Why is Wuhu Island not legal in most rulesets?

[Piford]

On what timing? Is that also consistent?

Every 10-20 seconds for 4 seconds.

 

[Raijinken]

Every 10-20 seconds for 4 seconds.

So random but within a consistent window.

I mean, I honestly don't mind it, I just like mocking a hatred of randomness when we've got things like balloons that (at least to all research I've done) are entirely random in our legal stages.

 

[C0rvus]

If redundancy is an argument then Dream Land should be banned without question. It's not that different from Battlefield.

In the case of counterpick stages, redundancy is an issue. The ceiling is enough for people to consider Dream Land legal separate from Battlefield, but we could do without it. It IS a bit redundant. In fact, a better starter stage list might be BF, FD, SV, T+C, Lylat, as it gives us a slightly better variety of layouts. 2 mostly horizontal stages (SV and FD), 2 Vertical stages (T+C and BF) and Lylat is somewhere in between. I could see Halberd being knocked and Dreamland taking its place in favor of its lack of intrusive hazards while still having the low ceiling that makes it a counterpick.

Though characters who might counterpick to Delfino may have it banned on them immediately every time, so perhaps having another stage like it would be better, so that the other player has to use more bans to keep their opponent off of their best stages. It really all comes down to whether of not you want a longer stage list with more breadth, or a shorter, safer list. It wold seem that the latter is where TOs are going, and where they inevitably go in the end anyway.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Good point, get rid of Delfino and Castle Siege too!

A credit to your community.

 

[T0MMY]

A credit to your community.

Did you not get the sarcasm of my post?
Or was that just a troll gone bad?
Either way I think you left something at my place the other day.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

I've run four monthlies with Wuhu Island on the stage list, and I've gotten no real complaints about it or requests to axe it (the most I've had was to drop the number of legal stages). I've had a few attendees even approach me in the clean-up phase of the tournament (where people often let me know how they liked the tournament) saying that it surprised them to find out that this stage is actually a quality stage.

I would recommend TOs of weeklies (where you can experiment) to try this stage out for a few weeks. It's given me no issues as a TO, where some of the other stages have, and I have gotten positive feedback from including the stage.

The thing that sucks is that other tournaments don't run it, primarily the majors/regionals. This leads to concern on my end that players don't get to put their practice on this stage to good use at other events. It's a shame, since Wuhu has been turning out to be s more fair tage than Halberd/Delphino.

Oh, and this stage is amazing for Doubles <3

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Did you not get the sarcasm of my post?

Let me tell you why I did not get the sarcasm.

Because there are a lot of people, particularly in the German community, who actually think like that.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Assuming the question in the title is rhetorical because it's obvious that the stage should be legal.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Assuming the question in the title is rhetorical because it's obvious that the stage should be legal.

Are you like, not on Smashlabs?

 

[Pazx]

While you guys are jumping down @ T0MMY 's throat I think it is worth pointing out that Delfino and Siege are pretty "dumb" compared to the staple 6 stages and a lot of people would like to see them gone.

"Is Wuhu better than Delfino" is a serious question that should be asked, and both these stages should be compared to Skyloft as well. As much as a lot of you would like FLSS with 13+ stages a lot of people aren't willing to do that and convincing TOs to start using stages like Wuhu at all is a step in the right direction.

 

[T0MMY]

Let me tell you why I did not get the sarcasm.
Because there are a lot of people, particularly in the German community, who actually think like that.

So you thought I was in the German community?

While you guys are jumping down @ T0MMY 's throat I think it is worth pointing out that Delfino and Siege are pretty "dumb" compared to the staple 6 stages and a lot of people would like to see them gone.

