Walk-offs should be given a chance

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

And the meta for walk-offs have been too?

I said the meta for stages. Which includes walkoffs. Which are banned. From years of development.

 

[MajorMajora]

I said the meta for stages. Which includes walkoffs. Which are banned. From years of development.

Whoops, sorry, misread that. Once again, I still am having a hard time believing so little has changed that we have a clear understanding on what strategies are optimal on walk-offs in smash 4 when no body even plays on them in the first place.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

Whoops, sorry, misread that. Once again, I still am having a hard time believing so little has changed that we have a clear understanding on what strategies are optimal on walk-offs in smash 4 when no body even plays on them in the first place.

But that's it though, people don't play on them because we've already had years to develop why we don't play on them, because they're bad for competitive play.

 

[Pyr]

I was thinking about walkoffs recently and I want to kinda of let people know why Walkoffs harm gameplay in a competitive setting and why that hasn't changed.

So, at the beginning of a match on a walkoff, you are same stock, same percent. The risk of abusing a walkoff outweighs the benefit of if that abuse pays off. If someone doesn't know how walkoffs work and goes right to the edge from the get-go, enjoy your free win. This is only true if they don't know how walkoffs work, but you do (since you're good at this game). If that's the case, the other player is going to go in if you do this from the start. Since you know more then them, you're going to get some free kills. Again, enjoy your free win. Game knowledge comes into play, and the one who has more wins, as is normal. That's an argument many have made in favor of Walkoffs. Not noob friendly, but nothing high-level usually is.

Walkoffs play like a normal game in the beginning. This entirely changes after the first stock is lost.

So, I take your stock, I'm at 100+% with stock lead. That risk vs reward? It's now in the favor of me, since I have stock lead. Sure, I might die by camping the side, but what do I risk? Tacking on some percent before I might of died originally? Certainly worth the chance at a free stock from 0% or to be able to lay on damage or to MAKE you assume the risk of death by switching places. Let me go into detail on how it will work.

So, I run to the side and you respawn. You can just spam projectiles or safe moves to get me to approach! But I'm not going to. There isn't a single projectile in this game I can't hard shield or power shield, and even safe moves put you into a position where I can make a dash grab or get some free damage, because so little is actually safe on shield in S4. And, getting close enough to use a move that I can't just react to means you're close enough to get grabbed or hit. And, if I get some damage from my attacks or my projectiles, I just get to mitigate the risk of me abusing the stage like I am in this situation. You have NO CHOICE but to approach a situation where, if you guess wrong or make a mistake, you die. Period. No real effort on my part. Nothing skillful done. Just a basic read or punish.

This is degenerative gameplay. You have to assume a large risk to my smallish one, for a reward that is marginal vs my reward, which is massive. All because of stage choice and because I managed to get the first stock. Dealing with this strategy is very straightforward: Approach and choose the right option. Choose wrong, and you get one of the few possible outcomes. What are those outcomes to just camping the edge of the stage on a walkoff? Here they are:

• You kill me and I didn't get damage on you! Congrats. We're back to how we started the game off, and advantage is mine because I get to respawn with invincibility. And you can't just do what I did because the risk vs reward isn't skewed enough for the reward to outweigh the risk, exactly like it was in the beginning.
• You kill me, but I got damage on you! Yay! I get to go into my next stock with a % lead just because I employed this strategy, and there isn't anything you could of done. You can't do the same thing as me, because, if you do, I just wait out on the platforms, or on the other side, with a % lead. You still have to approach, but at least the game is normal again.
• I back throw you and you died! We get to repeat this entire scenario again, only this time, the risk is EVEN LESS for the same reward, because I now have a TWO STOCK LEAD just because you guessed wrong with your approach. We get to continue this for AT LEAST 2 more stocks, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. Still degenerate.
• I back throw you, but you lived! Now you assume a much larger risk (dying at absurdly low %), for a much lesser reward (killing someone at a higher %), then I had. All those options you have to approach with? I have them now. The few options I have to defend or get the early kill? You have them now. I now get to abuse your limited options for a free kill, damage, or... I can just RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE and reset the scenario. Now you have a bit of %, so the next back throw leads to death. Still degenerate.

There isn't anything anyone can do to stop this after the first stock is taken. It's the optimal strategy, unless you got bodied first stock. If that happened, you're not winning either way. You can't stop it from occurring and the ways of dealing with it are very linear. If you screw up dealing with it, you die or go into one of the most unfavorable positions possible. If you succeed, I either have advantage because I dealt % OR we just go back to normal. The game can't resume until it's dealt with, and no one can do s*** to stop it from occurring. It's just too powerful and too beneficial for the abuser overall. It's why transforming stage walkoffs are allowed: The stage changes and, suddenly, the abuser is in a horrible position. You can just wait for it to change and render the strategy worthless. Perma-Walkoffs, though? First one to die is royally f***ed.

Ya, there is a greater risk of the abuser dying then the person that has to deal with it, but the cost of dying because of it? Marginal. The reward of pulling it off? Game-ending. (especially in a 2 stock format)

Ya, it won't happen all the time because people get bodied or double KO's happen. But it will happen in EVERY SINGLE COMPETITIVE GAME where those events don't happen. And there isn't a single thing that anyone in the disadvantage can do to make it so it doesn't happen.

It's a strategy that can be beaten, but why should it even be available as a strategy in the first place? We have a huge stage list already. Competitive Smash isn't a wheel that needs to be reinvented. We tried in Brawl and it didn't work for FUNDAMENTAL reasons that have existed in every single game that's had a walk off: All of them.

Quick Edit: I just want people to know what they're fighting for, here. This gameplay. This playstyle. If you can get it into a few locals where abuse doesn't occur, then that's just dandy. In a competitive setting, though, there is no reason to actually fight when this can be done, unless you just want to risk dying to tack on a few % before you do do this.

Edit2: I can't english. I fixed a bunch of grammatical errors.

 

[MajorMajora]

I said the meta for stages. Which includes walkoffs. Which are banned. From years of development.

Whoops, sorry, misread that. Once again, I still am having a hard time believing so little has changed that we have a clear understanding on what strategies are optimal on walk-offs in smash 4 when no body even plays on them in the first place.

I was thinking about walkoffs recently and I want to kinda of let people know why Walkoffs harm gameplay in a competitive setting and why that hasn't changed.

So, at the beginning of a match on a walkoff, you are same stock, same percent. The risk of abusing a walkoff outweighs the benefit of if that abuse pays off. If someone doesn't know how walkoffs work and goes right to the edge from the get-go, enjoy your free win. This is only true if they don't know how walkoffs work, but you do (since you're good at this game). If that's the case, the other player is going to go in if you do this from the start. Since you know more then them, you're going to get some free kills. Again, enjoy your free win. Game knowledge comes into play, and the one who has more wins, as is normal. That's an argument many have made in favor of Walkoffs. Not noob friendly, but nothing high-level usually is.

Walkoffs play like a normal game in the beginning. This entirely changes after the first stock is lost.

