Walkoffs

[cot(θ)]

My transactions with you on this topic are nicely summarized by the above dialogue.

You conveniently ignored this repeatedly, even though this is one of if not the most important part of this entire debate. If you're done talking about how I have no credibility, maybe you'd like to justify why we should even consider your position? Exactly what validity is there in your argument that does not hinge on dismantling mine?

If you're going to brush this off again then yeah, I think I'll wait for further respondents.

I thought we agreed that all competitively viable stages should be included in the game? If the stage is competitively viable, it doesn't matter what "benefits" it brings to gameplay. What "benefits" does any stage bring to gameplay, besides just being another different stage to play on?

 

[Ulevo]

Ok, let me try then. First let me say that I am on neither side of this argument for the moment because I am interested in the debate but I can understand what @cot(θ) is saying. An ice climber player in brawl had his win condition set at 3 grabs(1 per stock with both Ice Climbers present.) This is degenerate gameplay. On the other hand if walkoffs were legal in smash 4, the win condition in this game would be to first attain the % lead and then camp the walk off looking for the grab. This would result in 3 situations:
1) Projectile character camping a projectile character.
2) Projectile character camping a non-projectile character.
3) Non-projectile character camping a projectile character.
Of these situations #2 would seem to be the most terrifying on paper. Now while the non-projectile character has to worry even more than usual about approaching his reward on a successful approach is now an easy kill. This would apply to the last stock as well should the projectile character attempt to camp the walkoff on his final stock. He could potentially gain an easy kill by camping the walkoff or he could lose his stock just as easily by attempting to zone out the non-projectile character and failing. This differs from Brawl Ice Climbers in the fact that one player willingly put himself in danger in order to attain an easy kill whereas Brawl Ice Climbers can just do anything until he gets that grab on any part of the stage as long as the second Ice Climber is close enough.

Don't get me wrong, they are different scenarios, but the principles are the same depending on what perspective you're arguing from. A big problem I have with cot(8)'s position is that essentially he's saying that because one player might have an advantage in this situation and thus a higher likelihood or chance at being successful at utilizing the blastzone, this will either 1) result in the better player or player with the advantage winning out like they should or 2) result in the player being dissuaded from approaching the blastzone entirely, and thus avoiding the 'degenerate gameplay' as we might call it. And I get that. I don't agree with it because I think there's obviously flaws to that that do not account for things like character weaknesses and match up differences, and it's much greyer than how he's portraying it, but I see the concept.

The problem is that fighting games are about accruing advantages against your opponent through the use of skill and experience. Anything that goes against this principle is generally seen as undesirable, and for obvious reasons. If the reward for performing a particular action is exceedingly high with little prerequisites or skill necessary, then for all intents and purposes there is no real skill being tested. That's what competitive play is all about, testing to see who is the more skilled player. In a situation where either player is thrown in to the blast zone, while you can visibly measure who made the better play in that particular moment, it does not add up to the accrued skill and advantages or exchanges that happened throughout the entire rest of the match. The reason why Melee Ice Climbers and Brawl Ice Climbers are so different is because the mechanical nature of Melee allowed for the accrued advantages against Popo and Nana to matter even in the face of an infinite. Stage position, % against Nana, shield pressure and % leads, they all meant something. In Brawl, because of how overpowered defensive options were relative to offensive ones, those things meant nothing because the requirements necessary to land a grab were minimal and any ground you gained against Popo and Nana was trivial. You could outplay an Ice Climbers player an entire set and then suddenly lose because you got grabbed 3 times. Blast zones are quite similar in this regard.

I also want to address that camping a blast zone does not mean that you are always going to be the one closest to the blast zone, or the most susceptible to dying near it. This is false, and has been perpetuated by cot numerous times. I've been in situations where I've been a stock down against Captain Falcon, I have to approach him as the losing player, and while he's closer to the blast zone than I am initially, the development in neutral near the blast zone does not play out in such a way where it stays like that for very long. I've had instances where I've gone in after losing a stock, attempted to re-take control of the match without involving a risky blast zone play and been killed by being thrown in to the blast zone anyway. Obviously I was outplayed, but that shouldn't mean that the reward for being outplayed in that situation should have been so high as to warrant a win. Arguing that this could happen with a gimp is ridiculous since there is layer upon layer of factors that go in to making a successful gimp happen that make it very difficult in this game, especially on a character per character basis.

