Official Stage Legality Discussion

sunshade · May 20, 2010

@Linkshot

What is the point of finding any of that out? The chokepoint stops circle camping and you are looking for ways to make it ineffective in that role. The data being collected is only support for the stage's banning. Even regardless of that this being an argument for its banning the tactic is impractical. If you are jumping up the side of those massive stones then the opponent will catch on and block your path, punish you for being so monstrously close to the blast zones, and all of the risk comes for little to no benefit.

If we want to make any case for Rumble Fall's legality we need to display why the stage is not foreign to that of typical competitive play. As it stands now many people view the stage as a different game despite that not being the case. People see Rumble Fall's and laugh at it like they do Mushroomy kingdom. It is viewed as a stage for fun and casual interest only and if we want anyone to take the stage seriously we need to dispel that myth.

Arguing against broken elements is easy, arguing against a widespread misconception is not.

Kaffei said:
. At least ban Brinstar and RC for MK.

Is Metaknight broken on Brinstar?

If a stage has circle camping than whichever character is the better circle camper will literally always win assuming they get a lead and don't trip every 2 seconds. Circle camping is a broken tactic so we ban stages with it present.

Is Metaknight on Brinstar a broken tactic which cannot lose?

I don't think so and tournament results don't say so either. Lets be practical, step back, and wait to see how the metagame plays out. If Metaknight is to good on Brinstar we will see but as of now the only thing prompting question of Brinstar's legality is the fact that M2k beat Ally on it which is far from evidence.

Lets not have a knee jerk reaction and shrink the depth of the brawl metagame in the process.

Linkshot · May 20, 2010

sunshade said:
@Linkshot

What is the point of finding any of that out? The chokepoint stops circle camping and you are looking for ways to make it ineffective in that role. The data being collected is only support for the stage's banning. Even regardless of that this being an argument for its banning the tactic is impractical. If you are jumping up the side of those massive stones then the opponent will catch on and block your path, punish you for being so monstrously close to the blast zones, and all of the risk comes for little to no benefit.

I've always seen the chokepoint as a negative: Whoever gets there first can essentially force a suicide.

Supportive or not, this is real data. Though, your post has inspired me to take a break.

sunshade · May 20, 2010

strangely enough I have always viewed the chokepoint as a positive: I saw it as the only area in which conflict was forced and absolute circle camping was stopped.

On the rest of Rumble Falls I believe a player can effectively circle camp until god or the random number generator decide its time to stop.

Kaffei · May 20, 2010

sunshade said:
Is Metaknight broken on Brinstar?

If a stage has circle camping than whichever character is the better circle camper will literally always win assuming they get a lead and don't trip every 2 seconds. Circle camping is a broken tactic so we ban stages with it present.

Is Metaknight on Brinstar a broken tactic which cannot lose?

I don't think so and tournament results don't say so either. Lets be practical, step back, and wait to see how the metagame plays out. If Metaknight is to good on Brinstar we will see but as of now the only thing prompting question of Brinstar's legality is the fact that M2k beat Ally on it which is far from evidence.

Lets not have a knee jerk reaction and shrink the depth of the brawl metagame in the process.

I'm not even talking about M2K vs Ally at MLG Orlando, nor am I talking about circle camping. I already said that MK has a bunch of other good stages and he doesn't need 2 extra gay ones when characters like IC & Falco's BEST CPs are FD. If you ban RC & Brinstar it will be more fair to the characters who don't have as many good CPs as MK does.

If we just keep waiting it's not gonna get better.

sunshade · May 20, 2010

Kaffei said:
I'm not even talking about M2K vs Ally at MLG Orlando, nor am I talking about circle camping. I already said that MK has a bunch of other good stages and he doesn't need 2 extra gay ones when characters like IC & Falco's BEST CPs are FD. If you ban RC & Brinstar it will be more fair to the characters who don't have as many good CPs as MK does.

If we just keep waiting it's not gonna get better.

Whats fair about making the best character worse? It is more egalitarian but it is not fair.

