Walk-offs should be given a chance

[MajorMajora]

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

Well, Spikes do not much at 0%, but it is possible to die at 0% from a good conversion in melee. Not quite possible in Sm4sh though, unless your opponent messes up.

 

[clydeaker]

Well, Spikes do not much at 0%, but it is possible to die at 0% from a good conversion in melee. Not quite possible in Sm4sh though, unless your opponent messes up.

Your right, but spikes or ledge camping seems almost as unfair as walk off camping and zero kills.

 

[Aquamentii]

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

Umm, unless your opponent spawns offstage then you're going to have to do something in order to get them offstage in the first place, and there's only one character in the game (Luigi) who can combo into a spike off of a throw. Two different things.

If there's anybody who still hasn't seen it, I posted a link to a video earlier in this debate(?) that you need to see if you advocate walk offs. I will completely embrace walk offs as legal in tournament play but only if someone can explain to me why getting two grabs and winning a match is fair.

 

[ReturningFall]

Am I the only one who sees that whenever this comes up the arguments are always:
Yays: we really don't know what will happen and the best way to find out is to try it (like was proposed with custom moves)
Nays: Well Just camp the edges. And the whole notion is so moronic it warrants abject sarcasm. There's loads of evidence this is a bad thing. Terrible thing.

...And then we don't see the evidence. We're told it exists. Obviously, it's there but I don't see any videos.

Pyr had a good argument, but he's the only one on the yay side (if someone cares to show me another, I'm all ears). Everyone else just comes in makes some semi-sarcastic comment and leaves. I'm beginning to think this is taking on the facets of a religious war. Lots of yammering not any listening.

Sorry guys. I've played walkoffs a long time. You're setting yourself up if you intentionally put yourself at the edge. It's really risky. Ever get killed from the first hit of a jab or projectile before? you quickly realize there' plenty of gaming there too. You know what's also risky? Throwing smash attacks when both players are at 120%+. You tend not to do it because it's so risky.

Actually, I highly doubt there is any optimal deterministic strategy in Smash. There's enough natural movement, decision cycles and choices that it's unlikely you can form a true guaranteed trap on more than half the cast in all but the tightest circumstances.

You know what game has some crazy kill nonsense? S64. There's lots of 0-deaths there, but it's still played competitively. If this is so degenerate, why can't we just implement a magnifying glass timer, like there's a circle camping or edge-regrab counter in other games.

Amusingly, the OP essentially gave the entire debate in the first post. And the conversation never really advanced too much from there. At the end of the day, some characters handle it better than others and many players aren't ready to deal with it and are too afraid to learn.

I happen to recall a similar set of complaints being levelled with regards to certain custom moves (Villager) and when the community learned how to cope the complaining suddenly died down. Funny thing is it only takes a couple notable players to figure it out and word spreads fast. Right now, very few players are looking. We just don't know what happens.

 

[webbedspace]

If this is so degenerate, why can't we just implement a magnifying glass timer, like there's a circle camping or edge-regrab counter in other games.

The thing is, you don't even need to be in the magnifying glass. You can be a foot from the edge of the screen and get a throw-kill above 20%. Or a few feet further in and get a throw-kill above 30%. It's a smooth scale from OP percentages to reasonable percentages as you get closer and closer to where the ledge "ought to be". That's why it's so impractical to legislate against it - the line to draw is essentially invisible.

I happen to recall a similar set of complaints being levelled with regards to certain custom moves (Villager) and when the community learned how to cope the complaining suddenly died down.

Not to quibble on a minor point, but: it didn't, though. People are still complaining about it to this day. Or, not so much complaining as joking about it while privately accepting it as an indisputable reason to ban customs. The discussion has ended in division.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You know the real irony of this thread? Had anyone bothered to go out and actually educate themselves they'd have known THAT WALK OFFS WERE ACTUALLY TESTED IN SMASH 4.

Several Texas tournaments had both Wii Fit Studio and Colliseum legal for some time near the beginning of the game to eventually ban them due to the issues they caused. There are several other local scenes that tried and eventually banned them as well. I personally ran stage testing tournaments one of which involved Wii Fit Studio and the issues with Sheik alongside other backthrow/combo issues made almost the entirety of players who entered say it wasn't a fit stage for competition.

