Evaluating the stage strike system.

[Ulevo]

This discussion is a continuation of the Lylat Cruise thread. If you did not read it, I encourage you to gloss it over before posting to avoid redundancy.

The majority consensus regarding Lylat Cruise has been found that it is, at best, not appropriate starter material. While the debate remains inconclusive as to whether it should remain legal, it brings up another topic of concern: stage striking.

Right now, most tournaments use the five stage strike system, with the five starters used being Battlefield, Final Destination, Town & City, Smashville, and Lylat Cruise. The current problem with this system is that it requires an odd number of stages to work, and Lylat Cruise serves as a burden based on the problems associated with the stage. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the alternatives and their merits. The options are as follows:

Option 1: Use a three stage strike system; Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville.
Option 2: Use a five stage strike system; Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, (alternative).
Option 3: Use an open system where all legal stages are open to strike. This would likely include Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town & City, Duck Hunt, Delfino Plaza, Castle Siege, Halberd, and Lylat Cruise. Possible inclusions are Skyloft, Kongo Jungle 64, and Wuhu Island.

 

[Ulevo]

So, my opinions... I think option 1 and option 3 are fine. Personally I don't think option 2 is a suitable choice. The best alternatives stages for the five stage strike system are Delfino Plaza and Duck Hunt. As pointed out in the previous thread by @Amazing Ampharos, Duck Hunt really pigeon holes the system to be flat stage oriented.

To illustrate an example of how this can prove to be an issue, take the Ike versus Olimar match up. Ike struggles to do much of anything against Olimar on purely flat stages, and relies on platforms assistance to win. In a world where Duck Hunt is the 5th option, the best options for Ike are Battlefield, followed by Smashville (which is not that great comparatively), both of which will be banned out. Town & City acts as a Final Destination are large portion of the time, and Duck Hunt is a pseudo Final Destionation by itself. This heavily skews match up advantages for the 1st round.

Delfino Plaza, I'm sort of on the fence about, though there are certain characters that have really abusive tactics during specific transformations. Characters like Meta Knight, ZSS, and Rosalina can net extremely early kills due to shallow blastzones, and the nature of the platforms allows for stage sharking. I'm not sure how much of a problem it would pose, though. The other stage alternatives are not really viable choices. Castle Siege is not suitable starter material just based on the 2nd transformation alone. Wuhu Island is too large much of the time, and is still a controversial topic.

Whether or not option 1 or option 3 are best I think really comes down to character diversity versus tournament time. With option 3 and the current stages that are legal, players would have to ban 4 stages each instead of 2. Honestly, this isn't bad. And if time ever became a concern, TO's could simply instate a rule that stages must be chosen within a specific time limit. The benefit is that the first round could be played on stages outside of the conventional 4-5. Option 1 is really fair however. Given that Smashville is relatively small and has a platform as an assist, its probably the closest compromise we will ever have between the extremes that Battlefield and Final Destination present. I think this is evident given how popular the stage is in tournament play.

 

[NickRiddle]

EVO is not using a 5-starter system, they're doing Full List Stage Striking.
Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.
Strike from 3 to 1 to determine the first stage, CP the remaining two stages.

 

[Funen1]

I would disagree that Option 1 is any fairer than Option 2, if at all, for multiple reasons.

Normally, the person who strikes first is the one who strikes last as well, in order to maintain a slight advantage from being the first to strike (I say "slight" because the other player also gets chances to strike stages that he/she doesn't want to play on in that matchup). However, having only three stages makes it completely impossible to do this - the players who strikes second will always be the one that ends up selecting the stage, thereby penalizing the first player for winning a game of RPS or however you determine who's supposed to strike first. Even the order of striking for numbers of stages like 7 or 11 can be edited to ensure the first player keeps that advantage, even if it's still not ideal in its own ways, but not 3.

