Whoa there, not all Final Destinations are created equal

[Nat Perry]

Anyone considered the fact that the underbellies of the Final Destination stages are different for each version? Like, for the new Final Destination there's the things coming out of the underside, sticking out the most in the middle. But then there's the likes of Windy Hill or Garden of Hope that have a singular platform but it's held up by a solid structure, and for Mario Galaxy that structure is more rounded.

So this means that air game below the main surface of the platform will differ for each version of the stage. So that means that how people are going to wall jump or get knocked into the underside are going to be different.

Interesting, right?

Although, I seem to have forgotten. In Brawl were you able to tether the underside part of Final Destination? I know you could in Melee but I don't remember if you could in Brawl.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

In Brawl you can only tether ledges. But yeah, I noticed too, but it's not that game changing, especially since gliding is presumably gone.

 

[Nat Perry]

Yeah. I just thought it was kinda maybe significant. Especially with the platforms held up on solid ground; we could possibly see some wall jumping here and there.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Hanging out under the stage is universally banned, so I don't think it'll change anything.

 

[Nat Perry]

Tethering on that bottom part with Link and Samus in Melee was fun as crap. I hope they bring that back for this game.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Tethering on that bottom part with Link and Samus in Melee was fun as crap. I hope they bring that back for this game.

If it's going to be anything like the demo then it won't come back. I personally prefer the Brawl tether since I suck with the Melee one.

 

[Nat Perry]

If it's going to be anything like the demo then it won't come back. I personally prefer the Brawl tether since I suck with the Melee one.

Yeah Brawl made it so much easier. For this game your character now swings back and forth a bit after tethering, which is kind of a cool touch.

 

[Ganonthegreat]

Yeah I thought about that too, I don't think it'll make that big of a difference, not enough for them to go back to ony using basic FD for tourney finals.

 

[Raijinken]

There's also speculation that each FD mode may vary in main platform size, which will probably affect some silly matchups in one way or another. Won't matter at my expected level of play, though, so I'm not concerned.

 

[Tristan_win]

The textures of the platform themselves are also different which can effects things. Although widely overlooked the lines on FD in Brawl could be used to prevent characters from sliding too far away from a force to the ground grab break.

Anyways I imagine if there is a size difference of main platforms then all of those that are shorter or longer then normal FD will be banned in tournaments because it would be a pain to start stage striking them.

 

[FancysaurusRex]

Hanging out under the stage is universally banned, so I don't think it'll change anything.

Wait, what? Why is that?

 

[Gidy]

Perhaps I'm crazy, but does it look like other Final Destinations are longer/shorter then others?

 

[Nat Perry]

Kinda does look like it, but I am not sure. The images vary in size so it's hard to tell without thorough analysis. And I don't want to do thorough analysis because I'm lazy and I can just wait for the game to release.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Wait, what? Why is that?

Anti-stalling rules. That's been in the books since 64, but mostly enforced in Brawl due to the likes of Meta Knight, Sonic, and Pit.

The textures of the platform themselves are also different which can effects things. Although widely overlooked the lines on FD in Brawl could be used to prevent characters from sliding too far away from a force to the ground grab break.

Anyways I imagine if there is a size difference of main platforms then all of those that are shorter or longer then normal FD will be banned in tournaments because it would be a pain to start stage striking them.

I honestly don't think it'll make THAT MUCH of a difference.

 

[pizzapie7]

I'm more curious about blast zones more than anything. They're more likely to effect play more than anything else. It'd be cool if we got really big, airy FDs and really confined FDs. Maybe some with a high ceiling and low sides and vice versa too. Lot of cool combinations.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I'm more curious about blast zones more than anything. They're more likely to effect play more than anything else. It'd be cool if we got really big, airy FDs and really confined FDs. Maybe some with a high ceiling and low sides and vice versa too. Lot of cool combinations.