So, I take your stock, I'm at 100+% with stock lead. That risk vs reward? It's now in the favor of me, since I have stock lead. Sure, I might die by camping the side, but what do I risk? Tacking on some percent before I might of died originally? Certainly worth the chance at a free stock from 0% or to be able to lay on damage or to MAKE you assume the risk of death by switching places. Let me go into detail on how it will work.

So, I run to the side and you respawn. You can just spam projectiles or safe moves to get me to approach! But I'm not going to. There isn't a single projectile in this game I can't hard shield or power shield, and even safe moves put you into a position where I can make a dash grab or get some free damage, because so little is actually safe on shield in S4. And, getting close enough to use a move that I can't just react to means you're close enough to get grabbed or hit. And, if I get some damage from my attacks or my projectiles, I just get to mitigate the risk of me abusing the stage like I am in this situation. You have NO CHOICE but to approach a situation where, if you guess wrong or make a mistake, you die. Period. No real effort on my part. Nothing skillful done. Just a basic read or punish.

This is degenerative gameplay. You have to assume a large risk to my smallish one, for a reward that is marginal vs my reward, which is massive. All because of stage choice and because I managed to get the first stock. Dealing with this strategy is very straightforward: Approach and choose the right option. Choose wrong, and you get one of the few possible outcomes. What are those outcomes to just camping the edge of the stage on a walkoff? Here they are:

• You kill me and I didn't get damage on you! Congrats. We're back to how we started the game off, and advantage is mine because I get to respawn with invincibility. And you can't just do what I did because the risk vs reward isn't skewed enough for the reward to outweigh the risk, exactly like it was in the beginning.
• You kill me, but I got damage on you! Yay! I get to go into my next stock with a % lead just because I employed this strategy, and there isn't anything you could of done. You can't do the same thing as me, because, if you do, I just wait out on the platforms, or on the other side, with a % lead. You still have to approach, but at least the game is normal again.
• I back throw you and you died! We get to repeat this entire scenario again, only this time, the risk is EVEN LESS for the same reward, because I now have a TWO STOCK LEAD just because you guessed wrong with your approach. We get to continue this for AT LEAST 2 more stocks, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. Still degenerate.
• I back throw you, but you lived! Now you assume a much larger risk (dying at absurdly low %), for a much lesser reward (killing someone at a higher %), then I had. All those options you have to approach with? I have them now. The few options I have to defend or get the early kill? You have them now. I now get to abuse your limited options for a free kill, damage, or... I can just RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE and reset the scenario. Now you have a bit of %, so the next back throw leads to death. Still degenerate.

There isn't anything anyone can do to stop this after the first stock is taken. It's the optimal strategy, unless you got bodied first stock. If that happened, you're not winning either way. You can't stop it from occurring and the ways of dealing with it are very linear. If you screw up dealing with it, you die or go into one of the most unfavorable positions possible. If you succeed, I either have advantage because I dealt % OR we just go back to normal. The game can't resume until it's dealt with, and no one can do s*** to stop it from occurring. It's just too powerful and too beneficial for the abuser overall. It's why transforming stage walkoffs are allowed: The stage changes and, suddenly, the abuser is in a horrible position. You can just wait for it to change and render the strategy worthless. Perma-Walkoffs, though? First one to die is royally f***ed.

Ya, there is a greater risk of the abuser dying then the person that has to deal with it, but the cost of dying because of it? Marginal. The reward of pulling it off? Game-ending. (especially in a 2 stock format)

Ya, it won't happen all the time because people get bodied or double KO's happen. But it will happen in EVERY SINGLE COMPETITIVE GAME where those events don't happen. And there isn't a single thing that anyone in the disadvantage can do to make it so it doesn't happen.

It's a strategy that can be beaten, but why should it even be available as a strategy in the first place? We have a huge stage list already. Competitive Smash isn't a wheel that needs to be reinvented. We tried in Brawl and it didn't work for FUNDAMENTAL reasons that have existed in every single game that's had a walk off: All of them.

Quick Edit: I just want people to know what they're fighting for, here. This gameplay. This playstyle. If you can get it into a few locals where abuse doesn't occur, then that's just dandy. In a competitive setting, though, there is no reason to actually fight when this can be done, unless you just want to risk dying to tack on a few % before you do do this.

Edit2: I can't english. I fixed a bunch of grammatical errors.

Thank you very much for writing this. I think a lot of this holds water. I notice a lot of this hinges on percent leads when % generally doesn't matter as much on walk-offs and isn't a good metric by which to measure a significant lead (not to mention if you don't die till 100+% then your opponent is probably doing something wrong.)

Still, I feel like it's hard to make me feel more iffy than I already am. I have serious doubts, and a lot of what you've written is stuff that I understand quite solemnly, but theory crafting really can only take us so far. If fights against my friend who used to main Ness taught me anything it's that trying to back throw an approaching opponent as your only kill option is less than a 50/50. Or that he was playing Ness wrong. One of those 2. And whether the lessened chance of success, and therefore heightened risk of death, is worth a % lead that, in the end, means a lot less than it feels like it does, is something I can't say for sure.

 

[TheAnomaly]

I was thinking about walkoffs recently and I want to kinda of let people know why Walkoffs harm gameplay in a competitive setting and why that hasn't changed.

So, at the beginning of a match on a walkoff, you are same stock, same percent. The risk of abusing a walkoff outweighs the benefit of if that abuse pays off. If someone doesn't know how walkoffs work and goes right to the edge from the get-go, enjoy your free win. This is only true if they don't know how walkoffs work, but you do (since you're good at this game). If that's the case, the other player is going to go in if you do this from the start. Since you know more then them, you're going to get some free kills. Again, enjoy your free win. Game knowledge comes into play, and the one who has more wins, as is normal. That's an argument many have made in favor of Walkoffs. Not noob friendly, but nothing high-level usually is.

Walkoffs play like a normal game in the beginning. This entirely changes after the first stock is lost.

So, I take your stock, I'm at 100+% with stock lead. That risk vs reward? It's now in the favor of me, since I have stock lead. Sure, I might die by camping the side, but what do I risk? Tacking on some percent before I might of died originally? Certainly worth the chance at a free stock from 0% or to be able to lay on damage or to MAKE you assume the risk of death by switching places. Let me go into detail on how it will work.

So, I run to the side and you respawn. You can just spam projectiles or safe moves to get me to approach! But I'm not going to. There isn't a single projectile in this game I can't hard shield or power shield, and even safe moves put you into a position where I can make a dash grab or get some free damage, because so little is actually safe on shield in S4. And, getting close enough to use a move that I can't just react to means you're close enough to get grabbed or hit. And, if I get some damage from my attacks or my projectiles, I just get to mitigate the risk of me abusing the stage like I am in this situation. You have NO CHOICE but to approach a situation where, if you guess wrong or make a mistake, you die. Period. No real effort on my part. Nothing skillful done. Just a basic read or punish.