I thought we agreed that all competitively viable stages should be included in the game? If the stage is competitively viable, it doesn't matter what "benefits" it brings to gameplay. What "benefits" does any stage bring to gameplay, besides just being another different stage to play on?

You're better at spot dodging than For Glory scrubs.

Our conversation is concluded.

 

[16bit]

I think that 1 walk off stage (preferably WFS) would be good, so people who's playstyle needs this kind of stage can have one. I don't think we should completely destroy characters (little mac) because of 1 or 2 derogatory things. Is Halberd a problem now?

 

[cot(θ)]

Don't get me wrong, they are different scenarios, but the principles are the same depending on what perspective you're arguing from. A big problem I have with cot(8)'s position is that essentially he's saying that because one player might have an advantage in this situation and thus a higher likelihood or chance at being successful at utilizing the blastzone, this will either 1) result in the better player or player with the advantage winning out like they should or 2) result in the player being dissuaded from approaching the blastzone entirely, and thus avoiding the 'degenerate gameplay' as we might call it. And I get that. I don't agree with it because I think there's obviously flaws to that that do not account for things like character weaknesses and match up differences, and it's much greyer than how he's portraying it, but I see the concept.

The problem is that fighting games are about accruing advantages against your opponent through the use of skill and experience. Anything that goes against this principle is generally seen as undesirable, and for obvious reasons. If the reward for performing a particular action is exceedingly high with little prerequisites or skill necessary, then for all intents and purposes there is no real skill being tested. That's what competitive play is all about, testing to see who is the more skilled player. In a situation where either player is thrown in to the blast zone, while you can visibly measure who made the better play in that particular moment, it does not add up to the accrued skill and advantages or exchanges that happened throughout the entire rest of the match. The reason why Melee Ice Climbers and Brawl Ice Climbers are so different is because the mechanical nature of Melee allowed for the accrued advantages against Popo and Nana to matter even in the face of an infinite. Stage position, % against Nana, shield pressure and % leads, they all meant something. In Brawl, because of how overpowered defensive options were relative to offensive ones, those things meant nothing because the requirements necessary to land a grab were minimal and any ground you gained against Popo and Nana was trivial. You could outplay an Ice Climbers player an entire set and then suddenly lose because you got grabbed 3 times. Blast zones are quite similar in this regard.

I also want to address that camping a blast zone does not mean that you are always going to be the one closest to the blast zone, or the most susceptible to dying near it. This is false, and has been perpetuated by cot numerous times. I've been in situations where I've been a stock down against Captain Falcon, I have to approach him as the losing player, and while he's closer to the blast zone than I am initially, the development in neutral near the blast zone does not play out in such a way where it stays like that for very long. I've had instances where I've gone in after losing a stock, attempted to re-take control of the match without involving a risky blast zone play and been killed by being thrown in to the blast zone anyway. Obviously I was outplayed, but that shouldn't mean that the reward for being outplayed in that situation should have been so high as to warrant a win. Arguing that this could happen with a gimp is ridiculous since there is layer upon layer of factors that go in to making a successful gimp happen that make it very difficult in this game, especially on a character per character basis.



You're better at spot dodging than For Glory scrubs.

Our conversation is concluded.

I must point out that you're comparing a meta that's been explored in depth (ledge play) to one that has barely been touched (walkoff play) and claiming that one has more depth than the other, when in fact, it's impossible to know at this point how much depth there really is to walkoff gameplay. Also, you're placing a burden of explaining why walkoffs bring something "beneficial" to the game when we've already agreed that a stage need only be competitively viable to be included. Are other stages held to this standard? Can you explain what the "benefit" of Battlefield is without referring to how it's "different" from other stages? Or rather is your request for this explanation mere rhetoric intended to shut down my argument?

I've already explained the "benefit" I think they bring anyway, despite its irrelevance to the discussion.