Regarding stages, including only FD, Battlefield, and Smashville at the expense of other stages still leaves the starter list very flat+plat heavy, and guys like @Amazing Ampharos will probably also tell you that having so few stages in a starter list doesn't do much, if at all, to mitigate certain characters (read: Diddy and Sheik) gaining noticeable benefits over others at the start of a set. And while this isn't meant to target your post specifically, the idea that Smashville is somehow the best compromise for all matchups need to stop. Smashville is nowhere close to being "neutral" in that sense - characters can still have advantages, sometimes massive (read: Diddy and Sheik again), over others on that stage. I'll even give a more personal example. I'm a Ness main, and a staple of that character's metagame is D-throw to F-air combos. If the moving platform is nearby, I can use it to extend this combo literally all the way to the blast zone, reminiscent of Sheik, and kill you ridiculously early. I can't speak confidently for how other characters might use this platform to benefit their games, but my point is that Smashville's layout can still provide ways to skew matchups well beyond what could be considered a "universal compromise".

On a side note, I would also hold back from saying that the vast majority of the many thousands of Smash players out there know what they're doing when they're continuously gentleman-ing to Smashville instead of trying to pick the stage that gives them the biggest advantage - Smashville is more likely to be a comfort pick, possibly with a bit of influence from VGBC's stream, unless they main one of the aforementioned characters that's really strong on that stage. Not to claim that VGBC promoting Smashville so much is done out of malice or trolling or anything, they're free to like what they want just like everyone else, but that level of exposure can still have an effect on those who don't understand the importance of stage selection. Anyway, back on topic.

My pick is Option 3. As you alluded to, one big advantage of FLSS over the other methods is that it allows many more stages to be played in Game 1, mitigating the advantages that a smaller subset of characters might gain from a more restrictive stage list. Enforcing time limits during stage striking in really large tournaments seems like a logistical concern at first glance, but EVO has something similar this year with a 60-second time limit between games, so they might have something in mind, just gotta wait and see. Local tournaments have it much easier on this front.

I want to address the number of stages for a moment - not necessarily which stages should be legal, but how smoothly players might adjust to a larger number like 9 or even 13. With how stagelists are handled now, many people are used to picking from lists with sizes comparable to those for Melee and Brawl. However many stages are legal, it would take some work from TOs and the like to clue others in regarding how FLSS works and what its benefits are, but I think it's certainly doable, if only because I believe humans as a whole aren't completely unreasonable. Then again, D1 has mentioned multiple times how he thinks that doing FLSS may result in even more gentleman picks to Smashville. Granted, given how often it happens already I wonder how much of a difference it'll really make, but if anything EVO should give us a better idea of how the community at large handles stage striking.

EVO is not using a 5-starter system, they're doing Full List Stage Striking.
Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.
Strike from 3 to 1 to determine the first stage, CP the remaining two stages.

That's an intriguing procedure. I never thought to break up stage selections into segments like that. Out of curiosity, how would the striking order go for certain numbers of total stages? Also, are there any tournaments you've been to that do this?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

So, my opinions... I think option 1 and option 3 are fine. Personally I don't think option 2 is a suitable choice. The best alternatives stages for the five stage strike system are Delfino Plaza and Duck Hunt. As pointed out in the previous thread by @Amazing Ampharos, Duck Hunt really pigeon holes the system to be flat stage oriented.

And a 3 stage starter list of BF/FD/SV isn't flat stage oriented?

I support FLSS. Trying to distinguish between starters and non-starters is something that's always somewhat baffled me for a variety of reasons. If it's legal, it's legal, and it shouldn't matter if you play on it on game 1 or game 3. (Or 5 in WF/LF/GF.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And a 3 stage starter list of BF/FD/SV isn't flat stage oriented?

I support FLSS. Trying to distinguish between starters and non-starters is something that's always somewhat baffled me for a variety of reasons. If it's legal, it's legal, and it shouldn't matter if you play on it on game 1 or game 3. (Or 5 in WF/LF/GF.)

This.