This is degenerative gameplay. You have to assume a large risk to my smallish one, for a reward that is marginal vs my reward, which is massive. All because of stage choice and because I managed to get the first stock. Dealing with this strategy is very straightforward: Approach and choose the right option. Choose wrong, and you get one of the few possible outcomes. What are those outcomes to just camping the edge of the stage on a walkoff? Here they are:

• You kill me and I didn't get damage on you! Congrats. We're back to how we started the game off, and advantage is mine because I get to respawn with invincibility. And you can't just do what I did because the risk vs reward isn't skewed enough for the reward to outweigh the risk, exactly like it was in the beginning.
• You kill me, but I got damage on you! Yay! I get to go into my next stock with a % lead just because I employed this strategy, and there isn't anything you could of done. You can't do the same thing as me, because, if you do, I just wait out on the platforms, or on the other side, with a % lead. You still have to approach, but at least the game is normal again.
• I back throw you and you died! We get to repeat this entire scenario again, only this time, the risk is EVEN LESS for the same reward, because I now have a TWO STOCK LEAD just because you guessed wrong with your approach. We get to continue this for AT LEAST 2 more stocks, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. Still degenerate.
• I back throw you, but you lived! Now you assume a much larger risk (dying at absurdly low %), for a much lesser reward (killing someone at a higher %), then I had. All those options you have to approach with? I have them now. The few options I have to defend or get the early kill? You have them now. I now get to abuse your limited options for a free kill, damage, or... I can just RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE and reset the scenario. Now you have a bit of %, so the next back throw leads to death. Still degenerate.

There isn't anything anyone can do to stop this after the first stock is taken. It's the optimal strategy, unless you got bodied first stock. If that happened, you're not winning either way. You can't stop it from occurring and the ways of dealing with it are very linear. If you screw up dealing with it, you die or go into one of the most unfavorable positions possible. If you succeed, I either have advantage because I dealt % OR we just go back to normal. The game can't resume until it's dealt with, and no one can do s*** to stop it from occurring. It's just too powerful and too beneficial for the abuser overall. It's why transforming stage walkoffs are allowed: The stage changes and, suddenly, the abuser is in a horrible position. You can just wait for it to change and render the strategy worthless. Perma-Walkoffs, though? First one to die is royally f***ed.

Ya, there is a greater risk of the abuser dying then the person that has to deal with it, but the cost of dying because of it? Marginal. The reward of pulling it off? Game-ending. (especially in a 2 stock format)

Ya, it won't happen all the time because people get bodied or double KO's happen. But it will happen in EVERY SINGLE COMPETITIVE GAME where those events don't happen. And there isn't a single thing that anyone in the disadvantage can do to make it so it doesn't happen.

It's a strategy that can be beaten, but why should it even be available as a strategy in the first place? We have a huge stage list already. Competitive Smash isn't a wheel that needs to be reinvented. We tried in Brawl and it didn't work for FUNDAMENTAL reasons that have existed in every single game that's had a walk off: All of them.

Quick Edit: I just want people to know what they're fighting for, here. This gameplay. This playstyle. If you can get it into a few locals where abuse doesn't occur, then that's just dandy. In a competitive setting, though, there is no reason to actually fight when this can be done, unless you just want to risk dying to tack on a few % before you do do this.

Edit2: I can't english. I fixed a bunch of grammatical errors.

Now while this is a well explained and quite valid concern, and I have changed my opinion on walkoffs slightly because of it, it only becomes a problem if many walkoff stages are included so one cannot simply ban it to avoid the situation. It doesn't really help the worst player(in most scenarios, the better player will take the first stock). Yes the gameplay isn't pretty but it is different and still competitive. You may have a low risk/high reward situation but the chance of obtaining the reward is small as you pointed out and the reward just increases the importance of getting the first stock in a game which one mostly aims for anyway. I never really sat down and thought it out to that degree but I believe that as long as the chances of obtaining the easy kill(your options are grab or sheild grab for an easy kill which are not exactly fast options) remain as low as they are walkoffs are still viable.

 

[RayNoire]

If fights against my friend who used to main Ness taught me anything it's that trying to back throw an approaching opponent as your only kill option is less than a 50/50. Or that he was playing Ness wrong. One of those 2. And whether the lessened chance of success, and therefore heightened risk of death, is worth a % lead that, in the end, means a lot less than it feels like it does, is something I can't say for sure.

The thing is, all you have to do is cover your opponents' options, and shield grab beats dash attack (and they can't crossup or they'll probably die) and regular grab beats dash grab. There's also pivot-forward throw and crossup back air or neutral air (or down B windbox, which would be hilarious) if your opponent approaches more carefully.

You also have the advantage of being very difficult to see, particularly if you camp the blind spot between the screen and the magnifying glass zone. This adds a lot of safety to whatever you do.

Also just realized that Mario literally gets a 1-hit kill in High-Pressure FLUDD. DK's Storm Punch as well.

Edit: Looks like from center stage on Wii Fit Studio, Both moves JUST BARELY don't kill Mario at 0%. Not sure how they work with rage/higher percent on opponents.

Edit 2: They do kill Luigi.

 

[Pyr]

Thank you very much for writing this. I think a lot of this holds water. I notice a lot of this hinges on percent leads when % generally doesn't matter as much on walk-offs and isn't a good metric by which to measure a significant lead (not to mention if you don't die till 100+% then your opponent is probably doing something wrong.)

Still, I feel like it's hard to make me feel more iffy than I already am. I have serious doubts, and a lot of what you've written is stuff that I understand quite solemnly, but theory crafting really can only take us so far. If fights against my friend who used to main Ness taught me anything it's that trying to back throw an approaching opponent as your only kill option is less than a 50/50. Or that he was playing Ness wrong. One of those 2. And whether the lessened chance of success, and therefore heightened risk of death, is worth a % lead that, in the end, means a lot less than it feels like it does, is something I can't say for sure.

The reason % matters as much as it does is because you can wait out the clock if you have the % lead. This isn't new, but walkoffs kind of buff up the issue. The 100% was just an example. It'll change between characters and matchups, but the concept should be the same.

Other then that, though, I understand your post.

Now while this is a well explained and quite valid concern, and I have changed my opinion on walkoffs slightly because of it, it only becomes a problem if many walkoff stages are included so one cannot simply ban it to avoid the situation. It doesn't really help the worst player(in most scenarios, the better player will take the first stock). Yes the gameplay isn't pretty but it is different and still competitive. You may have a low risk/high reward situation but the chance of obtaining the reward is small as you pointed out and the reward just increases the importance of getting the first stock in a game which one mostly aims for anyway. I never really sat down and thought it out to that degree but I believe that as long as the chances of obtaining the easy kill(your options are grab or sheild grab for an easy kill which are not exactly fast options) remain as low as they are walkoffs are still viable.

