Decentralizing Winning Game 1 - DeLux's Variable Striking Counter Picking System

[DeLux]

I. Preface:
[collapse="TLDR Story of why I have been pondering the rulesets"]
Up until recently, I mained Ice Climbers. That being said, the reality of my tournament scenario was that if I did not win game one, I would undoubtedly lose the set assuming it was a best of three games. Because of this, I've had an admittedly biased personal vendetta against the counter pick system because of the polarizing affect it potentially has over the course of a set.

After doing some research, this includes other fighter games, other sports, etc, to get some additional background information and ideas, I learned that Smash's counter pick system is fairly unique. So it became fair for me to make the postulation that the problems we faced with game one being over centralized were due to an issue with the system we implemented and not the nature of competitive games themselves.

Through some research, it seems that most suggestions to changing the system made the following sacrifice: potential competitive depth for potential competitive neutrality. Most usually, the depth lost was that of stage diversity while the neutralizing factor was placing a greater importance on game 3.[/collapse]
Despite my membership with the BBR-RC, this is strictly an independent venture on my part and is not necessarily being discussed by the committee right now.


II. Defining the Status Quo and Values

I am defining the policy that we're going to be amending as the Unity Ruleset. My goal was to make a ruleset that deviated as little from the ruleset as possible. This meant, I didn't want to change terms such as win/loss criteria to the best that I could. However, if no regard were paid to the status quo, the additional variables that could be changed creates some very interesting possible solutions that I will explore later in this post.

Values - Overriding principles that we consider preferable to base our ruleset/policy. The values that I am attempting to promote are Stage Diversity, Competitive Depth, Competitive Neutrality, and Decentralization of the importance of winning Game 1.


III. Mission

To find a ruleset that supports the Four Values that did not completely abandon elements of the status quo.

Specifically, the goal was to find a system that did not eliminate the counter pick system while supporting what are usually seen as mutually exclusive values in stage diversity and competitive neutrality.


IV. The Procedure: DeLux's Variable Striking/Counter Pick Procedure

New Version
1. Draw Lots for Player 1/ Player 2 Designation
2. Player 1 Picks Port
3. Player 2 Picks Port
4. Players Double Blind Pick their characters for game 1
5. Stage Striking Begins:
a. Each player is given a finite number of stage striking turns to use throughout the entire set. For hypothetical purposes, we will give them 6 turns for a 3 game set and 8 turns for a 5 game set.
b. Player 1 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
c. Player 2 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
d. b and c repeat until there is one remaining stage OR both players pass consecutively.
e. In the event there is more than one legal stage left unstruck, the player who passed first in steps "5b-d" offers a stage out of the remaining stages left unstruck for play on game 1. The player offered the stage may reject the stage unless it is the last remaining stage. If the player rejects the stage, that stage is removed from consideration and he will counter offer another stage for play on game 1 out of the remaining stages. This process will repeat itself until there is only one stage left or a player agrees to a stage.
6. Game 1 is played on the stage decided upon by the variable striking system
7. The Loser of the previous game offers the next stage out of the legal stage list. The winner of the previous game may reject the stage at the expense of a stage striking turn. This process continues until the winner agrees to the stage for the next game or runs out of stage strikes. If the winner does not have any striking turns left in his striking pool, the next game must be played on the stage offered by the loser of the previous game.
8. The winner of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game
9. The loser of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game.
10. Players play on the agreed upon stage.
11. Repeat Step 7-10 until a winner is determined by games in the set.

[collapse="old version"]1. Draw Lots for Player 1/ Player 2 Designation
2. Player 1 Picks Port
3. Player 2 Picks Port
4. Players Double Blind Pick their characters for game 1
5. Stage Striking Begins:
a. Each player is given a finite number of stage strikes use throughout the entire set. For hypothetical purposes, we will give them 8 strikes for a 3 game set and 10 strikes for a 5 game set.
b. From the full legal stage list, Player 2 strikes 1 stage
c. From the remaining stages, Player 1 strikes 2 stages
d. From the remaining stages Player 2 strikes at least one stage and may continue to strike any number of stages until they choose to end their striking turn or there is only one stage left.
e. From the remaining stages Player 1 strikes any number of stages until they choose to end their striking turn or there is only one stage left.
f. Player 1 offers a stage out of the remaining stages left unstruck for play on game 1. Player 2 may reject the stage at the expense of a strike unless it is the last remaining stage. If Player 2 rejects the stage, he will counter offer another stage for play on game 1 out of the remaining stages left unstruck. Player 1 may reject the stage at the expense of the stage strike. This process will repeat itself until there is only one stage left or a player agrees to a stage.
6. Game 1 is played on the stage decided upon by the variable striking system
7. The Loser of the previous game offers the next stage out of the legal stage list. The winner of the previous game may reject the stage at the expense of a stage strike. This process continues until the winner agrees to the stage for the next game or runs out of stage strikes. If the winner does not have any strikes left in his striking pool, the next game must be played on the stage offered by the loser of the previous game.
8. The winner of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game
9. The loser of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game.
10. Players play on the agreed upon stage.
11. Repeat Step 7-10 until a winner is determined by games in the set.[/collapse]