The more starters we have, the more fair and the less biased a stagelist is going to be. It's a really simple idea - with X starters, a character can have his ((X+1)/2)th-worst stage, and your opponent can force his ((X+1)/2)th-best stage. The more starters, the closer these numbers get, and I think we can all agree that that is, independent of everything else, a good thing. Is it guaranteed to be better? No - a 1-stage list with just Smashville is going to lead to a more balanced result than a 3-stage list with Delfino, Halberd, and FD in the Diddy-Pika matchup, but in most cases, in most matchups, more is better.

Now, some might say, "how is that more fair? character X is getting an advantage from the stage!" Well, first of all, if I would strike Smashville, it's probably because you're getting an advantage from it - because it's better than the average stage in the list. You get to strike almost half the stagelist as well. Is it a "good" stage for my character? So you mean my character has more "good" legal stages than yours? Guess your character has a weakness.

Really though, here's a simple fact: if your character's best stages in a matchup involve two of FD, BF, and SV, the three-starter list gives you a free counterpick. You get one of your best stages game one. I dunno about you guys, but I don't think that's okay.

FWIW, in Munich we've been running FLSS with 13 starters and it's worked very well so far. I think that regardless of what changes we end up making to the stagelist, we're going to keep the FLSS format.

 

[deepseadiva]

EVO is not using a 5-starter system, they're doing Full List Stage Striking.
Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.
Strike from 3 to 1 to determine the first stage, CP the remaining two stages.

Is that really how it's working? :O

...interesting.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I agree with those saying that a single list of legal stages just makes more sense than distinguishing between starter and counterpick stages. Why not let the two players decide which stage is the most "neutral" one for them?

Only drawback I can think of is that sometimes it's kind of a hassle to keep track of the stages to strike the longer the stage list gets, heh.

EDIT: With regard to EVO, did we ever get an answer from Wizard regarding what the rule is regarding stage bans? There was nothing on the website the last time I checked.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I agree with those saying that a single list of legal stages just makes more sense than distinguishing between starter and counterpick stages. Why not let the two players decide which stage is the most "neutral" one for them?

Only drawback I can think of is that sometimes it's kind of a hassle to keep track of the stages to strike the longer the stage list gets, heh.

Easy solution: Set the random stage select list to only have the legal stages. Refer to that list when necessary.

 

[Jaxas]

Easy solution: Set the random stage select list to only have the legal stages. Refer to that list when necessary.

In Smash 4 it's even easier, because you can set the Omegas page up as well as a reference to set the main random stage select screen back up in case someone forgets which stages are legal.

 

[Charey]

The reason Smashville got picked so much in Brawl wasn't that is was more "neutral" then the other stages, it's that the three stages chosen for the three starters massively favored Smashville with it being somewhat between FD's no platforms and Battlefield's max platforms. With some characters you just didn't have any choice of starting stages if you didn't want to throw game one. (Do I want to fight IC on their best stage or second best stage?)

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The reason Smashville got picked so much in Brawl wasn't that is was more "neutral" then the other stages, it's that the three stages chosen for the three starters massively favored Smashville with it being somewhat between FD's no platforms and Battlefield's max platforms. With some characters you just didn't have any choice of starting stages if you didn't want to throw game one. (Do I want to fight IC on their best stage or second best stage?)

Which itself was a symptom of the community banning some of Meta Knight's best stages in the hopes of taking him down a peg. It just so happened that all of Meta Knight's best stages were the Ice Climbers' worst, so they reaped the benefits.

Really, Brawl was a cluster**** of balance all around, but it's an excellent case study in how a stage list (not just the starters) can greatly influence character viability.

 

[Luigi player]

The reason Smashville got picked so much in Brawl wasn't that is was more "neutral" then the other stages, it's that the three stages chosen for the three starters massively favored Smashville with it being somewhat between FD's no platforms and Battlefield's max platforms. With some characters you just didn't have any choice of starting stages if you didn't want to throw game one. (Do I want to fight IC on their best stage or second best stage?)

