Walk-offs should be given a chance

[Aquamentii]

I don't think it's disadvantageous to have your back to the blast zone. It maximizes the biggest punish option anyone has in the game, being grab. If your opponent is forced into approaching you and has no projectile, they've probably lost already. I could see samus and Ness being really good on walk offs because of strong projectiles, Ness's powerful throws, and samus's huge grab range. In fact, most projectile campers would probably rocket to the top of tier lists... Not necessarily a bad thing, but the immediate kills will always represent a huge problem.

 

[clydeaker]

I don't think it's disadvantageous to have your back to the blast zone. It maximizes the biggest punish option anyone has in the game, being grab. If your opponent is forced into approaching you and has no projectile, they've probably lost already. I could see samus and Ness being really good on walk offs because of strong projectiles, Ness's powerful throws, and samus's huge grab range. In fact, most projectile campers would probably rocket to the top of tier lists... Not necessarily a bad thing, but the immediate kills will always represent a huge problem.

Almost every attack in the game overpowers a grab. Going in for a forward attack is more likely to get a hit than someone waiting to grab you.

 

[MajorMajora]

What exactly would be the benefit to adding walk-off stages? Is there any sort of benefit that weighs against all the significant drawbacks that have already been pointed out in this thread? Just saying "inherently beneficial" is not a good argument.

Well, adding more stages to learn cause a higher level of depth. Players who learn to utilize the most stages are, in a way, significantly skilled, and this lets them utilize this skill. Increased depth is a good thing. It gives players more options to utilize and separates the good from the great. It's good for competition to have as many legal stages as possible, in the same way we shouldn't want to ban characters. So saying adding stages is inherently good would be accurate.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

@ MajorMajora

What do you think of ledge stalling?

 

[MajorMajora]

@ MajorMajora

What do you think of ledge stalling?

What is that? Could you explain it to me? I don't think I've heard this terminology before.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

What is that? Could you explain it to me? I don't think I've heard this terminology before.

It's staying on the ledge stalling for time since as long as your careful, its one of the safest places to be.

It almost killed Brawl's scene.

It's the same type of thing with walk offs.

It's staying there because its the best place to be.

One back throw and you're done.

Both create absurdly boring matches and viewer and player unrest.


We all want more legal stages, but the older and more experienced people here are saying it's a bad idea.

You should try to understand why.

 

[MajorMajora]

It's staying on the ledge stalling for time since as long as your careful, its one of the safest places to be.

It almost killed Brawl's scene.

It's the same type of thing with walk offs.

It's staying there because its the best place to be.

One back throw and you're done.

Both create absurdly boring matches and viewer and player unrest.


We all want more legal stages, but the older and more experienced people here are saying it's a bad idea.

You should try to understand why.

Once again, I've heard a lot about walk-off camping for it being optimal and unoptimal, so right now I think all it is is contributing to how much of a grey area walk offs are in.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Once again, I've heard a lot about walk-off camping for it being optimal and unoptimal, so right now I think all it is is contributing to how much of a grey area walk offs are in.

Bro.

We tested them for three smash games.

There are some things that just don't change.

 

[MajorMajora]

Bro.

We tested them for three smash games.

There are some things that just don't change.

There are some that do. Like game mechanics. It's a new game, with new defensive options and a new meta. Walk-offs will work differently, the question I suppose is how. And maybe this is just my ignorance, having joined the scene during the smash 4 pre-release era, but I've yet to see how broken they are. I understand there were once chain grabs and other such problems, but now things are different.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

There are some that do. Like game mechanics. It's a new game, with new defensive options and a new meta. Walk-offs will work differently, the question I suppose is how. And maybe this is just my ignorance, having joined the scene during the smash 4 pre-release era, but I've yet to see how broken they are. I understand there were once chain grabs and other such problems, but now things are different.

Chaingrabbing was only one problem.

The others involved camping, over defensive gameplay and matches that involve stalling.

These things are still things that can easily happen.

 

[Aquamentii]

Almost every attack in the game overpowers a grab. Going in for a forward attack is more likely to get a hit than someone waiting to grab you.