It's not about helping the lesser player or about the early kill in and of itself. It's about gameplay being trivialized between 2 equal people due to stage selection. I think it is markably unfair that I'd have to basically ban Temple every time I need to ban because I don't want to circle camp/be circle camped. When players need to ban a specific stage due to strategies that the stage themselves allow, there is something wrong with the stage.

 

[TheAnomaly]

It's not about helping the lesser player or about the early kill in and of itself. It's about gameplay being trivialized between 2 equal people due to stage selection. I think it is markably unfair that I'd have to basically ban Temple every time I need to ban because I don't want to circle camp/be circle camped. When players need to ban a specific stage due to strategies that the stage themselves allow, there is something wrong with the stage.

There are flaws in your logic.

First and most important is that circle camping is banned because the game is truly unplayable with it as some characters re impossible to catch on certain stages.

Secondly, because I ban Battlefield all the time against zss because of the platform combos or banning delphino and halberd against rosa and diddy because of easy top kills, does that mean there is something wrong with those stages? Not as far as I'm concerned. It just means that gameplay is focused on something different on that stage and if you don't wish to be a part of it then simply ban the stage.

Now while I get your point about the gameplay being trivialized to walkoffcamping every time a stock lead is gained, is this not normal? Every time a stock lead is gained in a match it becomes that person's focus to do as much % or get an easy kill on the other person with their remaining stock. Walkoff camping has a much lower rate of success with a much higher reward payoff. I don't think it is so terribly bad simply because it is so trivial to rush the person a few times and do nothing i.e. rush in their face while staying slightly out of range to see which of their 2 options they pick normal grab or sheild grab, followed by back throw.These are the only 2 options(for the majority of the cast) which will outright kill you before you have time to react. Simply do this a few times and you can make a fairly safe decision in securing yourself an easy stock.
The gameplay became incredibly focused on a specific point for a short period in the match just with a ridiculous reward payoff. Focused gameplay is a function of all matches however (approaching a zoning character) so I don't think this in itself is inherently bad. Now with the starter counterpick system I don't believe walkoff stages would ever make the starter list in most peoples minds and with FLSS you will never have to worry about a walkoff while not seriously hampering you stage choices should you not want it on the first game. After that it simply becomes a counterpick like every other stage. Ban it if you don't like the chances it offers your opponent or leave it if you don't mind the gameplay that stage involves. At most it will affect one match of a set(which could be the deciding match but this is why the loser gets to choose a stage, to give him a slight advantage for the next game.)

 

[LightLV]

Secondly, because I ban Battlefield all the time against zss because of the platform combos or banning delphino and halberd against rosa and diddy because of easy top kills, does that mean there is something wrong with those stages? Not as far as I'm concerned. It just means that gameplay is focused on something different on that stage and if you don't wish to be a part of it then simply ban the stage.

Walkoff camping has a much lower rate of success with a much higher reward payoff.

Oh my god

come on guys what parts of "we tried it", "it's degenerative", "optimal strategy 100% of the time", and "trivializes the other mechanics of the game" aren't people understanding

 

[cot(θ)]

Oh my god

come on guys what parts of "we tried it", "it's degenerative", "optimal strategy 100% of the time", and "trivializes the other mechanics of the game" aren't people understanding

We haven't tried it in Smash 4, and even in other games walkoffs were banned from waveshine combos and chaingrabs before it could really be determined whether walkoff camping is problematic. And claiming that it's the "optimal strategy 100% of the time" based on nothing more than your own theory crafting is the height of arrogance.

 

[Routa]

So the problem is that people camp near the blast zone line and throw kill? Why aren't people complaining about other stages where you can get easy kill with a spike?
If you ask me the "campy throw kill" isn't a good argument. It is like FD or any other stage that does not have walkoffs should be banned 'cause you can get easy kills with a spike.
Can some one explain why trying new type of stage is bad? I mean there are people that play 3DS one that think Mute City could be legal. If you ask me walkoffs needs more testing just like Mute City, but that is my opinion.

 

[RayNoire]

The only way spikes could possibly be compared to walkoff camping is if you could hover indefinitely in the air offstage and the only way your opponent could approach is below you.

 

[Pyr]

We haven't tried it in Smash 4, and even in other games walkoffs were banned from waveshine combos and chaingrabs before it could really be determined whether walkoff camping is problematic. And claiming that it's the "optimal strategy 100% of the time" based on nothing more than your own theory crafting is the height of arrogance.

Tell me how it's not an optimal strategy in the context I presented, and I'll gladly humor your (incorrect) knowledge of walkoffs. Tell me how it doesn't destroy and trivialize play. Tell me how it's so easily dealt with that the strategy isn't feasible.

Because, even in Fox-Less Melee matchups, these things exist. Even in D3-Free Brawl matchups, these things exist. Not everything in the game needs to be tested and implemented. Especially something as blatantly, and historically, toxic as walkoff gameplay. So ya. Tell me how to beat it in the context I described. Tell me how to deal with it when it all comes down to if you win a game of rock-paper-scissors. I'm not theorycrafting. This is why they are problematic, and it's why they've always been problematic, on a fundamental level.

If you can find a solution to a DECADE old problem, then good on you. I think the entire community would like to hear it.

There are flaws in your logic.

First and most important is that circle camping is banned because the game is truly unplayable with it as some characters re impossible to catch on certain stages.

It was a simple comparison. Why did you take it so literally? It was to show that a stage-specific strategy can only be employed on a specific stage, that strategy is degenerative to competitive play, and that stage is banned because of the previous points. I'm not even factoring in the cave of life issues.

Secondly, because I ban Battlefield all the time against zss because of the platform combos or banning delphino and halberd against rosa and diddy because of easy top kills, does that mean there is something wrong with those stages? Not as far as I'm concerned. It just means that gameplay is focused on something different on that stage and if you don't wish to be a part of it then simply ban the stage.

The huge difference is that those are MATCHUP DEPENDENT. Walkoff strategy can be universally employed, thus must be dealt with universally. Like I said, if anyone aware of the strategy needs to ban a stage every single set, there is something fundamentally wrong with the stage.

Now while I get your point about the gameplay being trivialized to walkoffcamping every time a stock lead is gained, is this not normal? Every time a stock lead is gained in a match it becomes that person's focus to do as much % or get an easy kill on the other person with their remaining stock. Walkoff camping has a much lower rate of success with a much higher reward payoff. I don't think it is so terribly bad simply because it is so trivial to rush the person a few times and do nothing i.e. rush in their face while staying slightly out of range to see which of their 2 options they pick normal grab or sheild grab, followed by back throw.These are the only 2 options(for the majority of the cast) which will outright kill you before you have time to react. Simply do this a few times and you can make a fairly safe decision in securing yourself an easy stock.

It's normal to get an ADVANTAGE off of a stock lead. Gameplay still resumes on normal stages. On walkoffs, that is not the case. Horrific way to try and justify your point.

Oh ya. Cause the scrub you're against is going to pick the option every single time, or won't dashgrab you on landing, or won't hit you with an attack when you purposefully wiff something. /sarcasm

They have more then just 2 options even when employing this strategy. Dealing with it isn't trivial like you try to make it out to be. It's just linear.