Isn't that describing a more neutral stage?

I really dislike EVOs stage striking system. Why only get the option to play on 3 stages (prefinals)? That's absolutely terrible.

Are they still using all of these stages?

• Starter stages: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville
• Counter-pick stages: Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Duck Hunt, Halberd, Lylat Cruise, Town & City

So you could end up having an opponent that bans BF, FD, SV and TaC, and you ban Delfino, DH, halberd and Lylat...
With TaC, Lylat and Castle Siege as the only stages? WTF is this. Smash is basically described as Omega, BF, SV and TaC. The others are just extra that add a little more variety and are a little broken, that's why I like the 3 starter system better with the others as CPs (I wouldn't mind 5 starters if there was a 5th one that was neutral enough, but there doesn't seem to be one), because everyone knows more stupid **** is going to happen on them.

At least give the chance to play on a normal stage game 1 and let players be able to CP at least one good stage.

They could at least add Wuhu Island to add another better stage to their stagepool...


Of course most people won't strike all the "better" stages, but it's theoretically possible and that is problematic. For my standards I could end up having 3 stages that I'd never play on and dispise for competitive play.

If they want to do it that way they should at least get rid of stages that are fitting the "CP" creteria a little too much.
I wouldn't have a problem with them if they weren't as broken as they are. On Duck Hunt you can basically circle camp quite a few characters with some characters. Lylat has it's obvious bugs, Halberd has it's basically zero to death combo stuff because of it's small blastzone to the top... these would have to get rid of for such a system to be okay. Delfino is on the fence. While transforming it also has a really small blastzone to the top that is definitely problematic against some of the best characters (Diddy, ZSS, Rosalina), so you'd have to be extremely careful, but it's just for short times and you can try to avoid combat during them, that's why it can still be okay.

 

[Funen1]

I really dislike EVOs stage striking system. Why only get the option to play on 3 stages (prefinals)? That's absolutely terrible.

Are they still using all of these stages?

EVO's ruleset is FLSS with 9 stages - no starter/CP distinction like what you posted.

 

[Teh Sandwich]

I never liked striking for the first stage. I think it should be set to random out of either the 3 or 5 neutrals.
Then CP as usual after the first match.

However, I do think the best way would be, not having starters/cp's. And strike down from the entire stage list.

 

[Luigi player]

EVO's ruleset is FLSS with 9 stages - no starter/CP distinction like what you posted.

Yeah I know, my post was directed towards Nick Riddles post which stated how it would be done, but thanks for clarifying that these are indeed all the allowed stages!

I never liked striking for the first stage. I think it should be set to random out of either the 3 or 5 neutrals.
Then CP as usual after the first match.

However, I do think the best way would be, not having starters/cp's. And strike down from the entire stage list.

Why would you like randomness more?

If there was a worse stage, a ~neutral stage and advantageous stage for all the characters and you choose random as your starter it's random if there will be an advantage (assuming characters the plays choose aren't the same), but if you strike the one that prefers for example BF and doesn't like FD can then go to SV and the other player can do the same to strike BF and SV is the optimal choice, because no character dislikes the stage (maybe Little Mac?), but no one get's a certain advantage from it.

Most people like SV because it's basically the most neutral stage. It doesn't give any character a special advantage, and doesn't have any hazards or transformations that most people find a little annoying.

And with FLSS it's even more important to strike, because the random factor could be REALLY deciding in the first match. People are striking for a reason.

 

[Nintendrone]

FLSS is flat-out the most fair choice for stage selection, because the arbitrary distinction between starter/CP won't skew Game 1 matchups.

EVO is not using a 5-starter system, they're doing Full List Stage Striking.
Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.
Strike from 3 to 1 to determine the first stage, CP the remaining two stages.

I don't believe that FLSS works that way, or if it does, it shouldn't, as that process becomes flawed when characters are switched. AFAIK, in Game 1, you strike to 1 stage to play. In Games 2+, the winner strikes "x" stages, where the number of legal stages is "4x+1" (so EVO would have 2 strikes), and the loser picks a stage, accounting for Dave's stupid rule.