That would be more counterintuitive than anything if you ask me, because like was said above, it would be a royal pain to stagestrike them all if there's any significant variations between them and would only end in any non-basic FD being (ironically) banned.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Anyone considered the fact that the underbellies of the Final Destination stages are different for each version? Like, for the new Final Destination there's the things coming out of the underside, sticking out the most in the middle. But then there's the likes of Windy Hill or Garden of Hope that have a singular platform but it's held up by a solid structure, and for Mario Galaxy that structure is more rounded.

So this means that air game below the main surface of the platform will differ for each version of the stage. So that means that how people are going to wall jump or get knocked into the underside are going to be different.

Interesting, right?

Although, I seem to have forgotten. In Brawl were you able to tether the underside part of Final Destination? I know you could in Melee but I don't remember if you could in Brawl.

No, you can't tether to any non-ledge part of the stage in Brawl.

I'm sure many have noticed the non-aesthetic variations of Final Destination but not enough. They will affect play, especially recoveries and like you have noted wall-jumps. I think it's enough to warrant having a FD starter and FD variant counter.

 

[pizzapie7]

That would be more counterintuitive than anything if you ask me, because like was said above, it would be a royal pain to stagestrike them all if there's any significant variations between them and would only end in any non-basic FD being (ironically) banned.

I doubt it. I think length of stage striking would be one of the last things discussed when talking about stage legality. I don't think we've ever had a situation where we've banned a stage simply because the stage list is too big.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I doubt it. I think length of stage striking would be one of the last things discussed when talking about stage legality. I don't think we've ever had a situation where we've banned a stage simply because the stage list is too big.

Regardless, it's why you would have the FD-variant as a counterpick. You don't strike variants.

 

[Book Jacket]

The Gerudo Valley FD was a thin platform, which for me raised the question of whether or not it could be passed through vertically (like Halberd's or Congo Jungle's main platforms).

Also, FD's for stages like Wily's Castle will have wall jumping as a recovery option, so there's that too.

 

[Nat Perry]

I think it'd be great having some slight variations in the size of Final Destination stages. That may give some incentive towards playing on certain versions of the stage.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I think it'd be great having some slight variations in the size of Final Destination stages. That may give some incentive towards playing on certain versions of the stage.

That's what I don't want. Isn't the entire point of For Glory stages to make every stage in the game a viable choice?

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

That's what I don't want. Isn't the entire point of For Glory stages to make every stage in the game a viable choice?

How would something like relatively small variations in size and ledge undersides bankrupt a variant's competitive value? It is not like it introduces an aspect of randomness, a hazard, camera panning, a way to stall the game, or a walk-off. We are talking about something that might make angled recovery easier or slightly more space for projectiles.

 

[Nat Perry]

How would something like relatively small variations in size and ledge undersides bankrupt a variant's competitive value? It is not like it introduces an aspect of randomness, a hazard, camera panning, a way to stall the game, or a walk-off. We are talking about something that might make angled recovery easier or slightly more space for projectiles.

Yup yup, exactly. Except this game doesn't allow for angled recovery doe...

 

[josh bones]

"I have a dream, that all final destinations are created equal"
I really don't think this is a big deal

 

[Saikyoshi]

How would something like relatively small variations in size and ledge undersides bankrupt a variant's competitive value? It is not like it introduces an aspect of randomness, a hazard, camera panning, a way to stall the game, or a walk-off. We are talking about something that might make angled recovery easier or slightly more space for projectiles.

...which favors certain characters and defeats the point of being able to safely play as any character in any environment.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

...which favors certain characters and defeats the point of being able to safely play as any character in any environment.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Saikyoshi]

What in the hell are you talking about?

The entire point of the For Glory stages is to be able to select any stage without any effect on gameplay.

 

[Nielicus]

I've noticed that some are longer/shorter. Like FD Version of Galaxy seems a lot smaller than Windy Hill

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

The entire point of the For Glory stages is to be able to select any stage without any effect on gameplay.

The entire point of the For Glory stages is to provide a variety of aesthetics for what is essentially the same stage. The non-cosmetic differences between them are game changing but don't impact their competitive value. If they are relegated to counterpick, you can just ban them if you truly fear the wild variability they pose (even though you only play on one at a time). But, so you ban FD-Variant. Now the opponent can still pick something with even more variability, say Mushroom Kingdom U. You're never truly safe during a counterpick process. What's your point?

