right side and gets about a quarter to a third of the way across the stage by the time the match countdown finishes and players can start moving. 20 seconds for a full round trip.

Wait really
It was random in Brawl but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sandfall]

Wait really
It was random in Brawl but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Um, no. It wasn't random at all. It starts in the same place every time. Here's the animation data for it:

Spoiler

The only things that are random about this stage are the balloon (trivial unless you're Ness) and the Villagers that appear in the background.

 

[ぱみゅ]

C'mon Ghost, these arguments have been terrible and are getting your point nowhere, you can do better than that.

I disagree with you but come on

 

[Ghostbone]

Um, no. It wasn't random at all. It starts in the same place every time. Here's the animation data for it:

Spoiler

The only things that are random about this stage are the balloon (trivial unless you're Ness) and the Villagers that appear in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewHRgNiG5WQ
Game 1, starts on the right side
Game 2, starts to the left of the middle.
Game 3, starts to the right of the middle.
Game 4, about the same as game 3.

Edit: Checked smash 4 right after, and yea it starts on the right side every time, weird that it was changed.

C'mon Ghost, these arguments have been terrible and are getting your point nowhere, you can do better than that.

I disagree with you but come on

I just hate halberd.
Skyloft and Wuhu Island deserve to be legal loooong before Halberd.

 

[Ozyroth]

Very interesting.
Tomorrow I'll be running a local tournament in Mexico City with this Stage List to test:

•Starter Stages
▬BattleField
▬Final Destination
▬Smashville

•Counterpick Stages
▬Duck Hunt
▬DreamLand 64
▬Miiverse
▬Lylat Cruise
▬Town & City
▬Wily Castle (Omega)

People on my area/community like the list thus far. I'll be streaming and recording the tournament to get more arguments on this discussion.

Now my contribution on this post:

I agree on Halberd and Delfino Plaza being weird and unfair most of the time. The super low ceilings on those stages can be pretty annoying and create "comebacks" with little to no skill or even unfair stock advantages. In particular case of Halberd, the stage hazards are pretty avoidable but at the same time we can forget about those specially the claw in an intense match: high percentage one-smash-wins-the-game, or trying to recover/gimp your opponent. On Delfino the walk-offs; yeah they aren't present all the times, but they are the flow of the match changes drastically. Rewarding camping or make, again, a "comeback" with no skill whatsoever.

I hate Castle Siege. In Brawl I always banned this stage because two simple reasons: the first part is way to small, and the second part is way to big. Now, in this game, the transformation is way more annoying giving you little to no chance to recover. Like a giant magnet is on your character. I've seen a lot of my friends in tournaments losing because of that, even the ones who chose this stage! Also the second part is horrendous for competitive play. Is ginormous, the walk-offs again promote camping on the edges and even if you camp, one wrong read and you die at 20%. That does not show how good both players are, that only shows who abused the stage the most IMO.

Now with the inclusion of Dream Land 64 and Miiverse (which I'm leaning towards making it a parallel level with Battlefield) opened up a better neutral stages for legality. Specially DL64, have a little taller platforms, a lower ceiling but not as crazy low like halberd and Delfino transformation parts and the little wind, make for a good counterpick. Interesting strategies but without making crazy stuff like those things mentioned before.

Now here I'm going to defend DuckHunt, I think this stage is a great counterpick. Have a tall ceiling, the sides have wall-jump, and the ducks can help deal with zoners using excessive amount of projectiles. The high ceiling can make your character survive attacks and options from Rosalina, for example. The sides can help characters with wall-jump and the ducks can help deal with some annoying projectiles at times. Again, this stage is no starter material, but is a nice balanced counter pick IMO.

BF, FD, SV, T&C and Ω stages everyone can agree they are prettu good for a competitive scene. No comments here besides they are great for the meta. And Finally Lylat, with the patch making the edges good and fair now, theres no point of banning it anymore. Good for counterpick, but not for starter.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

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.