Metaknight is the best character, punishing him for being the best character is not fair. Artificially boosting lesser characters who are terrible on a large portion of stages and need to use Final Destination as a crutch is not fair. Allowing the big fish to eat the little fish is fair. It is not always what we like to see but it is fair. Don't confuse fair and equal.

I referenced M2K vs Ally since most of the Brinstar hate I have heard was a result of M2K using the stage to his advantage.

I referenced Circle camping as an example of what an unbeatable tactic is.

We only ban something if it is broken, not if it is simply good. Is Metaknight on Brinstar broken or is he simply better than normal?

If he is broken on Brinstar then lets ban the stage. If he is broken on every stage lets ban the character. If he is neither lets not do anything.

Kaffei · May 20, 2010

sunshade said:
Whats fair about making the best character worse? It is more egalitarian but it is not fair.

Metaknight is the best character, punishing him for being the best character is not fair. Artificially boosting lesser characters who are terrible on a large portion of stages and need to use Final Destination as a crutch is not fair. Allowing the big fish to eat the little fish is fair. It is not always what we like to see but it is fair. Don't confuse fair and equal.

I referenced M2K vs Ally since most of the Brinstar hate I have heard was a result of M2K using the stage to his advantage.

I referenced Circle camping as an example of what an unbeatable tactic is.

We only ban something if it is broken, not if it is simply good. Is Metaknight on Brinstar broken or is he simply better than normal?

If he is broken on Brinstar then lets ban the stage. If he is broken on every stage lets ban the character. If he is neither lets not do anything.

What's fair about having an unbeatable planking, an extended dimensional cape, an unbeatable scrooge & 0 bad match ups? It's completely fair to restrict MK.
On Brinstar you're not only fighting MK, a character with amazing vertical spacing but the stage itself. If MK can break apart the stage it becomes even harder to fight a character who can juggle with uair and tornado. MK is always guarding the top platform when the lava is up, and it's not easy to get there.

T-block · May 21, 2010

I have never seen circle camping as a problem on the majority of Rumble Falls, although I don't have as much experience on the stage as I would like. It seems more that the stage forces conflict, because characters on the bottom must eventually approach characters on the top. I also don't see how a "suicide" is forced at the chokepoint.

Linkshot · May 21, 2010

I'll probably work on the list some more later today.

Link is up next...lol.

Done today's quota of two columns. Gonna munch.

Ganondorf made me yell "WHAT?!"

Akaku94 · May 21, 2010

Kaffei, take it to the MK Ban Topic, not here...

Sunshade, you obviously don't understand the MK Debate as. If you want to argue about MK, check out the M discussion in Brawl Tactical. Otherwise, don't even start...

I'm against banning stages, especially two viable counterpicks, just because they make an already broken character even more broken! The character, not the stage, is the problem, and we've never banned a stage because of one character. I know there are some who think that all the walk-off stages were banned because of DDD, but it was mainly for throw camping (sitting right at the edge to throw someone out, something all characters can do.) At this point, there's no "knee-jerk reactions" where this is concerned, not after over a year of MK discussion. That said, we simply an't ban stages just because they're MK's counterpicks.

I admit I may be a little biased here, since MK's CP's are mostly also Kirby's CPs, but even if we do ban those two stages, MK will still be MK, and he'll dominate on some other stage. If we banned every stage MK owns with, we'd have no fair stages left, because MK owns everywhere.

On that cheerful note,

:kirby:

Linkshot · May 21, 2010

Yay Kirby :D

...yay Kirby's uThrow on Rumble Falls *slams head into dresser*

Kaffei · May 21, 2010

Akaku94 said:
Kaffei, take it to the MK Ban Topic, not here...

Sunshade, you obviously don't understand the MK Debate as. If you want to argue about MK, check out the M discussion in Brawl Tactical. Otherwise, don't even start...

I'm against banning stages, especially two viable counterpicks, just because they make an already broken character even more broken! The character, not the stage, is the problem, and we've never banned a stage because of one character. I know there are some who think that all the walk-off stages were banned because of DDD, but it was mainly for throw camping (sitting right at the edge to throw someone out, something all characters can do.) At this point, there's no "knee-jerk reactions" where this is concerned, not after over a year of MK discussion. That said, we simply an't ban stages just because they're MK's counterpicks.

