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

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I like the idea of striking stages from a full list for game 1. After that, the standard system should work fine.

 

[DeLux]

I like the idea of striking stages from a full list for game 1. After that, the standard system should work fine.

How does FLSSing on game one do anything to eliminate the overcentralization of winning game one?

 

[B.A.M.]

People are acting ridiculous, this isnt that hard to accomplish. Also, iono what people are babbling about ' we're gamers so we are lazy.' Tell that to UltraDavid. The average guy nowadays in a gamer, unless you are declaring all of the male population is incompetent I believe you should work on that statement.


@ Delux: this is a good idea. I do like this new system of one stock though....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroqeHQYscs&feature=related

I think this is awesome and perfect for the type of game Brawl is. yes it deviates from Melee and 64; Brawl was just not cut out to be that type of game. I do believe this should be seriously looked at.

 

[DeLux]

I actually am not a huge fan of 1 stock matches tbh

The polarizing affect of random spawn elements alone makes certain stages shift from starter to counter pick in our current system (SV, CS in particular, possible PS1). And it also makes certain counterpicks overwhelmingly unplayable (RC, Frigate, and Delfino for certain).

If they did best of 9's with full DSR (so every stage would be played with two bans a piece) on one stock, I would play it though lol

 

[B.A.M.]

What do you think of a 2 stock system? Seeing as it usually comes down to who loses the second stock first anyways. I think that is a healthy median for this game.
@ Best of 9? that sounds interesting. Someone needs to host these things.

 

[DeLux]

I would love it if we adopted a 2 stock, 5 minutes, best of 5 sets, best of 7 for finals, but that's besides the issue at hand in this thread

 

[Akaku94]

How about Bo5, 2 stock, 6 minutes, no playing on the same stage twice, two stage bans, picking characters BEFORE stage:

1) Full Strike
2) Player 1 CP
3) Player 2 CP
4) Player 2 CP
5) Player 1 CP

It would ensure the most balanced stage for game 1, and more shorter games decentralize the importance of Game 1. These requirements

- You must have an odd number of stages
- You must have the same number of CPs for each player
- Game 1 should be on as neutral a stage as possible (in order to give players chance to adapt to play styles before CPing)
- The winner of Game 1 should not have a massive advantage in the set.

 

[DeLux]

Why is the last game arbitrarily decided to be in the favor of player 1 by virtue of a coin flip, rps, lot draw, gnw for port?

 

[Akaku94]

What do you mean?

btw, editing last post as we speak

 

[DeLux]

You determine the player designation by Rock Paper Scissors for one, so game 5 being the most important game (or game 4, depending on WHO WON GAME 1) is imbalanced.

It isn't any different in terms of deciding games being overwhelmingly in an opponent's favor thus doesn't decentralize the importance of game one.

 

[Akaku94]

another option that is similar to the current system would be:

1) Full strike
2) Game 1 Loser CP
3) Full Strike
4) Game 3 Loser CP
5) Full Strike

With the same rules as above... It would place the most emphasis on games 3 and 5, rather than 1...

 

[DeLux]

So if you win game one and win game three, you're arbitrarily going to give your opponent two counter picks while you get none for yourself.

so the winner of his two CPs and one FLSS stage beats the person that wins over two neutral stages in that scenario

Competitively unneutral. My system is better.

 

[MegaRobMan]

In favor of 2 stocks BO3 tbh, brawl is long enough to not warrent BO5.

In favor of saying "Hell no" when people ask if I want to start on SV.

I agree with the guy who said "Time" is the factor that makes this system difficult, not the "Bad at math" guy.

 

[quote]

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

I lol'ed at this.

On a more serious note, once it hits the point that an offer is made G1 to play on, the player who makes an offer has a serious advantage. Even if it's just out of 3 stages, getting to chose out of those is still a large option. I can see myself saying no in a good number of situations. I'd suggest that instead of having players make offers, G1 should just be randomly selected from the remaining stages. This would eliminate this advantage of offering first. Due to the stage striking, the random won't be destructively random either. This could also speed up the process as well.

Why is a 1-2-1 striking mandatory? If you play metaknight or some character of a similar nature that can accept pretty much any neutral, it would be useful to save your strikes for the counterpick stages.

One concern I have for this is if anyone does one round pools (I don't know how many do). In this case the new stage striking procedure is irrelevant.