I'm sorry I could have saved this from becoming a 5 page pointless discussion but missed it, but all those involved should be ashamed that they didn't actually take the time to know such testing has already actually happened, and that the stages were found to have too many issues to remain legal.

 

[ReturningFall]

You know the real irony of this thread? Had anyone bothered to go out and actually educate themselves they'd have known THAT WALK OFFS WERE ACTUALLY TESTED IN SMASH 4.

Several Texas tournaments had both Wii Fit Studio and Colliseum legal for some time near the beginning of the game to eventually ban them due to the issues they caused. There are several other local scenes that tried and eventually banned them as well. I personally ran stage testing tournaments one of which involved Wii Fit Studio and the issues with Sheik alongside other backthrow/combo issues made almost the entirety of players who entered say it wasn't a fit stage for competition.

I'm sorry I could have saved this from becoming a 5 page pointless discussion but missed it, but all those involved should be ashamed that they didn't actually take the time to know such testing has already actually happened, and that the stages were found to have too many issues to remain legal.

And this is what's been irritating me. Can you provide the tourney names, particular matches? Links? How long were these tried? You say it exists but don't show it. If it's so easy to find, why can't you take 5 minutes on google to get it and give it here to those of us who don't know precisely what you're talking about can see it or at least provide enough information we can know what you're looking at.

If it wasn't recorded, there's no way for us to know what you're referring to and most major tourneys are recorded as it is.

 

[New_Dumal]

->Add the number of ban stages at each walk-off stage (let's have at least one of them to test).

-> Ban if you know the other player have a walk-off abuser character.

-> Try to make things work, not just blind ban them.

 

[S2]

Walk-offs are interesting and should be legal for stages where the walk-off is temporary. This is already the case with some stages like Delphino Plaza.

The issue with permanent walk-offs is camping. It's too huge of an issue of characters with good throws just sitting at the edge and stalling the clock in their favorable position. On the stages with temporary walk-offs it isn't an issue, since a player can't permastall the match, but they'll never be legal under the current rulesets.

If you do feel strongly about walk-offs (or items or any other banned thing) then start hosting tournaments or side tournaments that are explicitly advertised as having them on. Probably best done as a side tournament with little buy in to play. You'll get people to try it easier if you have a 1 dollar side tournament instead of trying to run it like a normal tourney with a regular entrance fee. If it ends up sucking in practice than it can stay as a fun side-thing. If people start liking it then maybe the conversation about what's legal will change.

But right now, the current ruleset is in place because this stuff go abused in Melee and not much as changed. It's gonna be a very uphill road to convince players to re-legalize walk-offs.

 

[Overswarm]

Walk-Offs (and to a lesser extent, Duck Hunt) grant a constant issue:

If I'm at high % and my opponent is at low %, we are both equally likely to die if I camp the blast zone

If we are same % and I am center stage, I am more likely to do

logic dictates I should camp the blast zone


This results in one of two outcomes:

One: It is effective, and you have about a 50/50 or above ratio of the low % person dying

Two: It isn't effective and it isn't done

Both situations depend on the matchup -- Pac-Man likely doesn't have a problem with walk-offs due to his projectiles like his key or slow fruit. Mewtwo with his shadowball, etc.

Is it acceptable to you that a walk-off could force someone like Ganon (who isn't safe on shield) to approach pikachu at the blast zone while Pika has rage? If yes, walk-offs fine. If no, walk-offs not fine.

 

[cot(θ)]

Walk-Offs (and to a lesser extent, Duck Hunt) grant a constant issue:

If I'm at high % and my opponent is at low %, we are both equally likely to die if I camp the blast zone

If we are same % and I am center stage, I am more likely to do

logic dictates I should camp the blast zone

Assuming you have the stock lead, you mean. If you try to camp the blastzone when you're losing, you're just going to lose the game by timeout. Another assumption is the camping player has as good a chance of killing the attacker as the attacker has of killing the camper, which is a pretty big assumption considering the camper is intentionally placing himself closer to the blastzone, and has a higher %. Remember - you have a stock lead, and your opponent is at a pretty low %. Why don't you instead want to stretch that stock out as much as possible and do more damage to your opponent, instead of risking ending your stock immediately and losing most of your lead? Whether camping the blastzone is optimal or not in this situation is likely matchup dependent (we agree on this much, it seems from reading on).