Attacking does beat grabs (ideally), but shielding the attack and then grabbing is just as powerful. Your opponent will generally only have 2 or 3 options approaching you: dash grab, dash attack, or some other aerial/standard attack. Dash grab is the riskiest, being (for most characters) the laggiest option. Any other attack can just get you shield grabbed. Like I said before, in neutral, the defending player has the advantage.

Also, random side thought, but could you imagine the salt if a character with low traction like luigi was next to the edge and he blocked an attack, only to get pushed off the stage by the shield pushback and die? That would be hilarious.

 

[MajorMajora]

Chaingrabbing was only one problem.

The others involved camping, over defensive gameplay and matches that involve stalling.

These things are still things that can easily happen.

The scientific process is about rigor. I say we should be testing to see what the optimal strategies are in this game before we make assumptions based on past games.

And @ A Aquamentii I feel like it's hard to simply assert that the strongest strategy is to play passively when the strongest characters in the meta are focused around playing aggressively (Shiek, Diddy, Sonic, C. Falc, Fox, etc.)

 

[Swamp Sensei]

The scientific process is about rigor. I say we should be testing to see what the optimal strategies are in this game before we make assumptions based on past games.

No.

We went through this attitude with Brawl.

Where we had to test everything again.

It had a negative effect on the meta where we retreaded the same mistakes from Melee and 64.

 

[Aquamentii]

The scientific process is about rigor. I say we should be testing to see what the optimal strategies are in this game before we make assumptions based on past games.

And @ A Aquamentii I feel like it's hard to simply assert that the strongest strategy is to play passively when the strongest characters in the meta are focused around playing aggressively (Shiek, Diddy, Sonic, C. Falc, Fox, etc.)

But as it's been said before, two different metas. While rush down characters are at the top in the current meta, playing with walk offs would most likely put projectile campers at the top of tier lists, because of the immense reward from one punish, and when you're the one forcing approaches with % lead and projectile pressure, punishes will come a lot easier.

 

[MajorMajora]

But as it's been said before, two different metas. While rush down characters are at the top in the current meta, playing with walk offs would most likely put projectile campers at the top of tier lists, because of the immense reward from one punish, and when you're the one forcing approaches with % lead and projectile pressure, punishes will come a lot easier.

Interesting point… Well, I suppose this is why we need testing. I can't really come up with a solid argument as to why that is anything less than somewhat possible, but eh, I'm just advocating the scientific method here.

 

[Tinkerer]

To be fair, one of the big reasons for banning permanent walkoffs (chaingrabs) is no longer a thing. I'm not entirely sure what you expected.

All the others (camping, very early, easy kills through zero-to-death combos, removal of all of the recovery mechanics) are still very valid and more major to start with. Seriously, just go out there and see who likes walkoffs, play a few matches on Wii Fit Studio, and see if it holds up. If people like that completely change of style, then hey, sure, but I think there's no real good reason to add them, and it needs one.

 

[Aquamentii]

At the end of the day if someone wants to test it by running it in a local tourney or two, by all means go ahead. I just predict a very ugly result.

 

[MajorMajora]

At the end of the day if someone wants to test it by running it in a local tourney or two, by all means go ahead. I just predict a very ugly result.

Fair enough. I appreciate all the theory crafting you've added to the discussion. I understand that viewpoint, I have concerns myself, I guess I'm just an optimist.

 

[Aquamentii]

Fair enough. I appreciate all the theory crafting you've added to the discussion. I understand that viewpoint, I have concerns myself, I guess I'm just an optimist.

and I've been the pessimist

 

[MajorMajora]

and I've been the pessimist

They're both necessary in any society or decision making group, and so I suppose it's good to have both in theory crafting.

 

[Aquamentii]

If walk offs ever do become legal then I'm only counter picking to Mario Galaxy

 

[MajorMajora]

If walk offs ever do become legal then I'm only counter picking to Mario Galaxy

If they ever do become legal, the stage list'll probably be 17+ at that point and the other player should have at least the 3 bans it takes to make the walk offs disappear, but hey man if you want to get that stage to work for you go for it.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

All the others (camping, very early, easy kills through zero-to-death combos, removal of all of the recovery mechanics) are still very valid and more major to start with. Seriously, just go out there and see who likes walkoffs, play a few matches on Wii Fit Studio, and see if it holds up. If people like that completely change of style, then hey, sure, but I think there's no real good reason to add them, and it needs one.