That's what I'm saying though, the stage list is not biased because "Good with platforms" isn't really an attribute a character simply has or doesn't have. The layout and space between the platforms matters.

For example, you don't see the same kind of platform pressure on the first part of Town and City as you do on Battlefield, even though they both have three platforms. This is because the layout on T&C is spread out and open. Similarly, Dreamland doesn't support the exact same strengths as Battlefield simply because it has 3 platforms.

Changing the subject a bit, I have a question.

Suppose we had a Smash game where every single stage in the game was a) unique (no Miiverse reskins or "close enough" cases or Omegas or anything) and b) lacking anything that could reasonably be called "jank" or "cheap" or whatever. Also suppose that there are a total of 30 stages or so. (Smash 4 has 40-something IIRC so this is actually a step down.)

In such a hypothetical situation, what would (should?) be the ideal course of action regarding stage legalization, striking, and banning procedures? I'm asking mostly out of curiosity, but I think the answer would be helpful in identifying what we actually want from a stage list. Do we want all the stages that are acceptable for competition, or do we want to artificially restrict it to a subset for whatever reason?

I think that this is a really interesting question. I think what we'd need to do in that situation is pick a subset of these acceptable stages in order to form a ruleset that gives us what we want out of the game. We certainly wouldn't have a 30-stage list to manage and CERTAINLY not a 29-stage striking every set.

The reason for this is simple, there's nothing sacred about a competitively viable stage. Just as we can pick and choose to make a manageable and well-designed stage list, we can also pick and choose what stages in Smash 4 we want to include based on how we want to shape the game. There's no rule that our stage list must consist of every single stage free of degeneracy, and so I think it's time to start considering why a stage would be a positive addition to the ruleset, rather than simply stating that "the best player wins on this stage."

Simpler put, we can just ban Halberd if we don't want to have silly low-percent deaths and other nonsense. We can just ban Kongo Jungle if we don't want a single stage with very large blastzones and off-camera barrels killing players. We can ban levels to create a more cohesive experience, even if they're technically fair. Obviously we should still discuss what it is we want the game to be, but we don't actually need a reason to ban a stage other than: it makes the game experience unpleasant overall.

 

[ぱみゅ]

(stuff)

People in Mexico always played few stages, and whenever someone tries to snap some sense there they (more like, me) get ridiculed for no good reason other than going against the mainstream.

Is that the list that's going to be used at Smash Factor? Because I have a lot of objections, starting with the inclusion of only 3 starters (the consensus here is that it's not good) , and even more with your reasoning for banning some stages and the reason you wrote for keeping Duckhunt.

Then again, I'll probably only get ridiculed again so whatever

 

[Ozyroth]

People in Mexico always played few stages, and whenever someone tries to snap some sense there they (more like, me) get ridiculed for no good reason other than going against the mainstream.

Is that the list that's going to be used at Smash Factor? Because I have a lot of objections, starting with the inclusion of only 3 starters (the consensus here is that it's not good) , and even more with your reasoning for banning some stages and the reason you wrote for keeping Duckhunt.

Then again, I'll probably only get ridiculed again so whatever

Oh no, I'm not involved in the organization of Smash Factor but I think they are using the Apex 2015 stage list. I'm maybe wrong on this so don't quote me.

I'm running this stage list to hear people opinions. Most importantly hearing/collecting the concerns about not having Delfino, Halberd ans Castle Siege. What the community thinks, feels about that. It's only a small test.

And yeah I totally feel you about trying to snap out from the mainstream. I've been trying to make my friends and some torunaments to run/test Wuhu Island, for example. They don't listen to nothing that's not "official". I'm running this stage list because of the same reasons. They won't ban the stages because the mainstream are using them.

I'll take a read on the 5 starter Setting, I wasn't aware about that (again, probably because of the "mainstream" on our community). Definitely going to test the 5 Starter Stage Setting on my next local tourney. I agree that T&C is worth neutral material.