Is it acceptable to you that a walk-off could force someone like Ganon (who isn't safe on shield) to approach pikachu at the blast zone while Pika has rage?

100%. It's totally acceptable that I have to ban walkoffs in the Ganon x Pika matchup, just like it's fine that I have to ban Halberd every time in the Mega Man x Zero Suit Samus matchup.
Think about every character in the game. Almost all of them have projectiles of some sort to help them get in on a walkoff camper. Now think of the ones without projectiles. C. Falcon. Metaknight. Little Mac. Characters that I would probably never consider taking to a walkoff in the first place, and against whom it's pretty dangerous to camp the walkoffs. Then there's Ganon. One character who's helpless on the stage in some matchups isn't a reason to ban the stage. If it were, we would ban Smashville for being too good against Little Mac.

 

[LightLV]

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.

I'm making things up, and walkoffs are forever banned. Whatever.

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

1) will not KO you at 0%, 2) holy grasping for straws are you serious. These aren't under even remotely similar requirements or execution barriers.


I just played a few matches with people too eager to click Omega before picking Ryu's new stage. The player who won was the player who cheesed. Just putting that out there.

 

[clydeaker]

I admit I was wrong. Walk-offs should be banned. Let's all face the [theoretical] facts. Walk-offs are banned because the were in Melee and Brawl.

I'm glad to finally be part of the competitive scene now.

I would like to introduce the new me by doing something that should have been done a long time ago. Let's full out ban Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege, Windy Hill Zone, and any other stage that had permanate or temporary walk-offs no matter what. They are no longer legal counter-pick or suspect. They are fully banned no exception. Any stage that gets too close to the blast lines? BANNED!... Well, except for Smashville.

 

[LightLV]

Smashville is different for reasons i think should be somewhat obvious

 

[Brinzy]

The most annoying thing about these threads is the gigantic amount of sarcasm used whenever someone explains to you why they don't agree with you or why your reasoning doesn't make sense.

You know who you are.

If you want to be taken seriously, quit responding to arguments like a teenage Disney celebrity.



With that said, let's say walk-offs were legalized.

- Which walk-offs would be legalized? The only legal walk-off stages right now are temporary. The important takeaway point is this means that it isn't indefinite, so players won't feel forced to approach for a while, but not the entire game. The vast majority of other walk-off stages I can think of are that way indefinitely. The one that isn't (Woolly World) has additional problems with it that discourage approaching anyway. Which leads me to...

- the best walk-off stage would be the Wii Fit stage, because it's the only one without damaging hazards and doesn't encourage campy play besides its walk-off. Coliseum is gigantic, the Mario Galaxy one features gravity, and Yoshi's Island has so many obstructions throughout the stage that you spend a lot of time fighting the stage itself. With that said, it would still be a terrible stage because there would be no reason to not camp the edges of the stage.

Think about it - you'd counterpick to this stage, meaning you lost the previous match, and you believe that cheesing early KOs by camping is your best strat, so you're going to camp forever and hope you catch your opponent before they catch you. Only, your opponent knows this, so they're not going to approach and instead will pick a character that projectile spams back or could be someone like Fox who will just sit in reflector. These are just a few examples. The point here is picking this stage puts an influence on % lead and discourages what smash is actually about, which is getting KOs. (I am sure someone will argue against this point, and I welcome it.)

- Even if not for this and a walk-off got legalized... I'm going to slash it every time. Everyone is going to slash it every time. If you just beat someone in the first match, why on earth would you risk throwing away a win by letting your opponent go to a stage where they can win doing 40% or less damage to you? Who will rather strike Town and City and fight someone on a permanent walk-off?

I don't see why walk-offs should be legal.

edited a bit for clarity

 

[jdubYOU]

We don't really need more stages available in my opinion. I can see the potential benefits, but there are huge negatives that OP mentions that are too hard to resolve.

 

[san.]

I felt my reasoning was pretty logical: they're less jank than Halberd's low ceiling gimmick kills.