So the problem is that people camp near the blast zone line and throw kill? Why aren't people complaining about other stages where you can get easy kill with a spike?

Because you actually have a decent amount of counterplay after the throw for a spike. You have little, or literally none, for a throw on a walkoff.

As for your new stage type question, Walkoffs have been proven, time and again, to be fundamentally broken. Tests have already been done, and nothing in Smash 4 changes their fundamental issues. The same issues that have been present for a decade.

 

[TheAnomaly]

The huge difference is that those are MATCHUP DEPENDENT. Walkoff strategy can be universally employed, thus must be dealt with universally. Like I said, if anyone aware of the strategy needs to ban a stage every single set, there is something fundamentally wrong with the stage.

Fair point about it being universally applicable but you have yet to prove it is NECESSARY to ban it.

It's normal to get an ADVANTAGE off of a stock lead. Gameplay still resumes on normal stages. On walkoffs, that is not the case. Horrific way to try and justify your point.

Oh ya. Cause the scrub you're against is going to pick the option every single time, or won't dashgrab you on landing, or won't hit you with an attack when you purposefully wiff something. /sarcasm

They have more then just 2 options even when employing this strategy. Dealing with it isn't trivial like you try to make it out to be. It's just linear.

The advantage is the same on walkoffs. You have a chance at increasing you lead. The reward on walkoffs however is a quick win. I already mentioned how I believe this is fine so long as the chances are as low as they are. Normal gameplay does actually resume as soon as the stock lead is dealt with. I never said rush in reckless with unsafe moves. I said play footsies to test his reaction. Toss out safe moves while feinting an approach to see what his reaction is. The simple fact is you only have to worry about 2 options ending your stock early for the walkoff to be the dominant factor. Any other option the character takes can occur on any stage as a part of the normal camp game after taking a stock. If the camper had even as low as a 50/5 chance of getting the cheap kill easily I would simply say ban walkoffs but I am yet to be convinced it is that simple once you approach correctly. As long as the chance at getting that cheap kill is so low I don't believe that focusing on killing someone camping the walkoff for a small portion of a match after a stock is taken is so terribly bad for gameplay.

 

[Pyr]

Fair point about it being universally applicable but you have yet to prove it is NECESSARY to ban it.

I've got 3 previous games of proof. All you've got is theory.

The advantage is the same on walkoffs. You have a chance at increasing you lead. The reward on walkoffs however is a quick win. I already mentioned how I believe this is fine so long as the chances are as low as they are. Normal gameplay does actually resume as soon as the stock lead is dealt with. I never said rush in reckless with unsafe moves. I said play footsies to test his reaction. Toss out safe moves while feinting an approach to see what his reaction is. The simple fact is you only have to worry about 2 options ending your stock early for the walkoff to be the dominant factor. Any other option the character takes can occur on any stage as a part of the normal camp game after taking a stock. If the camper had even as low as a 50/5 chance of getting the cheap kill easily I would simply say ban walkoffs but I am yet to be convinced it is that simple once you approach correctly. As long as the chance at getting that cheap kill is so low I don't believe that focusing on killing someone camping the walkoff for a small portion of a match after a stock is taken is so terribly bad for gameplay.

It is not the same as walkoffs. On normal stages, work is required. Gameplay is required. A lot of talking is required. Those 3 things are required to lengthen a lead. How can you possibly justify that those things are the same as getting a quick win or a quick, massive lead, that can be produced in a situation that is unavoidable by the player that is behind? I think you gravely, massively underestimate the chances of it occurring.

And you obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think the abuser just has 2 options or they will just sit there and react to your footsies and nothing else. Truly safe moves are few and far between in this game. What happens if you're playing a character that can't just do safe things for free, like with the majority of the cast? Tangent aside, walkoff bans are much, MUCH less about early kills and much, MUCH more about the type of gameplay they promote and allow.

The chances of it occurring successfully are far from inconsequential.

 

[Charey]

FYI: Dragon Rush is also a 1HKO on walk offs, you just drag them with you right to the blast line.

I did this 3 times in one triples game on Castle Siege.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Tangent aside, walkoff bans are much, MUCH less about early kills and much, MUCH more about the type of gameplay they promote and allow.

Where is the proof for this? It should be innocent until proven guilty. We have past games with differing mechanics so the majority of those matches are unfit for comparison. I myself really dislike walkoffs but I am of the opinion that just because I don't like something does not mean it is broken or bad for gameplay. While playing with friends(yes not the greatest of examples but it is one of the few examples I have to work with) walkoff camping is really not as simple as most people think. You really only have 2 options to secure the quick kill. Any other option you have is the same as if you were camping a strong position in another stage that is hard to approach. I reduced the topic to the 2 options of grab and shield grab because almost nothing else will kill you so it is irrelevant to the discussion. From the time you realize this your definition of safe should change to what will and wont get you killed by one of those options. Now you may receive some extra % while attempting to kill the player camping the walkoff but in the majority of the situations with good footsie play you can secure the kill on the player at the walkoff or force him away from the walkoff.

I'm not saying that walkoffs are absolutely competitively viable but I am saying there is a chance they might be and that chance should be tested. Most people just write off walkoffs without a good reason. Your original post was one of the best thought out approaches against walkoffs that I have ever read so I just wanted to disagree with it for the sake of discussion.

 

[Staticky]

Where is the proof for this? It should be innocent until proven guilty

Where is this coming from? Stages aren't human beings being put on trial. They are video game stages. Almost all stages in Smash are usually banned, so it really should be guilty until proven innocent IMO.

 

[Charey]

Where is this coming from? Stages aren't human beings being put on trial. They are video game stages. Almost all stages in Smash are usually banned, so it really should be guilty until proven innocent IMO.

That doesn't work, we can't prove a stage is good for tournaments if it's banned at tournaments. Also history shows that once a stage is banned it will stay banned if for no other reason then people not pushing much for stages.

We can certainly prove a stage is bad for tournament play if it promotes degenerate play (circle camping temple) or it interferes with the fight too much.

With walk offs the question is how much do they promote camping at the blast line and if that is degenerate enough to ban.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Where is this coming from? Stages aren't human beings being put on trial. They are video game stages. Almost all stages in Smash are usually banned, so it really should be guilty until proven innocent IMO.

How do you propose we gather data to see if a ban is justified if it's already been banned?

 

[Staticky]

How do you propose we gather data to see if a ban is justified if it's already been banned?

See if there is anything to be gained by making this stage legal. See if it could add anything new to the game rather than saying, "This isn't a problem so why is this stage not legal?"-Because it doesn't add anything fresh into competitive play besides camping and extreme counter picks heavily favoring some characters.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

See if there is anything to be gained by making this stage legal. See if it could add anything new to the game rather than saying, "This isn't a problem so why is this stage not legal?"-Because it doesn't add anything fresh into competitive play besides camping and extreme counter picks heavily favoring some characters.