 

[DeLux]

On a more serious note, once it hits the point that an offer is made G1 to play on, the player who makes an offer has a serious advantage. Even if it's just out of 3 stages, getting to chose out of those is still a large option. I can see myself saying no in a good number of situations.

You do have the option to say no at the expense of a strike. I don't understand how this gives a player an advantage either way, especially when you can skew game one into being in your favor simply by using more strikes. If your opponent beats you to the punch, you now have the option to save your strikes for their counter pick. So any adv they gain on game 1 is taken from them in the counter picking phase.

I'd suggest that instead of having players make offers, G1 should just be randomly selected from the remaining stages. This would eliminate this advantage of offering first. Due to the stage striking, the random won't be destructively random either.

I thought about using random, but the idea of introducing a random element seems anti-competitive to me when the system I have established leaves it up to the players to decide from.

Why is a 1-2-1 striking mandatory? If you play metaknight or some character of a similar nature that can accept pretty much any neutral, it would be useful to save your strikes for the counterpick stages.

The 1-2-1 was justisfied two fold:

1. First, by the idea that if you went strictly into the variable striking phase, someone could essentially strike away all of their pool without any counter action from their opponent.

2. This allowed us to consolidate the striking pool to a smaller number and allow equal balance of strikes across the 3/5 game spectrum. For example, if you did burn all your strikes game one without any opponent input, you could only strike it down to your opponent's fourth worst stage. In the context of the forced strikes, you could now effectively strike it down to your opponent's second third to worse stage. It was the best way that I could come up with in terms of allowing diverse options across all the games.

One concern I have for this is if anyone does one round pools (I don't know how many do). In this case the new stage striking procedure is irrelevant.

Well yeah duh. This system is designed to neutralize over a set by competitive depth and choice. If you want a completely neutral one game, you FLLSS.

 

[MarKO X]

Easy solution?

No items.
MK only.
Smashville.

Here's some more intangible arbitrariness for you...

Maybe the player that won game 1 on the neutral stage is, in fact, the better player?
Cause player 2 could only win via a counterpick, so why shouldn't player 1 come back with his own middle finger of a counterpick and win?

As a solution that may help...

Playing the entire set on one stage could definitely eliminate some of the strength of the counter pick. The problems with that might be the lack of stage diversity, and it can limit character counter picks depending on if a character totally sucks at a stage. You would probably also have to come up with a stage picking/striking system designed for playing the entire set on one stage, as the stage choice becomes that much more important. So, like, you may eliminate the importance of winning game 1, but then you might double the importance of the stage selection.

 

[DeLux]

There is so much terrible reasoning in that post that I'm going to ignore it and move on.


It's weird to me that people are suggesting all of these systems that eliminates choices to achieve a goal when my system achieves the same goal without eliminating choices

 

[Ghostbone]

Competitively unneutral. My system is better.

Your system boils down to FLSS for game 1 and two stage bans for games 2 and 3 though, it's not that amazing.
If player 2 accepts any of player 1's offers then player 1 will have an advantage on game 1, and will also have used the same amount of strikes, and vice versa (except player 2 would have used up an extra strike), so they are forced to strike down to the most neutral stage, using 6 strikes each.

 

[DeLux]

That's is one of three possible scenarios that can occur in the process of decision making

It'll either end up: Adv P1 if they decide to take it, at the cost of limiting their CP in a later game
Adv P2 if they decide to take it, at the cost of limiting their CP later in the game
or the whole neutral effect.

The neutral effect is the last possibility, because it requires both player decline taking an advantage through the variable striking phase.

You're looking at it from a narrow scope.

 

[Ghostbone]

That's is one of three possible scenarios that can occur in the process of decision making

It'll either end up: Adv P1 if they decide to take it, at the cost of limiting their CP in a later game
Adv P2 if they decide to take it, at the cost of limiting their CP later in the game
or the whole neutral affect.

You're looking at it from a narrow scope.

You can't have game 1 your advantage without game 2 being massively in your opponents advantage and game 3 being neutral.
It's just silly to try to do that.

Not to mention whatever you do player 1 and player 2 aren't neutral in any case but mine, as they end up having differing advantages than each other, which isn't neutral...
You either end up with 2 games in one player's advantage and only 1 in the other players advantage, or you just end up with a system that is FLSS for game 1 and 2 stage bans without DSR for games 2 and 3.
I'd rather go for only the latter.

