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

[popsofctown]

It's kind of complicated though. I think we'd need some playing cards to keep track of things.

 

[Ghostbone]

I can't find any immediate faults in the current version, it seems like that if players strike properly you'll either end up with a neutral stage game 1 and 3 stage bans for games 2 and 3. (5 total in a bo5), or 2 hardcore counter-picks for games 1 and 2, then a neutral stage for game 3.

It ends up being something like.
If both players want a neutral stage game 1, they get a neutral stage.
If both players want a hardcore counter-pick game 1, they get a neutral stage.
If they want different things they'll get hardcore counter-picks games 1 and 2.

Edit: I'll have to look at it in more detail.

So to clear things up, when you reject an offered stage in game 1, does that use up half a striking turn or something?

 

[DeLux]

No, rejecting an offered stage does not use any strikes in the game one phase

 

[Ghostbone]

No, rejecting an offered stage does not use any strikes in the game one phase

Oh ok.
But after you reject a stage you or your opponent can't offer it again right?

 

[DeLux]

That is correct

 

[fkacyan]

Why call it rejecting instead of something everybody will understand, like soft striking?

 

[DeLux]

i dont particulary care what its called if they are synonymous. ive run a few tests with a few people and its shown the procedure to be synchronized towards the goal of neutrality while decentralizing game one and mainting elements of diversity

 

[popsofctown]

Can I start off g1 by saying I don't want to use any striking turns, then become concerned by the way offer/rejections are going and then elect to use a striking turn?


For example I'm playing Lucario against a D3 and I don't like Castle Siege, but that particular D3 lost on that stage earlier today so I don't think he's going to offer it. Then he offers it anyway though, so I need to strike to get a g1 stage as neutral as I planned. Can I change my mind about using a striking turn?

 

[DeLux]

I feel like once you get to that point, it would be your fault for not taking a turn to strike it. You made the choice. But i wanted input on the passing system. Is it more competitive with a system where once you pass you can no longer take striking turns or passing early still leaves the option to take a striking turn if your oppnent also doesnt pass. Thoughts on which is better

 

[fkacyan]

i dont particulary care what its called if they are synonymous. ive run a few tests with a few people and its shown the procedure to be synchronized towards the goal of neutrality while decentralizing game one and mainting elements of diversity

Community usability and memorization, as well as standardized usage for things like streams, are better for the community than a lot of random terms.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

The best way to decentralize something is to ban.

Ban winning game 1!

 

[MK26]

Lux, I'd go with allowing someone who previously passed to use a turn if their opponent didnt pass

 

[DeLux]

Maestro, I think answering the question sort of depends on what is valued more

I could see being more hardline and saying "once you've passed, you've passed" being: quicker on a logistical level, but also lead in to more diversity in terms of more turns taken to press an adv game 1. I see the option of using a turn after you pass if your opponent uses his turns as a way to make it more neutral game 1


Thio: Once I get a satisfactory level of scientific scrutinizing of the procedure, I'll rewrite it for the commonly used vernacular for a testing phase is what I meant to say. I think I'm almost ready to move it to more testing at a small scale to see if it works. It's worked so far in simulation.

 

[Ghostbone]

K so.

I'm working through this system DeLux, and basically it works perfectly fine for a bo3 as far as I can see, but there are some problem scenarios with a bo5.
I'll work through them and see how player 2 can avoid them, and what that leads to, but yea.

I think some limitations to the number of strikes you can use at once on your opponent's counter-pick may be in order.

 

[DeLux]

let me know what you come up with over five games. All my sims so far have been for three games admittedly. Although on a theoretical level, i dont see why five games would require anything different than adjusting the size of the striking turn pool

 

[popsofctown]

I think intuitively people are going to want to be able to start using strikes again if their opponent doesn't pass. That's the way poker works, that's the way MtG works, that's the way bidding in monopoly works. Also if you force permanent passes you're making the coin flip much more important.

 

[Ghostbone]

let me know what you come up with over five games. All my sims so far have been for three games admittedly. Although on a theoretical level, i dont see why five games would require anything different than adjusting the size of the striking turn pool

Basically because the way it can end up is you can force your opponent's CP to be on an advantaged stage for you, which can mess up some of the neutrality of the set.
I'll write up a scenario where this is evident. (For these scenarios let’s consider 13 legal stages, 13 gives a +6 advantage to player 2, 1 gives a +6 advantage to player 1, and pretend a player will always win on an advantaged stage for them, since if they don't it's basically a loss of the set for them.)


Edit:
Let’s say player 1 strikes 2 stage, then player 2 passes.
If player 1 then passes, we strike down to stage 6, +1 advantage for Player 1.
Game 2, player 1 can use his remaining 7 strikes, so they end up on stage 6 again. +1 advantage for player 1.
Game 3, player 2 now counter-picks stage 13, +6 advantage for them.
Now no matter what, one of the next two games will give an advantage to player 1, which is kinda unfair.


Edit2: Even if we introduce a limit of strikes you can use, which would basically be 6, so you can't have an advantaged stage on your opponent's counter-pick (and it's the highest possible in a bo3), we end up with.

Game 1, stage 6, +1 for Player 1.
Game 2, stage 7, neutral.
If player 1 wins:
Game 3, stage 12, +5 for player 2.
Game 4, stage 7, neutral.
If player 1 wins, he wins the set.
If player 2 wins:
Game 5, stage 3, +4 for player 1.
Either way player 1 effectively wins if he wins game 2

If player 2 wins game 2:
Game 3, stage 7, neutral.
If player 1 wins this:
Game 4, stage 12, +5 for player 2.
Game 5, stage 3, +4 player 1.
Player 1 wins the set.

If player 2 wins game 3:
Game 4, stage 3, +4 player 1.
Game 5, stage 12, + 5 player 2.

In this case, player 1 can lose game 2, and still have another even game to decide the set, while player 2 doesn't.

Of course players don't have to strike the way I have, but I've basically used the reasoning of, you've got a better chance of winning 1 game out of a neutral game, and a +6 game for your opponent, than out of two +3 games for your opponent.
If they use that reasoning, then the only differences that can really occur in the set are different game orders after game 1. But still all the same problems.

Anyway, this scenario doesn't have to occur, player 2 can strike differently for game 1, but at least with this scenario, player 1 has an advantage.
I'll explore some other ones and see what happens.

Edit3:
K so the same thing occurs if player 1 strikes, 2, then player 2 strikes 2, then player 1 strikes 2, then they both pass.
Player 1 has two opportunities to win a neutral game, which is unfair.

If player 1 strikes 6 total, and player 2 4, they end up on +1 advantaged stages games 1 and 2, neutral game 3, then +6 advantages games 4 and 5.
That's really just switching the importance of game 1 in our current system to game 3 in your system, which isn't really an improvement.

The other option for them, is to strike 6 each and end up on stage 7 game 1, which is neutral, and then have 5 stage bans to use over their opponents two counter-picks.
Which we could achieve in our current system, and be less complicated....

Really the only viable options for player 2 are these last two, the former not being an improvement, the latter being unnecessarily complicated.
(note if player 1 passes their first striking turn, then the players roles are just switched around, so nothing has really happened. The only difference is player 2 can also pass, and they now have 8 bans to use over their opponent's 2 counter-picks)

 

[DeLux]

I see what you're saying.

Any way to work around the issue?

I mean, by the math it still ends up being "neutral" in terms of the numerical +/- notation.

Perhaps instead of tacking on two counter pick stages when going from Bo3 to Bo5, we tack on two competitive striking stages (like seen in game 1)?

 

[Ghostbone]

I see what you're saying.

Any way to work around the issue?

I mean, by the math it still ends up being "neutral" in terms of the numerical +/- notation.

Perhaps instead of tacking on two counter pick stages when going from Bo3 to Bo5, we tack on two competitive striking stages (like seen in game 1)?

Yea extra striking turns should get rid of the issue, though you'd probably have to introduce more strikes to use across 4 games.

But then there's the problem of, less stage variance (you'd probably end up on the same 1 or 2 stages for all the striking games)
Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly lessens the importance of game 1, and distributes it to the rest of the set.

 

[DeLux]

How many more would be ideal?

 

[fkacyan]

Thio: Once I get a satisfactory level of scientific scrutinizing of the procedure, I'll rewrite it for the commonly used vernacular for a testing phase is what I meant to say.

Sentences like this are why people hate intelligent people. Other intelligent people will understand it, and people who don't will be annoyed if not more.

 

[Flayl]

Intellectual, you mean. Intelligent would be not to use verbose sentences with awkward grammar and syntax (if you want me to point them out, PM me).

 

[popsofctown]

If you're going to make a one line post criticizing someone's grammar, try to make sure that post is grammatically correct.

 

[fkacyan]

If you're going to make a one line post criticizing someone's grammar, try to make sure that post is grammatically correct.

Sentences like this are why people hate intelligent people. Other intelligent people will understand it, and people who don't will be annoyed if not more.

=

Sentences like this are why <normal> people hate intelligent people. Other intelligent people will understand <what you are saying>, and people who don't <understand> will be annoyed <with you,> if not more <than annoyed>.

Implied words are hard, I guess.

 

[popsofctown]

I was referring to Flayl's post Thiocyanide. You were mainly criticizing his difficult vocabulary anyhow.

 

[Flayl]

I can use the exact same response.

 

[popsofctown]

Post 145's missing comma of direct address, or the post where I actually criticized grammar?

 

[Flayl]

I was saying I have the same reasons as Thio to use imperfect grammar: Everything that isn't written can be implied. Really we're putting in way more effort into this than the original discussion, lol

To get back on topic, I still think this ruleset is too complicated.

 

[popsofctown]

I'll let you have the last word, but not the last word on the ruleset . I think most competitive players are interested in this amount of detail for a best of 5. To deal with it being complicated for many players, you can just provide an alternate, simpler stage selection method both can agree to use.

 

[Ghostbone]

I was saying I have the same reasons as Thio to use imperfect grammar: Everything that isn't written can be implied. Really we're putting in way more effort into this than the original discussion, lol

To get back on topic, I still think this ruleset is too complicated.

Mmm, it's already a pain to explain striking and counter-picking to new players...