Stage Counterpicking Change Proposal

[fkacyan]

Let's assume a neutral is even, and a CP is +1 in your favor (-1 in your opponent's case).

With the current system, the winner of match one has to win on a neutral and a CP, giving him a net score of +1. The loser of M1 has to win on his CP and his opponent's, making his score 0. The loser of M1 has theoretically lost the set.

I'm not sure there's a system to truly balance this, to be quite frank.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Allow one of the players pick the first stage.
The other player will pick the second one.
The last match should be played on a neutral.

Pretty the same, but less favorable on the third match.
Any thoughs?

 

[Raziek]

Allow one of the players pick the first stage.
The other player will pick the second one.
The last match should be played on a neutral.

Pretty the same, but less favorable on the third match.
Any thoughs?

This changes essentially nothing. All it does is shift the weight to Game 3, which extends sets un-necessarily, assuming both characters win their counter-picks. It addresses the "too much weight in Game 1" problem, but it doesn't fix the real issue.

I'm with Thio on this one, I don't think there is really a way to make it so that things are weighted evenly. And, I think there current system does a fine job, barring the fact that Mk breaks it and conservative stage lists make Game 1 favor ICs, Diddy, Falco, etc. excessively. I think the current system with 9-starters is probably best for now.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

There are a lot of good points in this thread. Primarily, I concede that in my proposed system, the points weren't reached via equal means. However, that is sort of the point to the CP system in the first place: we give an advantage to the losing player, because he lost and needs a leg up. This sort of exposes the CP system as faulty all together. It worked in melee, but in brawl, there are stages that blatantly invalidate large portions of the cast and these stages are legal.

Idunno that the CP system was ever intended to be an outright handicap for someone because they weren't good enough to win game 1. Was it?

I think people are forgetting that the proposed system isn't taking away a counterpick from the winner of match 1; it's never awarding a counterpick to the winner of match one. That's an important difference.

That's not really a difference at all besides meaningless semantics.

No one has a "right" to a counterpick, here. Player 1 (in the above scenario) isn't getting screwed, because something wasn't taken away from him... he simply never had it in the first place!

Well apparently you have a right to a counterpick if you lose on a neutral. You just don't have it if you lose on a counterpick.
I'm still trying to figure out how that works. It's kind of hurting my head.

Let's assume a neutral is even, and a CP is +1 in your favor (-1 in your opponent's case).

With the current system, the winner of match one has to win on a neutral and a CP, giving him a net score of +1. The loser of M1 has to win on his CP and his opponent's, making his score 0. The loser of M1 has theoretically lost the set.

He lost match one fair and square. Why should we be overcompensating him so hard for losing?

 

[fkacyan]

He lost match one fair and square. Why should we be overcompensating him so hard for losing?

The assumption is that both players are equally skilled going into a match, and the purpose of the set is to determine who is actually more skilled.

If you feel that M1 determines who is actually the better player to the degree that he should be at a disadvantage for the rest of the set, why bother having M2 and M3?

 

[Raziek]

The assumption is that both players are equally skilled going into a match, and the purpose of the set is to determine who is actually more skilled.

If you feel that M1 determines who is actually the better player to the degree that he should be at a disadvantage for the rest of the set, why bother having M2 and M3?

Probably because it's impossible to determine who is actually more skilled in 3 games, unless it's painfully obvious.

However, we don't have time to run 50 games per set just to see who has the better average in the long run.

Yes, there is a flaw in that Game 1 carries more weight than it should, but I don't see any other way of doing it that doesn't penalize someone unfairly.

If you win Game 1, you earned your advantage.

 

[Jack Kieser]

How about no counterpicking? There, problem solved. Match one is done by Stage Striking, and matches 2 and 3 are done randomly from all stages not banned.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Banning Japes isn't warranted just because it's an extremely strong pick for Falco, that's the whole point of a counter-pick. This kind of banning methodry turns slippery slope in a hurry, and before long, you have only a small handful of stages left. (And even then, it won't be neutral across the cast)

We're using the Melee rule set for the most part, so I think a Melee comparison is appropriate here (whereas I'd usually not): In most tournaments nowadays, Mute City is banned because it so strongly favors Peach.