I admit I may be a little biased here, since MK's CP's are mostly also Kirby's CPs, but even if we do ban those two stages, MK will still be MK, and he'll dominate on some other stage. If we banned every stage MK owns with, we'd have no fair stages left, because MK owns everywhere.

On that cheerful note,

It's about banning Brinstar, so I think the topic can stay here. Besides, they told me to propose banning Brinstar &/or RC HERE.

solecalibur · May 24, 2010

Kaffei said:
It's about banning Brinstar, so I think the topic can stay here. Besides, they told me to propose banning Brinstar &/or RC HERE.

No stay here this is the right place lol

Heartstring · May 24, 2010

Kaffei said:
It's about banning Brinstar, so I think the topic can stay here. Besides, they told me to propose banning Brinstar &/or RC HERE.

yeah, the main uk tourney host has been talking abotu banning these two stages aswell, we're slightly stricter on stages because we have no jungle japes either, but he brings up valid points...

brinstar: if you have this is a legal stage, you might as well make norfair legal too, the lava changed gameplay far too much and the fungus makes for extended hitboxes that can screw over a PS'er, particularly agaisnt powerful characters.

RC: the moving stage makes the middle section hazardous for anything with a sub-par recovery, and the second half (from after the swinging thing till fallnig back to the ship) cna lead to some very cheap, undeseerving K.O's, also the boundaries are amazingly close and the blocks which fall away when stood on can save someone from what would have been a dead cert k.o.
...
small side note: its meta knights best stage against the entire of a-tier, but thats for the mk-nerf discussion

Linkshot · May 24, 2010

All of these are what distinguish Starter from Counterpick, though, not Counterpick from Banned.

Kaffei · May 24, 2010

Ban Brinstar & RC

Linkshot · May 25, 2010

Want me to ban FD, too? If Brinstar goes, I'm taking FD down with it.

Heartstring · May 25, 2010

Linkshot said:
Want me to ban FD, too? If Brinstar goes, I'm taking FD down with it.

i agree with statements like this, if we're going to be so picky on stages were gonna end up with only one neutral and about 3 counterpicks, i think the uk's current stage list is how it should be across the world, but i dunno what you guys think of it...

neutral:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's island (brawl)
Smashville
Lylat cruise

counterpick:
Delphino plaza
Frigate orpheon
Halberd
Castle seige
Rainbow Ride
Brinstar
Pokemon stadium (melee)

personally best possible stage list in my opinion, waht do you guys think?

John12346 · May 25, 2010

You don't have to ban Brinstar AND RC from the list, simply Brinstar OR RC. The opposing player can simply ban the other one during the actual match.

Kaffei · May 25, 2010

Linkshot said:
Want me to ban FD, too? If Brinstar goes, I'm taking FD down with it.

Are you trying to make MK's stagelist even better? Think a little.

BSP · May 25, 2010

SaveMeJebus said:
they should make a poll and have only SBR members allowed to vote

There are plenty of people who are knowledgable about this game and aren't in the SBR.

Aw, if we ban RC and Brinstar, where am I gonna take Falco to?

It's interesting that most of these stage ban discussions are usually because of MK.

SaveMeJebus · May 25, 2010

well, a lot of the stages that are currently on the list shouldn't be on the list because they are to broken and we need some people with a lot of tournament experience to give their opinion on the stages.

sunshade · May 25, 2010

SaveMeJebus said:
well, a lot of the stages that are currently on the list shouldn't be on the list because they are to broken and we need some people with a lot of tournament experience to give their opinion on the stages.

Name any stage on the list that is "broken". Make sure to define the difference between broken and really good for 1-2 character. There is a major difference between "broken" and "really good" and many people often overlook it.

I will tell you what my personal criteria for a stage to be banned is. The stage must be so advantage giving to a specific aspect or tactic that that tactic/strategy becomes the only viable tactic.