There's a reason why I get so much attention and love from people on rulecrafting - because I'm the big voice everyone wants to try to prove something against. I usually agree with people on their conclusions, but their reasoning is so illogical it invalidates a simple response even if I believe they are right:

q _ p <( The sky is blue, therefore we need to ban Pichu')
- . - <( C'mon, Pichu isn't even in the game, bro.)
q _ p <(Well everyone else is doing it, or maybe a notable personality said something about it... Sakurai said!)
- . - <(Fallacies are totes adorbs, staaaay fresh).

As much as I'd love Wuhu used there's predictably only going to be a shrinking stage list in competition just like there's a shrinking character usage - t0mMii's law of viability: As the metagame advances competitors will narrow their selections to the best choices. Scrubs like t0mMii will continue to use characters like Pichu and R.O.B. and perform well in major tournaments but these types will continue to dwindle until we have most competitors playing Fox on Final Destination with minimal game setting additions (read: no items).

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Why are we even talking about replacing Delfino when we should be replacing Halberd? That stage is messed up in all kinds of ways. I would love to replace Halberd with Wuhu or Skyloft.

Successful troll is successful. Thanks for taking the bait, mate. lol

"I was only pretending to be ********!"

 

[blackghost]

wuhu, mario kart, and skyloft are fine stages.different yeah but no issue with them. honestly the quick ban of peach castle 64 speaks abouthow this community operates: "anything new banned. and dont test or research just ban. the ONLY issue with the stage is fixed and it gets banned. smh.

 

[T0MMY]

Why are we even talking about replacing Delfino when we should be replacing Halberd? That stage is messed up in all kinds of ways. I would love to replace Halberd with Wuhu or Skyloft.

I agree, there's never been any rhyme nor reason to why some stages are used over others.
Over the years I have developed a logically-consistent framework of why some Stages are more competitively viable than others and one of the main offenses for competition is environmental damage like exploding bombs, giant lasers... things that are found in Halberd. Why is it used as a CP or worse yet as a starter in a supposedly competitive event??

 

[Myed]

I agree, there's never been any rhyme nor reason to why some stages are used over others.
Over the years I have developed a logically-consistent framework of why some Stages are more competitively viable than others and one of the main offenses for competition is environmental damage like exploding bombs, giant lasers... things that are found in Halberd. Why is it used as a CP or worse yet as a starter in a supposedly competitive event??

Grandfathered in from Brawl into Apex's set to make it more easy of a transition, locals copied Apex's set as to not seem too casual, other big tournaments copied the ones the locals are using as to make the set most familiar to all the players, and so on. This loop is why its really hard to introduce any ruleset changes at all.

The only reason I have found on Wuhu being banned is the boat glitch which iirc was patched out.

And I havent seen much talk on why Skyloft is banned at all.

Each one of these stages has a glaring flaw with it that actively interferes with play:

Delfino has a ridiculously low ceiling while transforming, allowing for very early kills

Skyloft has cliffs that come out of the background and spike at points (even while on-stage)

Halberd has hazards which actively target a specific player

Wuhu is very large, with some transformations being as long as the Great Cave Offensive in width

The neutrality of the individual platforms/transformations and what kind of play each promote will also have to be considered, but ultimately its going to be those four major problems that will affect the outcome.

So the real question is: which one of these stages' flaws interfere with the outcome of the match less while also best representing the purpose of the stage (dynamic, anti-camp, etc.) intact?

honestly the quick ban of peach castle 64 speaks abouthow this community operates: "anything new banned. and dont test or research just ban. the ONLY issue with the stage is fixed and it gets banned. smh.

Bit off-topic, but is there another stage on the list that fulfills the role of Peach 64 better? (low skybox favor vertical kills/triangles discourage horizontal kills)

 

[DX_97]

idk in my opinion wuhu moves too fast so it makes it harder to play the match. The hazards in halberd are ok cause they aren't there the entire time. Also, delfino castle siege and halberd doesn't move as quickly.

 

[blackghost]

idk in my opinion wuhu moves too fast so it makes it harder to play the match. The hazards in halberd are ok cause they aren't there the entire time. Also, delfino castle siege and halberd doesn't move as quickly.

what does moves to fast mean? the transitions speed or literally the stage movements during a transition?