This example is largely irrelevant though, because the SBR's stance on stage bans is classically (perhaps even officially, not really sure) the following:

1. Random or gimmicky (WarioWare, as an example) elements that disrupt normal gameplay
2. Favors one character in a profoundly more quantifiable way than the rest of the cast (usually "unbeatable strategies" fall into this category)
3. Community just doesn't like it, even though it doesn't really fall into either of the above categories

Because it's restricting the game to the point of being boring and flavorless. We can't destroy what makes Brawl unique as a fighter, just to balance it. It's excessive alteration, much akin to why we haven't put in a whole crap ton of ridiculous rules, just to keep MK on par with the rest of the cast.

So? You could make the same argument for countless things, and it's still irrelevant. Flavor and variety don't matter or Meta Knight would have been banned ages ago. (Probably asking for it, making this comparison but my point stands).

I think people are forgetting that the proposed system isn't taking away a counterpick from the winner of match 1; it's never awarding a counterpick to the winner of match one. That's an important difference. No one has a "right" to a counterpick, here. Player 1 (in the above scenario) isn't getting screwed, because something wasn't taken away from him... he simply never had it in the first place!

This is also true. Just because in the current system both players are awarded the opportunity for a counterpick doesn't mean it is the fairest system. Also, just because one player plays on a neutral and one is allowed a CP stage, does not make the system less fair or balanced. This is a perception issue, one that is largely a losing battle, Jack.

How about no counterpicking? There, problem solved. Match one is done by Stage Striking, and matches 2 and 3 are done randomly from all stages not banned.

Then why have counterpick ("non-starter") stages at all? The point is that these matches offer advantages to a player who has lost the previous match. If we were to do things this way then removing counterpick stages all together is the more obvious approach.

 

[Raziek]

So? You could make the same argument for countless things, and it's still irrelevant. Flavor and variety don't matter or Meta Knight would have been banned ages ago. (Probably asking for it, making this comparison but my point stands).

You're sort of missing what I meant. MK isn't removed because he was here to begin with. Introducing a counter-picking system with only two or three stages is heavily against the status quo, and having multiple, unique stages that influence the match is a huge part of what makes Brawl, Brawl.

I don't really care how you want to look at it, but I'm reasonably certain that most people would object to removing a system that improves the game, and makes it unique. No other fighter has a counter-picking system like Brawl. If we only have 2 or 3 stages, it just gets closer and closer to being Street Fighter with gimping.

This is also true. Just because in the current system both players are awarded the opportunity for a counterpick doesn't mean it is the fairest system. Also, just because one player plays on a neutral and one is allowed a CP stage, does not make the system less fair or balanced. This is a perception issue, one that is largely a losing battle, Jack.

Umm, having one get a neutral, and the other get a CP is SIGNIFICANTLY less fair to the winner. How many times do we have to say this? Overall, it might be slightly more balanced, but nobody should be punished for winning Game 1 and being better than their opponent. Stop babying these people just because they lose Game 1.

How about no counterpicking? There, problem solved. Match one is done by Stage Striking, and matches 2 and 3 are done randomly from all stages not banned.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Removing counter-picking officially neuters yet another element of competitive Brawl just because the current system places too much weight in Game 1. It's not even that unbalanced, it just means winning Game 1 is important.

There's almost no conceivable means by which we can completely put both players on equal footing, with equal weight in all games, WITHOUT destroying the system, or favoring one player more than the other.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm being serious. Why do we counterpick? Does anyone know this?

People keep saying that players have a "right" to a counterpick if we lose, and that we can't just help one player by giving him a CP and not the other... but WHY do we do this at all? We are unfairly giving one player an advantage just because he lost. Everyone keeps whining about fairness, but the fact of the matter is that in the current system we give losers an advantage. We offset wins.

Why do we do this?

If player 1 wins match one, yay, move on to match 2. Why does his opponent get an unfair advantage in match 2 because he lost? No one can explain this, so far.

Why? Answers, plox.

 

[Raziek]

I'm being serious. Why do we counterpick? Does anyone know this?