 

[Ulevo]

I must point out that you're comparing a meta that's been explored in depth (ledge play) to one that has barely been touched (walkoff play) and claiming that one has more depth than the other, when in fact, it's impossible to know at this point how much depth there really is to walkoff gameplay. Also, you're placing a burden of explaining why walkoffs bring something "beneficial" to the game when we've already agreed that a stage need only be competitively viable to be included. Are other stages held to this standard? Can you explain what the "benefit" of Battlefield is without referring to how it's "different" from other stages? Or rather is your request for this explanation mere rhetoric intended to shut down my argument?

I've already explained the "benefit" I think they bring anyway, despite its irrelevance to the discussion.

First of all, I fail to see how there is depth "unexplored" with blast zones that cannot be explored or explained rhetorically based on the precedent provided by regular stage play in neutral and blastzones that exist on currently legal stages. It's not like off stage play where the entire dynamic changes because your available options are different (i.e. no shield, no rolling, no ground attacks, spikes and semi-spikes, ledge trumps). You literally have the same options in neutral on a normal flat stage environment that you do next to a blast zone. The only thing that significantly changes is the reward for a successful read or punishment.

Secondly, this idea that we agreed that a stage need only be competitively viable to be included implies that walk offs are inherently viable...which you have yet to prove.

Thirdly, the viability of a stage is subject to scrutiny based around its problems and benefits. Halberd for example has hazards on it, which obviously is not ideal. However, their low impact, telegraphed nature, and infrequency put them as a low priority problem when compared to everything else the stage offers. i.e. lower blast zone ceiling, stage transformation, intangible bottom, et cetera. You can't talk about benefits a stage offers without comparison because for ruleset reasons we can't have redundancies. That's why Omega stages are not their own stage, and count as Final Destination clones when counterpicks and bans are considered. If we went by your logic and just assumed they should be included because they're "viable" then they would be treated as their own separate entities.

 

[cot(θ)]

First of all, I fail to see how there is depth "unexplored" with blast zones that cannot be explored or explained rhetorically based on the precedent provided by regular stage play in neutral and blastzones that exist on currently legal stages. It's not like off stage play where the entire dynamic changes because your available options are different (i.e. no shield, no rolling, no ground attacks, spikes and semi-spikes, ledge trumps). You literally have the same options in neutral on a normal flat stage environment that you do next to a blast zone. The only thing that significantly changes is the reward for a successful read or punishment.

You have the same options, but the optimal way to use them is vastly different. This leads to a different meta that needs to be explored.

Secondly, this idea that we agreed that a stage need only be competitively viable to be included implies that walk offs are inherently viable...which you have yet to prove.

The only way to "prove" that they're viable is to play on them, and get top players playing on them and figuring out the best walkoff strategies. But I have to "prove" they're viable before that can happen? Sounds like a Catch 22. Something needs to be proven unviable before it's banned, either by consensus / comparing it to stages with known problems (75 m has obvious circle-camping problems, and it's universally agreed to be a bad competitive stage), or by actually playing on the stage and seeing that it leads to degenerate gameplay. If you do it the other way round, you run the risk of banning a lot of really good stages.

Thirdly, the viability of a stage is subject to scrutiny based around its problems and benefits. Halberd for example has hazards on it, which obviously is not ideal. However, their low impact, telegraphed nature, and infrequency put them as a low priority problem when compared to everything else the stage offers. i.e. lower blast zone ceiling, stage transformation, intangible bottom, et cetera.

You can call those benefits, but they're really just differences. Whether or not they're beneficial is subjective, and some people favour banning Halberd because of the low ceiling.

You can't talk about benefits a stage offers without comparison because for ruleset reasons we can't have redundancies. That's why Omega stages are not their own stage, and count as Final Destination clones when counterpicks and bans are considered. If we went by your logic and just assumed they should be included because they're "viable" then they would be treated as their own separate entities.

An odd example, since the reason those stages aren't treated individually isn't because they don't offer any "benefits", whatever that means, but because they're not "different" enough from each other and FD.

"Permanent walkoff" is just as much of a "benefit" as "lower ceiling", "stage transformation", "intangible botton". etc.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I could apply the same argument to Final Destination, just substitute "walkoffs" with "no platforms." Except walkoffs are actually more common than no-platform stages.

Also worth noting that literally every Smash game ever has had walkoff stages.