V. Why does this work?

This system essentially encompasses a balance between the current counterpick system and stage striking. Essentially, it gives players the choice of whether they want to contest game 1 as to make it neutral as possible, or they can save their strikes for later rounds to balance out the counter picks.

I put the strikes to narrow down selections on both ends by 2 in order to create a quasi 9-starter list affect. This becomes important in larger sets because it prevents the appearance of an extremely hard counter via using all of one's strikes early without the opponent being able to effectively counter act that with their own strikes. *edited out for new system

It essentially limits the importance of game 1 by creating choices on the parts of the players.


VI. Forseen Limitations
-Intricacies may necessitate a time limit on stage striking to make sure logistical impact does not occur
-Can the community count?
-Removes the environment of "game 1 on smashville?"
-change in status quo
-Ghostbone's Game 5 issues


VII. Further Testing
- I would like to see how adjusting the strike pool would affect matches
- I would also like to see how this system would play out with 2 stocks, 5 minute matches where best of 5 are played throughout the tournament with best of 7's played in finals sets.
- Testing on the order of the double blind pick at the beginning of the set. I placed it in the order that it is to mirror the current procedure. Given the varying nature, this might have unintended affects that I can't forsee.

Discuss

 

[DeLux]

Reserved for Q&A

 

[Ussi]

I'd say its pretty legit, I can't think of a way for MK to exploit it besides having a vast superior stage advantage over your character.


But some people are going to whine they can't keep up with that or they'll forget how many strikes they had after game 1



Also i think this will promote the "game 1 on smashville?", as player 2 has to ask anyways



you can save a maximum of 6(8) strikes for 1(2) games.. so you can basically nullify your opponent's CP if you decide to strike all the way, but you risk having a disadvantage game 1 xD

 

[DeLux]

If they simply go to smashville, they will neutralize the system throughout since most people will now have more strikes to work with come counter pick time.

If the competitive process is correct, it would be to your advantage to try to get your opponent to use as many strikes as possible so you have a greater advantage on the counter pick. You would more likely attempt to offer them a more polar stage in your favor, and hope they offer you a favorable stage to your benefit.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

This is just asking for arguments over how many stages so and so striked before the previous match, or what stages have been already striked from the previous match. To put it bluntly: I don't think its simple enough.

 

[DeLux]

Paper and Pencil

Also, these are stage strikes, not stage bans. So you wouldn't ahve to keep track of which stages were struck, just how many were struck.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Too much effort for a smash tournament. People don't want to constantly write stuff down with every set, or possibly every match. They want things flowing as quickly as possible. Only person writing/typing should be TO with the bracket. There is also the risk of losing the paper, particularly if it's a very large tournament.

 

[Ussi]

This is getting a bit into an honor code because someone might try to lie and said i didn't strike this :|



also, for a national i can see just there being a piece of paper and pencil present and taped at every TV station

 

[Nidtendofreak]

That's still more effort than people want/expect to put into simply getting a set going.

 

[Life]

In theory I could see this working. Spend more strikes on game 1 or save them to get a better stage later? It's another skill to learn.

In practice? I echo the above concerns about complexity.

*insert plug for my system here*

 

[ぱみゅ]

*Subscribing* I'll think of something for this later.

 

[Ussi]

That's still more effort than people want/expect to put into simply getting a set going.

we went from random stage game 1 to stage striking, that's more work than just hitting random

 

[Nidtendofreak]

It's all within the game though, and it's only one time, instead of pencil and paper in an attempt to avoid an abusable honour system.

Full stage striking for CPs is as complicated as I could see people tolerating.

