The New Stage Discussion Thread: Operation Lava Kill

[SleepyK]

so... can we have a stagelist vote now?

 

[Slhoka]

so... can we have a stagelist vote now?

I don't mind to organize it, but right now I have too many things to do. I'll do it in February if no one is able to do it before this date.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

We need to have some kind of formalized dealie where we outline what we would do with the results, what X, Y, or Z results mean, what we are trying to accomplish, what statements we would make, etc. I'm going out of town this weekend to a tourney, so when I get back on Monday I may try to flesh out those ideas.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Are you going to WGF? I'll think about what precisely we should aim for in a stagelist and how we could go about accomplishing that tonight and we could talk about it at the inevitable post-tourney-dinner-at-mediocre-eatery.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Yeah I'm going. Sounds good.

 

[Pink Reaper]

im not invited? Take that me! Oh well i just agree with whatever hyuga says anyways.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

After thinking about stages last night and today, I think I've got a really solid set of four criteria for whether a stage should be legal, and if so, under what circumstances it would be a counterpick, although my fourth criterion does allow the possibility of no counterpicks existing under certain conditions. I don't have a lot of time right now and I don't want to present them without going over my justification for them, so I'll wait until after this weekend's tourney, which is also allows me to go over it with Sheridan and make sure that I'm not an idiot.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Okay, I no longer think that what I set out to achieve was practical. I had criteria for determining what stages should be legal in accordance with what skills we value, but what skills we value and how much we value them varies a lot by the individual; plus, it's inherently difficult to justify why some set of skills that somebody values is in some sense "better" than that of somebody else.

Regarding the stagelist vote: I'm fine with having a vote, but I don't think simply posting the results of it somewhere along with a brief explanation of the topic would accomplish much. We don't have any real authority, so nobody actually has much of an incentive to follow what we suggest, and just seeing the results of the poll and who voted for what isn't likely to change anybody's thoughts about any of the stages. What would be nice is if each person who votes could also provide a brief explanation of what they look for when determining whether a stage should be a starter, a CP, or neither. These could be displayed along with the results of the poll and each voter's list.

For example, I don't the think general scene would have much to gain from seeing that MBR Member X likes stage Y, but seeing what each member looks for in a stage and what skills s/he values might at least make some people think more about why they have the views that they hold about stages.

 

[Druggedfox]

We don't have any real authority, so nobody actually has much of an incentive to follow what we suggest, and just seeing the results of the poll and who voted for what isn't likely to change anybody's thoughts about any of the stages.

It feels like a significant portion of smashboards is under the impression that the MBR does indeed have authority, somehow ;p

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I'm sure there will be TOs who follow what we say for that reason, but it would be nice if they could provide better justification for their stagelist than something like "I use these stages because the results of an MBR poll told me to."

 

[Druggedfox]

Of course;

That said what would you think of initially doing a poll to see the results first? If the results don't yield any change, there's obviously no point; if they do, then you can have a few representatives of the side supporting the change explain their view.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Considering we've already discussed stages quite a bit amongst ourselves, I wouldn't object to that (although I haven't been a part of this thread in spite of being interested in this topic, so I really should look over it some time in the next several days). At this point, I'm more interested in showing the rationale behind our decisions to the public than the results themselves, so I'd still support having a post in MD explaining our rationale even if the results coincide with what we already have.

 

[Skler]

The only problem with showing our rationale is that inevitably people will disagree, and it'll just be a big thread of folks arguing over stages. We also need something to show how the majority of the MBR feels so TOs don't have to figure out what stages they want (do they want to design their own stagelist and then have to defend it?). If we release a stage list AND justifications we get the best of both worlds. Stages that were on the fence should still get a justification; if we ban Brinstar it deserves a blurb on why it was close to legal.

 

[SleepyK]

how do the brawl guys do it
"here's our stage list, eat a d**k"

 

[Pink Reaper]

The only problem with showing our rationale is that inevitably people will disagree, and it'll just be a big thread of folks arguing over stages. We also need something to show how the majority of the MBR feels so TOs don't have to figure out what stages they want (do they want to design their own stagelist and then have to defend it?). If we release a stage list AND justifications we get the best of both worlds. Stages that were on the fence should still get a justification; if we ban Brinstar it deserves a blurb on why it was close to legal.

Well, if you remember our rationale for Poke Floats, it was "This stage is gay" and while a lot of people would probably agree with us, others would probably also call us out on that.