If I had literally anyone closer than an hour's drive from me that I'm aware of to play with, I'd do that. (Luckily this will change in the near future, I'm moving to the city for a job. Wheee~)

I also want to note that your suggestion (try some matches on walkoffs and see how it goes) is exactly what this topic is proposing in the first place.

 

[Aquamentii]

Do you think that some walk off stages would be considered the same? Like banning FD also bans all omegas? I could see that as a possibility so players wouldn't have to waste all their bans on walk offs.

 

[MajorMajora]

If I had literally anyone closer than an hour's drive from me that I'm aware of to play with, I'd do that. (Luckily this will change in the near future, I'm moving to the city for a job. Wheee~)

I also want to note that your suggestion (try some matches on walkoffs and see how it goes) is exactly what this topic is proposing in the first place.

Awesome! You should make a stream with any like minded players you find. You tend to be for liberal stage choices, so having a group for testing these things out without having a negative pre-disposician. If only I didn't live in the suburbs…

Do you think that some walk off stages would be considered the same? Like banning FD also bans all omegas? I could see that as a possibility so players wouldn't have to waste all their bans on walk offs.

Hmmm… Possible, but I feel they are different enough to warrant different stages, but that's an interesting compromise. We could also just add one to start with and see how it goes. Lots of possibilities, not sure I have an answer.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Do you think that some walk off stages would be considered the same? Like banning FD also bans all omegas? I could see that as a possibility so players wouldn't have to waste all their bans on walk offs.

If I were to seriously design a tournament ruleset in a way that's intended to gently introduce the idea of walkoffs, I'd limit to exactly 1 walkoff (tossup between Wii Fit Studio or Coliseum, the two are honestly pretty interchangable) and give players an extra stage ban.

Awesome! You should make a stream with any like minded players you find. You tend to be for liberal stage choices, so having a group for testing these things out without having a negative pre-disposician. If only I didn't live in the suburbs…


Hmmm… Possible, but I feel they are different enough to warrant different stages, but that's an interesting compromise. We could also just add one to start with and see how it goes. Lots of possibilities, not sure I have an answer.

"Get more involved with RL Smash communities" has been on my to-do list for a while but being unemployed and living in a small town have both put a damper on that. Once I get some income going I'll have more flexibility.

I'm also in dire need of practice for basically the same reasons and will no doubt be revealed as fradulent the moment I try to play against anyone who knows what they're doing.

 

[LightLV]

ffs this is never going to happen

I understand your desire to expand the game, but please, put your effort into something worth expanding. Nobody is EVER going to make a walk-off tournament legal. It's not happening. There are 3 games worth of reasons why it's never happening. Smash 4 has enough problems going for it, no respectable tournament host is adding walkoff cheese to the list.

 

[RayNoire]

I think we can nip this in the bud by just laying out the "cheese" argument against walkoffs a bit more clearly. We're sort of enthymeming around it right now.

So let's say someone camps the edge of a walkoff. Like others have noted, it's a very high-risk, high-reward scenario, but I think it's safe to say it's about a 50/50 chance of death for either player. So why would someone subject themselves to this risk?

Some reasons:

--They're the worse player, and their chance of winning is improved on a coinflip scenario

--They've learned their opponent's patterns and are confident they can read what they do

--They have the stock lead and are at high %

In a high-level scenario, the last one is the most damning, because it becomes almost always the best option for the leading player as the reward is so heavily skewed in their favor. The first is also universally damning, because it allows worse players to cause upsets too easily and too often. This could be the definition of "cheese"--a strategy that flattens skill gaps by reducing variance and quantity of player interaction.