An examples of a broke tactic would be circle camping. On any stage banned due to circle camping, there are no other viable methods of playing. You circle camp or you lose thats it. black and white.

An example of a broken strategy is walk-off camping. On stages with walk-offs you are capable of completely marginalizing an opponents percent advantage after you acquire a stock lead. Walk-off camping after gaining a stock lead causes an unreasonably large advantage to be given to the leader. It causes percent to mean nothing and puts both players into an all or nothing situation were one player can lose far more than the other despite equal reward.

@Kaffei: Is Metaknight "broken" on Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise or is he simply really good?

Kaffei · May 25, 2010

sunshade said:
Name any stage on the list that is "broken". Make sure to define the difference between broken and really good for 1-2 character. There is a major difference between "broken" and "really good" and many people often overlook it.

I will tell you what my personal criteria for a stage to be banned is. The stage must be so advantage giving to a specific aspect or tactic that that tactic/strategy becomes the only viable tactic.

An examples of a broke tactic would be circle camping. On any stage banned due to circle camping, there are no other viable methods of playing. You circle camp or you lose thats it. black and white.

An example of a broken strategy is walk-off camping. On stages with walk-offs you are capable of completely marginalizing an opponents percent advantage after you acquire a stock lead. Walk-off camping after gaining a stock lead causes an unreasonably large advantage to be given to the leader. It causes percent to mean nothing and puts both players into an all or nothing situation were one player can lose far more than the other despite equal reward.

@Kaffei: Is Metaknight "broken" on Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise or is he simply really good?

He's broken everywhere, I don't understand why you people don't want to nerf a character that is clearly very dominant

Linkshot · May 25, 2010

Doesn't MK have unpunishable strategies on Battlefield? Planking, ledgecancelling, etc etc.

sunshade · May 25, 2010

Kaffei said:
He's broken everywhere, I don't understand why you people don't want to nerf a character that is clearly very dominant

I don't support nerfs because I see removal of content as a simple question. Is it broken?

If the answer is "yes" we remove it.

If the answer is "no" we should not do anything since it is not broken.

Kaffei · May 25, 2010

Linkshot said:
Doesn't MK have unpunishable strategies on Battlefield? Planking, ledgecancelling, etc etc.

He can do that basically anywhere, but characters who can actually compete with him can do well on Battlefield unlike Brinstar. They have to work much harder, which is obviously the sole purpose of a counterpick, but it's META KNIGHT. He doesn't need any more gay stages. Delfino, BF & SV are all good stages for him RC & Brinstar are just 2 extra gay ones that give MK an easier time to win in sets.

sunshade said:
I don't support nerfs because I see removal of content as a simple question. Is it broken?

If the answer is "yes" we remove it.

If the answer is "no" we should not do anything since it is not broken.

Then tell me why MK is not banned yet. Why NOT add rules to a character so he can stay? Because it's too much work? Don't give me that bull****.

alexavalanche · May 26, 2010

Norfair. FTL. Worse Fuhking Stage Ever.

ErikG · May 26, 2010

Kaffei said:
He's broken everywhere, I don't understand why you people don't want to nerf a character that is clearly very dominant

Because if we nerf him by removing viable counterpicks, we nerf all the characters who use those counterpicks. Additionally, we will buff the characters who do not do well on those counterpicks.

Your only argument towards banning Brinstar is Metaknight does good there. I say we ban Final Destination because of Diddy, Falco, and Ice Climbers.

edit:

Kaffei said:
Then tell me why MK is not banned yet. Why NOT add rules to a character so he can stay? Because it's too much work? Don't give me that bull****.

Why not add rules to a stage so it can stage(edit: stay)?