Edit: I quoted the wrong person. But skler is sexy so im gonna leave it.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Oh, I wasn't proposing not showing a stagelist derived from the results and only showing rationale/votes or something like that; I agree that we should have a poll and use the results as a recommendation, but along with each voter's list, have a short statement from the voter explaining his/her views on stage legality.

I'd actually prefer it if people argue rather than just accept or ignore the list, and they likely will regardless whether or not the voters' justification is included.

edit @ PR: If voters have shaky grounds for their stance, I think the community should be aware of that.

 

[Druggedfox]

I think somewhere in the OP of this thread, or perhaps throughout the thread, a general inclination towards the concept that "If the stage differs too much from standard aspects of the game it should be banned" has been made.

Sure some stages are gay, but I don't think that honestly sums up the rationale for it

 

[DoH]

Can we stop using the term gay for things we don't like? Seriously offensive.

@druggedfox - how do you define "standard aspects"? Where's the brightline as to what is too far? Arbitrary rule is arbitrary.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Can we stop using the term gay for things we don't like? Seriously offensive.

would you prefer we only use it as the way its intended to be used, speaking of a delightful or otherwise happy occurrence?

 

[Druggedfox]

Can we stop using the term gay for things we don't like? Seriously offensive.

@druggedfox - how do you define "standard aspects"? Where's the brightline as to what is too far? Arbitrary rule is arbitrary.

If I recall correctly, skler cited edgeguarding as an example. I'm not too sure what exactly standard aspects are defined to be myself; maybe its something we should work on defining? I feel that its a good way to look at it, as a stage that completely eliminates edgeguarding as a factor, for example, might not be the best choice for a legal stage.

 

[KevinM]

Not to be offtopic but I am honestly surprised that D'oh is offended by gay being tossed around in a fighting game community at this point. I know my friend became more tolerant of it after he joined the BB and SF4 community, I've always taken the term for its face value in the fighting games community and not as a derogatory term.

 

[DoH]

Why not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that "the best way to play" is a construction. You youngins have never had to play against Fox/Falco teams on stages like Pipes because anything you don't like you just ban instead of testing it out and seeing if there are counters, or manning up and dealing with it. You have this idea that this ruleset you've modified to fit your views is the "right" way to play and things that don't fit your criteria you've pulled out of thin air should be eliminated.

@pinkreaper - I'm fine with people saying, man DoH is gay meaning that I sleep with men, or that I'm awfully cheerful. I have a problem with people saying it when I pick Brinstar or powershield>downsmash your approaches.

@KevinM - you might feel differently if every time people discussed stages or moves or characters or even players there were plenty of reminders that you are a second class citizen. Even if it's not meant to be derogatory it's still bullying and hurtful. Would you say that is so Asian about hungrybox's playstyle?

 

[Druggedfox]

Despite my join date, I've been playing competitively since 2004 >_>

And my opinions are based on watching matches, and playing on the stages. It isn't simply a matter of not liking something; I legitimately think brinstar/RC/KJ64 are ridiculously stupid stages to be kept legal, I have my explanations/reasonings, and I've played on them extensively to test out different ideas (with the exception of Rainbow Cruise).

It isn't simply a matter of "the best way to play". For example, recovering is a pretty integral part of the game in my opinion, as each character has one or more recovery moves and as the metagame has developed it has leaned towards stages where recoveries actually matter. That said, as competitive play has evolved, edgeguarding as also become prevalent as something I would consider a "standard" of high level play.

The fact that recoveries seem to be a major part of the game, the game has shifted towards supporting this idea, and edgeguarding has evolved as a significant facet of the game all lead me to say it is part of "standard play". It isn't' taking the ruleset we've modified and calling it right; it is taking observations from experience and theory and modifying the ruleset with it to ultimately make a more competitive and overall better game.

 

[KevinM]

If we could get smash to always say thats so hetero, or man that jiggs is hella caucasion I wouldn't be upset, but its kind of hard to pull that because i've never been persecuted for those two lifestyles.

I wasn't trying to be offensive or question you, I was just expressing that yours was the exact opposite of my friend so I found it worth noting .

 

[SleepyK]

omg landon i cannot believe you
i am so offended i'm going to report back to china japan veit cong land

but i agree. we have some ridiculous stages that are still being played.

 

[Pink Reaper]

oh man, it's all about when people make fun of DK for being Mexican.