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

I honestly think 3 stages, especially when they're the most static and simple stages in the game is the absolute worst choice we could make. There are some cases where it's more fair to randomly pick from those 3, and that would be still a terrible idea to implement. (To make this very clear, random stage is a bad idea completely) All this system does is strongly support the current top tier characters by guaranteeing an advantageous stage game 1. There's also the problem that 3, 7, and 11 stages gives an advantage to the player striking last.

Speaking of which, how much of a problem is it to do FLSS with less than 9 stages? Like, is the advantage a player gets from winning a RPS game substantial enough in 7 stages for it to matter? Also, what do we do in the case of an even number of stages? Do we ban one to make the Full List odd for striking, or do we choose 1 stage in "counterpicks" But still call it FLSS?

 

[Hb2]

As I understand it, Evo's ruleset uses FLSS for every game of the set (since there is no mention of banning or counterpicking stages). Is this correct? I know it says "First stage is decided by banning..." and "You may not choose a stage you have already won...", but this could be a leftover of copying the Melee ruleset.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

As I understand it, Evo's ruleset uses FLSS for every game of the set (since there is no mention of banning or counterpicking stages). Is this correct? I know it says "First stage is decided by banning..." and "You may not choose a stage you have already won...", but this could be a leftover of copying the Melee ruleset.

Honestly, I'm under the impression that Wizard just overlooked this when posting the rules.

He was searching for the APEX rules on Twitter recently when someone brought this to his attention, but their website was down.

 

[NickRiddle]

FLSS is flat-out the most fair choice for stage selection, because the arbitrary distinction between starter/CP won't skew Game 1 matchups.


I don't believe that FLSS works that way, or if it does, it shouldn't, as that process becomes flawed when characters are switched. AFAIK, in Game 1, you strike to 1 stage to play. In Games 2+, the winner strikes "x" stages, where the number of legal stages is "4x+1" (so EVO would have 2 strikes), and the loser picks a stage, accounting for Dave's stupid rule.

I am confused how character CPing would hamper the FLSS system that I mentioned...
The goal is to make all 3, or 5, games as close to stage-neutral as possible... in theory you should know your opponent's characters before the set, so your striking would encompass all of the opponent's possible character CPs.

Unless that's not what you mean.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Isn't that describing a more neutral stage?

Relative to FD? Sure! Relative to BF? Depends, what's the matchup? If your starters are BF, SV, FD in Brawl, and most top tiers would counterpick you to one of those stages, how is that neutral?

Smash is basically described as Omega, BF, SV and TaC.

WTF is this.

Yes, WTF is this indeed. Smash is basically described as every stage in the game. We can't have that, of course, because some stages are broken (you know, actually broken, as in unable to support competitive play due to degenerate or randomizing elements). But to say something like this just baffles me. These aren't bonus stages in Soul Calibur 3 that can only be picked in Special mode. Battlefield is a stage. So is Wrecking Crew. So is Palutena's Temple. So is Halberd. So is Port Town. So is Smashville. So is Norfair. Whether you like to admit it or not, the ability to adapt to variety (and, yes, some randomness) is built into the game at a fundamental level, and we can't remove that.

Hell, you know how many stages are completely non-random in this game? A handful of omegas. That's because a player's starting location is random, and on Smashville, this can be the difference between that Shiek fair string carrying you offstage and carrying you onto the platform and straight to the blastzone; on Battlefield it can be the difference between being able to walljump and recover safely or not; on Town and City it can be the difference between getting clipped by a leaving platform and not getting clipped by a leaving platform.

