I've heard of people interpreting the initial strike as stages you ban and then can't cp to.
-
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!
The Nebraska 9 (PM Singles Stagelist)
- Thread starter Kulprit
- Start date
???
Striking is clearly meant to be separate from Banning. Hell, the action has its own name! Who out there is mistakenly interpreting Game 1 strikes as permanent bans??? Looking at Brawl rulesets (around the time striking first became popular in Smash) over the span of years, looking at Melee and PM rulesets over an almost similar span of time, I can't recall any region or TO who promoted the idea that strikes were traditional CP bans, or that strikes implied you could not CP those stages later.
That is an incredible interpretation, to say the least. Ban counts and DSR would have to be extensively modified if strikes were intended to work in that fashion. It would flip the game upside down on its head lol
Last edited:
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
I'm very glad you made your own thread for this since the other one was getting bogged down. Still not a fan of pushing it as a national standard, but its good to have out there for people to see and judge for themselves. If most people agree, then there you go!
Volume AF
Smash Cadet
I still don't know how I feel about Delfino's being a starter in most regions, but doing Bowser's looks reasonable on paper for me. The tri plat seems ok, don't get why the middle one is elevated slightly, but then there's the problem of the insignia messing probably half the cast in some scenarios. I still think Delfino's > BC, It's bigger to compensate for GHZ whis is fine by standard and it has walls for characters that don't want to GHZ too.
I actually don't mind people striking it all the time, cause some people would probably strike it most of the time anyways. I'm willing to try it at least.
I actually don't mind people striking it all the time, cause some people would probably strike it most of the time anyways. I'm willing to try it at least.
It's easier to specify Bo5 if particular aspects are meant for Bo5 sets. All set counts have the "regular" portion of DSR in effect, but only Bo5 have a clause for Game 5, so it makes sense to specify this. All set counts have 2 bans, but "shifting" bans is an effect that only matters for Bo5 sets.
Being specific leaves less grey area and less room for mis-interpretation. Even if it seems redundant, having rules which are clear and very specific can't be a bad thing.
Being specific leaves less grey area and less room for mis-interpretation. Even if it seems redundant, having rules which are clear and very specific can't be a bad thing.
Volume AF
Smash Cadet
My friend did some testing, and mostly tether grabs get altered, DJC has to be readjusted when landing on platform, and apparently when trying to grab ice climbers, you grab the AI instead of the controlled climber most of the time.
Tether grabs doing down declining areas of the middle apparently fail. Someone awhile ago posted about a Ganon glitch where he haplessly falls through the stage during Game Spawn. Not sure about any others: crawling stuff was mentioned but I dunno if it glitches anything or merely changes profile/angles.
Volume AF
Smash Cadet
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
Zelda's teleport shenanigans can get screwed up, but you can also sacrifice some distance to fix it. That's just part of the stage though, its a reason to ban it if you're playing a character who hates that just like the moving platforms on FoD, the stupid empty void of FD, Randall on YS, or the thin ledges on Lylat/Skyworld.
To be fair, those are all CP's or banned already. Asking that from a starter may be too off-putting
JesteRace
Smash Journeyman
They issues with the insignia will be dealt with as time progresses. If after a while of people actually giving it a chance, stuff like the insignia and the visuals are a bit too screwy, we will reconsider our neutrals. As is, it fits the balance of the list the best. PS2 already balances out GHZ in stage size and counters its high ceiling with a low ceiling. Bowser's Castle balances out the small blastzones by having large blastzones without skewing any other attribute. Having DS instead skews towards high ceilings and large stages.
Volume AF
Smash Cadet
Don't get me wrong, I would like to give it a shot, but the cons I'm hearing just make delfino's seem a better neutral, and that's the issue I'm conflicted with, and so do a lot of other people I play with too. I'm sure over time it'll be decided on a set stagelist, so we just have to wait.
nimigoha
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 877
It's really what you consider more important: balancing all the attributes or not having minor (because they are minor, the slant area is tiny) issues.
From what I can tell, most people supporting the Nebraska list consider attribute balance more important.
I consider the Bowser quirks like things in other stages. It has unusual elements that alone could call for bans for specific characters (basically as a preference thing) like a moving platform or FD having nothing but ground.
From what I can tell, most people supporting the Nebraska list consider attribute balance more important.
I consider the Bowser quirks like things in other stages. It has unusual elements that alone could call for bans for specific characters (basically as a preference thing) like a moving platform or FD having nothing but ground.