 

[DoH]

My point is that it wouldn't be the same as saying that's so hetero or Asian because those people aren't systemically legislated against, and it's not a large sentiment that we should actively discriminate against these kinds of people.

But I digress.

Edeguarding is an important part of the game, especially on the stages we have chosen. Edgeguarding/recovery is not too terribly important on a stage like Pipes, while it is extremely important on Mute City.

Are chain throws an integral part of the game? Should we play FD only then?

 

[Druggedfox]

The stage list/game has also involved from other elements, which help to set the standard. The fact that the majority of stages where edgeguarding/recovery is not important are banworthy for other reasons helps to set the standard for the game which leads to edgeguarding becoming an integral part of it.

I can't really define the degree to which something must be involved in the game to be called "an integral part", but I think its fairly obvious that chaingrabbing is far less prevalent in melee than edgeguarding is.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Someone brought this up at WGF actually he asked if FD should be CP because of how much it "Unbalances the game" with CGs and i said this:

There's only 2 true neutral stages in the game, that is stages that have no outside effects completely out of player control and those are FD and BF. To state that FD unbalances the game because of Chain Grabs is like saying BF unbalances the game because of lack of chain grabs. CGing is a legitimate part of the game so rather than "FD must be CP" it should be "FD must not be CP" because by removing it you would be heavily unbalancing gameplay rather than the opposite effect.

Personally I've always wanted to meet Pocky so i could have this discussion with him since I know he's big on the "BF only" idea.

 

[Aldwyn McCloud]

Someone brought this up at WGF actually he asked if FD should be CP because of how much it "Unbalances the game" with CGs and i said this:

There's only 2 true neutral stages in the game, that is stages that have no outside effects completely out of player control and those are FD and BF. To state that FD unbalances the game because of Chain Grabs is like saying BF unbalances the game because of lack of chain grabs. CGing is a legitimate part of the game so rather than "FD must be CP" it should be "FD must not be CP" because by removing it you would be heavily unbalancing gameplay rather than the opposite effect.

That's legit to me, regardless of how much I personally hate FD. Actually, FD is slightly better than BF because doesn't have glitchy edges (I'm not sure if it's really a glitch though, I never really took the time to find out). Once again though is evident the lack of a universal definition of "balanced" stage.

 

[Skler]

Chain throws can be used anywhere, they just have varying effectiveness based on platforms, stage size, slants, etc. Removing edges that can be grabbed removes a lot from the game, it means characters like Sheik are straight up screwed when it comes to recovering. Making it so you can jump through the bottom of a stage is also changing the game, it screws hookshot recoveries and also adds options for recovering through the stage.

The question is what we, as a community, should reward. Everyone can agree that edgeguarding is a skill that should be rewarded. People agree that camping by running in a circle shooting lasers is a skill we don't want to reward.

Each stage you allow or ban gives people an idea of what sort of skills are worth learning and which ones aren't.

If you allow Hyrule Temple you tell everyone that laser camping is part of the skill set and something you should know how to do. If you allow Mute City you're saying that edgeguarding isn't that important, nor are skills that involve grabbing edges and you're saying dodging cars is something you should be capable of during a match. If you ban FD you're saying chaingrabs are less important than other combos. If you ban Battlefield you're saying...that three platform stages aren't cool and you hate its edge.

Each stage you ban does have an effect on the community. It can change character selection and what skills are practiced. I bet if you made Onett the only legal stage you'd be seeing a lot more Fox players and a lot more people who can wall infinite. Jigglypuff would just stop being played.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Just so we're all on the same page here, you're aware wall infinites can be smash DI'd out of very easily right?

 

[Skler]

Not if it's just shine shine shine shine shine shine

...right?

 

[SleepyK]

My point is that it wouldn't be the same as saying that's so hetero or Asian because those people aren't systemically legislated against, and it's not a large sentiment that we should actively discriminate against these kinds of people.

But I digress.

Edeguarding is an important part of the game, especially on the stages we have chosen. Edgeguarding/recovery is not too terribly important on a stage like Pipes, while it is extremely important on Mute City.

Are chain throws an integral part of the game? Should we play FD only then?

IDK about it not being a large sentiment.
i mean, i live in Georgia.

FD only like those slanty eyed i don't understand why jaaaapppps is censored

i'm kidding, landon.

Just so we're all on the same page here, you're aware wall infinites can be smash DI'd out of very easily right?