 

[DeLux]

Game 1 your advantage hmmm sounds like a CP
Game 2 your opponents advantage hmmm sounds like a CP

Game 3 being neutral. Sounds like we decentralized the importance of game one being a must win (at least for your opponent)

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

It isn't FLSS first game...you still have a starter stage list...

 

[Ghostbone]

Game 1 your advantage hmmm sounds like a CP
Game 2 your opponents advantage hmmm sounds like a CP

Game 3 being neutral. Sounds like we decentralized the importance of game one being a must win (at least for your opponent)

Except they have differing advantages.
And we can make a system like that without being as complex as yours

It isn't FLSS first game...you still have a starter stage list...

So you end up with like 5 stage bans for your opponents counter-pick? lol

 

[fkacyan]

Overly complicated and time consuming for most tourney goers. Needs to be simplified for easier memorization and use.

 

[DeLux]

Except they have differing advantages.
And we can make a system like that without being as complex as yours

Given proper maintenance of the system, they would have to be neutral throughout.
I don't understand where the unbalancing factor comes into play

I figured I'd have to work out the exact totals of the strike pool and how they would affect play and also examine how large the initial round of striking should be (right now it's set at 2, but anywhere from 0-4 would conceivably alter the scope of available choices

But I think as a concept it remains neutral

 

[quote]

You do have the option to say no at the expense of a strike. I don't understand how this gives a player an advantage either way, especially when you can skew game one into being in your favor simply by using more strikes. If your opponent beats you to the punch, you now have the option to save your strikes for their counter pick. So any adv they gain on game 1 is taken from them in the counter picking phase.



I thought about using random, but the idea of introducing a random element seems anti-competitive to me when the system I have established leaves it up to the players to decide from.



The 1-2-1 was justisfied two fold:

1. First, by the idea that if you went strictly into the variable striking phase, someone could essentially strike away all of their pool without any counter action from their opponent.

2. This allowed us to consolidate the striking pool to a smaller number and allow equal balance of strikes across the 3/5 game spectrum. For example, if you did burn all your strikes game one without any opponent input, you could only strike it down to your opponent's fourth worst stage. In the context of the forced strikes, you could now effectively strike it down to your opponent's second third to worse stage. It was the best way that I could come up with in terms of allowing diverse options across all the games.



Well yeah duh. This system is designed to neutralize over a set by competitive depth and choice. If you want a completely neutral one game, you FLLSS.

The expense of a strike is exactly what I'm getting at though. The player who has the option of rejecting the offer is heavily pressured to just accept because the value of banning a neutral is always less than that of banning a counter.

Hypothetically 1 of the remaining stages will give the offering player a 2% advantage over the others while the other two give a 2% disadvantage. The issue is that the first player gets to do this every time.

You said something introducing randomization being anti competitive. I'd agree with this. Going back to first step of the procedure though, player 1 and player 2 are randomly determined out of necessity. I'm suggesting a second randomization to reduce the impact of the P1 P2 dice roll. I don't like it either, but it seems healthier than giving P1 a distinct advantage over P2.

 

[DeLux]

The expense of a strike is exactly what I'm getting at though. The player who has the option of rejecting the offer is heavily pressured to just accept because the value of banning a neutral is always less than that of banning a counter.

Why? Sounds like your biased towards certain stages.

Hypothetically 1 of the remaining stages will give the offering player a 2% advantage over the others while the other two give a 2% disadvantage. The issue is that the first player gets to do this every time.

This is easily augmented by using a different striking tactic during your variable striking round.

You said something introducing randomization being anti competitive. I'd agree with this. Going back to first step of the procedure though, player 1 and player 2 are randomly determined out of necessity. I'm suggesting a second randomization to reduce the impact of the P1 P2 dice roll. I don't like it either, but it seems healthier than giving P1 a distinct advantage over P2.

I don't think it's necessary to add that random element. I've considered swapping the offer order actually in light of this, but i don't think it needs a kick to random option because your saying a random option is necessary is based on faulty premises

 

[aqua421]

instead of using paper and pencil, why not use the random stage select screen to keep track of which stages have been struck?

 

[ぱみゅ]

That's the point, pencil and paper would be needed if people do not count how many strikes they've done (which would be really often).

 

[quote]

Why? Sounds like your biased towards certain stages.

