Why are stages with walkoffs banned?

[Tito Maas]

Thread title explains it all, really. I don't have much of an OP to write besides the fact that I enjoy the risk-reward behavior and mindgames that can occur at walk-offs.

 

[Shouxiao]

Matches would often result in players camping on the sides waiting for an easy kill.

Almost no top Ko's.

Ko's from vertical blastzones are non existence. Huge element that is not present on the permanent walk off stages.

Certain characters would be super strong due to the gimps they could pull off with ease by using certain combos or back throws.

Lots of super cheap strategies.

 

[outfoxd]

Delfino and castle siege gives us enough walk offs. I was wondering myself until a Sonic waited me out on a transition.

 

[Radical Larry]

I don't get the arguments of the anti-walk-off stage people. It doesn't make sense, especially @ Shouxiao here. I'd like to disprove what you're saying, Shou, aka John Shou Hypocrite:

"Matches would often result in players camping on the sides waiting for an easy kill."
Ahem, don't people already do that on Omega/Final Destination and other tournament legal stages? That's something considered edge-guarding and that's something relatively similar to camping on the sides of the stages literally waiting for easy KOs.

"Almost no top Ko's."
"Ko's from vertical blastzones are non existence. Huge element that is not present on the permanent walk off stages."
That's not true; often I see opponents being sent vertically up and down (Bridge of Eldin), and little do I really see the cheap sideways KO. The opportunity has to arise for a sideways KO, and you often need to treat it like a normal stage.

"Certain characters would be super strong due to the gimps they could pull off with ease by using certain combos or back throws."
Ness, Link, Ganondorf, Sheik, Mewtwo, Toon Link and Villager come into mind when going on Final Destination stages.

"Lots of super cheap strategies."
Here's where you're a John; anything in this game goes. Ganondorf can win with a Flame Choke on last stock, no matter the opponent's damage. Villager can spam projectiles. Sheik can combo spam you to days. Sonic can vertically KO you extremely early. How are these not "cheap"?

 

[TheHypnotoad]

The horizontal blast zones are puny, which can lead to things like dying from an uncharged smash attack or a bthrow at 50%. All horizontal kill moves and throws are massively buffed. It also completely removes off-stage play, giving characters like Little Mac a gigantic buff while trivializing characters whose main selling points are their edgeguarding abilities. And, of course, it promotes blast zone camping. These are only a few reasons.

 

[PeejsterM]

With walkoffs, there's no offstage play, which is a pretty big deal. Do you really need much more reason than that?

 

[Gibbs]

People often compare the neutral to high speed RPS, which is at its heart a random game. When one player camps the side with say Ness, that RPS interaction is converted directly into a stock loss. Similar with Sheik fair chains to the blast zone. Now if you're sure you can outplay your opponent, then you won't camp the edge because playing the neutral in center stage will give you a more likely win condition. The problem comes from the fact that the player of lesser skill can almost always force the game into a russian roulette scenario that almost always will result in a stock loss from either side.

 

[Doval]

"Matches would often result in players camping on the sides waiting for an easy kill."
Ahem, don't people already do that on Omega/Final Destination and other tournament legal stages? That's something considered edge-guarding and that's something relatively similar to camping on the sides of the stages literally waiting for easy KOs.

There's a world of difference between edgeguarding and camping a permanent walkoff. First, the person being edgeguarded made a big mistake or he wouldn't be in that position. Second, he has a good chance of coming back alive. Third, he's probably at mid-high % or he wouldn't be so far off the stage.

In a permanent walkoff stage once I have any % lead I can camp the walkoff and kill you at stupidly low %s. Make any mistake and you're dead. Next stock I'll just do it again. You can't choose not to approach, because I'll win by time. This is less risky for me than for you because attacking is generally unsafe in this game.

If I do screw up now you're the one camping the walkoff. You'd be stupid not to.

With temporary walkoffs you can at least wait it out. You lose some time, but a small mistake won't cost you the whole stock.

 

[LightLV]

A quick google search would have this question answered in 15 seconds.

Walk-offs offer the entire cast a cheese, optimal strategy for winning that trivializes everything else. They will never be legal, especially not while shiek could blast-zone you from a grab done midscreen.

I don't get the arguments of the anti-walk-off stage people. It doesn't make sense, especially @ Shouxiao here. I'd like to disprove what you're saying, Shou, aka John Shou Hypocrite:

Sigh....here we go. Que theorycrafting arguments and semantics.

 

[Shouxiao]

I don't get the arguments of the anti-walk-off stage people. It doesn't make sense, especially @ Shouxiao here. I'd like to disprove what you're saying, Shou, aka John Shou Hypocrite:

"Matches would often result in players camping on the sides waiting for an easy kill."
Ahem, don't people already do that on Omega/Final Destination and other tournament legal stages? That's something considered edge-guarding and that's something relatively similar to camping on the sides of the stages literally waiting for easy KOs.

"Almost no top Ko's."
"Ko's from vertical blastzones are non existence. Huge element that is not present on the permanent walk off stages."
That's not true; often I see opponents being sent vertically up and down (Bridge of Eldin), and little do I really see the cheap sideways KO. The opportunity has to arise for a sideways KO, and you often need to treat it like a normal stage.

"Certain characters would be super strong due to the gimps they could pull off with ease by using certain combos or back throws."
Ness, Link, Ganondorf, Sheik, Mewtwo, Toon Link and Villager come into mind when going on Final Destination stages.

"Lots of super cheap strategies."
Here's where you're a John; anything in this game goes. Ganondorf can win with a Flame Choke on last stock, no matter the opponent's damage. Villager can spam projectiles. Sheik can combo spam you to days. Sonic can vertically KO you extremely early. How are these not "cheap"?

The same reason Walk off stages were not allowed for the first 3 games is the same reason why they are not allowed now. Smash 4 has various different mechanics then the others but still.

Edge guarding is different than the camping on Walk Offs. With Edge guarding one often has to take the risk of going off stage. Plus there are things like ledge trumping, meteor smashing, stage spiking, etc.

Some walk offs do not even allow vertical Ko's from the bottom. The ones that do only allow them for a short time. Ko's from the bottom are rare/non existent on the walk off stages.

Combos on stages with Walk offs would be very strong. Sheik would be the most common example but many others exist. She would have no problem killing characters horizontally. Characters with good back throws would also be very strong. They would kill much earlier on stages with walk offs then a stage like the Omegas, Smashville, Battlefield, etc. More than likely that back throw is going to happen right near the blast lines as well.

Maybe cheap is the wrong word. Cheese or shenanigans might be better. The cheap stuff that happens on Walk Off stage are much easier to exploit compare to stages like Smashville, Omegas, Battlefield, etc.

 

[neohopeSTF]

You could fair with shiek until they die

 

[Raijinken]

As Overswarm explained it long ago, it's actually not about the stalling (which is allowed in other forms) or the loss of certain gameplay elements (which happens if you pick Final Destination, or Temple, or Battlefield, or anything). It's about how centralized the 50-50 can be for a majority of matchups.

Basically, regardless of your advantage, provided you are not against a character with killing projectiles that are hard to avoid, you can always go to a wall and take a 50/50 on either you or the opponent dieing. If you are in the lead, for a lot of characters, this is actually your most powerful way to maintain a lead (especially with the power of shields versus the relative rarity of quick command grabs that can turn that table).

Basically, just like campable platforms, or some character design functions, it creates a preferred strategy that the community has deemed "degenerate," and thus isn't likely to be accepted by anyone less than radical about their moveset ideas.

They're often legal in transforming stages because they're temporary, and thus can't be camped forever. They then become a situational stage-knowledge opportunity (like controlling the Dog on Duck Hunt via duck kills, or using Smashville's platform for otherwise-unlikely aerial strings as Ness, Sheik, or Pikachu), instead of a permanent powerful option.

 

[ShadyWolfe]

Permanent walk offs are bad for competitive play and may even be considered worse than stages with annoying hazards(Mushroom Kingdom U,Kalos League).
Permanent Walk Offs

• Get rid of the offstage/ledge gameplay
• Highly favors projectile users and horizantal kills
• Camping that will make Counter Sapling/Extreme Baloon Trip Villager look like Melee Captain Falcon
• encourages extreme cheesing
• make Chain Grabs(In 64, Melee, and Brawl) an easily lost stock. In Smash 4 Shiek has access to a chain grab.

 

[Tito Maas]

Good points. I enjoy walk-offs but I guess I also enjoy the fact that they are limited and temporary opportunities in the current legal stages featuring them.

 

[Deleted member]

If you have a good throw of any kind you could just sit at the side and wait for them, grab them and then throw and boom 0% kill.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I believe people have done a fantastic job of adequately answering this question.