I said data, not theory.

 

[Staticky]

I said data, not theory.

What does this even mean? Can't tell if I'm only thinking 1-dimensionally ATM or not. But you asked how I would gather data. I replied with what I would do. What exactly were you looking for?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

What does this even mean? Can't tell if I'm only thinking 1-dimensionally ATM or not. But you asked how I would gather data. I replied with what I would do. What exactly were you looking for?

You sort of are. Thinking 1-dimensionally, that is. Everything you suggested is theory and doesn't even require you to own a copy of the game.

When I say "data" I mean actual, concrete, verifiable results. Serious people playing serious matches with their main characters and the intent to win. If, after a sufficient sample size, it can be concluded that the stage is bad for whatever competitive principles we wish to promote in Smash, then it can go right back to being banned with no complaint from me. (I suck at statistics, so ask someone else what that sample size should be.)

The problem comes with the idea that stages should default to banned and only become unbanned after they've "proven themselves." How, then, should one go about collecting the necessary data to prove a stage's worth if it's banned?

Sometimes I get the feeling that players are irrationally afraid of change. No one in this topic is trying to legalize every walkoff stage ever, nor are we saying that Smash should be played on nothing but walkoffs. What we are suggesting is that serious people need to play serious matches with their serious characters while seriously trying to win on walkoff stages to see if the many accusations leveled at walkoffs actually hold up in practice.

Because for all the accusations that have been thrown at walkoff stages, I have yet to see any documented evidence that they're anything more than words on a screen. Literally all I'm asking for is that we try to document that evidence. Follow the scientific method. We have a hypothesis (walkoffs promote X Y and Z things that we don't want) and the means to conduct an experiment to verify/falsify it (play some actual matches on walkoffs) but instead we're skipping that step and jumping straight to the conclusion (we think walkoffs promote X Y and Z things that we don't want, therefore it must be true and walkoffs are banned). This is not good science.

If, in the process, the experiment and data turn out to falsify the hypothesis, then that's a net gain for Smash since we now have a few more viable stages to add to the mix. (Wii Fit Studio and Coliseum, specifically. Maybe Mario Galaxy if you don't mind the gravity.) And if the data ends up supporting the hypothesis, then now we have documented evidence to support the claim that permanent walkoffs are not suitable for competitive Smash. Either way, we win.

 

[Staticky]

You sort of are. Thinking 1-dimensionally, that is. Everything you suggested is theory and doesn't even require you to own a copy of the game.

When I say "data" I mean actual, concrete, verifiable results. Serious people playing serious matches with their main characters and the intent to win. If, after a sufficient sample size, it can be concluded that the stage is bad for whatever competitive principles we wish to promote in Smash, then it can go right back to being banned with no complaint from me. (I suck at statistics, so ask someone else what that sample size should be.)

The problem comes with the idea that stages should default to banned and only become unbanned after they've "proven themselves." How, then, should one go about collecting the necessary data to prove a stage's worth if it's banned?

Sometimes I get the feeling that players are irrationally afraid of change. No one in this topic is trying to legalize every walkoff stage ever, nor are we saying that Smash should be played on nothing but walkoffs. What we are suggesting is that serious people need to play serious matches with their serious characters while seriously trying to win on walkoff stages to see if the many accusations leveled at walkoffs actually hold up in practice.

Because for all the accusations that have been thrown at walkoff stages, I have yet to see any documented evidence that they're anything more than words on a screen. Literally all I'm asking for is that we try to document that evidence. Follow the scientific method. We have a hypothesis (walkoffs promote X Y and Z things that we don't want) and the means to conduct an experiment to verify/falsify it (play some actual matches on walkoffs) but instead we're skipping that step and jumping straight to the conclusion (we think walkoffs promote X Y and Z things that we don't want, therefore it must be true and walkoffs are banned). This is not good science.

If, in the process, the experiment and data turn out to falsify the hypothesis, then that's a net gain for Smash since we now have a few more viable stages to add to the mix. (Wii Fit Studio and Coliseum, specifically. Maybe Mario Galaxy if you don't mind the gravity.) And if the data ends up supporting the hypothesis, then now we have documented evidence to support the claim that permanent walkoffs are not suitable for competitive Smash. Either way, we win.

If you want me to literally answer your question "How should we go about collecting this data?". It is simple, test it at home, have a bunch of smashers over for a small tournament and test them out in the ruleset. Post the matches on the boards, show people what interesting things came from these stages, push for legality with this evidence. TO's work hard to run tournaments and get venues, and players pay a good amount of money to compete. You shouldn't expect legit tournaments, local or not, to test stages that not many people(at all) will enjoy to compete in. Walk-offs have never been viable stages in the past games, so getting people to agree on legalizing them will be hard. I personally don't believe they will do anything for competitive play. Prove me wrong with actual footage of good matches. Simply chatting about how they are viable wont convince any tournaments to put them in the ruleset. Whenever I have played on these stages, the game is dulled down to who can get a cheap kill first. Good luck
Edit: You said "How do you propose we gather data?" Then replied to my answer like you were looking for actual data. I was responding with what mindset you should have when gathering all the data.

 

[Spark31]

@ MajorMajora I just gotta ask, Do you want to add every stage in the game and make it legal? Not only do you wanna legalize OGA, but you also wanna legalize walk-offs. WALK... OFFS. Something, unlike OGA, is tried and true to be terrible. So why NOW do we want to legalize it and take steps BACK in the meta?

 

[MajorMajora]

@ MajorMajora I just gotta ask, Do you want to add every stage in the game and make it legal? Not only do you wanna legalize OGA, but you also wanna legalize walk-offs. WALK... OFFS. Something, unlike OGA, is tried and true to be terrible. So why NOW do we want to legalize it and take steps BACK in the meta?

Well you obviously haven't been reading my posts very closely so I'll try again.

I'm in favor of the scientific method. I think there are stages in the game that deserve more of a chance than they have been given. No one plays on them, so how can we be sure that they are bad to play on? Sure crazy 'hank' happens, but that can be attributed to inexperience wight he stage most of the time. Honestly, I'm not sure about walk-offs myself, but I've heard enough positive possibilities in this thread from others to still firmly be in the camp of testing them.

And most arguments boil down to this (some are quite intelligent, but not all of them). "Are you kidding me you want x stage? x stage? That's a terrible stage a! Why would you want it? Do you hate competition?"

This kind of post is purely rhetorical. It offers up no valid reasons in favor of its argument besides "Just 'cause" and "It's obvious". I'm really getting sick of these posts. They, by nature, assume they are smarter than me, but at the same time by nature put in significantly less thought into the argument than I have in this discussion. I have no problem with you voicing your opinion but at least show enough respect to try.