No platforms changes the meta game, it just doesn't do it "too much." IIt's pretty obvious that walk offs make people adjust their playstyle far more than adding platforms.

 

[stancosmos]

The main problem i see is that it renders all recovery moves useless. Most characters lose their up+B, and characters that are strong on the ground but are supposed to be balanced with weak recoveries (mac,ganon,mario) will now be much strong as recovery doesn't even matter. It's not so much that it makes the game too unfair, it's more that it takes away a fundamental aspect of the game, it's purely negative in terms of adding to smash bros competitive scene.

 

[clydeaker]

What stages would you add in? The only stage that I can see this adding would be possibly Wii Fit Studio for doubles. Skyloft, , and are already in most tournaments already. Every thing else with walkoffs either has too many stage hazards, is too large, or has janky physics like Mario Galaxy.

Even if it's just one stage I would rather have one more stage to play on than play on Smashville, Battlefield, Final Destination, and Town and City over and over. Wii Fit studios is one of my favorite stages is Smash Wii U and I don't think it should be banned.

 

[clydeaker]

If Walk of stages were allowed I feel like Little Mac would be considered a "good" character again.

 

[clydeaker]

I think Wii Fit Studio is the most competitive friendly stage with walk offs.
- There are two different forms of Wii Fit Studio: 1) Mirror with platforms. 2) No mirror & no platforms.
-The platforms don't kill you when they move off screen.
-The Mirror allows you to see off stage making walk-offs less of an issue.
-Platforms allow the stage to favor all characters other than only horizontal, ground oriented, and heavy characters like Marth, Rosalina, ganondorf, and Little Mac.
-The darker ground area plat,forms, and background elements clearly lets you know where the central on screen area is and where the off screen area is.

In conclusion *COUGH* Wii Fit Studio should be legal *COUGH*

What? I didn't say anything.
Please don't hate me.

 

[Pyr]

I disagree with walkoffs on the premise that combos to the side and the chance that someone can get a kill sub 40% off of 1 move with little to no effort, or off of a hit confirm to something, simply doesn't feel good to do or have it happen to me, along with it not being the best of things to watch. Risk vs Reward gets skewed kinda bad because of it, too, especially if someone decides to abuse it (which someone eventually will). I get ahead a stock and stand at the side of the stage. I've no reason to approach. Sure, I might die early, but I'm a stock ahead. It's not a big loss if it doesn't work out, and the benefit of the risk is being 2 stocks ahead with little work.

But those things have always been the big issue with walkoffs. Just because they're slightly harder to get because waveshine and chaingrabs don't exist doesn't mean the fundamental problem goes away. Those fundamental problems exist at all levels of play, and they feel awful at all levels of play when a low % walkoff kill happens. I do think they should remain banned for the same reason they always have been: They have a much higher then average potential to degrade the game state when someone aims for abuse.

 

[warriorman222]

The main problem i see is that it renders all recovery moves useless. Most characters lose their up+B, and characters that are strong on the ground but are supposed to be balanced with weak recoveries (mac,ganon,mario) will now be much strong as recovery doesn't even matter. It's not so much that it makes the game too unfair, it's more that it takes away a fundamental aspect of the game, it's purely negative in terms of adding to smash bros competitive scene.

You can't just say it's purely negative. How is some characters going from unviable to "much strong" bad in any way? IT's not like any of them become OP with the addition of 1 or 2 stages to our list, as they'll be struck immediately if they're actually broken on that stage. The fact that no recovery is purely negative isn't a bad thing. And losing the Up-B isn't a massive drawback.

All your issues with walkoffs are actually not issues, and you're acting like they're the only stages. How on earth is Little Mac or Ganon gonna beat projectile spam any better on a walkoff? How is recovery being removed bad? Tell me a single top tier with serious recovery issues that gets so much better with this removal. Hell, tell me anyone that becomes close to OP on a walkoff.

 

[clydeaker]

Walk off stages should deserve to be at least tested as a doubles only counter pick. especially wii-fit studio.

 

[san.]

Honestly, I think that walkoffs aren't so bad compared to super low ceilings like Halberd. Low ceilings imo are much more gimmicky in this game, yet they're somewhat accepted.

