Talk:Stage Builder

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki

Issue of Merge[edit]

Strong Merge. This is barely an article and the Stage Builder article really covers it. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge. I agree. Zixor (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Stage builder needs more attention from us. I'll help Mr. Stage wiki out.

Nikacho (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nikacho, that was left over from a page that was merged into this. This article is fine. Miles (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact[edit]

I don't know if this should be added to trivia but it is possible to be trapped in a creatable level

▼=blocks that after standing on will fall

∟=ordinary blocks that won't fall

level:

∟▼▼▼▼▼▼▼∟

∟thisspace thisbig∟

∟thisspace thisbig∟

∟thisspace thisbig∟

∟thisspace thisbig∟

∟thisspace thisbig∟

∟∟∟∟∟∟∟∟∟∟

It should look like a rectangle with no spaces in between. Turn items off (except the optional smash ball. Wait for everyone to fall into it and have all the collapsible blocks recover. Everyone should be trapped inside. With no escape. I named mine No KO. Zordon123456789mlw7 (talk) 23:14, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Whoa-k then...I don't think that giant chunk of info should be put into the article...it would be possible for one to get a Star KO during the start of the battle. HavocReaper48!! 23:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
We're merging that article with Box (Stage). 98.117.158.220 04:09, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i guess. That's why I didn't immediately put it in. Also I just learned that already has a page. Pretty cool! User:Kirbyfan!!!

I heard a rumor about a beta object for stage builder which was removed from the game. Can somebody put some information about it?78.174.92.185 15:45, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

This page needs lots of editing.[edit]

This page is horribly out of date, that send/receive brawl stages/replays/pictures has been removed as far as I know. (In Ontario, Canada anyway...) Is this true with other people as well?

And like some one else said, something should be mentioned about beta block(s?) and maybe some other notable hacks.

Usually, we here add the 'Cleanup' template to articles that need to be worked on. Also, sign your comment with four tildes. HavocReaper'48 23:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

this place sucks

wats up with the "fuck" on the article?

Dude, really? don't have to be a vandal.--Megatron1 (talk) 23:56, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Gallery?[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think that maybe a gallery page of custom stages would be nice to have. it could give new builders an idea on how to build a good stage.anyone else on with this idea? ThineDude (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)

I hope it's on 4[edit]

I want it on ssb4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthedorr (talkcontribs) 06:23, August 11, 2014‎ (CDT)

Two things: first, read SW:TALK. Posting that you hope a feature gets added contributes nothing, and will only waste space. Also, please sign your comments. Berrenta (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2014 (EDT)

Images in SSBU section[edit]

I spent quite a bit of time getting these images on here. But they're all screenshots of YouTube videos. Is it possible for someone to rip the sprites from the game? I'd like to see a better quality. --ComJay (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2015 (EDT)

Split[edit]

I oppose splitting. The split was suggested on the merit of a possibility, and since the page isn't very long now (and I kind of doubt we'll get Stage Builder DLC) it seems unnecessary. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 22:18, 29 June 2015 (EDT)

Now that e3 is over (where I expected the news to come out) and nothing was announced (seriously, Nintendo, that was e3?) I now Oppose this myself Serpent King (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
Oppose. It's like splitting All-Star Mode, as while both modes changed notably across games, they serve the same purposes throughout the series. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 13:31, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Treadmill glitch[edit]

[1] Kirby's Crazy Appetite ~ KirbysCrazyAppetiteSig.png 13:28, 20 August 2016 (EDT)

Not Yet Confirmed In Ultimate until release date[edit]

There are about 50 days to go until Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is released and Stage Builder is still the issue due to the Stage Morph option. So Please Wait until 7 December 2018 and then you'll see whether Stage Builder would return or not. Thank You. Sportsfanrob (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (EDT)

Leaked for Ultimate.[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvZo5dYvCpE

Pause at 0:01. This video was uploaded by Nintendo themselves. Should we add the section? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 20:38, April 9, 2019 (EDT)

Regardless of the fact we don't know anything about how Stage Builder will work in SSBU, it's still going to be in the game and is therefore still worth mentioning. VoqéoT 09:15, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

And putting a hidden message in the page saying "don't add Stage Builder info" isn't a substitution for consensus, Xtra. VoqéoT 09:28, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

We technically know nothing about it, other than its coming. The admins wont even allow it to go in leaks yet, only rumors. It certainly doesn't belong here yet. Just wait until the mode actually comes out. XtraXtra headpng.pngTalk Edits 12:12, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
It coming is noteworthy enough to mention. It will be in Ultimate, therefore a "In SSBU" section is in order regardless of how much we know. Secondly, you're the one edit warring as you kept removing the info multiple times. Thirdly, administrators are not kings: "Any arbitrary decisions made by admins should not be applied to content disputes without a proper consensus". So, yes, whether the content belongs in the Leaks or Rumors page is also worthy of discussion. VoqéoT 12:36, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
As Voqéo pointed out, sysops do not have the only say in everything. Furthermore this absolutely does qualify as a leak, as it is from an official source, and therefore cannot be fraudulent. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:41, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

Page Lock[edit]

Can we just lock this page for the rest of the month? There's an edit war going on and the above isn't helpful to combat it either. SugarCookie 420 17:45, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

It seems to me like you need to calm down a bit. I've noticed you tend to be pretty quick to the trigger with requesting these kinds of things, often not considering the adverse consequences of doing so. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:48, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
I agree. This is getting ridiculous, and clearly, it's going nowhere. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Sonic Fan Leave a message if needed 17:50, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
I have to admit, that is something I'm trying to work on. However, I believe that what you and Unowinator are doing right now isn't really productive and is in fact an edit war, and since this page will definitely have that information be added and removed by many other users until the patch is released, I believe that it's best to lock this page. SugarCookie 420 17:51, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
Hey, as long as it doesn't say it's definitely coming, I'm satisfied. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 17:56, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