 

[T0MMY]

Each one of these stages has a glaring flaw with it that actively interferes with play:

I am going to ask you to critically examine why interfering with play is a flaw.
Interference is generally acceptable at least to some degree) and ad reductio there's no way to ultimately escape "interference" from the stage depending on how strict of a definition of "interference" we are using (platforms can "interfere" with play).
So my point is going to get you to critically examine the principle of interference and if it an acceptable premise to build stage viability in a competitive setting before we can move on.

Delfino has a ridiculously low ceiling while transforming, allowing for very early kills
Skyloft has cliffs that come out of the background and spike at points (even while on-stage)
Halberd has hazards which actively target a specific player
Wuhu is very large, with some transformations being as long as the Great Cave Offensive in width

I see these points as mainly arguing a player vs player position in that we are rewarding skill in a fight between players and therefore stage hazards should not be determining a winner (it is more competitive to fight on F.D or BF than on Flatzone).
You seem to be arguing that these stages are "ridiculous" and I don't see that as a viable reason to "ban" anything.

The neutrality of the individual platforms/transformations and what kind of play each promote will also have to be considered, but ultimately its going to be those four major problems that will affect the outcome.

Why must neutrality be considered necessarily? The word "neutrality" carries much meaning, so it should be clarified here to promote a proper communication.

So the real question is: which one of these stages' flaws interfere with the outcome of the match less while also best representing the purpose of the stage (dynamic, anti-camp, etc.) intact?

I would disagree, I do not see it that we have to judiciously determine the least offensive stage and reward it like some kind of beauty show.
I believe that if something is competitively viable than it should not have any rulings against it.

 

[Myed]

I am going to ask you to critically examine why interfering with play is a flaw.
Interference is generally acceptable at least to some degree) and ad reductio there's no way to ultimately escape "interference" from the stage depending on how strict of a definition of "interference" we are using (platforms can "interfere" with play).
So my point is going to get you to critically examine the principle of interference and if it an acceptable premise to build stage viability in a competitive setting before we can move on.


You seem to be arguing that these stages are "ridiculous" and I don't see that as a viable reason to "ban" anything.

I believe that none of these stages should be banned.
Feel free to correct me on this, but in my opinion for a stage to be truly banworthy it must:
* Grant one player an advantage over the other due to randomness. (Find Mii, Halberd [although its hazards are telegraphed enough to make it a very small, and as that is the only issue with it, okayish], most stages with a miniboss (gaur plains' doesnt actively target specific players)
* Offer an advantage that is so great that it is overcentralizing (Magicant, Flying Man so amazingly good and so easy to obtain that the fight then centralizes around king of the hill for the platform where he spawns, pac-land, running into a hydrant once gives you a mushroom effect, making the fight centralize around that hydrant)
* Be so large that KOs become unreasonable and 9/10ths of the time lead to timeouts (Palutenas Temple, Great Cave Offensive, Gaur Plains etc.)
* Create very obviously next to unwinnable MUs (Permant walkoffs allow any character with a decent projectile and a good grab confirm (ness, weegee, etc) to force projectileless characters to approach the edge, poke til they get a grab confirm, and get the kill.) Advantages (Peaches Castle's low ceiling and triangles favor vertical killers and disfavor horizontal killers) are fine. Thats why we have stage strikes. Advantages very heavily tilted in one characters favor so winning with a character is next to impossible (above example) arent. If it isnt a permanent walkoff (proven since Melee, and characters that can very easily force others to approach still exist) it will have to go strenuous testing and be proven without a doubt that its very close to unwinnable.
* Have all relevant information readily available to the character (Golden Plains, you dont know how close your opponent is without counting all the coins they collect)
* Should there be hazards, reasonably telegraph them (Hyrule Castle's tornados can spawn on players without warning and kill. Doesnt fit under the first reason because I believe their spawns are truly random. Kalos Pokemon League (Swords do this circle sweeping attack without any prior telegraphing)

None of these four stages (Halberd kinda fits under the first, but as i said above theyre telegraphed enough to be not as banworthy) fall under any of these categories, as all the advantages they provide can be taken advantage of by both players and none are overly centralizing. But...

I see these points as mainly arguing a player vs player position in that we are rewarding skill in a fight between players and therefore stage hazards should not be determining a winner (it is more competitive to fight on F.D or BF than on Flatzone)

Why must neutrality be considered necessarily? The word "neutrality" carries much meaning, so it should be clarified here to promote a proper communication.

I would disagree, I do not see it that we have to judiciously determine the least offensive stage and reward it like some kind of beauty show.
I believe that if something is competitively viable than it should not have any rulings against it.

Neutrality is defined here as PvP position rewarding skill, hazards not a factor, etc. I'm not arguing for neutral as possible stages, but

The current widespread opinion is of concise as possible stage lists, and as we know it is going to be really hard to change that unless the majority of top players change their minds (would require a huge upset of most of the top players) or a big tournament decides to run FLSS (very unlikely. and even if said tourney goes perfectly itll probably end up like EVO). As it stands, its going to be an uphill battle keeping transforming stages alone, as more and more locals are cutting them from their lists.

I can pull up any stage from 64/Melee/Brawl and tell you exactly why its banned. I cannot for the life of me find any official reason why half the banned stages are banned besides 'they werent at Apex' and the all so beloved 'jank'. Like it or not 'Innocent until proven guilty is dead and 'jank' is an legitimate reason to ban stages now.

So, as it stands, if we want more diverse stagelists we need to put our foot in the door and push for the transforming stages that are most conductive to the 'most neutral' play. Play the long game and hope we can eventually push for a true 'innocent til proven guilty' mindset (a'la miis to customs right now). To do this we will have to find the two stages that are the best to appease the masses with the least ''''''''''jank'''''''''''. We cant push for more than two right now because how the mentality around stage striking is (every stage should fill a niche, three or more stages with the same niche inherently give the advantage to characters benefiting from that niche, etc.)

So, while 'judiciously determining the best stage' and pushing isn't a logical thing to do in anymeans, its going to be a necessity should we want to stop stagelists from becoming smaller than they already are.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

If we're talking about reasons to ban stages, here is my criteria.

• Permanent or long-lasting walkoff (Mario Galaxy, Mario Circuit (Brawl), Woolly World, Yoshi's Island, 75m, Bridge of Eldin, The Great Cave Offensive, Onett, Coliseum, Flat Zone X, Boxing Ring, Wii Fit Studio, Gaur Plain, Pac-Land, Suzaku Castle)
• Stage hazard which is at least somewhat powerful or centralizing (Mushroom Kingdom U, Mario Circuit, Mario Circuit (Brawl), 75m, Hyrule Castle (64), Bridge of Eldin, Pyrosphere, Norfair, The Great Cave Offensive, Halberd, Kalos Pokemon League, Port Town Aero Dive, Onett, Flat Zone X, Gamer, Garden of Hope, Gaur Plain, Windy Hill Zone, Wily Castle)
• Unreasonably large (Big Battlefield, 75m, Hyrule Castle (64), Temple, The Great Cave Offensive, Palutena's Temple, Gaur Plain)
• Not unreasonably large, but stage layout makes fighting other players difficult or provides an overly powerful camping spot (Jungle Hijinxs, Orbital Gate Assault, Pokemon Stadium 2, Wrecking Crew, Pilotwings, Suzaku Castle)
• Permanent or long-lasting cave of life (Mario Circuit, Luigi's Mansion, Yoshi's Island, Temple, The Great Cave Offensive, Palutena's Temple, Skyworld, Gamer)
• Blast zones are unreasonably close to the stage (Temple, Halberd, Palutena's Temple)
• Carbon copy of another stage (Miiverse)

This leaves us with Battlefield, Final Destination, Delfino Plaza, Kongo Jungle 64, Skyloft, Dream Land (64), Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege, Town and City, Smashville, Duck Hunt, and Wuhu Island. One could potentially make the argument that Delfino Plaza, Skyloft, Castle Siege, and Wuhu Island violate these criteria, but these violations are minor enough that they weren't worth listing. Banning any of these stages makes no sense unless you come up with some other criteria, and I honestly can't think of any more reasons to ban a stage.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

If we're talking about reasons to ban stages, here is my criteria.

• Permanent or long-lasting walkoff, or unreasonably small side blast zones (Mario Galaxy, Mario Circuit (Brawl), Woolly World, Yoshi's Island, 75m, Temple, Bridge of Eldin, The Great Cave Offensive, Onett, Coliseum, Flat Zone X, Boxing Ring, Wii Fit Studio, Gaur Plain, Pac-Land, Suzaku Castle)
• Stage hazard which is at least somewhat powerful or centralizing (Mushroom Kingdom U, Mario Circuit, Mario Circuit (Brawl), 75m, Hyrule Castle (64), Bridge of Eldin, Pyrosphere, Norfair, The Great Cave Offensive, Halberd, Kalos Pokemon League, Port Town Aero Dive, Onett, Flat Zone X, Gamer, Garden of Hope, Gaur Plain, Windy Hill Zone, Wily Castle)
• Unreasonably large (Big Battlefield, 75m, Hyrule Castle (64), Temple, The Great Cave Offensive, Palutena's Temple, Gaur Plain)
• Not unreasonably large, but stage layout makes fighting other players difficult or provides an overly powerful camping spot (Jungle Hijinxs, Orbital Gate Assault, Pokemon Stadium 2, Wrecking Crew, Pilotwings, Suzaku Castle)
• Permanent or long-lasting cave of life (Mario Circuit, Luigi's Mansion, Yoshi's Island, Temple, The Great Cave Offensive, Palutena's Temple, Skyworld, Gamer)
• Unreasonably sized blast zones (Halberd)
• Carbon copy of another stage (Miiverse)

This leaves us with Battlefield, Final Destination, Delfino Plaza, Kongo Jungle 64, Skyloft, Dream Land (64), Lylat Cruise, Castle Siege, Town and City, Smashville, and Wuhu Island. One could potentially make the argument that Delfino Plaza, Kongo Jungle 64, Skyloft, Castle Siege, and Wuhu Island violate these criteria, but these violations are minor enough that they weren't worth listing. Banning any of these stages makes no sense unless you come up with some other criteria, and I honestly can't think of any more reasons to ban a stage.

Halberd's hazards are easily avoidable and telegraphed. The blastzone is debatable.
Miiverse should replace Battlefield because of more consistent ledges.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Halberd's hazards are easily avoidable and telegraphed. The blastzone is debatable.
Miiverse should replace Battlefield because of more consistent ledges.

Despite that, the laser is too strong to not warrant mentioning.

You can get pineapple'd under Miiverse, but you can't get pineapple'd under Battlefield.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

Despite that, the laser is too strong to not warrant mentioning.

You can get pineapple'd under Miiverse, but you can't get pineapple'd under Battlefield.

You can easily DI out of the first hits of the laser to avoid the single strong hit at the end.
Battlefield has wonky stuff happening with its ledges from time to time.
I don't see what's wrong with getting pineapple'd. You would have to do something really stupid while recovering or getting gimped properly.
But I guess it boils down to personal preference. I think both are fine, just not at the same time.

 

[T0MMY]

Principles of Competition​

I believe that none of these stages should be banned.

I agree, I think banning anything is a very rare occasion and should be subjected to proper due process, competitively.