The others are just extra that add a little more variety and are a little broken,

I think I've never heard someone dilute the term "broken" so extremely. No, all stages other than those 4 are not a little broken. What does that even mean in this context? What are you even talking about? How can you possibly make this claim when we've played countless viable tournament matches on all of these stages? This is just the weirdest statement I've ever seen. How is something just "a little broken", anyways?

that's why I like the 3 starter system better with the others as CPs (I wouldn't mind 5 starters if there was a 5th one that was neutral enough, but there doesn't seem to be one), because everyone knows more stupid **** is going to happen on them.

I have seen more stupid **** on Smashville than on any other stage other than Halberd. And I am including Pokemon Stadium, Kongo Jungle, and Piazza Delfino on that list. Look, it's really easy: if you don't **** up badly, you don't get stupided out.

At least give the chance to play on a normal stage game 1 and let players be able to CP at least one good stage.

"Normal".

Please explain what deliniates BF, SV, and FD from every other stage in the game, and then please explain why "normal" exists only approximately 3/50ths of the time.

Of course most people won't strike all the "better" stages, but it's theoretically possible and that is problematic. For my standards I could end up having 3 stages that I'd never play on and dispise for competitive play.

Has it ever occurred to you that you just might not like Smash Bros very much? You seem pretty desperate to turn it into something it isn't. Look, I'm sorry, if you would never play on two thirds of the legal stagelist, then you're in the wrong game. It's not like they're running a hyperliberal list, either. You don't even have to contend with Pokemon Stadium, let alone stages like Yoshi's or Norfair. You're being really unreasonable.

If they want to do it that way they should at least get rid of stages that are fitting the "CP" creteria a little too much.
I wouldn't have a problem with them if they weren't as broken as they are. On Duck Hunt you can basically circle camp quite a few characters with some characters. Lylat has it's obvious bugs, Halberd has it's basically zero to death combo stuff because of it's small blastzone to the top... these would have to get rid of for such a system to be okay.

Actually, no they wouldn't, because depending on the matchup, you can strike them. Does your character get camped out on Duck Hunt? Tough luck, sorry your character is awful, but strike it and it's gone. Worried about issues on Lylat and don't know how to play effectively on the stage? Feel free to strike it! Your opponent playing Diddy, ZSS, or Luigi? Strike Halberd and you're safe from his wrath... For now. See how cool this is? Sure, if your character sucks on the vast majority of stages, you might be SOL, but in that case you may just have a bad character or a bad matchup, and you shouldn't get two counterpicks per round just because your character is bad. And sure, if you only ever want to play on a small handful of stages because you like them, you probably won't get to in round one. But why would it be fair to do that? The idea behind round one is to ensure an even playing field, and if you're getting the stage you want, something has gone wrong.

Once again, it comes down to the same problem as ever - if there's a clear enough line in competitive viability* between FD/SV/BF/T&C and the rest of the stages, then the answer is only play on those stages. Why should a stage be okay in round 3 and not in round 1? Answer: it shouldn't be.


*There really, really isn't. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this one.

 

[Raijinken]

Why should a stage be okay in round 3 and not in round 1? Answer: it shouldn't be.

Though you've said it and many other good things many times elsewhere, I feel like this is the most important detail that people overlook.

After all, I should be playing against the player, not the stagelist, right?

<s>Alternately, the Smash community can sit down and discuss the "most fair" stage for every single matchup in the game, every single doubles, triples, and quads team versus every other, and so on, and finalize an indisputable list that guarantees every match is fair. Thus, your stage is automatically decided by your matchup regardless of preference, mindgames, or any gentleman's rule. Then you don't even have to worry about people not knowing what to strike!</s>

 

[Nintendrone]

@ NickRiddle To clarify my opinion, I mean that if the stages for all games are picked in before game 1 (unless I read your post wrong), then imagine this hypothetical scenario:

• The players pick Mario and Luigi. The stagelist is struck down to BF, FD, and SV. These are the most neutral stages for the Mario-Luigi matchup. They play on BF.
• Mario wins Game 1. Mario switches to Sonic for Game 2. Sonic has a positive matchup against Luigi on FD and SV, so the remaining stages from Game 1's FLSS are not neutral for Sonic-Luigi.