 

[Spark31]

Here is the obvious problem I see with this. People often ask the incorrect questions when attempting to legalize a stage. They ask questions like, would it be fun to watch this stage? (You would come to mind as one who would ask that question, as I have seen you post about how much you want to stray away from smashville, and find it boring as a veiwer to watch), does it have the ability to be played competitively? These questions, while important to answer, are all over shadowed by the more important question of, would this stage be good for the meta. It might be fine and dandy to watch a pikachu zero-percent a rosaluma off the screen, but this isn't good for the meta. A zero percent comeback should happen based on player skill, not the ability to camp. And don't give me that high risk, high reward crap, because camping still quite obviously give the camping player the advantage. I can see too many situations where Sheik could F-Tilt -> F-Tilt -> Grab -> D-throw -> Falling U air -> Regrab -> F-throw -> Bouncing Fish for the kill. If the oponent is even remotely close to one side of the stage, they lose a stock.

Another thing that would need to be addressed is we don't need another stage. We already have five perfectly solid stages, and adding more would just make the stage striking process longer and more complicated, something no TO wants to deal with.

 

[Spark31]

If you want to see a tournament where this could be tested, there's a tournament that is using experimental rules here. Might be a good place to start.

 

[Frostav]

Wow.

Only a Tr4sh Kiddie would suggest making walk-offs legal.

Just...lmao.

L M A O
M
A
O

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Wow.

Only a Tr4sh Kiddie would suggest making walk-offs legal.

Just...lmao.

L M A O
M
A
O

Did you even bother to read 3 posts above yours?

Well you obviously haven't been reading my posts very closely so I'll try again.

I'm in favor of the scientific method. I think there are stages in the game that deserve more of a chance than they have been given. No one plays on them, so how can we be sure that they are bad to play on? Sure crazy 'hank' happens, but that can be attributed to inexperience wight he stage most of the time. Honestly, I'm not sure about walk-offs myself, but I've heard enough positive possibilities in this thread from others to still firmly be in the camp of testing them.

And most arguments boil down to this (some are quite intelligent, but not all of them). "Are you kidding me you want x stage? x stage? That's a terrible stage a! Why would you want it? Do you hate competition?"

This kind of post is purely rhetorical. It offers up no valid reasons in favor of its argument besides "Just 'cause" and "It's obvious". I'm really getting sick of these posts. They, by nature, assume they are smarter than me, but at the same time by nature put in significantly less thought into the argument than I have in this discussion. I have no problem with you voicing your opinion but at least show enough respect to try.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Staticky]

Wow.

Only a Tr4sh Kiddie would suggest making walk-offs legal.

Just...lmao.

L M A O
M
A
O

I agree lol but it's best to oppose with actual arguments IMO. @ Pyr has opposed every 'theory' of theirs strongly and basically put this opinion back in it's place to be honest. I'm just trying to get these types of posts off the boards in general. Next will be, "Give The Great Cave Offensive a Chance". And then people complaining about how "No one is willing to experiment".

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I agree lol but it's best to oppose with actual arguments IMO. @ Pyr has opposed every 'theory' of theirs strongly and basically put this opinion back in it's place to be honest. I'm just trying to get these types of posts off the boards in general. Next will be, "Give The Great Cave Offensive a Chance". And then people complaining about how "No one is willing to experiment".

Nah, I don't think you need to worry about Great Cave Offensive. It's (literally) a giant cave of life, for starters.

(I wish it wasn't so...insane in general. It's freaking gorgeous.)

 

[clydeaker]

Whoops, sorry, misread that. Once again, I still am having a hard time believing so little has changed that we have a clear understanding on what strategies are optimal on walk-offs in smash 4 when no body even plays on them in the first place.

Good point. Walk-offs haven't been developed in competitive play for over 6 years now. not many people play on them competitively and don't know the strategies to win on them.

But that's it though, people don't play on them because we've already had years to develop why we don't play on them, because they're bad for competitive play.

Your just using circular reasoning @ Abyssal Lagiacrus and not addressing the point at hand.

I was thinking about walkoffs recently and I want to kinda of let people know why Walkoffs harm gameplay in a competitive setting and why that hasn't changed.

So, at the beginning of a match on a walkoff, you are same stock, same percent. The risk of abusing a walkoff outweighs the benefit of if that abuse pays off. If someone doesn't know how walkoffs work and goes right to the edge from the get-go, enjoy your free win. This is only true if they don't know how walkoffs work, but you do (since you're good at this game). If that's the case, the other player is going to go in if you do this from the start. Since you know more then them, you're going to get some free kills. Again, enjoy your free win. Game knowledge comes into play, and the one who has more wins, as is normal. That's an argument many have made in favor of Walkoffs. Not noob friendly, but nothing high-level usually is.

Walkoffs play like a normal game in the beginning. This entirely changes after the first stock is lost.

So, I take your stock, I'm at 100+% with stock lead. That risk vs reward? It's now in the favor of me, since I have stock lead. Sure, I might die by camping the side, but what do I risk? Tacking on some percent before I might of died originally? Certainly worth the chance at a free stock from 0% or to be able to lay on damage or to MAKE you assume the risk of death by switching places. Let me go into detail on how it will work.

So, I run to the side and you respawn. You can just spam projectiles or safe moves to get me to approach! But I'm not going to. There isn't a single projectile in this game I can't hard shield or power shield, and even safe moves put you into a position where I can make a dash grab or get some free damage, because so little is actually safe on shield in S4. And, getting close enough to use a move that I can't just react to means you're close enough to get grabbed or hit. And, if I get some damage from my attacks or my projectiles, I just get to mitigate the risk of me abusing the stage like I am in this situation. You have NO CHOICE but to approach a situation where, if you guess wrong or make a mistake, you die. Period. No real effort on my part. Nothing skillful done. Just a basic read or punish.

This is degenerative gameplay. You have to assume a large risk to my smallish one, for a reward that is marginal vs my reward, which is massive. All because of stage choice and because I managed to get the first stock. Dealing with this strategy is very straightforward: Approach and choose the right option. Choose wrong, and you get one of the few possible outcomes. What are those outcomes to just camping the edge of the stage on a walkoff? Here they are:

• You kill me and I didn't get damage on you! Congrats. We're back to how we started the game off, and advantage is mine because I get to respawn with invincibility. And you can't just do what I did because the risk vs reward isn't skewed enough for the reward to outweigh the risk, exactly like it was in the beginning.
• You kill me, but I got damage on you! Yay! I get to go into my next stock with a % lead just because I employed this strategy, and there isn't anything you could of done. You can't do the same thing as me, because, if you do, I just wait out on the platforms, or on the other side, with a % lead. You still have to approach, but at least the game is normal again.
• I back throw you and you died! We get to repeat this entire scenario again, only this time, the risk is EVEN LESS for the same reward, because I now have a TWO STOCK LEAD just because you guessed wrong with your approach. We get to continue this for AT LEAST 2 more stocks, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. Still degenerate.
• I back throw you, but you lived! Now you assume a much larger risk (dying at absurdly low %), for a much lesser reward (killing someone at a higher %), then I had. All those options you have to approach with? I have them now. The few options I have to defend or get the early kill? You have them now. I now get to abuse your limited options for a free kill, damage, or... I can just RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE and reset the scenario. Now you have a bit of %, so the next back throw leads to death. Still degenerate.