Neutrality is defined here as PvP position rewarding skill, hazards not a factor, etc.

I agree, rewarding skill is a conclusive goal to competition - we don't draw names out of a hat to reward an entrant, we reward them based on merits of strength (composed of skills utilizing the software).
So we have a principle declared here and can now logically blaze a logical path of reasoning and clearly see if our reasoning entails our conclusions.

Points on What is Banworthy vs Competitive Theory​

I. Point of Random​

Feel free to correct me on this, but in my opinion for a stage to be truly banworthy it must:
* Grant one player an advantage over the other due to randomness. (Find Mii, Halberd [although its hazards are telegraphed enough to make it a very small, and as that is the only issue with it, okayish], most stages with a miniboss (gaur plains' doesnt actively target specific players)

Ok, I will freely correct you on this - "correct" as in "align".
That is: I will take the position of what is axiomatically accepted as terms of competition and in this position I will speak an "I agree" if it correctly aligns with competitive standards or "I disagree" if it does not correctly align with competitive standards.(1)

"Random" and "advantage" are exclusive, they don't exist together - environmental events that randomly affect both players are not giving one player an advantage over the other if both players are being affected randomly. (2)​

Example: If a random event (like a 50/50 chance of a giant laser blasting one of the players) would be considered like a coin-flip then there is no advantage there - it will be a completely even chance - 100% chance is split evenly 50% to both parties!

Spoiler

Note (1): This "I disagree" would not be asserting your opinions are wrong, but would just signify that something has not correctly aligned with the standards and your point of reasoning needs to be adjusted (or you can attempt to argue that I have misrepresented the standard).

Note (2): "Random" is not a point of competitive violation. Random events are perfectly acceptable in competition (think RNG on attacks like Judgement or the random movements of platforms like in FoD).

Note (3): This is NOT an argument in favor of hazards being allowed in competition, this is simply just pointing out something I see as inconsistent with the reasoning, and I do this so you can develop a stronger argument.

II. Point of Advantage​

* Offer an advantage that is so great that it is overcentralizing (Magicant, Flying Man so amazingly good and so easy to obtain that the fight then centralizes around king of the hill for the platform where he spawns, pac-land, running into a hydrant once gives you a mushroom effect, making the fight centralize around that hydrant)

It could be argued that these elements are simply part of the game which should be used or at least start with the option to use them and skills are employed to gain said advantages on these stages - remember, rewarding skill is a principle of competition you set forth.
If this is held to be true then the Stages are still competitively viable and would require a solid reason to not be used.

III. Point of Size & Timeouts​

* Be so large that KOs become unreasonable and 9/10ths of the time lead to timeouts (Palutenas Temple, Great Cave Offensive, Gaur Plains etc.)

This I believe is a very solid reason, as TOs set rules for their tournaments and are not expected to attempt to "balance" the game with out-of-game rulings. Large Stages will more than likely cause scheduling issues and can permissibly be banned by the TO.
The question for our topic is if Wuhu island is too large and/or promotes time issues that a TO would make any rulings regarding it based on that.

IV. Point of Matchup Balance​

* Create very obviously next to unwinnable MUs

I disagree on this point by way of competitive perspective - Simply put, if a Stage is going to cause an "unwinnable matchup" then the competitor is expected to choose a character that would give the greatest advantage for the Stage selected.
It's not the TO's job to attempt to even-up a match with out-of-game rulings - as per your principle, we are rewarding skill.

V. Point of Sufficient Information​

* Have all relevant information readily available to the character (Golden Plains, you dont know how close your opponent is without counting all the coins they collect)

I am unsure what this means.
But the example is inconsistent with the principle of rewarding skill. If a competitor is not as good as their opponent at keeping track of coins collected during the battle then they don't deserve to win.
Saying "it's not fair, I couldn't remember how many coins he collected" should just get the response "no johns".

