Shoopdawooper
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 92
Before we decide on the number of legal stages, or starters or counterpicks or whatever, I think it's very worthwile to look at our stageselection process.
Stagestriking in it's current form isn't built or suited for a larger list of legal stages. So I think a change is in order.
Some proposed changes already are: the Full List Partial Striking (FLiPS) system, stage grouping; where stages are grouped together by similarities such as Triplats etc. , Stage bundling, where you first strike a bundle of stages, then continue striking the stages in that bundle, and even stage morphing.
I think we should aim for the following in choosing a stage selection process:
- Fair stageselection, providing minimal advantage for either player.
- Possibillity to end up playing on any stage deemed legal, to maximize stage variety, and thus character viabillity, for a healthy competitive metagame.
- Minimize hassle and time requirements.
- Minimize player and or TO effort.
I have a few thoughts on how we could improve our stage selection myself. (I'm organizing a tournament the weekend after release) But I'm mostly interested in your opinions.
To start some discussion I'll post my ideas, but keep in mind these aren't perfect solutions or final recomendations in any way.
1) Stage agreeing
2) Choose from 3
Of course there are way more options out there. Perhaps we can start to compile them in one place here. In any case, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Stagestriking in it's current form isn't built or suited for a larger list of legal stages. So I think a change is in order.
Some proposed changes already are: the Full List Partial Striking (FLiPS) system, stage grouping; where stages are grouped together by similarities such as Triplats etc. , Stage bundling, where you first strike a bundle of stages, then continue striking the stages in that bundle, and even stage morphing.
I think we should aim for the following in choosing a stage selection process:
- Fair stageselection, providing minimal advantage for either player.
- Possibillity to end up playing on any stage deemed legal, to maximize stage variety, and thus character viabillity, for a healthy competitive metagame.
- Minimize hassle and time requirements.
- Minimize player and or TO effort.
I have a few thoughts on how we could improve our stage selection myself. (I'm organizing a tournament the weekend after release) But I'm mostly interested in your opinions.
To start some discussion I'll post my ideas, but keep in mind these aren't perfect solutions or final recomendations in any way.
1) Stage agreeing
This one is a very simple change to the current system, but one that I as of yet don't see any downsides to.
No counterpicks or neutral divison required (although could be implemented if desired) But a list of legal stages needs to be agreed upon. For convenience I think this list should be no longer than 15 stages.
1.RPS The winner decides who goes first in listing of their most preferred stage to play the game on.
2. Players alternate listing of their favorite stages, untill a stage is mentioned by both players. This is now the defacto least bad stage both players would be willing to play on, so game 1 is played here.
3. For games 2 and up, players repeat the process, or start from where they left of if they remember. However, now the winner starts listing the stage first.
It's more of a mindset change if anything else, but it carries a few benefits.
Firstly, it speeds up stagestriking by:
- Creating occasional "gentlemen's" where both players agree on a stage on an earlier point in the stage listing, than if they would have done the full stage striking.
- Easing memorization of stages since your favorite stages and their order is likely to remain mostly constant. (Especially now that charcater selection comes after stage selection)
- Stages that have already been mentioned don't need to be mentioned again, given that the players remember them. This is dependent on their memory (or a keeping track system) but it won't harm in any case.
Secondly, it's one of the few systems I've seen that allows for all possible legal stages without giving an unfair advantage to too similar stages. e.g. PS1 and PS2 for instance. As the player always has a choice to play on any of the previously listed stages over any of the similar stages the other player is listing.
Honestly, I don't really see any downsides with this system compared to the current striking system. But it doesn't revolutionize either, and players might have problems remembering the full list of stages if it gets too big.
PROS:
- Faster than stagestriking
- Allows for a large and varied stagelist with unique stages
Cons:
- Requires some memorization
- Still might take a little time
No counterpicks or neutral divison required (although could be implemented if desired) But a list of legal stages needs to be agreed upon. For convenience I think this list should be no longer than 15 stages.
1.RPS The winner decides who goes first in listing of their most preferred stage to play the game on.
2. Players alternate listing of their favorite stages, untill a stage is mentioned by both players. This is now the defacto least bad stage both players would be willing to play on, so game 1 is played here.
3. For games 2 and up, players repeat the process, or start from where they left of if they remember. However, now the winner starts listing the stage first.
It's more of a mindset change if anything else, but it carries a few benefits.
