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)