Most people that complain about the Bowser emblem in the middle are usually the people who haven't sat down and practiced the different timings on the stage. Yeah it can be a little buggy for some things, but as a whole, it's NOT a big problem in any tournaments I've watched on the stage. As for the ledges, tethers won't work if you're under the slanted part offstage, so characters will need to learn to not use tethers right below the ledge. Other than that, the other complaints about the stage are honestly unwarranted. We've ran Bowser's for about 4 months now and we've had great success with it, both as a counterpick and now as a starter.
EDIT: Forgot some words lol
Last edited:
DrinkingFood
Smash Hero
Plaftorm Stages:
3 flat/quasi-flat stages (GHZ/SV/FD)
3 "in-between" stages (FoD/BC/PS2)
3 heavily platformed stages (WL/BF/DL)
Why are FoD and BC "in-between"
For FoD, I get the reasoning, it's just bad reasoning. Yes, the platforms on the sides disappear sometimes. But FoD has some of the most disruptive platforms in the history of legal stages. Only PS is worse in melee. They're at a terrible height like half the time for stuff that works on just about any other stage. They come up from the ground and shorten tech rolls, force walk offs that reset runs into walks, among tons of other things. And when they ARE already up from the ground, it's heavily covered. Using a metric of how covered the stage is rather than how involved the platforms are is inaccurate.
And BC may have slightly higher platforms than DL, but it's still heavily covered. I'd actually call it MORE heavily covered than DL because all the platforms are accessible from most character's full hops (although some need the emblem's height in the center to reach the center plat). Meanwhile DL has the whole center area free from that kind of disruption to full hop approaches/uthrow combos.
The need to balance things like 3/3/3 is flawed from the start anyway. It assumes that, if the attributes are distributed evenly, that it's better for "balance", but balance only makes sense in the context of the characters being played. And if you want to balance PM's characters, you want something that leans slightly in the favor of fatties. More small stages would be better for the sake of balance. Besides that, it just looks clean to talk about it being 3/3/3, and that's the benefit I guess.
No real critiques besides that. Previously I hadn't played on BC in so long and had mentally exaggerated the ridge in the center. Most of the effects it has are annoying placebo (which would still be better if even that wasn't there).
3 flat/quasi-flat stages (GHZ/SV/FD)
3 "in-between" stages (FoD/BC/PS2)
3 heavily platformed stages (WL/BF/DL)
Why are FoD and BC "in-between"
For FoD, I get the reasoning, it's just bad reasoning. Yes, the platforms on the sides disappear sometimes. But FoD has some of the most disruptive platforms in the history of legal stages. Only PS is worse in melee. They're at a terrible height like half the time for stuff that works on just about any other stage. They come up from the ground and shorten tech rolls, force walk offs that reset runs into walks, among tons of other things. And when they ARE already up from the ground, it's heavily covered. Using a metric of how covered the stage is rather than how involved the platforms are is inaccurate.
And BC may have slightly higher platforms than DL, but it's still heavily covered. I'd actually call it MORE heavily covered than DL because all the platforms are accessible from most character's full hops (although some need the emblem's height in the center to reach the center plat). Meanwhile DL has the whole center area free from that kind of disruption to full hop approaches/uthrow combos.
The need to balance things like 3/3/3 is flawed from the start anyway. It assumes that, if the attributes are distributed evenly, that it's better for "balance", but balance only makes sense in the context of the characters being played. And if you want to balance PM's characters, you want something that leans slightly in the favor of fatties. More small stages would be better for the sake of balance. Besides that, it just looks clean to talk about it being 3/3/3, and that's the benefit I guess.
No real critiques besides that. Previously I hadn't played on BC in so long and had mentally exaggerated the ridge in the center. Most of the effects it has are annoying placebo (which would still be better if even that wasn't there).
Last edited:
nimigoha
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 877
I like your reasoning for DL and BC. Since these are pretty arbitrary categories I think it's fair to swap them around. BC is decently closed off, and Dreamland's large middle area makes it not as "covered" by platforms.
FoD I think is in the middle I think since its nature makes it hard to classify. Sometimes it's open, sometimes it's closed. I'd lean towards closed if I had to put it in a different category since the low platform part makes the ground very closed (but the upper part of the stage open, funny how that works
) but it's basically a spectrum, and I'd say FoD isn't more open than GHZ/SV/FD and I'd say it isn't more closed off than WL/BF/BC.
Like on a spectrum 1-9 with 1 being flat and open (FD) and 9 being tight and closed (WL) I'd put it at 6.
Just hard to nail down.