The solution is to ban both, though.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well if this will help swettle the argument, I can host an online Walkoffs only tournament that anyone in here can participate in. Just a possibility.

 

[Overswarm]

Well if this will help swettle the argument, I can host an online Walkoffs only tournament that anyone in here can participate in. Just a possibility.

Take it a step farther.

"Prove it!

A new online smash tournament series where we play only banned and controversial stages. We'll collect video footage and settle tough questions once and for all!

Should walk-offs be legal? What banned stages shouldn't be? What unbanned stages should be? Can equipment ever be competitive?"

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

I have a feeling that might be a bit stacked, the people in favor of these stages would probably try their hardest to do exactly the opposite of what people against the stages have said, and vice-versa.

 

[S_B]

As a Pikachu main, I love the idea of permanently being able to shoot thunder jolts [or just wait while ducking] by the edge of the screen and kill you at 40% with a bthrow [which is often 2 Pikachu combos, or one if you're really good], spending entire matches camping with a percent lead by the blastzone and waiting for one tiny mistake to make it a whole stock, and then run away for the remainder of the game. Sonic mains probably love this idea too, and Ness mains who can pivot grab are certainly going to like it as well.

As someone who cares about competitive Smash and wants to see Smash 4 thrive, oh please god no.

I must unfortunately agree with this.

Also, Shiek's F-air escort goes from being ridiculous to downright insane if she can carry you off the screen with it. :\

 

[LiteralGrill]

Take it a step farther.

"Prove it!

A new online smash tournament series where we play only banned and controversial stages. We'll collect video footage and settle tough questions once and for all!

Should walk-offs be legal? What banned stages shouldn't be? What unbanned stages should be? Can equipment ever be competitive?"

I did do a bunch of tournaments on that sort of deal, with video too. Just nobody seemed to care. I'm up for doing it again, but I'd need people dedicated to showing up, recording matches, and actually trying to bust things.

 

[clydeaker]

To be honest, I actually don't like walk-off stages very much for competitive play. I'll still play on them every once in a wile for fun, but I won't in a serious match where money or my reputation is at steak, but keep in mind I won't generally even play on counter picks unless I have too in that circumstance. The only reason I keep on defending them is because of my philosophy:

"Every stage deserves a legitimate chance to become legal, regardless of previous meta games, philosophies, and arguments. Every stage is legal until legitimately proven to be game breaking, extremely unfair, or drastically altering game play."

That's why I fight for walk-offs. Feel free to argue that walk-offs are game breaking, extremely unfair, and drastically alters game play, but I won't listen until you have legitimate proof such as tournament footage where a permanent walk-off was being taken advantage of that goes against my philosophy points.

Please prove me wrong. I am begging you! Just as long as you show a legitimate tournament match where a permanent walk-off was legitimately being taken advantage preferably more than once. Please don't stage it.

 

[Abyssal Lagiacrus]

You don't like walkoffs and don't want to play on them in a serious setting

Yet you're fighting tooth-and-nail for them to force others to?

You've got to be joking

 

[S_B]

The other thing here is that walk-offs remove the element of edgeguarding, and I personally find SSB4's offstage play to be the most entertaining to watch in the series, based more around predicting the airdodge and teching the stage spike than just "grab the ledge, your opponent dies".

Really, having non-guaranteed kills when you manage to get someone off the ledge is the primary reason SSB4 is fun to watch, IMO.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I did do a bunch of tournaments on that sort of deal, with video too. Just nobody seemed to care. I'm up for doing it again, but I'd need people dedicated to showing up, recording matches, and actually trying to bust things.

I participated in one of them if memory serves, but I don't recall anything super noteworthy happening, either in-tournament or in the aftermath. There was an obligatory discussion on Reddit afterward but that went about as well as usual.

 

[Thor]

I have a feeling that might be a bit stacked, the people in favor of these stages would probably try their hardest to do exactly the opposite of what people against the stages have said, and vice-versa.

I'd do it not because I want to try to make the stages banned, but because it's the best strategy for winning.

I said it earlier - if I knew Smash 4 would be a thriving game with plenty of tournaments, a huge following, etc., I'd be down to have walkoffs in the ruleset, because as Pikachu I can get stupid early KOs [and also KOs with fair -> HSB, which can occur on Smashville but are MUCH harder to setup]. If you've ever faced someone trying to cheese you by staying near the edge and waiting for a gimp [poor Little Macs...], it's the same on walkoffs, but far more effective because it's much easier to KO them.

