Talk:Stage legality

How about a little reason by each stage to tell why it's banned? For example:

• Temple - Reason: Teching in the lower portion of the stage can cause unnaturally high percentages
• Fountain of Dreams - Reason: Causes unnecessary lag during doubles play

I don't know, something like that. --YodaMasterZ 23:56, March 17, 2007 (GMT)

Why has this not been done? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to put up reasons for the banned stages. --TStick (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Man, too late... --TStick (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Brawl?

What's banned in Brawl???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Masterman (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a consistent enough set of data to make a determination on what is considered the standard stage selection of Brawl. Most tourneys are still just having the director(s) pick the banned and neutral stages. If your interested, this is what I've decided on, at least for our first tourney. It's no where near official, but looking at it and other tournament choices can give you a good idea. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned stages

Why is Sector Z in SSB banned, but Corneria from SSBM isn't? Aren't they the same stage? Ari 23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sector Z is much differnt bcause it is longer and has an arwing appear once in awhile and has different scenery. The stage is great for camping player so character with projectiles can stay far away and use attacks and when an opponent gets near they just run away. Corneria is smaller and there is the cannon thing at the bottom plus the Arwing does affect gameplay. Zmario (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Category?

Uh, is there any category for this? (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Why?

They say stages can be banned for revamping a stratagey, doesn't it take skill to change your stratagey as well?

Needs Re-vamping

Some of the reasons for individual stages being banned are just ridiculous. I'll fix this soon 124.171.82.15 05:15, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Hmm, they make sense to me, but if you feel they should be changed, go ahead and make the edits. Omega Tyrant 05:47, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Let me provide some examples: There are quite a few things that are repeated (On Temple: "over-reliance on teching, lower area with ceiling". The over-reliance on teching is BECAUSE of the area with a ceiling), there are some things listed which aren't even reasons for a stage to be banned (the "damaging karts" are listed as a problem with Mario Kart, despite how easy they are to avoid, see coming and how little KO/damage potential they have) and some have an incorrect amount of "strikes" next to them (Onett should have one, stages like Peach's Castle and Green Greens are NEVER legal in Melee, yet have only one strike, etc...). All in all it just leads to the spreading of mis-information regarding stage legality. 124.171.82.15 07:08, 7 January 2011 (EST)

The strike information certainly needs to be updated (I myself never seemed to get around to it...). As for some of the other things, the karts in Mario Kart, while relatively easy to avoid and aren't too dangerous, are certainly seen as being a problem for the stage to a good amount of people. Even the minorest of stage hazards can get people calling a stage to be banned. So the karts being mentioned as a ban reason is legit as I see it (not to mention they commonly disrupt the match by how frequently they appear). It might not be a reason for everyone, but to others it is. As for the teching thing, teching and ceiling are different. True, the latter leads to the former, but they're not the same. Temple also has numerous walls, which allows for teching, and the ceiling, even without teching, will lead to characters surviving much longer than they should. The ceiling bit should be expanded upon, but the over reliance on teching should stay, as teching, a relatively minor skill in most stages, is extremely important to succeeding on Temple, as those that can tech well are going to survive to astronomical damages while those who aren't so good at it are going to be getting killed at about half the percentages the teching people are. As such, an over reliance on a particular skill and/or an overly dominating strategy on a particular stage is a legit ban reason.

Also, avoid using ALL CAPS in your statements. It's unnecessary, and will turn people off from listening to what you're saying. Omega Tyrant 07:34, 7 January 2011 (EST)

So... We should be listing reasons people THINK the stage should be banned, rather than actual ban criteria? o_O I can't quite see the sense in that. One is incredibly subjective and kind-off... useless. I mean, this is a wiki. We aren't compiling feelings here we're compiling facts.

"Living longer than they should" isn't a reason to ban a stage by the way. That is just silly. "Over-centralization on the ability to tech" IS however, and that is what I will most likely put in the article.

Caps? What are you talking about? Have these edits been appearing in all caps or something? Or was that just general advice?124.171.82.15 08:44, 7 January 2011 (EST)

The thing about the caps was general advice for your posts, as you used ALL CAPS when it was unnecessary. Now to address your statements.

So... We should be listing reasons people THINK the stage should be banned, rather than actual ban criteria? o_O I can't quite see the sense in that. One is incredibly subjective and kind-off... useless. I mean, this is a wiki. We aren't compiling feelings here we're compiling facts.