 

[Sandfall]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewHRgNiG5WQ
Game 1, starts on the right side
Game 2, starts to the left of the middle.
Game 3, starts to the right of the middle.
Game 4, about the same as game 3.

Edit: Checked smash 4 right after, and yea it starts on the right side every time, weird that it was changed.
.

Hmmm odd. I've never seen an animated platform behave like that (especially since all the animation data is the same). Looks like you were right. My B.

Changing the subject a bit, I have a question.

Suppose we had a Smash game where every single stage in the game was a) unique (no Miiverse reskins or "close enough" cases or Omegas or anything) and b) lacking anything that could reasonably be called "jank" or "cheap" or whatever. Also suppose that there are a total of 30 stages or so. (Smash 4 has 40-something IIRC so this is actually a step down.)

In such a hypothetical situation, what would (should?) be the ideal course of action regarding stage legalization, striking, and banning procedures? I'm asking mostly out of curiosity, but I think the answer would be helpful in identifying what we actually want from a stage list. Do we want all the stages that are acceptable for competition, or do we want to artificially restrict it to a subset for whatever reason?

The Project M community actually faced a similar issue recently. Because we have control over the stages in the game, there were too many legal stages to be feasibly used for one ruleset (it would just take too much time). Many stages would simply get banned due to redundancy (Yoshi's Island: Melee), or because there were a few quirks with them that people didn't like (PM Skyworld, Lylat, and Norfair). Hazards and transformations (Halberd/Castle Siege) would simply be banned outright. Stuff that would be completely okay in a mainstream smash game, was suddenly seen as too "jank" to be used in tournaments (Dreamland's wind is a good example of that).

Even with a perfectly sterile stagelist (such as your hypothetical one), people would still find things to john about or label as "jank." TOs would probably trim this stagelist down to 10-12 stages. These would have a good variety of platform layouts, base shapes, and blast zone distances. Those who create this stagelist would probably also choose platform layouts to minimize camping as well (i.e. something like Duck Hunt would never be legal. Even Town and City would be questionable.).

One of my favorite parts of Smash 4 is that it's more liberal with its stagelist. The game currently requires more stage interaction (and knowledge) than other smash games. I would hate to see that go in favor of a small list of boring stages. We already have a few "obviously legal," mostly hazardless stages that aren't going anywhere (since, unlike the PM community, Smash 4 players can't afford to be picky with their mostly "sterile" stages). That leaves the stages with hazards, transformations, and other quirks. To determine which of these remaining stages are suitable for competition, we should be looking to see which hazards/transformations either enhance or are tolerable in competitive play.

 

[clydeaker]

I'm no expert in stage legality, but what if instead of only using 3 stage categories in tournaments such as starter, counter-pick, and banned there are 5 or so categories. for example:

Legal Starter - Same as before.
Legal Counter-Pick - Same as before.
Legal Suspect - The looser can choose these stages as a counter-pick as long as the last game was extremely close as in withing 1 stock or a few percent, maybe more depending on the number of stock and matches.
Suspect - These stages legality are up to the tournament organizers, they are eather banned or legal suspect.
Banned - These stages can be choses as a counter-pick through a variation of the "gentleman rule." this means the looser can choose this as a counter-pick as long as the winner and looser both agree to it.
BANNED! - These stages are banned no matter what! Not even with a variation of the "gentleman rule." Mainly because of the large number or reasons it should be banned and because they usually take up too much time. These stages include, but are not limited to: Pac-Land, The Great Cave Offensive, 75m, and Palutena's Temple.

Keep in mind this is just an Idea. f this were to be implemented it would probably need to have better rules especially for the suspect category.

 

[MajorMajora]

Edit: I accidentally posted this before I was finished. Please hold your comments until I finish.

*Edge of seat intensifies*

 

[Illuminose]

...or we can just continue with our standard starter, counterpick, and banned designations. There's no reason to expand the amount of designations. How close a match was doesn't make a stage better. Either a stage is banned or it isn't.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Apparently when I'm bored, research happens.