FoD I think is in the middle I think since its nature makes it hard to classify. Sometimes it's open, sometimes it's closed. I'd lean towards closed if I had to put it in a different category since the low platform part makes the ground very closed (but the upper part of the stage open, funny how that works
) but it's basically a spectrum, and I'd say FoD isn't more open than GHZ/SV/FD and I'd say it isn't more closed off than WL/BF/BC. Like on a spectrum 1-9 with 1 being flat and open (FD) and 9 being tight and closed (WL) I'd put it at 6.
Just hard to nail down.
JesteRace
Smash Journeyman
I've definitely been re-thinking the categorization. My previous categorization for "how covered" I considered a stage to be was actually proportional to its size. This is showing to be quite inaccurate. DL may be heavily-platformed proportional to its size but it is still quite clearly not a cramped stage. Stage layout is the hardest category to balance, but it should still be possible. We just have to determine all the different "types" of stages that are relevant to the meta and hope there's not an option you can wipe out with bans.
For example, if you want a cramped platform layout to hinder movement-heavy characters and force them to deal with your superior hitboxes, you have WL/FoD/BF.
If you want a wider, flat/quasi-flat stage with little platform interference so you can run around/camp/juggle your opponent, you have FD/PS2/SV.
Want to platform camp? BF/BC/DL
Do you auto-combo FF'ers on flat stages? GHZ/SV/FD
The list could and should go on. Quantifying everything as just "open" or "cramped" doesn't jive with me, but my categorization was faulty as well. It's clear that it's more complicated than that.
If I had to put it on a "spectrum" of openness to crampedness, I guess it'd be like this.
1. FD
2. PS2
3. SV
4. DL
5. BC
6. GHZ
7. BF
8. FoD
9. WL
Incidentally, if my spectrum is correct, it shows further that FoD would be a better neutral than GHZ for the sake of balance. Having FoD gives us 2/3/5/7/8 in the neutrals and 1/4/6/9 as counterpicks, which is nice and symmetrical and makes me happy. You could say that 3/4/5/6/7 should be the neutrals but you can't forget that all the stage attributes still need to be balanced too, so this is still the ideal setup imo.
That was rambly, but it's just been sort of my thought process behind A. Better understanding the balance of our(any) PM stagelist, and B. Leaning more on the side of wanting FoD to be neutral over GHZ.
For example, if you want a cramped platform layout to hinder movement-heavy characters and force them to deal with your superior hitboxes, you have WL/FoD/BF.
If you want a wider, flat/quasi-flat stage with little platform interference so you can run around/camp/juggle your opponent, you have FD/PS2/SV.
Want to platform camp? BF/BC/DL
Do you auto-combo FF'ers on flat stages? GHZ/SV/FD
The list could and should go on. Quantifying everything as just "open" or "cramped" doesn't jive with me, but my categorization was faulty as well. It's clear that it's more complicated than that.
If I had to put it on a "spectrum" of openness to crampedness, I guess it'd be like this.
1. FD
2. PS2
3. SV
4. DL
5. BC
6. GHZ
7. BF
8. FoD
9. WL
Incidentally, if my spectrum is correct, it shows further that FoD would be a better neutral than GHZ for the sake of balance. Having FoD gives us 2/3/5/7/8 in the neutrals and 1/4/6/9 as counterpicks, which is nice and symmetrical and makes me happy. You could say that 3/4/5/6/7 should be the neutrals but you can't forget that all the stage attributes still need to be balanced too, so this is still the ideal setup imo.
That was rambly, but it's just been sort of my thought process behind A. Better understanding the balance of our(any) PM stagelist, and B. Leaning more on the side of wanting FoD to be neutral over GHZ.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 26,560
The name of the Wario stage is Wario Land, not Wario Ware.
Still think Dreamland is an atrocious stage (actually 25%+ bigger blastzones than any other stage, huge huge outlier). Delfino's Secret is a much better alternative, especially if a different stage is a starter.
Still think Dreamland is an atrocious stage (actually 25%+ bigger blastzones than any other stage, huge huge outlier). Delfino's Secret is a much better alternative, especially if a different stage is a starter.
nimigoha
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 877
So I did some mean and median data analysis between Nebraska, Nebraska - Dreamland + Delfino, and Nebraska - Bowser's + Delfino (Paragon).
Nebraska is the only one that doesn't have problematic data for side blast zones.
In both other options, side blast zones are weird. Weird as in Battlefield has a top 3 out of 9 stage to side. So if you want to "balance" options by 3S/3M/3L you have to classify Battlefield as wide blast zones. And going by center to side, Delfino's and PS2 have the same value and therefore you have 3 small, 2 medium, 2 large, and Delfino/PS2 have to be either classified as both medium or both large.
And vertical blast zones. Well, they're pretty unfortunate no matter what the stagelist is.
For WL/PS2/FD/SV/BF/FoD/GHZ which are the 7 stages being included on pretty much every list, you have:
173, 181, 188, 195, 200, 203, 205 respectively. 7 stages within 32 units. Dreamland (250) is 39 units larger than the next largest stage (Delfino at 211). It's a pretty terrible spread regardless of what stages you bring in. Bowser's Castle is 191.
Still determined to make a more balanced stagelist that includes Skyworld. I'll work on it.
Nebraska is the only one that doesn't have problematic data for side blast zones.
In both other options, side blast zones are weird. Weird as in Battlefield has a top 3 out of 9 stage to side. So if you want to "balance" options by 3S/3M/3L you have to classify Battlefield as wide blast zones. And going by center to side, Delfino's and PS2 have the same value and therefore you have 3 small, 2 medium, 2 large, and Delfino/PS2 have to be either classified as both medium or both large.
And vertical blast zones. Well, they're pretty unfortunate no matter what the stagelist is.
For WL/PS2/FD/SV/BF/FoD/GHZ which are the 7 stages being included on pretty much every list, you have:
173, 181, 188, 195, 200, 203, 205 respectively. 7 stages within 32 units. Dreamland (250) is 39 units larger than the next largest stage (Delfino at 211). It's a pretty terrible spread regardless of what stages you bring in. Bowser's Castle is 191.
Still determined to make a more balanced stagelist that includes Skyworld. I'll work on it.
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
nimigoha, keep in mind that center to blastzone matters as well as side to blastzone. Kills from the center are different from kills from the side.
Also I've proposed a stagelist with Skyworld in it before. Nobody liked it but nobody really had much bad to say about it other than "I doubt people will like it". I'm going to run it for a season at SG and we'll get some feedback.
Also I've proposed a stagelist with Skyworld in it before. Nobody liked it but nobody really had much bad to say about it other than "I doubt people will like it". I'm going to run it for a season at SG and we'll get some feedback.
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
Starters: GHZ, FoD, BF, SV, PS2
CPs: WL, SW, Lylat, DS, DL
I explained all of the attributes and such. If you want more elaboration I can provide.
Castle had about the usage I expected at BR 20. Maybe a bit higher: I think I had the highest game total for the tourney on BC (bout half was conscious choice to push for it while I was on stream, even when it wasn't optimal. Not really a great Falcon stage)
Have mixed feelings about it. Some parts I like, some parts are kinda neutral, others stand out and don't seem ideal.
Like: Main stage size, lower platform positions/heights, platform size, bout 50% stage aesthetics (it's a beautiful stage in some areas)
Neutral: Middle platform (the minimal height increase is fine, makes more sense imo with all platforms equally shifted a touch down or entire main-stage being flat to ease this?)
Dislike: Uneven main-stage (did not affect my own matches, but what I assume to be a slope near the raised edge gives me pause), the other 50% of aesthetics
The aesthetics are a bigger deal than I expected. Reddish and Darker stuff from characters can be hard to discern from the stage. Had team friendlies where we literally had to ban Red team color because this was a big enough issue. Some areas offstage get visually crowded with lava, broken materials, the big chains connecting to the stage, both chars in a spike/recovery situation, etc. Quite a few times were moments where I wished the "pretty" stage looks were just stripped away so I could clearly see the life or death situation that was about to unfold offstage near the ledge. When someone with a Fire spike is about to unload on you, the last thing you want is a ton of Lava around, the chains around, etc.
Some TV's the stage does not look good, or the problems outlined get worse. Darker chars with darker lava/stage aspects is kind of a mess. Could call it Norfair syndrome lol
I still rate it like 7/10, but I am much more cautious about it being a starter. Another possibly great stage that could use more work?
Have mixed feelings about it. Some parts I like, some parts are kinda neutral, others stand out and don't seem ideal.
Like: Main stage size, lower platform positions/heights, platform size, bout 50% stage aesthetics (it's a beautiful stage in some areas)
Neutral: Middle platform (the minimal height increase is fine, makes more sense imo with all platforms equally shifted a touch down or entire main-stage being flat to ease this?)