I think testing the waters with Wii Fit Trainer's stage wouldn't hurt. The side blastzones are very wide where it'll be difficult to camp the side without reaching the area that increases your own %. I attended a tournament with a liberal stage list and a Falcon player cp'd here and it worked out fine. We were able to horizontally vector and survive a surprising number of attacks, much different than the likes of Castle Siege's 2nd transformation.

 

[Pazx]

I'd personally suggest testing to be done with the smallest walkoff stage (ie smallest size from one blast zone to the other) which I believe is Coliseum.

 

[Illuminose]

Permanent walkoffs are still a problem even with almost all forms of infinite and chaingrabs removed, in my opinion. This is for the following reasons:

1) They promote degenerate, campy gameplay. Irrespective of the actual risk of blastzone camping, it can actually be a good strategy if you are playing to win because it makes approaching for the opponent an insane risk as well. This is less of, though still an issue to an extent, on temporary walkoffs like Castle Siege especially as the second transformation lasts long enough for this type of gameplay to become optimal and thus occur, which has been seen multiple times in tournament settings. We don't have footage of permanent walkoffs because, well, they're banned, but think about what happens on Castle Siege's second transformation and translate that to extend throughout an entire match. It's not pretty.

2) They completely remove ledge play. It doesn't really matter how the game was designed or how the developers view the game or whatever. The bottom line is that competitive Smash as the competitive community plays it has had ledge gameplay as a major part for a long time, and it's a valuable part of the game that makes it competitive and fun to watch. This is something that other fighting games don't boast. Edgeguarding is an incredibly deep and exciting part of the game that has become even more complex arguably with the addition of ledge trumps in this game. Walkoffs remove this intricate level of depth.

3) The ability to knock characters off stage and edgeguard them is a significant part of competitive balance. Let's take Little Mac, for instance. He has an amazing ground game, but he's done when he gets off stage. Captain Falcon has speed, is a heavyweight, is great racking up damage, and has insanely powerful kill moves...but he has a linear, exploitable recovery. Even Diddy Kong for being such a great character pre-patch and still solid even still would sometimes struggle due to his relatively subpar off stage game and recovery that really is just good enough to get the job done. Characters with bad, decent, and good recoveries generally have those for a reason. Walkoffs completely ignore this aspect of character balancing. I'm not saying Little Mac would become top tier due to walkoffs being legal or something; that's not my point. It's more that these stages completely ignore any detriment in recovery because you never have to recover and completely change certain matchups, like for instance most vs Falcon or Little Mac. On a normal stage with ledges, I can kinda get pushed around a bit by these characters, but edgeguarding makes dealing with these characters much less of a burden.

4) Most walkoffs have one of two issues: either they're way too big for horizontal KOs, or horizontal KOs are way too easy due to the smallish size of the stage. Both of these are rather intuitively undesirable.

5) Despite the fact that we don't really have infinites that go across the stage anymore, we still have strings that can carry players across the stage into death on walkoffs. One example is say a Sheik low percent fair string carrying someone off stage. Normally, this is fine because the opponent is at a low enough percent to wear Sheik's moves may not necessarily have enough knockback to pull off a successful edgeguard just yet or the blastzone is far enough from the ledge that actually killing off these strings is impractical. Ledges also limit these strings much more because the Sheik player can't get the tight timing to continue chaining fairs with no stage beneath her; it simply doesn't work that way. On walkoffs, though, and especially vs heavies, Sheik can sometimes just fair chain the character into the blastzone, especially if they're anywhere near the edges.

These issues make the legality of walkoffs an impracticality to me.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Question: Is there a reason Wii Fit Studio seems to get the nod for "maybe we can test it with this stage" over Coliseum more often than not?

 

[san.]

Question: Is there a reason Wii Fit Studio seems to get the nod for "maybe we can test it with this stage" over Coliseum more often than not?

Platforms are a little better since they're more uniform in size, and you can see where people are in the side blastzones by looking at the reflection in the back most of the time.

 

[ReturningFall]

Something people are missing here is that walk off camping is actually very stressful and risky for the camping player. It requires a slightly different thought process to counter and pull off than the usual circle camp/run away tactic that seems to be considered acceptable. While you can potentially kill very early you can also get killed very easily too. Plus your back is probably facing the blastzone so you have fewer options to exploit the blastzone whereas your just needs to push you a bit further back.