I was conducting a series of tests on the blast zones in Coliseum and Wii Fit Studio (located here if that interests anyone) and decided to perform similar tests on Smashville given it's contradictory status as both the competitive standard for stages and a janky mess that shouldn't be used. (Hyperbole for humor. And now I've explained the joke. Oh well.) Given that it's mostly the platform's regular proximity to the blast zone that draws the most criticism, I structured my experiment around that.

As Mario, I performed an uncharged sweetspot fsmash on a Bowser training dummy set to "Control" that was positioned in several different locations: center stage*, the ledge, and the edge of the platform as it reached the closest point to the blast line. This was repeated at a variety of percents until the minimum percent required to produce black lightning was determined.

Similar tests were performed on Final Destination to serve as a baseline.

*Annoyingly, players do not respawn directly over the middle of Smashville, but instead a bit to the side. Thus a degree of approximation was involved in positioning Bowser in the center. No such issue was involved with the ledges.

Stage|Position|Black Lightning %
Smashville|Center|111%
Smashville |Ledge|82%
Smashville |Platform Edge|47%
Final Destination|Center|118%
Final Destination|Ledge|84%

Nothing in particular to say about the results, I just thought it was better to put it out there than not.

 

[Infinite901]

Either a stage is banned or it isn't.

So... FLSS, then?

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Really, though, the baseline minimum we'd need to go with is somewhat like how Melee operates, but modified to suit this game;
- Stages that unfairly favor a character or strategy are always banned (so stuff like Mario Circuit's campable blatzones favouring characters with good throws).
- Stages that are visually distracting and can cause issues with visibility also are banned (so Final Destination, ironically).
- Stages that have active stage hazards that interupt the flow of gameplay are autobanned (stuff like Pyrosphere).
- Stages with unfair layouts that can screw with recoveries are banned. This really needs no explanation.

 

[Balgorxz]

dreamland is by far the best competitive stage in the game, not having the high ceilings of melee and the side platforms being pretty high too makes it really neutral for a game like smash 4, not being autowin for sheik is also a good thing.
If there is a stage I wouldn't ban in any situation it would be dreamland I expect to see people playing it more and more even brawl players that usually go safeville only.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

Really, though, the baseline minimum we'd need to go with is somewhat like how Melee operates, but modified to suit this game;
- Stages that unfairly favor a character or strategy are always banned (so stuff like Mario Circuit's campable blatzones favouring characters with good throws).
- Stages that are visually distracting and can cause issues with visibility also are banned (so Final Destination, ironically).
- Stages that have active stage hazards that interupt the flow of gameplay are autobanned (stuff like Pyrosphere).
- Stages with unfair layouts that can screw with recoveries are banned. This really needs no explanation.

For the most part, I agree with the criteria, except for favoring a character. That is why we have counter picks, stage bans, and stage striking in the first place, to allow players to pick beneficial stages for them. Also, the walkoffs are temporary. Trying to camp results in nothing but losing positioning when the stage starts moving

 

[Piford]

If we are defining criteria that a stage should be banned, then we should be using these 2 rules that were used before.

A stage should be banned if and only if it

a) presents overpowered and overcentralising strategies that detract from gameplay

This would include strategies such as circle-camping on Temple.

b) marginalizes player skill so much that it no longer becomes a factor in determining the winner.

This would include things such as Ridley on Pyrosphere

If we do that we should end up with a clearly defined list of legal and banned stages. There's definitely some room for debate on a few stages, so I think I'll list where I think each stage falls.

Legal
Battlefield/Miiverse
Final Destination/Omega's
Delfino Plaza
Mario Circuit
Kongo Jungle 64
Skyloft
Dreamland (64)
Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Pokémon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Town and City
Smashville
Duck Hunt
Wuhu Island

Debatable
Mario Galaxy
Walk-off camping is an overcentralising strategy
Luigi's Mansion
Caves of life marginalize player skill
Norfair
Lava marginalizes player skill
Orbital Gate Assault
The way the stage transforms marginalizes player skill
Kalos Pokémon League
Hazards marginalizes player skill
Coliseum
Walk-off camping is an overcentralising strategy
Garden of Hope
Hazards marginalizes player skill
Wii Fit Studio
Walk-off camping is an overcentralising strategy
Windy Hill Zone
Run-away camping due to size is an overcentralising strategy and the springs marginalize player skill

Banned
Big Battlefield - a
Mushroom Kingdom U - b
Mario Circuit (Brawl) - a
Woolly World - a
Yoshi's Island - b
Jungle Hijinx - a
75m - a/b
Temple - a
Bridge of Eldin - a
Pryosphere - b
The Great Cave Offensive - a/b
Port Town Aero Dive - b
Onett - a/b
Flatzone X - b
Palutena's Temple - a
Skyworld - a/b
Gamer - b
Boxing Ring - a
Gaur Plains - a
Wrecking Crew - a
Pilotwings - a
Wily Castle - b
PAC-LAND - a/b
Suzaku Castle - a

Sorry about not going into detail about banned stages, but they were pretty self-explanatory for the most part and have no chance of being legal anyways.

I personally believe some of the debatable should be legal and some should be banned, but I think 13 FLSS is probably the best since a lot of people don't even want the stages I listed in legal legal. You could probably remove whichever 2 stages from the legal list that you want, but I'd remove Pokémon Stadium 2 and Mario Circuit. I know some would agree, while others might want to remove Dreamland, Halberd, ect.

 

[Illuminose]

I still don't understand why we should change to FLSS. What reason is there to change the current system? What are the actual positives to switching? It doesn't help finding more neutral stages for the start of matches...especially since we have a solid 5 stage starter list now. FLSS takes a lot of time, which is the major issue with it. Saying 'there's no reason for there to be a distinction between starter and counterpick' is not a reason; there needs to be more than that because this distinction has lasted for many years and is embraced by essentially the entire Smash community.

Also, the fact that no one has responded to my earlier post about the stage list leads me to believe that no one could actually make an argument. I hope that isn't the case...

 

[Routa]

I still don't understand why we should change to FLSS. What reason is there to change the current system? What are the actual positives to switching? It doesn't help finding more neutral stages for the start of matches...especially since we have a solid 5 stage starter list now. FLSS takes a lot of time, which is the major issue with it. Saying 'there's no reason for there to be a distinction between starter and counterpick' is not a reason; there needs to be more than that because this distinction has lasted for many years and is embraced by essentially the entire Smash community.

Also, the fact that no one has responded to my earlier post about the stage list leads me to believe that no one could actually make an argument. I hope that isn't the case...

I dunno why am I even posting here. After all I only care about 3DS one. But anyways...

I have always been fan of FLSS. Yeah it consumes more time (like lessthan 15 sec) than Starter/Counterpick. Why I prefer FLSS over Starter/Countepick? It is more simple than Starter/Counterpick and I'm kinda tired of seeing people start every game in Smashville. I mean yeah it is the most neutral and everything, but still... I think FLSS might not be the best in TO's eyes or in theory, but it is more versatile and gives people more choices (well if not choice, well then illusion of choice). But... that is my opinion.

Edit: oh and I'm fine with the current stage list.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

I still don't understand why we should change to FLSS. What reason is there to change the current system? What are the actual positives to switching? It doesn't help finding more neutral stages for the start of matches...especially since we have a solid 5 stage starter list now. FLSS takes a lot of time, which is the major issue with it. Saying 'there's no reason for there to be a distinction between starter and counterpick' is not a reason; there needs to be more than that because this distinction has lasted for many years and is embraced by essentially the entire Smash community.

Also, the fact that no one has responded to my earlier post about the stage list leads me to believe that no one could actually make an argument. I hope that isn't the case...

FLSS is objectivly a more neutral system than the old starter/counterpick distinction. The increase in stages, all of which are competitively viable, because we would not run them if they weren't, allow a wider variety of stages. And by increasing the variety of stages, we boost the chances that knowledgeable players will start on their most neutral stage. For an hypothetical example, let's presume Charizard vs Jigglypuff is most neutral on Skyloft. Charizards best is Halberd, and Jigglypuffs best is FD. (Note: Just throwing out names, I have no idea if these are their favored stages or not, but the specifics aren't important) If FLSS is being run with a nine stage list, optimal stage striking will lead to Skyloft, guaranteeing a neutral stage. If Starter vs Counterpick is being run, FD will be there, but odds are Halberd will be a Counterpick, as will be Skyloft. This way, game 1 is artificially balanced in Jiggly's favor, as FD is on the stage list, but Halberd is not, and the most neutral stage is also not there.

Also, do not defend tradition simply by saying it is tradition. Tautologies do not make a good defense. We say the starter CP distinction makes the starter stages more favored overall, artifically promoting those stages over CPs. Also, by promoting those stages, we promote the characters who do well there. This isn't just a hypothesis either. We saw it in brawl with the ice grabbers rise after the banning of their worst stages to deal with Meta Knight, and we see it now with Sheik, Pika, and other top tiers benefiting from the Smashville plague running through the community

So go ahead. Tell me why we should stick with Starter/CP. and don't say time. Adding extra stage strikes takes maybe 10 seconds. There are far bigger time wasters in this community than FLSS

 

[MajorMajora]

I still don't understand why we should change to FLSS. What reason is there to change the current system? What are the actual positives to switching? It doesn't help finding more neutral stages for the start of matches...especially since we have a solid 5 stage starter list now. FLSS takes a lot of time, which is the major issue with it. Saying 'there's no reason for there to be a distinction between starter and counterpick' is not a reason; there needs to be more than that because this distinction has lasted for many years and is embraced by essentially the entire Smash community.

Also, the fact that no one has responded to my earlier post about the stage list leads me to believe that no one could actually make an argument. I hope that isn't the case...

Here's the basic thought process that led me to FLSS:
All legal stages are equally viable to play games on competitively, hence why they are legal. However, in a given match up, you could order all "starters" on a number line based on how far they tip the match up. Let's say there are 2 players, A and B, and 5 stages, titled 1-9.
1 is the best stage for A's character, 9 is the best for B, 2 is A's second best, 8 is B's second best, etc. If we use FLSS, we will naturally strike to stage 5, which is the mean and most fair, or 'neutral' stage available. But if only stage 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are available starters, leaving 1, 6, 8, and 9 as counter picks, then the striking will lead to stage 3 being picked, which gives a noticeable advantage to player A's character. Therefore, FLSS is more "neutral".

Secondly, it widens stage variety used, which is a plus because it adds to how interesting it is as a spectator sport, which is always a nice plus.

You could argue certain stages are to polarizing match up wise and would shift stage striking towards one charter too much, but in that case it makes no sense to have it as a counter pick since it would influence the counter pick even more since a person has fewer bans than strikes. Not to mention it's easy to see almost every counter pick list is chosen not by data or match up analysis, but by the arbitrary factor of how many dynamic elements are present on the stage.

 

[clydeaker]

Let's just ban every single stage except Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville.

Dream Land (64), Miiverse, and Omega stages are essentially clones of Battlefield and Final Destination, although Dream Land 64 is a bit different you still have to pay for it and chances are not everyone will have that stage in tournaments or to practice on. These stages could ether be treated like omega stages counter-picks (maybe with the exception for Dream Land (64)) or banned.

There. now we don't have to argue anymore.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

Let's just ban every single stage except Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville.

Dream Land (64), Miiverse, and Omega stages are essentially clones of Battlefield and Final Destination, although Dream Land 64 is a bit different you still have to pay for it and chances are not everyone will have that stage in tournaments or to practice on. These stages could ether be treated like omega stages counter-picks (maybe with the exception for Dream Land (64)) or banned.

There. now we don't have to argue anymore.