And then, of course, there's Sheik. Gawain basically said what I was going to say--four forward airs (which are guaranteed at low %s on many if not all characters) are easily enough to carry the opponent to the blast zone from midstage. Add in Bouncing Fish and you have a kill threat from almost anywhere. And this is on Sheik, who's kind of not supposed to do that.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I think we can nip this in the bud by just laying out the "cheese" argument against walkoffs a bit more clearly. We're sort of enthymeming around it right now.

So let's say someone camps the edge of a walkoff. Like others have noted, it's a very high-risk, high-reward scenario, but I think it's safe to say it's about a 50/50 chance of death for either player. So why would someone subject themselves to this risk?

Some reasons:

--They're the worse player, and their chance of winning is improved on a coinflip scenario

--They've learned their opponent's patterns and are confident they can read what they do

--They have the stock lead and are at high %

In a high-level scenario, the last one is the most damning, because it becomes almost always the best option for the leading player as the reward is so heavily skewed in their favor. The first is also universally damning, because it allows worse players to cause upsets too easily and too often. This could be the definition of "cheese"--a strategy that flattens skill gaps by reducing variance and quantity of player interaction.

And then, of course, there's Sheik. Gawain basically said what I was going to say--four forward airs (which are guaranteed at low %s on many if not all characters) are easily enough to carry the opponent to the blast zone from midstage. Add in Bouncing Fish and you have a kill threat from almost anywhere. And this is on Sheik, who's kind of not supposed to do that.

Devil's advocate: If the worse player is the one attempting to camp, then odds are they won't succeed because, well, they're the worse player.

 

[MajorMajora]

I think we can nip this in the bud by just laying out the "cheese" argument against walkoffs a bit more clearly. We're sort of enthymeming around it right now.

So let's say someone camps the edge of a walkoff. Like others have noted, it's a very high-risk, high-reward scenario, but I think it's safe to say it's about a 50/50 chance of death for either player. So why would someone subject themselves to this risk?

Some reasons:

--They're the worse player, and their chance of winning is improved on a coinflip scenario

--They've learned their opponent's patterns and are confident they can read what they do

--They have the stock lead and are at high %

In a high-level scenario, the last one is the most damning, because it becomes almost always the best option for the leading player as the reward is so heavily skewed in their favor. The first is also universally damning, because it allows worse players to cause upsets too easily and too often. This could be the definition of "cheese"--a strategy that flattens skill gaps by reducing variance and quantity of player interaction.

And then, of course, there's Sheik. Gawain basically said what I was going to say--four forward airs (which are guaranteed at low %s on many if not all characters) are easily enough to carry the opponent to the blast zone from midstage. Add in Bouncing Fish and you have a kill threat from almost anywhere. And this is on Sheik, who's kind of not supposed to do that.

The third thing you mention I will, once again, feel I can't take too seriously because, as I've stated, % rack is simply unimportant on walk-offs, as is their nature, so someone killing someone at 0% is not nearly as significant as it is on other stages.

The other ones you express are serious concerns. I still feel like it's based off of assumptions on what is optimal and what strategies are easily counter able and what aren't.

I suppose the sheik argument is the most significant one, but I've still yet to see it in practice.

Please don't think I'm dismissing your points, I'm considering them seriously, but I think things like this should never be decided in the theory crafting phase. Thank you, though, for clearly expressing your points.

 

[clydeaker]

Here are the following reason why a stage is banned according to http://www.ssbwiki.com/Banned_stage that applied to 64, Melee, and Brawl:

- Possessing one or more "caves of life."

- N/A​

- Allowing players to abuse glitches in the game.

- Maybe on some stages, but that's not the point here.​

- Possessing elements that causes the stage to be too strenuous on the system's CPU and thus being capable of reducing the game's frame rate mid-match.

- I could see Wii Fit Studios mirrors, and Boxing Rings background jumbo-tron reducing frame rate because they are removed in 8-player smash, however this is hardly an issue until it it proven to be an issue. This doesn't apply to walk-offs.​

- Drastically altering game play and the strategies needed to win (such as Icicle Mountain and Mario Bros.).