 

[Ussi]

i believe the paper&pencil is optional for those who want it, its not require to use

 

[DeLux]

I am super saddened the most legitimate rebuttal we have so far is "the community can't count"

 

[Ussi]

besides not counting... too lazy to use a pencil and paper!! cause they can't remember the number of strikes they have left over a 4-16 minute period.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

1) We're gamers. Most of us happen to be mad lazy.

2) We also play to win. Some people WILL take a system like this too far, and try to abuse it. Only way to enforce otherwise, is mandatory pencil and paper. That is more effort than people will want to use/are playing against buddies and will decide to just skip it anyways. Or they will mess up in another way somehow, could be something as simple as not properly rereading the list and striking a place twice, and then the other person not using all of their strikes. Problems WILL prop up because it's multi-stepped/arching over like this.

 

[Ussi]

If someone strike a stage that was already stricken by the other person, the other person just has to say "oh hey i already striked the stage already" then he goes "oh okai" and strikes another stage

If you strike a stage you already striked, you might be a redneck

 

[Berserker Swordsman]

People can remember what stage they banned between game 1 and game 2 when it comes time to pick a stage for game 3, how can they not remember how many strikes they have left after game 1? Come on now, faith is a bit lacking even you're playing devil's advocate. If you can't store a single number in your head, you write it down. This is not so complicated that you need to make paper and pencil mandatory or even sufficient for keeping track. There's lazy, and then there's an incapacity to hold a single number in your head and discard after a set which is just dumb.

As for abuse/lies, that's a bit more reasonable for a devil's advocate stance but I don't see how that can't be regulated at a decently-sized tourney where other people may watch a match. If all else fails, maybe either force the players to use some number of strikes at the beginning or say that you only get x number of strikes after game 1 and if you didn't use enough strikes for picking the stage on game 1, you forfeit the difference. So no one has to lie about having 2 vs 3 strikes if you have 3 strikes by default for game 2.

Overall, I like the idea, especially being one who is tired of answering "game 1 on Smashville?"

 

[ぱみゅ]

So... I guess DSR or similar have to be there....

because:
"game 1 on smashville?"
"k"
"game 2 on smashville?"
"k"
"game 3 on smashville?"
"k"

/stage depht

 

[DeLux]

Why would they continually pick a stage they lost on?

And we do have an element of DSR. It's an amendment to Unity.

The question is really is it necessary?

 

[Ussi]

salty runback

 

[DeLux]

I don't think it's the responsibility of the rulesset to prevent people from making stupid decisions lol
But I mean, as an amendment to Unity, it would include DSR.

Whether or not it's necessary is up for debate though imo

 

[Ussi]

I was just answering your question


DSR wouldn't be broken since the CPer lost on SV

 

[ぱみゅ]

People just pick Smashville again for whatever reason (liking the stage is frequently said).

I'd say it is necessary to make players play and know more stages, but:

I don't think it's the responsibility of the rulesset to prevent people from making stupid decisions lol

makes even more sense.

 

[Ghostbone]

1. Way too complicated
2. Possibly gives an advantage to the player who gets to offer first.

 

[Kewkky]

What about this idea?

Procedures for matches 1 and 2 stay the same. However, on match 3, do a double blind pick and players strike from a list of all neutrals + unstriked CPs (first strike is determined by who did the second strike on match 1) until you reach one, much like the first match, then start playing.

I think that eliminates the overpowering advantage of the first match. Now on the third game it's back to a completely neutral playing field, while the second game still gives the loser a fair advantage.


Not like I have a problem with the current CP. But if there would be a method I'd agree with 100%, it'd be mine. Not saying yours isn't good DeLux, it is interesting indeed. But it's a bit too complicated like you said.

 

[Ussi]

You shouldn't nerf the winner out of his advantage


Its not complicated.. Sure you're adding strategy to the game with how to use your strikes, but it does make game 1 have less weight.


Besides our game is complicated with the stage system already, its not just fight your opponent.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Lol

Simple reason this will never be:
Time.

Tourneys will never complete if you take turns stage striking forever from the entire stagelist.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

You guys aren't getting it.

You pretty much strike the neutrals like you would, except you can choose to NOT strike after a certain point. Let's say you are playing ICs, you can choose to only strike Lylat, Delfino, and Halberd. Now you have 2 "strikes" for when/if your opponent CPs, so you can "strike" brinstar/RC FOR THAT GAME! Strikes do not carry over from the game, so they can CP you to Lylat/Delfino/Halberd.