I support banning walkoffs because I think they're bad for the growth of the competitive scene of Smash 4 - they get us derided by others needlessly [see the infracted idiot earlier] and will make some new to the scene feel cheesed or cheated when they lose because they didn't understand how to fight on a walkoff.

As long as it's not at some stupid time [like midnight or something] and I don't have something important going on [another Smash tournament is basically the only thing to get in the way], I'd do what I can to enter SmashCapp's tournament.

EDIT: @ san. not sure if you're serious but low ceiling KOs aren't really cheese... or would you call living longer on Kongo Jungle survival cheese too? Halberd isn't so low that you die at like 30% from a uthrow [Diddy Kong was never THAT bad...] but you can die at 30% from on-screen with a bthrow on a walkoff.

If you're saying you think we should hope for unified blastzones across the board, thus completely removing the power to seek bigger or smaller blastzones, ok... but I think that raises some issues of its own [namely, what stages can we actually use then? and how do we decide what size? Someone will always claim it's too big or too small...]

 

[san.]

EDIT: @ san. not sure if you're serious but low ceiling KOs aren't really cheese... or would you call living longer on Kongo Jungle survival cheese too? Halberd isn't so low that you die at like 30% from a uthrow [Diddy Kong was never THAT bad...] but you can die at 30% from on-screen with a bthrow on a walkoff.

If you're saying you think we should hope for unified blastzones across the board, thus completely removing the power to seek bigger or smaller blastzones, ok... but I think that raises some issues of its own [namely, what stages can we actually use then? and how do we decide what size? Someone will always claim it's too big or too small...]

I'm pretty serious, since you can optimize your character picks and have an overwhelming advantage as long as you have those easy combos. That's pretty similar to optimizing your choice towards characters who can string others horizontally on walkoff stages. The upper platform, ship undersides, and hazards don't help much either.

Most walkoffs have a sizable magnifying glass area and a large size. Only one that I think doesn't is Castle Siege's second stage. You die from a grab at relatively low % in both scenarios. I just don't think the way the characters and combo system works in this game that absurdly low ceiling sizes are that good for the game. Not only is the ceiling like 17% lower than most of the other stages, there's a permanent upper platform that makes the effective ceiling level rival that of Kongo Jungle. Kongo Jungle has many layers of platforms that provide counterplay to its size being problematic. Stages with less counterplay to the potential problems of its size such as Big Battlefield are banned.

This is just my own perspective after playing both Halberd and numerous walkoff stages with the other high level players in my region since for some reason many of them are legal at our tournaments.

 

[Thor]

I'm pretty serious, since you can optimize your character picks and have an overwhelming advantage as long as you have those easy combos. That's pretty similar to optimizing your choice towards characters who can string others horizontally on walkoff stages. The upper platform, ship undersides, and hazards don't help much either.

Most walkoffs have a sizable magnifying glass area and a large size. Only one that I think doesn't is Castle Siege's second stage. You die from a grab at relatively low % in both scenarios. I just don't think the way the characters and combo system works in this game that absurdly low ceiling sizes are that good for the game. Not only is the ceiling like 17% lower than most of the other stages, there's a permanent upper platform that makes the effective ceiling level rival that of Kongo Jungle. Kongo Jungle has many layers of platforms that provide counterplay to its size being problematic. Stages with less counterplay to the potential problems of its size such as Big Battlefield are banned.

This is just my own perspective after playing both Halberd and numerous walkoff stages with the other high level players in my region since for some reason many of them are legal at our tournaments.

Soo... absurdly large blastzones would possibly be ok due to how combos etc. work, and if the upper platform on Halberd were removed, it'd be more tolerable?

I'm failing to understand exactly how early one dies from a grab on Halberd I guess... I could see dying at 60% to a hoo-hah with rage from certain members of the cast [and I know that's hardly ideal], but in my mind that's still a significant difference from 20% with some rage.

Hm...

As an aside, I probably need to double test Kongo- I thought the ceiling was average on top and very large when on the base [due to the extra distance] - I couldn't name exact percents but in 1.07 I survived Kirby dsmash at around 130% or so [if I remember correctly] and the Kirby had around 150% of rage [again, if I remember correctly]. I was hit from the very center of the stage and almost certain I died, but I held right and was launched with the angle being adjusted to be fairly horizontal, and I BARELY survived [I know for a fact I'd have died on any other stage, having died earlier in the set at a lower percent on the base of Battlefield]. I know I've seen people get usmashed on the top platform and they seem to die at averageish percents [around the same percents as dying vertically from the platform on Smashville], but I admit I'm not certain.

Also Big Battlefield isn't [or shouldn't] be banned because of its size - it's banned because Sonic all of a sudden has a free win on tons of characters where he can get the percent lead [how on earth is Ganondorf supposed to ever catch him?]. Kongo is actually arguably bannable for a similar reason [platform camping the top], but there's little space and an elevator to make it harder than it is on Big Battlefield.

 

[DUKEL]

You want video evidence? I think I remember a set where walkoff camping happened and a player that shouldn't have won the game won...

Ah right it was this one: https://youtu.be/DXzFA0fh4rM?t=7m11s

In this case though Dabuz could have just waited out robin and spammed down-b, or just sent in Luma to take care of Nairo. But he didn't. And everything was immediately de-hyped.

Now that normally doesn't happen and Delfino is actually a great stage to watch matches on when no one's camping the walk-off, but in this case it really showed a solid reason why permanent walk-offs shouldn't be legal.

Why are we even discussing this.

 

[Ulevo]

You want video evidence? I think I remember a set where walkoff camping happened and a player that shouldn't have won the game won...

Ah right it was this one: https://youtu.be/DXzFA0fh4rM?t=7m11s

In this case though Dabuz could have just waited out robin and spammed down-b, or just sent in Luma to take care of Nairo. But he didn't. And everything was immediately de-hyped.

Now that normally doesn't happen and Delfino is actually a great stage to watch matches on when no one's camping the walk-off, but in this case it really showed a solid reason why permanent walk-offs shouldn't be legal.

Why are we even discussing this.

This is a prime example of why this is not a good idea. While it is true Dabuz could have waited out the transformation and avoided that situation, he would not have had a choice on another stage except maybe sending in Luma. Other characters would not have even had that luxury. Nairo made the outplay within the moment, but that possibility for such a high reward should not be a static factor. It does not reflect player skill over the course of a match, and that detracts from the games competitive integrity.

Is this thread done now? @Shaya I will link it to mine as an archive topic for people who want to have this discussion again in the future.

 

[Kugelhagelfisch]

Great. This thread again.

Most people playing in tournaments agree that whatever difference in gameplay walk-offs provide is rubbish. There is not much more to say.

 

[Woohoo982]

As a g&w main, I could just spam chef, then get up to the blast line, side throw, jump, jump, aerial.
RIP stock 2015-20XX

 

[kid craft 24/sonic master]

Personally I feel like walk off stages aren't that much of an issue as many make them out to be. Sure they can promote campy styles of play but they also benefit specific characters like Little Mac and Ryu, while also hindering specific characters like Villager or any other character who projectile camps. Plus I would figure that if people felt like not wanting to deal with a specific walk off then they could very well ban the stage. I feel like if walk offs where to be added the only ones up for debate should be Wii Fit Studio as the mirror allows you to see where you are off screen to some degree minimizing the effectiveness slightly of players being able to camp the sides and Suzaku Castle due to the fact that the walk off is only present on one side of the stage and has 2 platforms allowing someone to still approach safely vs someone who is trying to blast zone camp. I also believe that if walk offs where legal that the number of bans would likely increase from 2-3 to accommodate for that fact possibly.

 

[Pyr]

If you have to increase the number of bans specifically because you made a stage legal, what does it say about the stage?

 

[cot(θ)]

Well if this will help swettle the argument, I can host an online Walkoffs only tournament that anyone in here can participate in. Just a possibility.

To be honest, I don't think a tournament is the way to settle this. I think it requires good players getting together and labbing out the options available to both the camper and the approacher. I also expect that lag would greatly interfere with the results of such a tournament.