This statement is flawed, because if you haven't noticed, there is no ban criteria. The BBR never released a "ban criteria" and seeing how every region has their own stage list for their own ban reasons, we can't have a section about ban reasons that isn't "subjective". The best we can do is list the possible reasons why the stage is commonly banned by TOs. There's no way to include such a section and for it not to be subjective. Yes, this is a Wiki, and including these ban reasons is still factual as these are reasons for why people ban these stages.

"Living longer than they should" isn't a reason to ban a stage by the way. That is just silly. "Over-centralization on the ability to tech" IS however, and that is what I will most likely put in the article.

Another flawed statement. I never used the phrase "Living longer than they should", and yes, a stage that allows a character to live much longer than usual is a reason people ban stages. When all characters are commonly living in excess of 200%, is there not something wrong with the stage for competitive play? When characters are living that long, does it not give a disproportional advantage to those with reliable finishers with high knockback scaling as opposed to those whose finishers rely on high base knockback? While true it's a lesser reason, there are no commonly legal stages that allow characters to survive to extreme percentages so often. As for your second statement, that's just better wording of "over reliance on teching", which was already mentioned previously.

Before you make your edits though, remember there is no agreed upon ban criteria, and the ban reasons section is going to be subjective to everyone. However, don't remove any of the reasons without discussing it properly here. Omega Tyrant 09:09, 7 January 2011 (EST)

I noticed we got a little off topic. This isn't the place to argue if something is a valid ban reason or not, but if something is or is not a reason people bring up for banning the stage. So, if trying to get a ban reason listed off, bring up how that isn't a reason people in the community ban the stage (and presenting evidence is ideal as well). Omega Tyrant 09:40, 7 January 2011 (EST)

I'm going to sleep for the night, but I'll continue this in the morning. I've edited the Melee section and I will justify those edits soon. 124.171.82.15 09:44, 7 January 2011 (EST)

I readded some of the ban reasons you removed. I'll remind you, this isn't about if you see it as a valid ban reason, it's about if smashers of the community cite these reasons for banning the stage. Many of the ban reasons you removed I've seen get cited plenty of times in stage discussion. Even if you come up with an irrefutable argument for why a ban reason isn't "valid", if TOs ban that stage for that reason, the reason must be cited here.

As for some general advice when editing, avoid including excessive links. Each time you inputted stalling, you linked it to the stalling article. Generally, if the link already exists in the article, there's no need to repeat the link. Another piece of advice is to avoid inputting unnecessary hyphens. Such as, run-away is run away, un-reasonable is unreasonable, and wall-jump is wall jump.

Besides these grievances, your edit was good. Omega Tyrant 11:14, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Okay, responding time.

"The BBR never released a "ban criteria" and seeing how every region has their own stage list for their own ban reasons, we can't have a section about ban reasons that isn't "subjective"."

Firstly, while the BBR haven't released a specific ban criteria that they use, several BBR members frequent the Stage Discussion boards on SWF, and have pretty much said that they ban stages they feel marginalize skill (random elements, over-powered hazards and promotion of degenerate tactics).

Secondly, while we can't avoid subjectivity in this case, it is quite obvious that one is more subjective than the other. If we list possible reasons for stages to be banned, then that opens the door to... Anything, really. I could say that I ban Temple at my tournaments because it's boring to play on, for example. Where as if we list actual reasons for banning a stage (based on sources like Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", why other stages are legal/banned, common sense, David Sirlin's articles on competitive gaming, etc...) we will both be avoiding ridiculous edits like the "boring" example I mentioned before, as well as spreading awareness on why stages should be banned to up-and-coming TOs. I can just imagine someone come here and say "Hmm... If Mario Circuit is banned due to the Karts... Then Port Town Aero Dive should automatically be banned too!" without even looking at ACTUAL reasons for banning stages. Given the ignorance that already exists in the community when it comes to stage legality, I'd say we should try and avoid this.

"a stage that allows a character to live much longer than usual is a reason people ban stages. When all characters are commonly living in excess of 200%, is there not something wrong with the stage for competitive play? When characters are living that long, does it not give a disproportional advantage to those with reliable finishers with high knockback scaling as opposed to those whose finishers rely on high base knockback?"