There isn't anything anyone can do to stop this after the first stock is taken. It's the optimal strategy, unless you got bodied first stock. If that happened, you're not winning either way. You can't stop it from occurring and the ways of dealing with it are very linear. If you screw up dealing with it, you die or go into one of the most unfavorable positions possible. If you succeed, I either have advantage because I dealt % OR we just go back to normal. The game can't resume until it's dealt with, and no one can do s*** to stop it from occurring. It's just too powerful and too beneficial for the abuser overall. It's why transforming stage walkoffs are allowed: The stage changes and, suddenly, the abuser is in a horrible position. You can just wait for it to change and render the strategy worthless. Perma-Walkoffs, though? First one to die is royally f***ed.

Ya, there is a greater risk of the abuser dying then the person that has to deal with it, but the cost of dying because of it? Marginal. The reward of pulling it off? Game-ending. (especially in a 2 stock format)

Ya, it won't happen all the time because people get bodied or double KO's happen. But it will happen in EVERY SINGLE COMPETITIVE GAME where those events don't happen. And there isn't a single thing that anyone in the disadvantage can do to make it so it doesn't happen.

It's a strategy that can be beaten, but why should it even be available as a strategy in the first place? We have a huge stage list already. Competitive Smash isn't a wheel that needs to be reinvented. We tried in Brawl and it didn't work for FUNDAMENTAL reasons that have existed in every single game that's had a walk off: All of them.

Quick Edit: I just want people to know what they're fighting for, here. This gameplay. This playstyle. If you can get it into a few locals where abuse doesn't occur, then that's just dandy. In a competitive setting, though, there is no reason to actually fight when this can be done, unless you just want to risk dying to tack on a few % before you do do this.

Edit2: I can't english. I fixed a bunch of grammatical errors.

Wow. you actually brought up some good point's I haven't heard before against walk-offs. Thanks for sharing.


In my opinion every single stage regardless of previous meta games deserve testing or reasonable data proving them wrong. I understand why some stages are really easy to ban right away such as The Great Cave Offensive, 75m, Pac-Land, Wily's Castle (Non 8-Player), and Big Battlefield Paulatenas Temple. Yes these are easy to ban due to multiple reasons but what if there is only one (maybe 2 simillar) eason(s) for why that stage is banned like Big Battlefield (too big, supposed circle camping) and Wii Fit Studio (walk-offs, camping). Most if not all of these reasons apply to legal stages. t

Some stages are still banned, controversial, or legalized just because that stage or there predecessor were in previous meta games despite the fact that they were slightly improved for competitive play in Smash 4.
These stages include but are not limited to
- Battlefield (Melee & Brawl)
- Final Destination (Melee & Brawl)
- Smashville (Brawl)
- Delfino Plaza (Brawl)
- Lylat Cruise (Brawl)
- Halberd (Brawl)
- Castle Siege (Brawl)
- Kongo Jungle 64 (64 & Melee)
- Pokemon Stadium 2 (Brawl)
- Luigi's Mansion (Brawl)
- Port Town Areo Dive (Brawl)
I know many of the reasons they were banned still apply, however not all of them do. Many problems with stages such as Lylat Cruise, Final Destination, Pokemon stadium 2, etc. have been improved. not only that, the games physics and mechanics have changed improving these stages as well, however many still thing they should be banned because they were in Brawl. Although these stages may look like their brawl counterparts they are not the same.

Over all I feel that walk-offs stages and every stage in the game should be tested. Some stages are easily banned after one test like the Great Cave Offensive, but some shouldn't banned be right away. Although I don't prefer permanent walk-offs I think the deserve legitimate testing and proof before they are banned.

 

[LightLV]

Over all I feel that walk-offs stages and every stage in the game should be tested. Some stages are easily banned after one test like the Great Cave Offensive, but some shouldn't banned be right away. Although I don't prefer permanent walk-offs I think the deserve legitimate testing and proof before they are banned.

You still aren't getting the part where we dont need to test for data on why they should be banned because we've had that data for three iterations already, and NONE of it has changed.

You guys keep ignoring that, and holding out hope something magical has changed that would allow someone to consider walkoffs to be tournament legal.

I understand, perhaps you and your friends have fun on walk-offs, and in your brain, they don't seem degenerative.

But in competition, people play to win, and if Brawl is any indication, they will perfect whatever cheese they can to win unless someone bans it.

Walkoffs promote this brand of cheese, they manufacture it and age it, and you would have to be a fool not to use it.

 

[MajorMajora]

You still aren't getting the part where we dont need to test for data on why they should be banned because we've had that data for three iterations already, and NONE of it has changed.

You guys keep ignoring that, and holding out hope something magical has changed that would allow someone to consider walkoffs to be tournament legal.

I understand, perhaps you and your friends have fun on walk-offs, and in your brain, they don't seem degenerative.

But in competition, people play to win, and if Brawl is any indication, they will perfect whatever cheese they can to win unless someone bans it.

Walkoffs promote this brand of cheese, they manufacture it and age it, and you would have to be a fool not to use it.

the play to win strategies are not guaranteed to be the same. The one most brought up is awl off camping during a stock advantage. But this is assuming the per on who is camping the walk off has the advantage during any exchange the characters have, or that it is at least a 50/50. This can very easily change from game to game. Many other issues, such as chain grabs, have.

Ergo, testing.

 

[LightLV]

the play to win strategies are not guaranteed to be the same. The one most brought up is awl off camping during a stock advantage. But this is assuming the per on who is camping the walk off has the advantage during any exchange the characters have, or that it is at least a 50/50. This can very easily change from game to game. Many other issues, such as chain grabs, have.

Ergo, testing.

I am sorry honey but this is one of the few times where the variables are so heavily weighted that theorycrafting isn't only valid, it's pretty much obvious.

It doesn't matter what any of you bring up. The fact of the matter is, the wall presents a 0% KO opportunity, with zero barriers of entry.

There is no OPTIMAL play-to-win strategy that wouldn't involve the blast zone for the winner or loser in any given situation.

you can test it. Go ahead, you're just going to come to the obvious conclusion so many of us have thrown in your face already.

 

[cot(θ)]

You still aren't getting the part where we dont need to test for data on why they should be banned because we've had that data for three iterations already, and NONE of it has changed.

I don't know how many times I need to say this. Walkoffs have always been banned because of inescapable combos into the blastzone, such as chaingrabs and waveshine combos. Because of these issues, there's nowhere near enough meta development on walkoffs to say how often walkoff camping is the optimal strategy.

Data? What data? You're making things up. Stop it.

 

[clydeaker]

It doesn't matter what any of you bring up. The fact of the matter is, the wall presents a 0% KO opportunity, with zero barriers of entry.

Stages with edges presents 0% KO opportunities that walk offs don't. Spikes.