 

[Saikyoshi]

The entire point of the For Glory stages is to provide a variety of aesthetics for what is essentially the same stage. The non-cosmetic differences between them are game changing but don't impact their competitive value. If they are relegated to counterpick, you can just ban them if you truly fear the wild variability they pose (even though you only play on one at a time). But, so you ban FD-Variant. Now the opponent can still pick something with even more variability, say Mushroom Kingdom U. You're never truly safe during a counterpick process. What's your point?

You said my point. The entire point of the For Glory stages is to provide a variety of aesthetics for what is essentially the same stage.

Therefore, I don't think they should have that many non-cosmetic differences.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

You said my point. The entire point of the For Glory stages is to provide a variety of aesthetics for what is essentially the same stage.

Therefore, I don't think they should have that many non-cosmetic differences.

They don't have that many non-cosmetic differences.

You've said already "That's what I don't want. Isn't the entire point of For Glory stages to make every stage in the game a viable choice?" With the implication that they are not viable, which is an absurd notion.

 

[Saikyoshi]

They don't have that many non-cosmetic differences.

You've said already "That's what I don't want. Isn't the entire point of For Glory stages to make every stage in the game a viable choice?" With the implication that they are not viable, which is an absurd notion.

I'm guessing that most TOs will consider all of them to be a single stage and cover them in one strike if they're similar enough. If they're too different from each other, they'd get the banhammer very fast because what tournament wants to bother with striking over thirty minor variations of one stage (that aren't minor enough to blanket-strike)?

 

[Niala]

That's an interesting notion to me. Characters like Fox, who can now Phantasm>FireFox in one jump could take advantage of it in low level play. I don't think it will affect a whole lot, but it might be a good john.

"If only this were x version, I could've gone under the stage instead of running into Ike's Forward Smash..."

EDIT: Oh, yes, I also thought it could provide VERY different recovery methods when I saw it. Watching Melee, you see a lot of Fox and Falco players use the side of Yoshi's Island as something to angle their recovery off of so they don't get punished. It could be problematic for that reason.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I'm guessing that most TOs will consider all of them to be a single stage and cover them in one strike if they're similar enough. If they're too different from each other, they'd get the banhammer very fast because what tournament wants to bother with striking over thirty minor variations of one stage (that aren't minor enough to blanket-strike)?

The general idea is already to move FD-Variants to the counterpick process as one stage.

 

[Nat Perry]

@ Saikyoshi Competitive Smash isn't just about Final Destination, when I played "competitively" there were stages with size/structural variations such as Fountain of Dreams and Dreamland. Just because viable competitive stages vary in size don't mean they're no longer viable.

 

[Saikyoshi]

@ Saikyoshi Competitive Smash isn't just about Final Destination, when I played "competitively" there were stages with size/structural variations such as Fountain of Dreams and Dreamland. Just because viable competitive stages vary in size don't mean they're no longer viable.

Yes, I know. I know.

I'm just a little concerned that TOs will just go "screw it" due to the sheer number.

 

[Nat Perry]

Yes, I know. I know.

I'm just a little concerned that TOs will just go "screw it" due to the sheer number.

Maybe, yeah. There's a lot, I don't think their slight size differences will be significant enough to warrant them being striked though.

Like Quilt Reversal said, I could definitely see them as counterpicks after fighting on normal Final Destination. That sounds pretty sensible.

 

[STiCKYBULL3TZ]

I really don't think it will be an issue at least in the beginning. Once the game really starts to develop people will find out that character X performs slightly better or has an advantage against character Y on FD version Z. And that's perfectly ok. Characters always perform better or worse depending on the stage. Like the posts above, FD variants can just be counterpicks. That solves the issue of striking

 

[Nat Perry]

Exactly.

Whoa. Just had a thought.

What if retro stages had Final Destination variants?