- Now this is a topic of debate. No grabable ledges eliminating the traditional recovery options and edge guarding. Character recoveries and edge guarding is still implemented, it's just not in the same traditional sense. This depends on if you think walk-offs are drastically altering game play and strategies needed to win.​

- Especially poor match-up balance by providing a rather EXTREME advantage for certain characters.(such as allowing the character to utilize excessive, game breaking camping, or utilize infinite chain throws)

- To my knowledge walk-offs give some advantages to certain characters (common knowledge), but none that are extreme enough to be banned. The excessive camping is somewhat debatable if it's game breaking or not. Infinite chain throws do not exist in smash 4.
​

- Possessing permanent walk-off blast lines and walls; the former creates unreasonably powerful camping positions and allow for potential easy zero-deaths that wouldn't occur normally, as well as marginalizing or completely eliminating offstage play, while the latter also creates powerful camping positions and allow for zero-death or otherwise heavily damaging combos that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Walk-offs and walls that occur only temporarily on a stage are considered detrimental, but acceptable enough to usually not result in a stage's banning itself.

This is the topic at hand
walk-offs themselves aren't banned unless they are permanent walk-offs. They allow for unreasonably powerful camping positions and allow potentially easy zero-deaths.
Now I'm going to break down this statement and address each topic at hand.

​

-Creates unreasonably powerful camping positions and allow for potential easy zero-deaths that wouldn't occur normally.

- Camping is an unfair strategy that ruins the fun of playing.
- Infinite chain grabs do not exist in smash 4.
- Projectiles can lure the camper out of camping
- You should stay away from the camper and edge as much as possible.
- Grabbing can be countered by an attack, just don't be stupid.
- 3 stock would make walk-off camping less stressful and risky.
- camping can happen on grabable ledges and are somewhat as risky as walk off camping.
​

- Potentially easy zero-deaths that wouldn't occur normally.

-Yes, this is an issue.
- Zero death combos have already be found in game.
- infinite chain grabs don't exist in Smash 4.
- you should stay away from the edge at all costs, just like any stage in smash.
- camper grabs are overpowered by all attacks, attacks by shield, and shield by grab or shield braker.
- as long as your not stupid you can stay alive.
- Zero-death spikes are just as unfair.
​

Marginalizing or completely eliminating offstage play.

- Off stage play isn't as big as it was in Melee, Brawl, and Project M.
- Unfair zero-deaths spikes are eliminated.​

 

[clydeaker]

Why stages with permanent edges should be banned:
- Edges allow for unreasonably powerful camping positions.
- potentially easy zero death spikes.
- Creates unfair advantages to characters with good recoveries and spikes.
- Characters who camp on edges AKA edge guarding prevent characters from recovering resulting in potentially unfair easy zero deaths.
- Marginalizing or completely eliminating walk-off play.
- stages with temporary ledges are considered detrimental, but acceptable enough to usually not result in an stages banning itself.

 

[RayNoire]

Come to think of it, with chaingrabs gone, is there any reason to ban stages with permanent walls? Also, are there any? (Besides Temple etc.)

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Come to think of it, with chaingrabs gone, is there any reason to ban stages with permanent walls? Also, are there any? (Besides Temple etc.)

"Caves of Life" because you can stay near the wall and constantly tech attacks.

Why stages with permanent edges should be banned:
- Edges allow for unreasonably powerful camping positions.
- potentially easy zero death spikes.
- Creates unfair advantages to characters with good recoveries and spikes.
- Characters who camp on edges AKA edge guarding prevent characters from recovering resulting in potentially unfair easy zero deaths.
- Marginalizing or completely eliminating walk-off play.
- stages with temporary ledges are considered detrimental, but acceptable enough to usually not result in an stages banning itself.

I'm sorry, but this is completely silly. The meta for stages has been established and ironed out for many many years now, and you want to say why it should be illegal?

 

[clydeaker]

I'm sorry, but this is completely silly. The meta for stages has been established and ironed out for many many years now, and you want to say why it should be illegal?

All I'm trying to point out is how silly it is to ban walk-off stages if I can come up with just as silly reasons for why stages with ledges should be banned.