 

[Routa]

If you have to increase the number of bans specifically because you made a stage legal, what does it say about the stage?

If we increase the stage list from 9 to 13, it is only logical to also increase the stage bans from 2 to 3. If you need 1dl milk for 2 cakes, then you need 2dl for 4 cakes, eh?

 

[Overswarm]

If we increase the stage list from 9 to 13, it is only logical to also increase the stage bans from 2 to 3. If you need 1dl milk for 2 cakes, then you need 2dl for 4 cakes, eh?

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

that's not how it works at all

bans have a specific purpose and it isn't "make sure I don't play on a stage I don't like"

 

[Routa]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

that's not how it works at all

bans have a specific purpose and it isn't "make sure I don't play on a stage I don't like"

Well you kinda missed my point, but... What I tried to say was that the 2 bans thing is ok for 9 stages, but it is kinda odd if we keep the 2 ban system for 13 stages without even testing how 3 ban system works with 13 stages. But then again 13 stages is kinda... Overwhelming?

If you ask me we should give walk-offs a chance. Ofc if they are proven bad then we just ban them, but proving the to be bad by doing a random online tournament or puting random theories on the table is just a bad. Ofc there will be people who just camp so they can "prove" that walk-offs are bad. What we need is open minded people to do testing who don't just camp in the "corner". But that is my opinion.

 

[Overswarm]

I'll try to keep this brief:

The number of bans has no correlation with the number of stages legal. You could have 10 stages legal or 200 stages legal and the number of bans for the same utility.

Having a ban allows for three functions:

1. It allows players a preference (I just "don't like" a stage)
2. It allows players to ban a specific stage due to balance reasons that are unique to a matchup or character
3. It grants the winner of the match some influence on the loser's advantage

#3 is basically #1 and #2 from a different perspective.

#1 is irrelevant -- preference is fine, but if you allow two bans for preference then why not three? Why not four? five? Why not just allow each player to say "you can pick one of these two stages". Why not just replay the stage you both struck to originally? There's no logical answer to that.

#2 is the important one.

If you're little mac, you HAVE to ban Kongo Jungle because you'll get outcamped easily -- barrel or otherwise. Less extreme is something like being Greninja and facing a Pikachu on Battlefield. Great stage for Pika, bad stage for Greninja, on an otherwise perfectly fine stage. So, as Greninja, you ban that stage.

Allowing more bans means that certain types of stages can be banned while others are "safe". If you're Sheik vs. Fox, you want higher ceilings and a medium size stage overall.

With one ban, Sheik gets to ban either Halberd, Delfino, Castle Siege, or Town & City.

Castle Siege has the lowest ceiling, but only on the first transformation. The others are more beneficial to Sheik, so she doesn't have to ban that one -- it's not as extreme as the others.

Town & City has a lower ceiling than average (~50% compared to 54% average), but it's by like... one jab. So, town & city is really fine. Sheik has to worry about platforms, but as long as the player avoids being on those platforms up top then she's fine.

Delfino has some lower ceilings during transformations, but these are actual issues for Sheik because they are easy to get trapped on due to how the stage transforms. Sheik might want to ban this one.

Halberd has low ceilings ALL the time. While not the lowest, it is a constant threat and smart play wont' change that like it could on Delfino. This is also a big stage for Sheik to ban.

So sheik has a choice -- based on preference and danger, a sheik player will ban halberd or delfino (likely halberd). Fox will then be able to take them to Delfino, T&C, or CSiege.

That's normal.

With more than one ban, things start to get skewed.

Now Sheik can ban Halberd AND Delfino. Fox has to choose between Town & City, which is essentially a Sheik counterpick as it's only one jab away from Smashville, or Castle Siege, which has the HIGHEST ceiling in the second transformation!

Fox's counterpick ability is completely removed.

But this isn't the case when it comes to stages that Sheik likes -- the flat stages with longer base platforms. So Sheik gets an unfair advantage in terms of the actual effect of bans. #1 is the same for both, but #2 is in Sheik's favor.

The only situation that two bans is acceptable is when the function is the same for all parties, at least compared to 1 ban. Having Dreamland (shorter ceiling) and Miiverse (battlefield clone) might make two bans worthwhile for this reason, I'd have to look into it more.