Everybody complains about how strong CPs are and complain that we only have one stage ban and then ***** when a good solution comes out because they are ****ing lazy and don't want to fix something that they probably complained about.

 

[Ussi]

People take time thinking of their CPs already.

Besides those who take long actually THINK, those who don't think will be fast and strike "this this yea i just want SV"

 

[DeLux]

1. Way too complicated
2. Possibly gives an advantage to the player who gets to offer first.

I don't see how it's over complicated. The only major change to the system is that it does away with bans (which already is like a stage strike that carries over for all future rounds automatically) and lets players choose how many stages they want to strike games one so that they can keep for strikes for games 2/3.

Can you explain the second point? It seems to me that if a player gets an adv game one, they disadv themselves in future games based on the nature of the system, making it balance itself out.

 

[DeLux]

What about this idea?

Procedures for matches 1 and 2 stay the same. However, on match 3, do a double blind pick and players strike from a list of all neutrals + unstriked CPs (first strike is determined by who did the second strike on match 1) until you reach one, much like the first match, then start playing.

I think that eliminates the overpowering advantage of the first match. Now on the third game it's back to a completely neutral playing field, while the second game still gives the loser a fair advantage.


Not like I have a problem with the current CP. But if there would be a method I'd agree with 100%, it'd be mine. Not saying yours isn't good DeLux, it is interesting indeed. But it's a bit too complicated like you said.

The issue with your suggestion is that it doesn't balance over the games. It's actually anti competitive, because it gives essentially a strong adv to the loser of game 1, enough of an adv that it might be enough to overcome the skill gap that caused the loss of game 1. I actually proposed a similar system for Bo5 games which was 1. FLSS 2. Cp 3. CP 4. FLSS 5. FLSS because it helped mitigate that adv to the loser phenomenon, but in bo3 it is even stronger so while it might decentralize game one, it ultimately detracts from competitive neutrality, something my system does not seem to do on first examination.

Lol

Simple reason this will never be:
Time.

Tourneys will never complete if you take turns stage striking forever from the entire stagelist.

Ok. Amend the rule to have a 3-5 minute period between games, or even go so far at to say "You get 2 minutes on your striking phase or you have 30 seconds to make a decision in terms of what stage you offer your opponent or if you accept or reject a stage." This expedites tournies and lessens the impact of possible outside coaching. The URS should probably have this kind of clause in terms of conduct anyways to help expedite tournies.




Ooops, apologies for the double post

 

[Kewkky]

The issue with your suggestion is that it doesn't balance over the games. It's actually anti competitive, because it gives essentially a strong adv to the loser of game 1, enough of an adv that it might be enough to overcome the skill gap that caused the loss of game 1. I actually proposed a similar system for Bo5 games which was 1. FLSS 2. Cp 3. CP 4. FLSS 5. FLSS because it helped mitigate that adv to the loser phenomenon, but in bo3 it is even stronger so while it might decentralize game one, it ultimately detracts from competitive neutrality, something my system does not seem to do on first examination.

I see it like this:

Set is starting:
--------|---Player 1--|--Player 2-----
--------|-------------|-------------- = Needs a disadvantage
--------|-------------|--------------
Game 1:|---_______--|--_______----
--------|-------------|--------------
--------|-------------|-------------- = Needs an advantage

Player 1 wins the first game:
--------|---Player 1^-|--Player 2v---
--------|---_______--|-------------- = Needs a disadvantage
--------|-------------|--------------
Game 2:|-------------|--------------
--------|-------------|--------------
--------|-------------|--_______---- = Needs an advantage
--------|--Went up---|--Went down-

Player 2 wins the second game:
--------|---Player 1v-|--Player 2^---
--------|-------------|-------------- = Needs a disadvantage
--------|-------------|--------------
Game 3:|---_______--|--_______----
--------|-------------|--------------
--------|-------------|-------------- = Needs an advantage
--------|-Went down-|--Went up----


Essentially, what happened was they went back to even grounds.

Why give another advantage to player 1? He already has a victory on game 1 as his advantage on the opponent, and it's a good advantage to have. The only advantage given to player 2 is the advantage we give him now, which isn't THAT big of a deal (how many of your tourney sets have gone 2-0, how many have gone 2-1, and how many have you lost because you didn't win your first set?), nor is it set-deciding in the least. It's not a large advantage, or else we'd see far more 2-1s and 3-2s than we do now.