As it stands, walkoff camping cedes stage control which can be a significant loss in itself. This is a big disadvantage as walkoff play is very footsie-focused.

While it is true it becomes a good strategy when you are at a high percent deficit, there's a big difference in the margin of error afforded in favor of the person with less percent. Spacing yourself from the blastzone to take advantage is a skill in itself.

The size of walkoffs is more a feature of the fact the ground doesn't end than the size of the blastzones.

 

[RayNoire]

One other thing against walkoffs is the fact that a player camping the edge can conceal themselves in the margins of the screen (there's a small space offscreen where you aren't under a magnifying glass). Wii Fit Studio's mirror does fix this problem, but it may be damning for the other stages.

For the record, I am 100% against walkoffs. I don't even think Castle Siege should be legal.

 

[Infinite901]

Only one way to find out, isn't there? I'll always advocate for actual data to back up theory. That's my primary motivation here. Even if the theory is 100% logically sound and irrefutable, a documented match or two demonstrating it goes a long way, especially on a subject like this that tends to crop up repeatedly. (Doesn't even have to be from an actual tournament, just an exhibition match or friendly or something where neither player is sandbagging.)

I fully agree with this viewpoint, and I realized something that may help. (Though it might flop) I think we need an experimental tournament, where all of the liberal outliers and potential stages are the legal stages, no gentlemen's, as a competitive tournament. Of course, I know a lot of people probably won't play as hard with no money/pool involved (as it should not be, in case the experimental side totally flips) but I think ti would shed some light on how we should treat stages in Smash 4, and in general how the borderline stages work and flesh out.

 

[ReturningFall]

I fully agree with this viewpoint, and I realized something that may help. (Though it might flop) I think we need an experimental tournament, where all of the liberal outliers and potential stages are the legal stages, no gentlemen's, as a competitive tournament. Of course, I know a lot of people probably won't play as hard with no money/pool involved (as it should not be, in case the experimental side totally flips) but I think ti would shed some light on how we should treat stages in Smash 4, and in general how the borderline stages work and flesh out.

Return of the West Coast style!!! Would do.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I fully agree with this viewpoint, and I realized something that may help. (Though it might flop) I think we need an experimental tournament, where all of the liberal outliers and potential stages are the legal stages, no gentlemen's, as a competitive tournament. Of course, I know a lot of people probably won't play as hard with no money/pool involved (as it should not be, in case the experimental side totally flips) but I think ti would shed some light on how we should treat stages in Smash 4, and in general how the borderline stages work and flesh out.

Mushroom Kingdom U
Mario Galaxy
Mario Circuit
Luigi's Mansion
Norfair
Woolly World
Orbital Gate Assault
Kalos Pokemon League
Coliseum
Gamer
Garden of Hope
Wii Fit Studio
Windy Hill Zone

That's 13. I'd totally join a tournament with those stages.

 

[Infinite901]

Mushroom Kingdom U
Mario Galaxy
Mario Circuit
Luigi's Mansion
Norfair
Woolly World
Orbital Gate Assault
Kalos Pokemon League
Coliseum
Gamer
Garden of Hope
Wii Fit Studio
Windy Hill Zone

That's 13. I'd totally join a tournament with those stages.

That's... actually a really good idea. How the stages are played can give us some serious insight into how viable they are for the future.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

That's... actually a really good idea. How the stages are played can give us some serious insight into how viable they are for the future.

If I were the TO (which I'm not, I lack the time and resources) I'd further stipulate all other stages banned, no gentleman's clause, and a stricter version of Dave's stupid rule that prohibits the same stage from being played on twice in a set. All for the sake of trying to maximize the variety of stages used. Not sure if stage bans would fit in with that or not. (If a stage was consistently banned that only says that no one wants to go there, not why it's shunned. And it's the why that's important.) And maybe sell the whole thing as the jankiest tournament that ever janked or something because there's no way anyone would actually take it seriously.

 

[RayNoire]

Maybe you could also have a pot bonus to award to players that could conclusively "break" a stage (by demonstrating circle camping or degenerate walkoff stuff) so that players have an incentive to play as "lame" as possible.