No, it really isn't a reason. The game doesn't suddenly lose any competitive depth when characters are living to high percents.

We obviously have different opinions on which direction this article should be heading in, I've stated my reasoning so I'd love to hear yours. 124.171.82.15 23:22, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Alright, my turn to respond!

Firstly, while the BBR haven't released a specific ban criteria that they use, several BBR members frequent the Stage Discussion boards on SWF, and have pretty much said that they ban stages they feel marginalize skill (random elements, over-powered hazards and promotion of degenerate tactics).

True, BBR members have said that, but they never made it their official stance in a ban guideline, and the ban reasons in this article is not to present what are "valid" reasons for banning the stage, but for presenting commonly cited reasons that TOs ban the stage. So BBR members saying what constitutes a valid ban reason in stage discussion boards has no bearing on the content of this article.

If we list possible reasons for stages to be banned, then that opens the door to... Anything, really. I could say that I ban Temple at my tournaments because it's boring to play on, for example.

As what I meant for "possible" reasons, I mean commonly cited reasons for why a TO may ban the stage. Obviously, we're not going to have something such as "the stage is gay" as a reason listed, nor a reason that is entirely opinionated and lacking any logical sense, like saying a stage is boring. We don't have such reasons listed now, nor have I seen such reasons get added in the past. As such, while I can see why you would be concerned about this, past experience and the fact we can easily undo any edits with such reasons make this something not to get concerned about.

Where as if we list actual reasons for banning a stage (based on sources like Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", why other stages are legal/banned, common sense, David Sirlin's articles on competitive gaming, etc...) we will both be avoiding ridiculous edits like the "boring" example I mentioned before, as well as spreading awareness on why stages should be banned to up-and-coming TOs. I can just imagine someone come here and say "Hmm... If Mario Circuit is banned due to the Karts... Then Port Town Aero Dive should automatically be banned too!" without even looking at ACTUAL reasons for banning stages. Given the ignorance that already exists in the community when it comes to stage legality, I'd say we should try and avoid this

As mentioned before, when it comes to competitive play, the Wiki reports, not decides. As for the example you brought up about the TOs, it's rather irrelevant. The Wiki doesn't exist to set up a guideline for TOs, and our banned stage article isn't for TOs to base their stage list on. The intention of the article is for giving information on banned stages and the reasons why they are banned for the reader. I'll agree with you on stages getting banned when they shouldn't be (such as Pokemon Stadium 2), but the Wiki is merely presenting the information on this subject, not trying to persuade the reader on what is a valid ban reason and what is not. As such, despite the rather admittedly poor reasoning for banning it, we'll mention Pokemon Stadium 2 in this article, along with the reasons people commonly cite for banning the stage (I know Pokemon Stadium 2 wasn't brought up here, but just bringing up an example).

No, it really isn't a reason. The game doesn't suddenly lose any competitive depth when characters are living to high percents.

I already mentioned previously that this isn't the place to argue if something is a valid ban reason, but besides that, you basically just said "no, you're wrong", without properly addressing my points nor bringing up any specific points to back up your reasoning :/ But I'm not going to get hypocritical about this and argue it back.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're Budget Player Cadet (judging by the tone of your posts). While you're heart is in the right place, and I know you're passionate about this, you're arguing stage legality in the wrong place. The Wiki intends to remain as neutral as it can, and if TOs see something as a ban reason for the stage, we have to report it in our ban reasons section, even if members of this community don't see it as a valid reason. The Wiki is a presenter of information, and mentioning how a stage is banned for being "overly large" or having "damaging stage hazards" is factual, as whether you think they're valid reasons or not, people ban stages for these reasons.

For a concluding statement on what the ban reasons section is for and what the article's intent is (even though I repeated this so many times). The article's overall intent is to inform readers about banned stages and the reasons people ban them. The ban reasons section is to present commonly cited reasons TOs ban the stage, not to present the "right" reasons for banning the stage. As for the intent of the article, basing the information on this is more informative than limiting the ban reasons to those that we see as "right". Omega Tyrant 01:06, 8 January 2011 (EST)

Sounds fair enough to me. Thanks for the elaboration!

And no, I'm not Budget Player Cadet. Though I do agree with him on a lot of things and we regularly converse on the forums. 124.171.82.15 02:04, 8 January 2011 (EST)