People keep saying that players have a "right" to a counterpick if we lose, and that we can't just help one player by giving him a CP and not the other... but WHY do we do this at all? We are unfairly giving one player an advantage just because he lost. Everyone keeps whining about fairness, but the fact of the matter is that in the current system we give losers an advantage. We offset wins.

Why do we do this?

If player 1 wins match one, yay, move on to match 2. Why does his opponent get an unfair advantage in match 2 because he lost? No one can explain this, so far.

Why? Answers, plox.

I suppose the simplest answer is because it's the way it's always been. It's a unique system that is worth using, but it isn't perfect.

I understand your point, but I find it difficult to accept completely uprooting a system that has been doing its job just fine (but not perfect), for a long time. Either balance it without completely destroying it, or leave it alone. You're sucking a load of strategy out of the game if you remove players' ability to counter-pick their opponent to a stage that they are uncomfortable on.

You're taking all the strategy out of the game, just because the system SLIGHTLY favors the person who wins Game 1. It's an advantage that they EARNED.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I actually agree with Jack a lot. This removes the weight from match 1 and I can't think of a good answer to his question, haha.

 

[Raziek]

I actually agree with Jack a lot. This removes the weight from match 1 and I can't think of a good answer to his question, haha.

He wants to do match 2 and 3 RANDOMLY.

How is that fair AT ALL?

I mean, yeah, it's technically equally fair to both players, but nobody is going to want to leave things up to luck. You can bet people would be *****ing like crazy if they got screwed by random. Not to mention, the random function in game is flawed. It cycles through all available stages once before it will pick a stage that has already been used, again.

This means you'd have to do it on paper, which is tainted by personal bias, or you'd have to create an auxillary program to randomize it. (which even then, is still tainted by the fact that you cannot have a truly random seed, it would be at best pseudo-random)

bad plan is bad.

 

[san.]

Quote from a user named firestorm like 2 years ago that I agree with

"It makes for more character variety, offers more flexibility for players, and is more familiar to the community. It also maintains that stage is an important factor in the game and lets players use their knowledge of the game's stages to adjust as required."

Because of brawl's unique stages, shouldn't it be logical to utilize this important element of the game? Advantages/disadvantages due to stages are almost as powerful as inherent character advantages/disadvantages.

I only see a solution with removing the weight of match 1 is by making all 3 matches identical (all stages, strike system) or some BS like that. I feel that bringing up these almost rhetorical questions isn't going to bring this discussion anywhere, though.

Instead of removing the weight of match 1, I feel that match 1 should try to be held under conditions where the match could be played as balanced/fair as possible while providing as much stage diversity as possible.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I suppose the simplest answer is because it's the way it's always been.

I know you know this, but it needs to be said: that's a bad reason.

It's a unique system that is worth using, but it isn't perfect.

Underlined portion needs justifications. If it unbalances matches arbitrarily and has statistical flaws, why is it worth using, again?

I understand your point, but I find it difficult to accept completely uprooting a system that has been doing its job just fine (but not perfect), for a long time.

Here's the problem: it hasn't been doing the job fine, we just hadn't realized it was doing it poorly. The CP system working fine has been an illusion because we just never looked closely enough to realize how much weight it was putting on Match 1. Now that people are looking at it closely, we're seeing the imbalance.

Either balance it without completely destroying it, or leave it alone. You're sucking a load of strategy out of the game if you remove players' ability to counter-pick their opponent to a stage that they are uncomfortable on.

First of all, MK. We haven't had a legitimate CP system in over a year because the best character in the game invalidates it. Essentially, we have a broken system because of legacy, and it isn't even useful at the highest level of play (right now)!

You're taking all the strategy out of the game, just because the system SLIGHTLY favors the person who wins Game 1. It's an advantage that they EARNED.

Oh, they earned an advantage alright. The question is, have they earned that strong of an advantage? And, even so, how has player 2 earned his CP through losing a match?

EDIT: I'm heading out to College Station, TX for a friend's 21st, so... I'm going to be drunk for 2 days. I'll see about posting again on Sunday. Have fun debating, guys!

 

[T-block]

I thought it was pretty obvious we have CP'ing as a way to choose the next stage. Since the stage actually matters in this game, the choice of stage for the next game has to be made somehow, so why not let the loser choose? With that thought, maybe there are better ways of choosing the next stage (randomly is not one of them though).