This is my concern with getting all stages for the set in Game 1: as characters are picked before striking stages in Game 1, there is a risk of lopsided matchups due to character switches in Games 2+ as the stages are set already.

 

[NickRiddle]

@ Nintendrone I know that's a possibility, I just thought that my method would be used since EVO is being very strict on time.
I don't know if I'm correct, it's just what my understanding of FLSSing was.

 

[Hb2]

So, no one really knows what is the exact method that will be used at Evo? I guess FLSSing for game 1 and 2 stages ban + counterpicking for game 2+ seems to be more likely than just FLSS for every single game. We should really get Mr. Wizard to explain this.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I've never seen FLSS proposed as anything other than a purely game 1 procedure. Game 2+ should have standard counterpick procedure.

 

[Raijinken]

I've never seen FLSS proposed as anything other than a purely game 1 procedure. Game 2+ should have standard counterpick procedure.

That's probably because with FLSS, it's only different in stage 1. Stage 2 and 3 are meant to be slightly tipped towards the previous loser. In this way, it becomes a matter of giving them the chance to somewhat counter-pick in the standard sense of the word.

 

[Nintendrone]

@ NickRiddle That would make lots of sense, as doing a single FLSS would greatly shorten the inter-match time while still having an acceptable level of fairness.

This leads back to the question: What exactly is EVO doing with FLSS? They need to clarify asap. TOs should also try to agree on a uniform process for FLSS, as I can see it becoming the norm in the future, and a lack of clarity would be cumbersome.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I agree with those saying that a single list of legal stages just makes more sense than distinguishing between starter and counterpick stages. Why not let the two players decide which stage is the most "neutral" one for them?

Only drawback I can think of is that sometimes it's kind of a hassle to keep track of the stages to strike the longer the stage list gets, heh.

After actually seeing FLSS used, I'm reversing my opinion, and it's indeed due to the extra time needed per match.

In theory, FLSS is the most "fair" method for stage selection. In practice, though, it tends to lead to one of these outcomes:

- a significant amount of wasted time as people have to keep track of extra stages to strike
- "...You wanna just play on Smashville?" "Okay."

I'd probably put my vote behind a 5-starter system instead, regardless of what stages are chosen to be in the starter list.

 

[NickRiddle]

I honestly hate the way that FLSS is being implemented...
I always thought it was the way I had originally described, which wouldn't take any more time while still giving the "most fair and balanced set".

 

[The_Jiggernaut]

Why isn't anyone discussing 9 starters as a compromise between 5 starters and FLSS? Assuming the "Full List" is closer to 13 than it is to 9, of course. If people think FLSS is too long and 5 stages is unfair, why is this option unavailable to bridge the gap?

 

[Jaxas]

Why isn't anyone discussing 9 starters as a compromise between 5 starters and FLSS? Assuming the "Full List" is closer to 13 than it is to 9, of course. If people think FLSS is too long and 5 stages is unfair, why is this option unavailable to bridge the gap?

9 Starters works really well, mostly because it takes only 2 rounds (3 for the 1st striker: 1-2-2-2-1) of striking to reach the final stage so it's still reasonably fast.

There's also the fact that a lot of people don't like at least 1 of the stages on the 13-stage list (particularly Pokemon Stadium 2; I don't have a problem with it really but I know a lot of people do) so it's more likely to actually happen.

I honestly hate the way that FLSS is being implemented...
I always thought it was the way I had originally described, which wouldn't take any more time while still giving the "most fair and balanced set".

You thought it was "Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.", right?

It's an interesting idea, and I'd be interested in trying it sometime. There are a few issues with it though:
- It assumes you have an idea of who your opponent plays already; what if you don't? What if they're a new player to your region, you're not in your home region, they're entering under a new tag, etc?
- How would counterpicking work; would you just 'random' between the 3/5 stages? Would you play game 1 on one of the stages (striking down to it), then the loser gets to CP to one of the other 2/4 stages?