I'd ask you to be serious but I'm pretty sure you are

No. That is a dumb idea. It is restrictive, lacks a good strike number, as proper striking needs 4X+1, and forces the metagame to focus around those three stages alone, and since 2/3 of that stage list is essentially FD or FD with a fair string promoting platform, we'll see the rise of Sheikachu and some other top tiers to metaknight levels of domination over the metagame

Edit: Ah. Sarcasm. Apologies. The smiley probably should have tipped me off.

 

[MajorMajora]

@ clydeaker You need to stop with the sarcasm. Like, it's funny, and you've made good points, but a lot of people misunderstand you every time.

 

[TheAnomaly]

I still don't understand why we should change to FLSS. What reason is there to change the current system? What are the actual positives to switching? It doesn't help finding more neutral stages for the start of matches...especially since we have a solid 5 stage starter list now. FLSS takes a lot of time, which is the major issue with it.

I'm going to rearrange one of my post from another thread to answer this question.

Allow me to give an example.

Assuming both players have knowledge of their characters and their own preferences for stages(otherwise stage striking is basically irrelevant since it any stage will adds to the player's learning process), in a 5 starter list you go into the match knowing that you have 3 options:
a)The 2 stages you want to play on. (your favourites or best stages for the matchup[from the allowed stages])
b)The 2 stages you don't want to play on.(Your least favourites or worst for the matchup[again from the allowed stages])
c)The stage you would accept playing on should your option in a become unavailable.
Now this scenario generally plays out as going to smashville because smashville is generally option "c" for both players otherwise stage striking is simple and quick. Both players strike anything in their "b" category for both players until a result is attained.

Any increase of the list of legal stages(such as FLSS) still results in you going into the match with those same 3 options except options "a" and "b" include more stages. The additional stages only offer you the option of varying your definitions of your personal "a" and "b" choices more to suit your matchup vs the opponent more.

This is as simple and quick as buying food to eat. You have those same exact 3 choices there as well.
a) things you want to eat.
b) things you don't want to eat.
c) things you will accept eating should the options in a be unavailable.

TLDR: Full List Stage striking is simple, quick and normally allows the fairest matchup.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

Let's just ban every single stage except Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville.

Lmaooo.

So regarding the legality of stages, one thing I never see discussed anywhere on here or in other threads is stages suitable for doubles. Will discussion of that come about when we figure out a unified ruleset for singles?

 

[Illuminose]

What's the point of FLSS if it's going to turn out mostly the same way regardless? Let's take our current stage list. Who is seriously going to let you start on one of the counterpick stages we currently have? Stages like Delfino, Castle Siege, and Halberd are extremely polarizing. There are very few matchups, if any, where these stages are actually neutral due to features like a campable sections, low ceilings, and temporary walkoffs. I'm not convinced that adding FLSS would make a significant difference in terms of the actual overall stage variety we would get. Almost all matches will start on Smashville or Battlefield or Dreamland, w/e, regardless. These hypotheticals are meaningless because they don't represent a variety of actual scenarios.

FLSS is objectivly a more neutral system than the old starter/counterpick distinction. The increase in stages, all of which are competitively viable, because we would not run them if they weren't, allow a wider variety of stages. And by increasing the variety of stages, we boost the chances that knowledgeable players will start on their most neutral stage. For an hypothetical example, let's presume Charizard vs Jigglypuff is most neutral on Skyloft. Charizards best is Halberd, and Jigglypuffs best is FD. (Note: Just throwing out names, I have no idea if these are their favored stages or not, but the specifics aren't important) If FLSS is being run with a nine stage list, optimal stage striking will lead to Skyloft, guaranteeing a neutral stage. If Starter vs Counterpick is being run, FD will be there, but odds are Halberd will be a Counterpick, as will be Skyloft. This way, game 1 is artificially balanced in Jiggly's favor, as FD is on the stage list, but Halberd is not, and the most neutral stage is also not there.