I'm not, but I guarantee that other's will be. I'm looking at this process strictly in a vacuum.

This is easily augmented by using a different striking tactic during your variable striking round.

Strategically this is not an option.

Game 2 picks have a bigger effect on a matchup than a neutral.

Because of that, bans/strikes are more valuable in G2 than G1.

Because of that, Player 2 won't strike any extra stages in G1 providing an advantage less than the opponent's most advantageous remaining counterpick of game two.

The player with the first offer, always gets to play on a stage giving him an advantage less than that difference.

Assuming that neutrals have advantages over each other, you can conclude that the first player offering a stage has an advantage over the other.

I don't think it's necessary to add that random element. I've considered swapping the offer order actually in light of this, but i don't think it needs a kick to random option because your saying a random option is necessary is based on faulty premises

I'd go ahead and do this. It does offset the issue that I have with it a bit. I don't like the fact that it doesn't address the problem directly but it's definitely better than nothing, which is the reasoning behind my suggestion. Also if you can think of an alternative that addresses the issue directly, please do so, the plan altogether is too good to go to waste.

 

[popsofctown]

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.

Lots of players don't care so much, they often mutually agree to play on battlefield and go for it. Messing with the system for people who care doesn't really hurt them.

 

[Akaku94]

As long as we have an odd number of games and the same number of CPs for both players, whoever wins on the non-CP game will win more often than not. This is unavoidable. The best solution would be to have more games in order to play on a) more stages, and b) more chances to win while being CPed.

In any match, however many games, the loser of game 1 must win on at least one disadvantaged stage (and on each advantaged stage he plays on) to win the set. In a Bo3, he only has one chance to do so. In a Bo5, he has 2 chances, making Game 1 slightly less consequential overall. Bo7 or Bo9 would give 3 or 4 chances to win a disadvantaged game. Of course, for time reasons, 3 stock Bo9 would be ridiculous. A better solution would be to add more shorter games to reduce the importance of any single game. For Example:

2-Stock, Bo5

1) Full Stage Strike to Decide Stage
2) Loser of Game 1
3) Winner of Game 1
4) Loser of Game 1
5) Winner of Game 1

This would simply extend the chance for the loser of game 1 to win a disadvantaged game (a necessity in any format), while still giving an advantage to the winner of game 1 (which is all well and good, provided it is not overpowering). Of course, no system is perfect, but more games = better, imo

 

[DeLux]

I'm not, but I guarantee that other's will be. I'm looking at this process strictly in a vacuum.

Having spoken to you personally, no offense, but you are easily the most stage biased person I've ever talked smash about with.

Strategically this is not an option.

Yes it is. If you want a greater adv game one, strike more stages. If you want a more neutral stage, strike less and hope your opponent doesn't strike stages to put it in his adv. Even if he does that, you get the neutral in a later stage.

Game 2 picks have a bigger effect on a matchup than a neutral.

Why? Hypothetically speaking, if I lose game 1 due to my opponent using strikes and I saving strikes, I would have enough strikes to make his CP extremely neutral while I have my own CG. With the system it will either be Neutral x3 OR Adv 1, Adv 2, Neutral in no particular order. The system allows people to choose the order and the parity of each matchup through number of strikes exercised.

Because of that, bans/strikes are more valuable in G2 than G1.

A strike is a strike no matter when you use it. The inherent value or disvalue you give it is bias on your part.

Because of that, won't strike any stages providing advantage less than that of the difference between the opponent's most advantageous remaining counterpick of game two and last banned counterpick.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
There aren't any bans in my system, thus you aren't even talking about the same thing.

The player with the first offer, always gets to play on a stage giving him an advantage less than that difference.

Assuming that neutrals have advantages over each other, you can conclude that the first player offering a stage has an advantage over the other.

Again, that advantage is covered in later rounds via the strike pool system.

I'd go ahead and do this. It does offset the issue that I have with it a bit. I don't like the fact that it doesn't address the problem directly but it's definitely better than nothing, which is the reasoning behind my suggestion. Also if you can think of an alternative that addresses the issue directly, please do so, the plan altogether is too good to go to waste.