Terrain properties[edit]

Earlier today I did some experiments in Ultimate's Stage Builder to determine the weight of each terrain material, since this (along with falling speed and elasticity) impacts how two or more blocks with gravity react with each other. (I was originally investigating whether fighter weight can affects terrain physics, but could not confirm any noticeable impact there.) My stage setup stage was a simple horizontal line platform (with gravity) balanced on a triangle platform (without gravity), with two blocks of equal size attached to opposing ends of the platform (with alignment grid used to ensure precise size and positions). Hitting the Play (not Test) button revealed the lighter material, though the physics engine seemed to give the platform a small rightside bias so in some cases I swapped the weights just to check if the result was consistent. Here's my findings by weight:

  1. Yarn (lightest)
  2. Paper
  3. Sponge
  4. Grass
  5. Denim
  6. Carpet
  7. Dirt
  8. Ice, Bouncy Rubber
  9. Sand, Rubber
  10. Lava
  11. Wood, Marble
  12. Steel (heaviest)

Additional testing verified the falling speeds already listed on the page (Sand and Lava actually seem to have a slower falling speed than Wood and Marble, but it is a small difference.) I would also like to test elasticity at some point, but I need to rethink how exactly to test that first. 70.58.203.43 20:45, April 28, 2019 (EDT)

Next up, today's experiment was about friction. My test setup included three 45° slopes and three 45° triangles (with gravity and respawn) placed very closely (but not attached) above them; each triangle was the same material (i.e. same fall speed) for control purposes, while the slopes were the experimental surface being tested. Again, the grid was used to ensure precise size and placement, but in any case friction can be ranked according to the frequency at which each triangle respawns. After observing all combinations of materials, my preliminary results are:
  1. Ice (slickest)
  2. Grass
  3. Paper, Yarn
  4. Dirt
  5. Steel, Marble
  6. Wood
  7. Denim, Carpet
  8. Sponge, Bouncy Rubber
  9. Sand
  10. Rubber, Lava (stickiest)
I initially chose Dirt as the control material for the triangles, but switched to Sand (and eventually Rubber) as further matchups were refined. Also note that for the Bouncy Rubber slope, the triangle had to be placed VERY close to the slope to prevent bouncing.
70.58.203.43 21:06, April 29, 2019 (EDT)
I wonder if the specific values can be determined experimentally (as datamining may be hard for now.) I don't believe there is resistance or terminal velocity, so gravity should be easy enough through timing its path, using g=2*Δh/t², and resulting in _ units/sec².
For weight (slightly inaccurate, though also not quite density. Perhaps gravitational density?), we could theoretically use the scale, using the weight of a certain amount of a certain material as a unit. However, scales don't tend to give such accurate measurements in testing.
If either weight or mass is then solved for, the other could be solved using weight = gravity * mass.
Friction could be somewhat simple to solve for if it works like it did in real life.
Exylic (talk) 00:41, April 30, 2019 (EDT)
These values aren't the most accurate (I timed in 30fps) but they're what I got by timing them fall 54 units and using the equation above.
  • Wood, steel, marble, rubber, bouncy rubber, ice. Also all hazards and switches able to be attached. - ~54 units/sec²
  • Dirt, carpet - ~46 units/sec²
  • Sand, lava, denim - ~41 units/sec²
  • Grass - ~36 units/sec²
  • Sponge - ~31 units/sec²
  • Yarn - ~21 units/sec²
  • Paper - ~14 units/sec²
Now I'm trying to solve for mass (density) relative to yarn mass using collisions and conservation of momentum.
Exylic (talk) 20:27, April 30, 2019 (EDT)
Finally, here's my elasticity experiment. Setup was a set of identical 1:2 slopes (made of ice), each with a similarly angled square block (also of ice) allowed to slide down by gravity until it impacts a perpendicular wall (2:1 slope) made of the material to be tested. I chose sliding (instead of falling) as the test procedure here because blocks with gravity seem to be initialized with small variations in angular momentum from each other. Anyway, the matchups did not take long to determine:
  1. Bouncy Rubber
  2. Steel
  3. All other materials (no significant differences were observed)
The surprise here is that Steel is somewhat bouncier than most materials? ...albeit a very, VERY distant second compared to Bouncy Rubber. 70.58.203.43 17:25, May 1, 2019 (EDT)
I added the values from the game data to the article. The findings from each of your in-game experiments seem to mostly align with the data, so your experiments were accurate. The names of the attributes are the original names from the data, but aside from that if you can improve on the explanations of the physics, feel free. Dr. HyperCake (talk) 00:46, May 2, 2019 (EDT)
Thank you! The table's looking very nice now.
PS - Bomb and Explosive blocks also have physical properties, are those worth mentioning? (Note that these blocks do not have gravity unless attached to other terrain) 70.58.203.43 01:22, May 3, 2019 (EDT)
From what I've tested, bomb and explosive blocks, as well as all other hazards, have the same gravity as steel. I'm not sure about mass or other properties. I'd say they're worth mentioning. Exylic (talk) 12:21, May 3, 2019 (EDT)
I didn't find any data that obviously belongs to those objects; at least not in the same manner as actual terrain. If they function exactly the same as steel, maybe they just use steel's attributes. Or maybe they use the physics of the terrain to which they are attached? Dr. HyperCake (talk) 10:58, May 4, 2019 (EDT)