VI. Point of Reasonable Hazards​

* Should there be hazards, reasonably telegraph them (Hyrule Castle's tornados can spawn on players without warning and kill. Doesnt fit under the first reason because I believe their spawns are truly random. Kalos Pokemon League (Swords do this circle sweeping attack without any prior telegraphing)

Again, I don't believe random is an issue here as there's no precedence set forth that random sis non-competitive. "reasonably" telegraph is probably too subjective (how "reasonable" does it have to be? It's too much a gray area and debatable ad ridiculous).
My suggestion that any Stage that has environmental hazards that do not benefit competition more than it impedes competition should not be included on a Starting or Counterpick Stage list and instead should be reserved for an Agreement Method (I don't see enough warrant for a ban).

VII. Afterthoughts​

So, as it stands, if we want more diverse stagelists we need to put our foot in the door and push for the transforming stages that are most conductive to the 'most neutral' play. Play the long game and hope we can eventually push for a true 'innocent til proven guilty' mindset (a'la miis to customs right now).

I've got better strats I am working on.

So, while 'judiciously determining the best stage' and pushing isn't a logical thing to do in anymeans, its going to be a necessity should we want to stop stagelists from becoming smaller than they already are.

This is assuming the stage list should not become smaller.

I'm open-minded enough to entertain the contrary.

Competition generally focuses on a smaller stagelist (and character viabilitly as well as game settings) naturally. A natural action is a result of rightful proceedings. If competition naturally proceeds in this fashion then it seems that it should be accepted as the natural order of our activity and embraced/nourished (keep in mind a shrinking stage list nor a concise one does not violate any rules of competition) not suffocated. Thoughts?

 

[KeithTheGeek]

@ TheHypnotoad You actually can get pineapple'd on Battlefield, kinda.

It's a little crude, but the red circles mark where characters can get caught under Battlefield. And the stage collision isn't even consistent between the two sides, unlike Miiverse.

 

[Pinnacle-eSport]

I agree fully with your reasoning. . Maybe the size of the blastzones are the only difference between Wuhu and Delfino/Siege

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@ Myed The swords on Kalos only spin when Registeel is in the background instead of the usual assortment of Pokemon, and it makes a weird sort of noise before launching the attack. So there is some warning.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

@ Myed The swords on Kalos only spin when Registeel is in the background instead of the usual assortment of Pokemon, and it makes a weird sort of noise before launching the attack. So there is some warning.

It covers the entire damn stage, though. No amount of telegraphing will help you.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It covers the entire damn stage, though. No amount of telegraphing will help you.

Just correcting misinformation. I agree that it's not really suited for competition.

 

[bigblast66]

At my Local tournament It's a counterpick for doubles

 

[Aquatics]

Grandfather rulesets are one of the biggest plagues on Smash's community.

Stadium 2 was lame in Brawl. It's fixed now. Banned.
Halberd was legal in Brawl. Basically the same if a bit favored towards already-good characters (as in Brawl, if I recall). Still legal in many places.
Dreamland was starter in Melee. It's either starter or counterpick in any game that includes it. Nobody once considers banning it, even when random wind mechanics are actually relevant to certain characters/move properties.

With the sole exception of characters, it takes a blatant change towards broken for anyone to consider banning something, and once it's gone, good luck ever getting it back.

you play alot of characters

 

[YoHeKing]

I remember playing against this Rosalina player and Ike player and wuhu. During a lot of the stage transitions I noticed that he camped on the other sides of walls and the only thing I could do to get to him was jump on the other side hoping I would hit him against the wall and get that spot or waiting till the stage changes back to normal. It was no fun at all really and seeing stuff like this on stream would make smash4 look really bad. I would say wuhu would be legal if there was less places to hide behind and the hazards at the side.

 

[Raijinken]

you play alot of characters

There's a lot of fun to be had playing more than just one or two.

Same for stages. Wuhu's diverse terrain makes for a more dynamic and interesting fight.