I'll think about if it helps, but honestly, it doesn't matter and I think your premise are faulty based on your preconceived bias

 

[DeLux]

System all determined by GAME 1

I don't understand why you keep trying to suggest systems that revolve around game 1 when the point is to decentralize winning game 1 lol

You need to stop

 

[Cubone]

I believe it was proposed before but... whats wrong with starting with the players CPs and deciding a stage for game 3 from a FLSS? That way each player is SURE to get their a cp stage, and theres no bias for game 3 between the starters and cps.

 

[DeLux]

There isn't anything wrong with it.

I would make the argument that my system is deeper than that option with more competitive depth/freedom and it's kind of arbitrary to establish a specific order to things. For example, you make counter picks later in game based off knowledge you have from previous games. The first counter pick is inherently at a disadvantage to the second counter pick because it's essentially a blind stage pick while in later matches it can actually counter based off previous information.

In my system a player could force a 3 "neutral" stages if they so desired. OR it could trend towards the extremes of counter picking. It's the additional player options. All while maintaining that counter system based on previous knowledge

 

[ぱみゅ]

After a deeper look to this, I'm really, really liking the idea.

There are no real "advantage" on game one, whoever suggests first or not, people can strike off every stage they do not want to play for game one, so no matter which stage opponent suggests, it should not be bad enough for the other player if he/she didn't strike it in the very first instance.


Also, player laziness is just a silly excuse, and makes the one who's being too lazy to follow rules look bad dumb.

 

[quote]

Having spoken to you personally, no offense, but you are easily the most stage biased person I've ever talked smash about with.

What makes you think that?

Yes it is. If you want a greater adv game one, strike more stages. If you want a more neutral stage, strike less and hope your opponent doesn't strike stages to put it in his adv. Even if he does that, you get the neutral in a later stage.



Why? Hypothetically speaking, if I lose game 1 due to my opponent using strikes and I saving strikes, I would have enough strikes to make his CP extremely neutral while I have my own CG. With the system it will either be Neutral x3 OR Adv 1, Adv 2, Neutral in no particular order. The system allows people to choose the order and the parity of each matchup through number of strikes exercised.



A strike is a strike no matter when you use it. The inherent value or disvalue you give it is bias on your part.

I'm getting that the solution to the problem that P1 gets to offer first I pointed out is to strike differently. I'm arguing that due to the effect on game two or three, P2 striking the first offer (the premise of your argument) isn't really a good strategic option and thus, won't happen. P1 nets that small advantage. I've explained my logic, I can't do anything else unless a new argument is brought up.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
There aren't any bans in my system, thus you aren't even talking about the same thing.

I'll go back and try to reword this. That's my fault. I'm using ban and strike interchangeably although I shouldn't. I think I missed a word in that sentence too.

I'll think about if it helps, but honestly, it doesn't matter and I think your premise are faulty based on your preconceived bias

My bias has absolutely nothing to do with my position. The mere existence of the stage striking procedure is evidence that some stages provide significant advantages in game one. More importantly this gives a player an advantage from a coin flip that isn't in the status quo. If you can explain how the supposed bias would affect this, please explain this to me because I'm evaluating this in terms of neutrals, counterpicks and strikes. I jumped straight on this issue because from a number of other various games that I've played player X is always at a significant disadvantage from going second. I feel fairly strongly that fighting games shouldn't need to involve this to any degree.


Forget this, after seeing this last post, I think my reasoning and logic is going to be completely ignored.

 

[DeLux]

I didn't mean to come off harsh man.

I just don't think you understand that if there's an inherent Disadv in game 1, that Disadv reciprocates into an Adv (or lessening of a disadv) later on in the system.

He could elect to strike it then if he wanted for game 1 or he can elect to save it for game 2.

Your argument revolved around the idea that Strikes are more valuable in game 2/3 than they are in game 1. I think this is an unfounded and preconvceived notion on your part because a strike simply means that a player can't play on a specific stage. Looking at stages in terms of "how good they are for a matchup" from an objective standpoint doesn't really exist. It boils down to elective choice on the player's part.

 

[quote]

Given what you've said, I'm getting the feeling that my point will be very difficult to prove without some kind of testing and asking players for their reasoning behind their actions as they go through the procedure.

I'd like to say more, but I think we're just arguing in circles. I do believe that what I'm thinking is going to be supported by evidence, but in technical terms, I guess that it's just a hypothesis.

There's another problem that I am foreseeing with this, but I'm not entirely sure that it will happen, and explaining it in words looks like a huge mess.