Not if it's just shine shine shine shine shine shine

...right?

i don't think shine shine wall infinites can be SDI'd out of.
rapid jab infinites like pikachu and YL can't be SDI'd out of in 1.0

 

[Skler]

I wonder if anyone can sustain pika's rapid jab for THAT long. Maybe N64 or Axe can tell us! It's a race!

 

[KishPrime]

Reading up a bit, I chuckled at DoH's mention of picking Fox/Falco on Pipes. We countered Ken/Isai there with that team in the middle of their many-year streak when they weren't as comfortable switching characters and pulled off a relatively easy win.

That said, all definitions and rules that the Smash community have come up with over the years are arbitrary definitions. With Smash, change is the only constant. The game throws as many varieties at you as possible, because it's a franchise that is at its heart about experimentation and fun. While most people find some varieties less fun than others, or find them too "disruptive" to gameplay, that doesn't mean that they aren't part of Smash. If they're all part of Smash, then the obvious question is: how far do we go in trimming the game?

Turns out there's no right answer. Moving platforms and Shyguys, most people put up with, but more controversial features like walk-off edges and stages with extremely violent danger zones got cut, and rightfully so in most cases. I'd actually have liked to see more experimentation with walk-offs, but I was overruled by a vast majority. Still, everyone has their own criteria for bans.

My core principles on defining rules basically came down to two key points:
1. Anything that is in the game is part of the game, and should not be removed without reasons backed by extremely overwhelming evidence that it hurts the game. A tactic or stage that overcentralizes the game should not be banned as long as counters exist.
2. Randomness doesn't need to be eliminated, but it should be managed. I usually used a 10-15% guideline - up to that percentage of the match, and I'm ok with it. Managed to that level, the best players can learn to make their own luck and overcome. This guideline had a big impact on my opinions for stage selection and items.

I admit, I did compromise on these quite a bit while we were running national tournaments, but I think that was the right thing to do. However, even post-MLG, we still tried to run sets with stages like Mute/DK64/Brinstar on neutral, since we felt that was more representative of the game as a whole. Of course, most people protested quite angrily. Shrug. At least we stuck by our beliefs there.

Here would be a sample of my opinion on a stage like Mute City under my criteria above, which is an awesome stage for variety. It changes some of the properties of the game in a non-game-breaking way by removing the ability to grab edges and having a transparent floor. The variety of platform situations to fight on is fantastic for players who show great adaptability, and I wish many of them were available as stages themselves. None of the core mechanics are damaged, and the danger zones are mild and predictable. It's large, which favors some characters, just like small stages favor other characters. While the cars can end a stock, it is not likely to do so at 0-20% except under extreme circumstances or when the player makes a significant mistake.

Sidebar: Ironic to the above discussion (I actually do agree that BF is one of the "most neutral" options, as it were), we actually made BF non-neutral at one FC because it duplicated too much of what was already in the list. We went with Story, FoD, FD, Dreamland, and Pokemon Stadium, figuring that gave a good balance of size, a good variety of plat layouts, and a good amount of required adaptability. We've always been more about representing the game and all it has to offer.

 

[wWw Dazwa]

Someone brought this up at WGF actually he asked if FD should be CP because of how much it "Unbalances the game" with CGs and i said this:

Are you sure he wasn't talking about Brawl? FD is easily 10 times as polarizing in Brawl as it is in Melee, and is probably the tied for the most commonly banned stage (along with Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise).

 

[Pink Reaper]

No, he was talking Melee, and it's been brought up here a few times as well honestly, usually by players who play characters who can be CG'd lol.

 

[Marc]

It's not so much that FD is unbalanced matchupwise (like it is in Brawl), it's moreso unbalanced gameplaywise, if that makes sense. If the top characters get you there once you're gonna eat a major combo or flat out die, significantly moreso than on other stages. Fox and Falco get CGed to hell and back there, but their own bull**** is amplified there as well. Platforms provide ways to escape and move around, while FD is entirely linear.

KishPrime: Mute City is usually banned because Peach and Jiggs are too good there for still having recovery options while the rest of the cast doesn't. I agree the hazards etc aren't that bad.

 

[TheZhuKeeper]

I wonder if anyone can sustain pika's rapid jab for THAT long. Maybe N64 or Axe can tell us! It's a race!

I know that Axe alternates thumbs to do it. You'd be surprised how easy it is to jab quickly with that method, Axe is pretty brilliant for figuring it out haha