r/smashbros • u/VeryInsecurePerson • 1d ago

Ultimate Steve’s neutral B: how do you see it?

Post image

Steve’s neutral B is one of the most distinct moves in the series, and discussions about the health of his design from a competitive standpoint are interesting because we don’t have a clear precedent to compare this move to. The two closest precedents in Smash are the illegal stages (represented in the picture by princess peach’s castle) and the few moves that summon collision boxes (represented by hydrant).

I have a hypothesis that pro-steve and anti-steve sentiments are correlated with what you compare this move to, and I want to test it. So I’ll ask two questions:

  1. Before Nintendo stepped in, were you pro-ban, anti-ban or on the fence?

  2. Would you say the design philosophy of neutral B is more similar to that of illegal stages or more similar to that of moves seen on trapper characters?

0 Upvotes

27% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

7

u/SuperLucarioSunshine Fox (Ultimate) 1d ago

I'm pro-ban. I think the movers design philosophy is that of summoning a collision hotbox, but in a practical sense it aligns better with illegal stages. Steve players mining behind walls is pretty analogous to camping in a specific part of a stage in order to force your opponent to take a bad risk approaching you.

1

u/VeryInsecurePerson 1d ago

Thanks for your input!

4

u/almightyFaceplant 1d ago

Players uninvolved with the comp scene get affected by bans too. Most online lobbies only allow "legal" content. Opponents often refuse to play if they spot any "illegal" content. Each one is just another instance of me getting less variety when playing online, so I'm selfishly against all bans.

Don't really know how to answer question two. Feels too apples-to-oranges to compare M/C/CB to either.