 

[MajorMajora]

It covers the entire damn stage, though. No amount of telegraphing will help you.

As soon as registeel appears you have a reasonable amount of time to get out of the way. Of course, you need to stop fighting your opponent to do this. Pursuing puts you in between the now fleeing opponent and the instadeath. This puts you in a far riskier position than the fleeing opponent, so using them fleeing to your advantage is a risk that you need to calculate and be confident in.

So I see no real situation where it would force someone to instadeath, only one where someone makes the gamb;le of dancing with it.

 

[Raijinken]

As soon as registeel appears you have a reasonable amount of time to get out of the way. Of course, you need to stop fighting your opponent to do this. Pursuing puts you in between the now fleeing opponent and the instadeath. This puts you in a far riskier position than the fleeing opponent, so using them fleeing to your advantage is a risk that you need to calculate and be confident in.

So I see no real situation where it would force someone to instadeath, only one where someone makes the gamb;le of dancing with it.

It always confused me how people mistake "taking a stupid risk and dying for it" with "the stage being biased towards killing you unavoidably."

Some are easier to avoid than others, yes, but especially for Kalos, there's so much blatant misinformation that it's no wonder even stage liberals have a hard time wanting it really legal. Have people at least learned that Rayquaza doesn't instakill or anywhere near it?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It always confused me how people mistake "taking a stupid risk and dying for it" with "the stage being biased towards killing you unavoidably."

Some are easier to avoid than others, yes, but especially for Kalos, there's so much blatant misinformation that it's no wonder even stage liberals have a hard time wanting it really legal. Have people at least learned that Rayquaza doesn't instakill or anywhere near it?

Rayquaza is also weirdly easy to avoid for how massive it is. I think the sheer size may be fooling people.

Even though Registeel isn't really unavoidable per se, it is a massive pain to deal with and does effectively force one of two things to happen: The match comes to a halt as players move to avoid Stomp and the resulting sword spins, or the match keeps on going and the swords are more than likely to hit and possibly kill either or both players. Neither seems like something a typical competitive Smasher would want.

(There's also option 3, which is "pretend to wait it out with your opponent then dash in and hit them into the swords at the last minute." Happened to me on Halberd with the bomb. I couldn't even be mad.)

Then again, the Fire/Rock forms in PS1 brought play to a halt if someone was able to get in the right position...

 

[Raijinken]

Rayquaza is also weirdly easy to avoid for how massive it is. I think the sheer size may be fooling people.

Even though Registeel isn't really unavoidable per se, it is a massive pain to deal with and does effectively force one of two things to happen: The match comes to a halt as players move to avoid Stomp and the resulting sword spins, or the match keeps on going and the swords are more than likely to hit and possibly kill either or both players. Neither seems like something a typical competitive Smasher would want.

(There's also option 3, which is "pretend to wait it out with your opponent then dash in and hit them into the swords at the last minute." Happened to me on Halberd with the bomb. I couldn't even be mad.)

Then again, the Fire/Rock forms in PS1 brought play to a halt if someone was able to get in the right position...

Amazing what passes for a reasonable impact on a historically legal stage but not a new one, eh?

 

[SaltyKracka]

Regardless of whether Registeel likes to kill people or not, it's just not a stage worth having legal.

 

[MajorMajora]

Regardless of whether Registeel likes to kill people or not, it's just not a stage worth having legal.

...excuse me? Now, there are 2 things wrong with what you just said.
1. It implies there is something wrong with the stage while providing no evidence or calling back to previously made points.
2. There is, actually, a lot gained from having more stages. There are 3 goals for competitive smash: To be entertaining, to be enjoyable to the players, and to determine who is the best competitor. A varied stage list makes it a fresh spectator sport, and it tests skill to a higher degree by requiring the players to adapt to a larger number of variables. Of course, this is all assuming there are no accompanying downsides to the stages added, but since you provided none, I can't assume there is anything wrong with it.