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Idea:

Why not perform the stage striking procedure every match, but with each legal stage? This way, theoretically, each match in a set would be played on the fairest possible (in other words, both parties hate the stage the least) stage. There are multiple benefits to this (including the need to ban less stages). Procedure

1. Higher seeded player strikes first in the first game
2. Last played stage in a set is automatically struck before players can strike
3. Loser of last played game strikes first, as a small (significant but not incredible) consolation.

 

[san.]

Rise: I suggested something similar 3 posts up. It seems alright, but I'm not sure how much stage variety we'll be seeing with such a setup.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Honestly, why do people care about stage variety?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Rise: I suggested something similar 3 posts up. It seems alright, but I'm not sure how much stage variety we'll be seeing with such a setup.

Well, it depends on how important to us stage variety is (I don't really care for it, beyond us having at least 4-5 stages to play on), but this isn't necessarily entirely true; some characters don't even like neutrals (Link and Ganon both love Norfair, so in a world where that stage wasn't banned, a Link and Ganon main might not ban it ever and you'd have a match there).

 

[Ussi]

the CP system is fine when people have 2ndaries, it promoted using multiple characters to cover bad stages. Though MK kinda nullifies the point now cause he has no bad stages so the best you can CP him to is a neutral he does the least **** against your character.

EDIT: After thinking, i want to try this out if people want to throw game one out on me, go ahead, i'll win the neutral on game 3.

 

[fkacyan]

Honestly, why do people care about stage variety?

Why do people care about character variety? Why do people care about any type of variety?

Seeing the same thing over and over is not fun or enjoyable to them, and thus they try to induce variety into their situations.

I think a lot of people are confusing their personal need for variety with the need for a better competitive nature within the game.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Why do people care about character variety? Why do people care about any type of variety?

Seeing the same thing over and over is not fun or enjoyable to them, and thus they try to induce variety into their situations.

I think a lot of people are confusing their personal need for variety with the need for a better competitive nature within the game.

Well, in my opinion, more characters can mean more competition. More stages, I don't think so because no one is playing a stage, they are playing on or within a stage and both players are.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

people don't always win on their CP. /thread

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason the CP system exists partially to encourage actually being good at the game by telling players "You learn how to use your character on any stage your opponent could reasonably take you to"?

 

[DMG]

The current CP system would be fine if it weren't for the sheer amount of hard CP's you can come up with against most of the cast.

As for this system, it becomes less attractive the longer the set is. 3/5 or 4/7 doesn't look good. In a 3/5, I can purposefully lose the first game to get a CP, then third game lose to get another CP, and then I just have to win on the next neutral that IS affected by the stages I previously lost on. So say that I did bad on FD and Battlefield. The opponent cannot pick those two stages, he has to end up striking them (assuming you are playing with 5 neutrals). Now you get to strike whatever 2 stages you want, and effectively this is like a third CP for you. You get to select for yourself the Neutral you want to play on.

So, Win on 3 CP's, or win on 3 neutrals with the last one potentially being the other guy's CP essentially? The easier one is to just forfeit the neutral games and get your CP.

 

[Reinhart_x]

people don't always win on their CP. /thread

QFT. Look, I'm not arguing for or against the current system nor this proposed one, but what kind of logic does it take to say "Oh, I will forfeit game one every time, there is no reason to even play it." Last I checked, just because you get to play on your counterpick doesn't mean you insta-win. Plus (this applies to both systems), if you win game one you still get the advantage of ultimately picking the stage AND picking your character after your opponent. Please give me a free win in game one, I will take it every time in either of these systems.

 

[DMG]

Maybe this has been answered, but for a longer set what happens if the person loses game 1 and 2? If they CP and win game 3, do they CP again? Or does the opponent get to CP them?

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

tl;dr: Liberal stage lists are ******** in Brawl.

 

[Raziek]

Idea:

Why not perform the stage striking procedure every match, but with each legal stage? This way, theoretically, each match in a set would be played on the fairest possible (in other words, both parties hate the stage the least) stage. There are multiple benefits to this (including the need to ban less stages). Procedure

1. Higher seeded player strikes first in the first game
2. Last played stage in a set is automatically struck before players can strike
3. Loser of last played game strikes first, as a small (significant but not incredible) consolation.