Also, do not defend tradition simply by saying it is tradition. Tautologies do not make a good defense. We say the starter CP distinction makes the starter stages more favored overall, artifically promoting those stages over CPs. Also, by promoting those stages, we promote the characters who do well there. This isn't just a hypothesis either. We saw it in brawl with the ice grabbers rise after the banning of their worst stages to deal with Meta Knight, and we see it now with Sheik, Pika, and other top tiers benefiting from the Smashville plague running through the community

So go ahead. Tell me why we should stick with Starter/CP. and don't say time. Adding extra stage strikes takes maybe 10 seconds. There are far bigger time wasters in this community than FLSS

Already addressed the first part, but I just want to say... It's actually very valid to defend tradition. It's the status quo, and the burden of proof is on the side trying to change the status quo. Now, you've actually provided some reasons, which I'll address, but do not try to shift the burden of proof here.

Favoring specific stages means nothing. It doesn't matter whatsoever if we artificially promote certain stages via the starter/cp distinction, although I really don't think that's the case. What tends to happen is that players will ban the polarizing counterpicks, so we see them a bit less. This doesn't have to mean that we're artificially promoting them -- it could just mean that they're better stages for competition and more widely preferred. And yes, there are varying levels of stages that are actually appropriate for competition. Think about it this way: we would never ban Smashville, FD, Battlefield/Miiverse, or Dreamland 64. We would most likely never ban Town & City or Lylat Cruise (extremely conservative regions might ban these stages). We could potentially ban Duck Hunt, although most likely not because it's generally regarded as fine (conservative regions may ban this stage). There is actually a significant following for and decent chance that we might ban Halberd, Delfino Plaza, and/or Castle Siege (conservative regions will likely ban these stages). That speaks to the relative competitiveness of the legal stages. Just because a stage is legal does not mean that it is necessarily as good as the other stages. Some stages are barely legal, while others are clearly legal and competitive stages. This is why I don't subscribe to the 'all stages are created equal' belief.

This idea that top tiers benefit from the starter stages has to do with the fact that they are good characters. Sheik is good on literally every single currently legal stage. Battlefield(/Miiverse) gives her platforms to work with and little room for opponents to evade her. FD makes it more difficult to get around her camping and makes it more difficult for foes to evade her combos/setups. Smashville provides extensions on combos and a place to sort of camp against certain characters with the moving platform. Town & City gives her even more effective platform camping potential in addition to sharking and earlier up air kills due to the low ceiling. Dreamland 64 gives her a Battlefield-like layout with very slightly less accessible platforms for certain characters, more space to work with, and slightly earlier up air kills than Battlefield due to the lower ceiling. Lylat Cruise gives her a lot of platforms to work with and a bit more ease gimping due to how the stage messes with recoveries, even after it was patched. Duck Hunt gives her an FD-like layout in addition to the tree, which can be a really potent camping tool in certain matchups. Halberd gives her super early up air kills. Castle Siege gives her a pretty nice advantage overall...especially the second transformation, which is an absolutely broken transformation for Sheik. Delfino gives her early confirms on transformations, temporary walkoffs to get early kills with her incredible horizontal combos, and campable transformations (she has one of the most solid camping games). Sheik's traits allow her to abuse almost any type of stage because she has so many different options and variety of setups to work with. I'm not going to go through every top tier, but the idea is that top tiers are just good characters and that's why we see them as having this perceived advantage via specific stages when they have the versatility/options to work well in pretty much any stage layout. If you really want to start on Halberd vs Sheik...by all means, I support your endeavor and I'll dthrow uair for a kill at 80%. I fail to see how having a starter/cp distinction actually boosts top tiers, who are just good characters.

Also, FLSS does not take 10 seconds. It takes the time to set up random stage select and go through each and every stage (selecting each of your strikes). That's not 10 seconds, more like 30 seconds minimum or more unless you both already know where you want to go, in which case FLSS is wasting time.

 

[Champ Gold]

For 6+ Regular/Team matches, is Big Battlefield still banned?