Your point of view and opinion is clouded by previous meta games. Next thing you know your going to want to ban meta knight. ha ha!
I don't know if you've noticed this, but the Smash 4 isn't the same game as Melee or Brawl, it's meta game is still developing. If you don't believe me just look through the forums.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

All I'm trying to point out is how silly it is to ban walk-off stages if I can come up with just as silly reasons for why stages with ledges should be banned.

The meta for stages has been established and ironed out for many many years now

 

[SPoitter]

Look at Wii Fit Studio. by far one of the most fair, predictable, simple, and hazard less stages in Smash 4. The mirrors allow you to see off the stage making walk offs less of an issue. Theplatforms that appear prevent Fox lazer spammers, and little macs from dominating the stage. Not only do the platforms not kill you when they leave the stage like town and city. Theyadd to the depth of the stage. People say you can't edge guard on walk offs... Excuse me? Have you ever played on a walk off stage? Yes you can edge guard, just not in the exact same fation. Wii fit studo may be big but that's no excuse for not allowing it in doubles. If you opponent is edge camping all you need to do is use projectiles or Not be stupid enough to go after them. Plus edge camping won't be as big of an issue if wii fit studo were a doubles only stage. One opponent is edge camping your team will team up on the other opponet. You need to be smart. Keep in mind Its only one stage. There is only around a 10-15% chance your opponet will choose it as a counter pick.
Give me one good legitimate reason why Wii Fit Studio should be banned from doubles. (Please use video evidence to back up your point)


How is Wii Fit Studio Jank?

I understand your reasoning for banning walk offs now.

How about we ban every single stage except Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville. No more stupid omega stages variants, delfino, halberd, castle siege, etc. While were at it lets ban Diddy Kong, Shiek, Customs, actually I changed my mind. Smashville should be banned because of how close the moving platform gets to the edge (it's too close to a walk off stage.)

2 or 3 stock isn't accurate or fair enough. Lets start using 36 stock matches and best of 50 out of 99 matches. While were at it lets start using a Swiss system round robin Tournamet style where we repeat the TO 3 times just to make sure the results are accurate enough. If the matches end with a 5 stock difference you replay them because of how cheep close battles can be. Oh and Rosalina, mii fighters, dlc characters, and any character who beat you in a TO should be banned.

Let not forget about the fact that Little Macs KO punch, Peaches stitch turn up and bomb, Wario's waft, mr game and watches 9, Jigglypuff's rest, Rosalinas lima, samus/mewtwo/gunner/lucario charge shot, and Villagers tree are way to Over Powered. They should be banned as well.

*SARCASM*

How is Wii Fit Studio jank? lmfao. Aside from being the easiest walk off to camp on, it also has platforms to camp on, so anyone with a long range grab is a god here.

 

[clydeaker]

How is Wii Fit Studio jank? lmfao. Aside from being the easiest walk off to camp on, it also has platforms to camp on, so anyone with a long range grab is a god here.

Oh, so platforms reward camping, that's a good reason for banning it. I guess we should ban Battlefield and Smashville too. Ha ha!
Grabing makes people top tier on this stage eh? ...this may be a stupid question, but don't attacks overpower grabs? Hmm couldn't you just throw projectiles until they leave their camping spot?... I guess not everyone has projectiles. oh ya, if this were allowed wouldn't this just be one of around 8 legal stages... Hmm, something to think about. Don't the platforms prevent against campers who spam projectiles? Hmm?
I would love to see you to camp on the edge and try to grab me wile I use Bowser's side smash.

The meta for stages has been established and ironed out for many many years now,

Your point of view and opinion is clouded by previous meta games. Next thing you know your going to want to ban meta knight. ha ha!
I don't know if you've noticed this, but the Smash 4 isn't the same game as Melee or Brawl, it's meta game is still developing. If you don't believe me just look through the forums.

Ha ha! I can reply to your quote with a quote as well.

 

[LightLV]

yep im done here.

 

[MajorMajora]

"Caves of Life" because you can stay near the wall and constantly tech attacks.



I'm sorry, but this is completely silly. The meta for stages has been established and ironed out for many many years now, and you want to say why it should be illegal?

And the meta for walk-offs have been too?