This has been addressed a few times, but this kind of a system is basically ruined by MK.

Really guys, the proposed system works fine, but I guarantee that without a series of preposterously specific rules, MK will break pretty much any system we can come up with.

 

[ぱみゅ]

This is not an antiMK thread, but we're looking for fairness on the CP.

Anyways, the more I think of it, the more I end up with the same answer: if player A won on the neutral stage, what's the problem of A having the lead for the last match?

 

[Raziek]

This is not an antiMK thread, but we're looking for fairness on the CP.

Anyways, the more I think of it, the more I end up with the same answer: if player A won on the neutral stage, what's the problem of A having the lead for the last match?

There really isn't much of a problem, which is what I've been trying to say. I don't see any way to feasibly take the wait out of Game 1 without moving it to a different game, or giving an unfair advantage to one of the players.

 

[hankydysplasia]

I don't see any way to feasibly take the wait out of Game 1 without moving it to a different game, or giving an unfair advantage to one of the players.

You could start "counterpicking" based on rank or the flip of a coin. (More like just "picking" in that first game.) Last game of the set has to be played on a neutral via a strike system. Loser getting the counterpicks every time.

Fun thing is... it might add more strategy to the picking system. You run the risk of picking a neutral that you can't end up using later in that last match effectively neutering yourself. Or, if the Smash minds deem it better, you could have a fresh system at the end with all levels selectable even if you have won on one of them.

However, as everyone has said, it doesn't mean a thing unless a certain character that overcentralized this discussion is taken out.

I haven't thought this through but seems plausible.

 

[T-block]

Who cares if MK "breaks" whatever stage system we come up with? Why should we implement a selection system specifically to hurt MK? He's a great character, and the fact that he does very well on most stages is a part of that. Let's not let individual characters influence us too much - create a selection system first; then see how individual characters fare in it.

 

[Raziek]

Who cares if MK "breaks" whatever stage system we come up with? Why should we implement a selection system specifically to hurt MK? He's a great character, and the fact that he does very well on most stages is a part of that. Let's not let individual characters influence us too much - create a selection system first; then see how individual characters fare in it.

My point is there's not a whole lot of point in revamping the system if it's still going to be super easy to abuse as MK. I'm open to ideas, however.

 

[Tommy_G]

Jungle Japes is banned in my region because Falco is too good on it...however Green greens, Rainbow Cruise, and Brinstar are still legal.....why?

I say we play on MLG's neutrals with everything else banned.

 

[Raziek]

Jungle Japes is banned in my region because Falco is too good on it...however Green greens, Rainbow Cruise, and Brinstar are still legal.....why?

I say we play on MLG's neutrals with everything else banned.

I agree with the hilarity of your first statement, but I disagree with your suggestion.

 

[Tommy_G]

I agree with the hilarity of your first statement, but I disagree with your suggestion.

I say more than my first suggestion: Let the BBR create more legal stages in the Stage creator to be accepted at tournaments as legal stages. I have no doubt in my mind that there are stages than can be created that aren't as stupid as some of the tournament legal stages we have now and to prove that: we could probably make a Green greens with no apples, wind, or blocks.

 

[ぱみゅ]

BBR seems to be fine with the current system (but, not satisfied at all).
In any case, doesn't matter if their skill is very close and they must define the match "fair" situation.
Only one of them must win anyways...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I say more than my first suggestion: Let the BBR create more legal stages in the Stage creator to be accepted at tournaments as legal stages. I have no doubt in my mind that there are stages than can be created that aren't as stupid as some of the tournament legal stages we have now and to prove that: we could probably make a Green greens with no apples, wind, or blocks.

This is a really good idea. No, really.

In fact, I could probably pull up a few of my custom stages in a while that I've been using with moderate success (as in, they're fun to play on and seem more or less balanced). They're mostly quite simple (you can't do much interesting stuff with the stage builder parts and still keep a well-balanced stage), but still improvements (for example: an FD clone with a big fat dip in the middle to help people who get camped hard).