Heartstring · May 26, 2010

jeez, this kaffie guy is really against meta knight

one thing you need to consider, not about why mk is good here because hes good everywhere all the time, live with that, lern to save your *** against him he ISNT quite perfect. but thats for mk ban topic.

the thing with those two stages are, what about the higher tiers that suck there? playing a falco? go to RC or brinstar, got icies? go to RC, got snake? go to RC, you get the idea, if battlefield has already been played on and me-an ike main-wants to go somewhere to counter olimar, how teh ell else am i gonig to do this other than the two stages in question?

people need to think more laterally on this topic

sunshade · May 26, 2010

Kaffei said:
He can do that basically anywhere, but characters who can actually compete with him can do well on Battlefield unlike Brinstar. They have to work much harder, which is obviously the sole purpose of a counterpick, but it's META KNIGHT. He doesn't need any more gay stages. Delfino, BF & SV are all good stages for him RC & Brinstar are just 2 extra gay ones that give MK an easier time to win in sets.

Then tell me why MK is not banned yet. Why NOT add rules to a character so he can stay? Because it's too much work? Don't give me that bull****.

If something is broken we should remove it. It is broken, game-changing, over-centralizing, and hindering of competitive play. That is why we remove things which are broken.

Sometimes introducing rules to make a broken tactic less broken is acceptable. For example we forbid chain grabbing past 300%. By doing this we stop players from capturing an opponent in an infinite and continuing it until they win due to stock or percent advantage. We do the same with Metaknight's IDC so that players cant run away then IDC to safety then IDC away as soon as the smallest danger presents itself.

These rules only affect the person/character using that particular tactic. Banning stages affects everyone, often times in more ways than we think.

If we ban Rainbow Cruise than Mr.Game and Watch loses one of his best stages. This makes it easier for players to deal with him and thus hinders him. With Mr.Game and Watch being less viable, Snake who (lets pretend) has a bad match-up against him now can become more dominant. Snake's new dominance results in Ice climbers being less viable because they have issue with Snake.

As you may notice stages change everything and affect every character. Thats why I don't support using stage policy to hinder Metaknight. It has nothing to do with it being to much work.

fkacyan · May 26, 2010

@Linkshot: FD doesn't work the way you think it does for the characters you keep bringing up. YI / BF are infinitely better for non-MK characters than FD, with the exception of maybe ICs for the ICs vs MK matchup.

Kaffei · May 26, 2010

ErikG said:
Because if we nerf him by removing viable counterpicks, we nerf all the characters who use those counterpicks. Additionally, we will buff the characters who do not do well on those counterpicks.
Your only argument towards banning Brinstar is Metaknight does good there. I say we ban Final Destination because of Diddy, Falco, and Ice Climbers.

Meta Knight is 5 times more popular (iirc) than Diddy Kong and much more than Falco/ICs in tournament. They don't over centralize the game like MK does. Why not sacrifice a counter pick (Brinstar OR RC) so MK isn't so troublesome to fight with this current stagelist?? You're already buffing a super good character by having Brinstar AND RC.

ErikG said:
Why not add rules to a stage so it can stage?

What?

golden-psyco said:
jeez, this kaffie guy is really against meta knight

one thing you need to consider, not about why mk is good here because hes good everywhere all the time, live with that, lern to save your *** against him he ISNT quite perfect. but thats for mk ban topic.

the thing with those two stages are, what about the higher tiers that suck there? playing a falco? go to RC or brinstar, got icies? go to RC, got snake? go to RC, you get the idea, if battlefield has already been played on and me-an ike main-wants to go somewhere to counter olimar, how teh ell else am i gonig to do this other than the two stages in question?

people need to think more laterally on this topic

I'm not pro ban and I never will be. I'm pro restriction because I don't ever want MK to be banned. He's my favorite character to play so I'm doing what I can (Which is very very little) to try and help him stay in game by trying to think of things to RESTRICT HIM instead of banning him as a whole.

If you don't want to ban Brinstar &/or RC entirely, at LEAST ban it for MK ONLY. Is that such a problem?? Just make MK not allowed to play on RC &/or Brinstar.

sunshade said:
If something is broken we should remove it. It is broken, game-changing, over-centralizing, and hindering of competitive play. That is why we remove things which are broken.

Sometimes introducing rules to make a broken tactic less broken is acceptable. For example we forbid chain grabbing past 300%. By doing this we stop players from capturing an opponent in an infinite and continuing it until they win due to stock or percent advantage. We do the same with Metaknight's IDC so that players cant run away then IDC to safety then IDC away as soon as the smallest danger presents itself.