On the last game, the loser won, so now they go back to even grounds. I find the first match of the set to be fair, no one knows what their opponent is going to use, or on what stage they're going to play, until they get there. This makes it so that player 1 can't counter with stage and character to his opponent, who already has one loss, pretty much meaning he's gonna lose again and player 2 is going to win the set. Now it's just like match 1, where no one has an advantage or disadvantage, unless the character they chose on the double-blind pick just HAPPENS to be a character that counters/gets countered by their opponent's... And then the opponent can strike the stages that character does the best on and end up somewhere where the advantage isn't as noticeable.


That's how I see it. But hey, I have no problems with the current CP system, so meh. I haven't thought of what needs to be fixed since to me it's not broken, so my argument may be weak.

 

[DeLux]

If we're talking about arbitrarily handing out advantages and disadvantages based on won/loss needs, why not play tournament with handicaps set to auto/higher percentages to winner based on perceived merit along with your system?

It would essentially be the same thing.

Allowing one player to choose a stage while removing their opponent's chance to choose a stage isn't neutral; it's overwhelmingly biased.


However, it would effectively decentralize game one lol

 

[Kewkky]

If we're talking about arbitrarily handing out advantages and disadvantages based on won/loss needs, why not play tournament with handicaps set to auto/higher percentages to winner based on perceived merit along with your system?

It would essentially be the same thing.

Allowing one player to choose a stage while removing their opponent's chance to choose a stage isn't neutral; it's overwhelmingly biased.

Well, handicap doesn't affect the advantage one character has over the other, or the disadvantage a character has on a stage, so it really doesn't mean the same thing. They might be similar in how it balances according to the winner/loser, but that's about the only similarity.

However, it would effectively decentralize game one lol

 

[DeLux]

Well, handicap doesn't affect the advantage one character has over the other, or the disadvantage a character has on a stage, so it really doesn't mean the same thing. They might be similar in how it balances according to the winner/loser, but that's about the only similarity.

They ARE similar in how it balance winner/loser.

So I maintain the decentralization comes at the expense of competitive neutrality so it's not an ideal system. It also sacrifices one player's counter pick, so it would almost certainly negatively affect stage diversity as well.

 

[Luigi player]

-Removes the environment of "game 1 on smashville?"

How is that a bad thing. SV is by far the most balanced stage in the game

Why would they continually pick a stage they lost on?

And we do have an element of DSR. It's an amendment to Unity.

The question is really is it necessary?

Why would you not pick the obviously best stage in the game? Because you want to rely on "luck" from other stages?

DSR wouldn't count here since it's the losers pick and in game 3+ they can still agree to the same stage.

I already said why people are doing that. And it is a good thing.



This is unnecessary complicated and takes a lot of time.
With this you would/could also reduce the number of allowed stages by a lot. Like against MK you could always strike FO, Delfino(, Brinstar, RC), so you might not get to a stage you like, but it is/might be better than those and you would never get to them...
It would kinda add a new depht to the game and would allow you to always "ban" a lot more stages by sacrifying playing on a more comfortable stage.
The idea does sound somewhat interesting, but it's just kinda overly complicated...
You could just unlegalize Brinstar and RC to get rid of some core problems at the same time (MK, broken+uncompetitive stages...).

 

[DeLux]

If time is the main concern, I will run a tournament with this rulesset at some point and bring a stop watch. I think this whole "It'll add two minutes so it's horrible" attitude is very saddening in terms of commentary on the community.

The core problem has nothing to do with MK/broken + uncompetitive stages. Banning Brinstar/RC doesn't remove the overcentralization of game one. It might add to neutrality, but it comes at the expense of stage diversity in removing two stages completely.

 

[Luigi player]

If time is the main concern, I will run a tournament with this rulesset at some point and bring a stop watch. I think this whole "It'll add two minutes so it's horrible" attitude is very saddening in terms of commentary on the community.

Well, you should take into account that tournaments are taking too long already... to me time isn't the biggest problem though. :/

The core problem has nothing to do with MK/broken + uncompetitive stages. Banning Brinstar/RC doesn't remove the overcentralization of game one. It might add to neutrality, but it comes at the expense of stage diversity in removing two stages completely.

Hmm... with Brinstar/RC not allowed there won't be any real bad CP stages there anymore, since you can still ban FO or whatever else you see as the worst stage from the remaining ones.
Worst thing might be Delfino then? I don't really see that as a problem...

Stage diversity isn't necessary a good thing. Hyrule Temple or something would also add to stage diversity.... doesn't change the fact that it is broken.