Basically, could you explain it further?

 

[NickRiddle]

You thought it was "Strike to 3 stages, (or 5 in finals) and only use those 3 during the set.", right?

It's an interesting idea, and I'd be interested in trying it sometime. There are a few issues with it though:
- It assumes you have an idea of who your opponent plays already; what if you don't? What if they're a new player to your region, you're not in your home region, they're entering under a new tag, etc?
- How would counterpicking work; would you just 'random' between the 3/5 stages? Would you play game 1 on one of the stages (striking down to it), then the loser gets to CP to one of the other 2/4 stages?

Basically, could you explain it further?

1. It would encourage newer players to do research on the people in their region in order to obtain information to help their FLSS.
2. You at least have a little bit of information as character/custom picks would be before the FLSS.
3. You would strike down to 1 stage for the first game, then you can CP the other 2/4 stages.
4. It would soften the effects of hard character CPs, assuming you're striking for your main. If you notice your opponent is going towards specific stages, you can learn if they have any CP characters. (example: The opponent is playing planking Villager. He isn't striking Castle Siege, so you can assume they have a strong CP for that stage so YOU strike it, etc. Mindgames before G1)

 

[DavemanCozy]

Tournaments ran by Blacktwins Ontario will start using Option 2 this summer.

Starters:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise
Town & City
Smashville

I'm not entirely sure in the CP list, I know all the Apex stages are in the list but I'm unsure if the others will be considered.

 

[Ulevo]

1. It would encourage newer players to do research on the people in their region in order to obtain information to help their FLSS.
2. You at least have a little bit of information as character/custom picks would be before the FLSS.
3. You would strike down to 1 stage for the first game, then you can CP the other 2/4 stages.
4. It would soften the effects of hard character CPs, assuming you're striking for your main. If you notice your opponent is going towards specific stages, you can learn if they have any CP characters. (example: The opponent is playing planking Villager. He isn't striking Castle Siege, so you can assume they have a strong CP for that stage so YOU strike it, etc. Mindgames before G1)

The problem with this is it leaves very little room for adaptation mid match should you decide on the fly to bring out a pocket pick that does not have the same preferable stages as your main character. #1 should not be a reason to support this. It would be nice if players do their homework, but you shouldn't be basing policy around it. Not to mention that no amount of research is going to privy you to know what every player is using, including reputable players with more exposure. This to me is not more balanced than the traditional FLSS.

 

[Jaxas]

1. It would encourage newer players to do research on the people in their region in order to obtain information to help their FLSS.
2. You at least have a little bit of information as character/custom picks would be before the FLSS.
3. You would strike down to 1 stage for the first game, then you can CP the other 2/4 stages.
4. It would soften the effects of hard character CPs, assuming you're striking for your main. If you notice your opponent is going towards specific stages, you can learn if they have any CP characters. (example: The opponent is playing planking Villager. He isn't striking Castle Siege, so you can assume they have a strong CP for that stage so YOU strike it, etc. Mindgames before G1)

What are the advantages of this system over standard FLSS? You're still striking down to 1 stage for game 1, so it's just adding limitations from there.
This could be argued to makes the playing field more even throughout the set, but then the ability to switch characters basically removes that advantage.

 

[NickRiddle]

Specifically for EVO, FLSS will take much more time than a standard 3/5 starter stage list, and EVO seems to be all about time management.

 

[Ulevo]

I agree that it would take less time, but how much time is too much? I mean, if you wanted to, you could instate a rule that says you have 60 seconds after choosing your character to conclude the first round of stage strikes. This would prompt people to go quicker during selection.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Specifically for EVO, FLSS will take much more time than a standard 3/5 starter stage list, and EVO seems to be all about time management.

EVO also specifies a maximum of 60 seconds between games, with the penalty being a loss for that game. (Although how they plan to figure out which player is at fault is beyond me...)