Dislike: Uneven main-stage (did not affect my own matches, but what I assume to be a slope near the raised edge gives me pause), the other 50% of aesthetics
The aesthetics are a bigger deal than I expected. Reddish and Darker stuff from characters can be hard to discern from the stage. Had team friendlies where we literally had to ban Red team color because this was a big enough issue. Some areas offstage get visually crowded with lava, broken materials, the big chains connecting to the stage, both chars in a spike/recovery situation, etc. Quite a few times were moments where I wished the "pretty" stage looks were just stripped away so I could clearly see the life or death situation that was about to unfold offstage near the ledge. When someone with a Fire spike is about to unload on you, the last thing you want is a ton of Lava around, the chains around, etc.
Some TV's the stage does not look good, or the problems outlined get worse. Darker chars with darker lava/stage aspects is kind of a mess. Could call it Norfair syndrome lol
I still rate it like 7/10, but I am much more cautious about it being a starter. Another possibly great stage that could use more work?
Last edited:
The chain would still get in the way. Blue lava would fix a decent number of visibility issues, but I think the chain/broken materials/etc would still be a big deal. I definitely had 2-3 near blind tech situations where I had to trust my gut because I couldn't entirely see their spike, their character, my character, or some combination of this at a crucial offstage moment. I think one was on stream with Oracle actually. Blue lava might have helped to a certain degree but that chain is the devil I swear LOL
I mostly like the stage otherwise, which is a shame. I had some close, tough matches with it. Have to say I'm not sure how much I'd pick it in the future as Falcon even if all visibility issues were fixed, it's not a great stage for him but I figured it was worth trying on stream so more people would at least see the stage functioning in an actual bracket
I mostly like the stage otherwise, which is a shame. I had some close, tough matches with it. Have to say I'm not sure how much I'd pick it in the future as Falcon even if all visibility issues were fixed, it's not a great stage for him but I figured it was worth trying on stream so more people would at least see the stage functioning in an actual bracket
Last edited:
JesteRace
Smash Journeyman
Yeah, Nebraska isn't really having any problems with the stage. Response has been mostly positive, especially with the blue alt skin. That doesn't invalidate other people's experiences, it just makes it a little surprising to me. I fully admit that it might be quite difficult to make this list a standard with such a controversial stage included AND being a starter. It really sucks, cause had the PMDT had more time, a fixed version of Bowser's Castle (and maybe getting the ceiling lowered on Dreamland) would've made this stage list WAAAAYYYY easier to get accepted. I still stand by this list as I still feel it's the best we can do, balance-wise, but yeah, it's gonna be a tough sell.
Also, I appreciate the effort to actually let people see how the stage plays out, DMG. That was a cool move on your part because I think that stage is atrocious for Falcon lol
Also, I appreciate the effort to actually let people see how the stage plays out, DMG. That was a cool move on your part because I think that stage is atrocious for Falcon lol
Last edited:
I think Oracle and Luck were the other two that had a decent number of matches on Bowser's. It should have got decent exposure from that event regardless of how people feel. Same with Duelist, although Sethlon ****ed me up for being rusty LOL. Footstool hitbox is wtf in Brawl
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
i also played it some in tournament yesterday, it was just very visually jarring. from a strictly gameplay standpoint its probably fine but from a competitive standpoint i think people will avoid the stage for longer tournaments since its not very appealing to look at 20+ times per day.
nimigoha
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 877
I think the main issue is that for 5 starters, we only have 4 stages that are medium width. SV and BF are always there, then we have BoC which has visual and slant/platform complaints, and Yoshi's Brawl which has slant/shy guy complaints. For any kind of starter list that doesn't have stage size skew, we need to use one of them.
Also to alleviate skew within the starters, I think PS2 needs to be a counterpick. If the small starter is GHZ, it's ~20 smaller than BF/SV. PS2 is ~40 larger than BF/SV.
Working on a list. Want Skyworld in it. It will happen.
Yo actually having Skyworld as the small starter justifies PS2 as the large starter. This is fun.
Also to alleviate skew within the starters, I think PS2 needs to be a counterpick. If the small starter is GHZ, it's ~20 smaller than BF/SV. PS2 is ~40 larger than BF/SV.
Working on a list. Want Skyworld in it. It will happen.
Yo actually having Skyworld as the small starter justifies PS2 as the large starter. This is fun.
Last edited:
JesteRace
Smash Journeyman
If there's anything that's a harder sell than including BC/YI/etc. It's trying to **** with the big 3 as neutrals. BF/SV/PS2 will never be counterpicks.
nimigoha
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 877
It happened. It's perfect.