These rules only affect the person/character using that particular tactic. Banning stages affects everyone, often times in more ways than we think.

If we ban Rainbow Cruise than Mr.Game and Watch loses one of his best stages. This makes it easier for players to deal with him and thus hinders him. With Mr.Game and Watch being less viable, Snake who (lets pretend) has a bad match-up against him now can become more dominant. Snake's new dominance results in Ice climbers being less viable because they have issue with Snake.

As you may notice stages change everything and affect every character. Thats why I don't support using stage policy to hinder Metaknight. It has nothing to do with it being to much work.

Then ban RC &/or Brinstar for MK only.

sunshade · May 26, 2010

Kaffei said:
Then ban RC &/or Brinstar for MK only.

Only after we prove he is broken on Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar to begin with and I mean broken not just really good.

Kaffei said:
What?

I think he ment to say

"Why not add rules to stage so they can stay?"

Heartstring · May 27, 2010

banning for mk only, while seeming like a good idea, in most cases it might as well be as good as bannnig them. cause if someone dosent want to go to those stages, theyll jsut pick mk and suddenly, their opponent cant pick those stages, what a hinderance

sunshade · May 27, 2010

Golden-psyco said:
banning for mk only, while seeming like a good idea, in most cases it might as well be as good as bannnig them. cause if someone dosent want to go to those stages, theyll jsut pick mk and suddenly, their opponent cant pick those stages, what a hinderance

It also opens up the doors of banning tactics which are not broken. If we can ban Metaknight from Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise despite him not being broken on them we can also ban Ice climbers for being good on Final Destination. Falco on jungle japes. Diddy on Pictochat. The list can go on and on.

Heartstring · May 27, 2010

sunshade said:
It also opens up the doors of banning tactics which are not broken. If we can ban Metaknight from Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise despite him not being broken on them we can also ban Ice climbers for being good on Final Destination. Falco on jungle japes. Diddy on Pictochat. The list can go on and on.

exactly, there is a very define difference between broken and very good, wifi warriors tend to see most things as broken, because certain things need the precision unavailable on wifi to counter it.
and im not so worried there, because japes and pictochat are both banned in the uk, as shown earlier.
if jungle japes did not contain both a klap trap AND fast flowing water, it would be legal, but because it has both its deserving of a ban.

but anyway, this is the stage legality discussion, not the mk ban discussion. we need to keep on topic of stages as a whole, not everywhere in the world is infested with mk

Linkshot · May 27, 2010

sunshade said:
It also opens up the doors of banning tactics which are not broken. If we can ban Metaknight from Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise despite him not being broken on them we can also ban Ice climbers for being good on Final Destination. Falco on jungle japes. Diddy on Pictochat. The list can go on and on.

Ganondorf on Rumble Falls.

:V

Kaffei · May 27, 2010

Golden-psyco said:
banning for mk only, while seeming like a good idea, in most cases it might as well be as good as bannnig them. cause if someone dosent want to go to those stages, theyll jsut pick mk and suddenly, their opponent cant pick those stages, what a hinderance

Why would they WANT to pick Brinstar vs MK anyway?

sunshade said:
It also opens up the doors of banning tactics which are not broken. If we can ban Metaknight from Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise despite him not being broken on them we can also ban Ice climbers for being good on Final Destination. Falco on jungle japes. Diddy on Pictochat. The list can go on and on.

This makes me think that you don't realize why MK is a problem at all.

Linkshot · May 27, 2010

MK is a problem because people would rather whine and form a mob to ban him than actually learn how to beat him.

Btw, I frequently take MKs to Delfino Plaza fearlessly.

UltiMario · May 27, 2010

I like how people want to ban stages just because MK is good on them, even if they're extremely fair counterpicks that have no reason to be banned.

Official Stage Legality Discussion

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

B2B TST

Smash Hero

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Cadet

Smash Ace

Smash Legend

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Legend

Smash Ace

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Out of Obscurity

Information

Network