Firstly, it speeds up stagestriking by:
- Creating occasional "gentlemen's" where both players agree on a stage on an earlier point in the stage listing, than if they would have done the full stage striking.
- Easing memorization of stages since your favorite stages and their order is likely to remain mostly constant. (Especially now that charcater selection comes after stage selection)
- Stages that have already been mentioned don't need to be mentioned again, given that the players remember them. This is dependent on their memory (or a keeping track system) but it won't harm in any case.
Secondly, it's one of the few systems I've seen that allows for all possible legal stages without giving an unfair advantage to too similar stages. e.g. PS1 and PS2 for instance. As the player always has a choice to play on any of the previously listed stages over any of the similar stages the other player is listing.
Honestly, I don't really see any downsides with this system compared to the current striking system. But it doesn't revolutionize either, and players might have problems remembering the full list of stages if it gets too big.
PROS:
- Faster than stagestriking
- Allows for a large and varied stagelist with unique stages
Cons:
- Requires some memorization
- Still might take a little time
2) Choose from 3
A neutral and counterpick stagelist need to be agreed upon. No stage on that list may be too similar to another. e.g. PS1 and PS2.
1. RPS for game 1.
2. The winning player chooses 3 stages,
3. The loser of RPS chooses 1 of those, that's where game 1 is played.
For games 2 and up, the same happens, but now the loser of the previous game selects 3 stages, and can also choose from the counterpicks. The winner picks 1.
This has the advantage that at any time, any player only needs to remember 3-4 of his/her favorite stages. And if a choice needs to be made, it's only ever out of 3 options, greatly reducing the unknowns and player (mental effort).
The crux here is really with what amounts to "too similar" of a stage. If there are too many stages available that are very similar, this provides an unfair advantage, as the player selecting the 3 stages can choose 3 very similar stages, making the choice of the other player meaningless. What stages count as too similar needs to be tested.
For similar stages, I can see two options.
1- Pick 1 of them, and that's the only legal version.
2- Group those stages together, and have a further choice as to which stage is selected. e.g. You could group Triplats, then if you select Triplats, FD and PS as your 3 stages, and your opponent chooses Triplats, he then gets to choose between BF/FOD/YS/Dreamland/Midgar.
Option 1 has less stage variety, and loses some perfectly fine stages and their slight differences and peculiarities to indifference. But it is the simplest option.
Option 2 allows for all stages to have a possibillity of being played, but might give too much of an advantage to the player picking the grouped stages, depending on how similar or not they are.
PROS:
- Only need to choose/remember from 3 stages. Simplifying the process.
Cons:
- Depends on proper treatment of similar stages
- If stages are grouped, requires memorization of those grouped stages
- If stages are chucked, lose potentially viable stages
1. RPS for game 1.
2. The winning player chooses 3 stages,
3. The loser of RPS chooses 1 of those, that's where game 1 is played.
For games 2 and up, the same happens, but now the loser of the previous game selects 3 stages, and can also choose from the counterpicks. The winner picks 1.
This has the advantage that at any time, any player only needs to remember 3-4 of his/her favorite stages. And if a choice needs to be made, it's only ever out of 3 options, greatly reducing the unknowns and player (mental effort).
The crux here is really with what amounts to "too similar" of a stage. If there are too many stages available that are very similar, this provides an unfair advantage, as the player selecting the 3 stages can choose 3 very similar stages, making the choice of the other player meaningless. What stages count as too similar needs to be tested.
For similar stages, I can see two options.
1- Pick 1 of them, and that's the only legal version.
2- Group those stages together, and have a further choice as to which stage is selected. e.g. You could group Triplats, then if you select Triplats, FD and PS as your 3 stages, and your opponent chooses Triplats, he then gets to choose between BF/FOD/YS/Dreamland/Midgar.
Option 1 has less stage variety, and loses some perfectly fine stages and their slight differences and peculiarities to indifference. But it is the simplest option.
Option 2 allows for all stages to have a possibillity of being played, but might give too much of an advantage to the player picking the grouped stages, depending on how similar or not they are.
PROS:
- Only need to choose/remember from 3 stages. Simplifying the process.
Cons:
- Depends on proper treatment of similar stages
- If stages are grouped, requires memorization of those grouped stages
- If stages are chucked, lose potentially viable stages
Of course there are way more options out there. Perhaps we can start to compile them in one place here. In any case, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Last edited:
