Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I've got some experience with the demo and a day of playing on the japanese full version and the additions to Smash 4 make our previous tournament standard look a bit antiquated. Smash 4 has a lot of janky stages, even by my standards. If I look at a stage and go "sheesh" prior to playing on it, you know it is bad.
Smash 4 on 3DS results in a 1:1 setup to player ratio.
Smash 4 has custom equipment, custom moves, and an "FD" version of every single stage. This presents us with magnified version of a problem that typically only occurred in the later years of a game's lifespan: stage saturation. For balance purposes, we'd need to only allow X number of FDs in some capacity (starter list, counter, etc.) or else we'll have a metagame determined solely by how good you are on FD. I'm not really the kind of guy who likes to let Sakurai determine how we're going to play competitively.
So before we all get a ton of experience (and thus, personal bias) I thought it'd be a good idea to toss out some alternative approaches to running tournaments in the first place. I'll bring up a few main points and we can go from there.
Dave's Stupid Rule
Dave's stupid rule has always been a good one. It is a balancing rule (ICs can't take you back to FD multiple times) as well as a spectator one (no one likes seeing the same stage over and over).
In Smash 4, we not only have multiple versions of FD (making DSR valid only for stage types that aren't FD), but we also have a limited stage list. If we have something like 9 stages available and your character is only good on 3 of them, in a best of 5 with one ban you could find yourself playing on both your good stages and being forced to CP to a place you're bad at on the 5th game.
The solution is going to need to be tailored to whatever stage list we end up adopting (both liberal and conservative versions), but it might be that our stage system simply needs to change.
Set Stage Order
A common theme in other competitive games is that the stages are set for you prior to the tournament. Round 1 is stage X, Round 2 is stage Y, etc., etc.
It may be that, rather than using stage striking, it could be beneficial to simply say "Round 1 is Battlefield, Round 2 is Pictochat FD, Round 3 is Rainbow Road, Round 4 is Yoshi's," etc., etc.
This could change from tournament to tournament and be set up in advance. This would allow players to learn in advance what stages would be played first round.
Stage striking was meant as a superior replacement to Random. Random in Melee often resulted in characters getting destroyed first round due to getting a poor stage -- Falcon on FoD, Jiggs getting Dreamland against a frustrated Marth, etc., etc.
Stage striking only works with a balanced selection of stages. The history of Brawl showed that people are really really bad at this. They make the starters "battlefield, Smashville, FD" and essentially give a CP first round to certain characters first round of EVERY set! That's a huge advantage.
In Smash 4 it may not be possible to have a stage striking list that is actually acceptable, balance-wise. Stage Striking is the best method when you have that list, but what if we can't create one that is balanced?
The solution I'd propose to that would be "set stage order". This would make certain rounds harder or easier for your character, but it could be planned in advance.
The biggest disadvantage to this is that it has the same problem "random" did -- if you're a solo main or have one matchup that you hate on one stage in particular, you might arbitrarily get that.
To do this would be to openly say to players "If you only play one character, you suffer the consequences of your stage choice".
I'd prefer stage striking with a balanced list, but a set stage order might be both faster and more competitive given the strong overlap in stage selection.
The FD problem: Random FD / limit one FD / select FDs legal
You can do random FD mode. It may be that rather than selecting certain FD modes that are legal (one with wall, one without, etc., etc.) we simply say "FD choices must be random, all FD variants are considered the same stage as FD".
Alternatively, we can allow only one FD per set. But if you prefer no walls and I prefer walls, you can CP FD and then take away my CP in the process. That's lame.
We can make "select FDs legal" and simply say "one of each", but there's 6 types. That's 6 FDs!
We could make one FD legal and simply say "This is the only FD variant you can play on, period"
We could make ALL the FDs legal, but this results in the game being primarily FD.
The best solution I can think of is "each player may only counterpick to one FD per set" and simply allow them to pick whatever FD variant they want. If player 1 wants to pick FD as his CP, he can. If player 2 wants to pick FD with walls as his CP after that, he can. If they wanted to strike to vanilla FD for game one, they can.
Bracket is no longer necessary- Round Robin/Pools/Swiss
With Smash 4 3DS, you don't need to make a bracket anymore. You have 1:1 setup to player ratio. If a player is done with his match, he can play his match. It's really really convenient.
The reason we do bracket is because it's fast. It's sloppy, but it is fast.
With 1:1 setup to player ratio we can do things like:
Round Robin - everyone plays everyone. This is the best format bar none, but takes a long time. Not feasible with 100+ entrants!
Pools Only - Do select pools, top X move on, repeat until final pool to determine winners and payout. This has the disadvantage of no finals, but you get way more matchups and it's faster than bracket with limited setups (which Wii U will have). I've used this one extensively and it's always been a pretty big hit. If someone is super into finals you can always make the top 2 players have a final match, but we've always seen the last pool to be basically nothing BUT finals. No one has ever complained about the lack of finals at one of the events themselves.
Swiss format - if you don't know what this is, look it up. It's commonly used in chess. It involves making note of wins, losses, and draws. We don't necessarily need draws. In a nutshell, in round 1 you split the player base into two halves and you have the top half play the bottom half. So with 10 players, seed 1 would play seed 6, seed 2 would play seed 7, etc., etc. From then on you have equals play equals. So 1-0 would play 1-0, 0-1 would play 0-1, then next roudn 2-0 would play 2-0, 1-1 would play 1-1, 0-1 would play 0-1, etc., etc. It's a little complicated to wrap your head around the first time you use it, but it's been used in chess for a reason.
Smash 4 on 3DS results in a 1:1 setup to player ratio.
Smash 4 has custom equipment, custom moves, and an "FD" version of every single stage. This presents us with magnified version of a problem that typically only occurred in the later years of a game's lifespan: stage saturation. For balance purposes, we'd need to only allow X number of FDs in some capacity (starter list, counter, etc.) or else we'll have a metagame determined solely by how good you are on FD. I'm not really the kind of guy who likes to let Sakurai determine how we're going to play competitively.
So before we all get a ton of experience (and thus, personal bias) I thought it'd be a good idea to toss out some alternative approaches to running tournaments in the first place. I'll bring up a few main points and we can go from there.
Dave's Stupid Rule
Dave's stupid rule has always been a good one. It is a balancing rule (ICs can't take you back to FD multiple times) as well as a spectator one (no one likes seeing the same stage over and over).
In Smash 4, we not only have multiple versions of FD (making DSR valid only for stage types that aren't FD), but we also have a limited stage list. If we have something like 9 stages available and your character is only good on 3 of them, in a best of 5 with one ban you could find yourself playing on both your good stages and being forced to CP to a place you're bad at on the 5th game.
The solution is going to need to be tailored to whatever stage list we end up adopting (both liberal and conservative versions), but it might be that our stage system simply needs to change.
Set Stage Order
A common theme in other competitive games is that the stages are set for you prior to the tournament. Round 1 is stage X, Round 2 is stage Y, etc., etc.
It may be that, rather than using stage striking, it could be beneficial to simply say "Round 1 is Battlefield, Round 2 is Pictochat FD, Round 3 is Rainbow Road, Round 4 is Yoshi's," etc., etc.
This could change from tournament to tournament and be set up in advance. This would allow players to learn in advance what stages would be played first round.
Stage striking was meant as a superior replacement to Random. Random in Melee often resulted in characters getting destroyed first round due to getting a poor stage -- Falcon on FoD, Jiggs getting Dreamland against a frustrated Marth, etc., etc.
Stage striking only works with a balanced selection of stages. The history of Brawl showed that people are really really bad at this. They make the starters "battlefield, Smashville, FD" and essentially give a CP first round to certain characters first round of EVERY set! That's a huge advantage.
In Smash 4 it may not be possible to have a stage striking list that is actually acceptable, balance-wise. Stage Striking is the best method when you have that list, but what if we can't create one that is balanced?
The solution I'd propose to that would be "set stage order". This would make certain rounds harder or easier for your character, but it could be planned in advance.
The biggest disadvantage to this is that it has the same problem "random" did -- if you're a solo main or have one matchup that you hate on one stage in particular, you might arbitrarily get that.
To do this would be to openly say to players "If you only play one character, you suffer the consequences of your stage choice".
I'd prefer stage striking with a balanced list, but a set stage order might be both faster and more competitive given the strong overlap in stage selection.
The FD problem: Random FD / limit one FD / select FDs legal
You can do random FD mode. It may be that rather than selecting certain FD modes that are legal (one with wall, one without, etc., etc.) we simply say "FD choices must be random, all FD variants are considered the same stage as FD".
Alternatively, we can allow only one FD per set. But if you prefer no walls and I prefer walls, you can CP FD and then take away my CP in the process. That's lame.
We can make "select FDs legal" and simply say "one of each", but there's 6 types. That's 6 FDs!
We could make one FD legal and simply say "This is the only FD variant you can play on, period"
We could make ALL the FDs legal, but this results in the game being primarily FD.
The best solution I can think of is "each player may only counterpick to one FD per set" and simply allow them to pick whatever FD variant they want. If player 1 wants to pick FD as his CP, he can. If player 2 wants to pick FD with walls as his CP after that, he can. If they wanted to strike to vanilla FD for game one, they can.
Bracket is no longer necessary- Round Robin/Pools/Swiss
With Smash 4 3DS, you don't need to make a bracket anymore. You have 1:1 setup to player ratio. If a player is done with his match, he can play his match. It's really really convenient.
The reason we do bracket is because it's fast. It's sloppy, but it is fast.
With 1:1 setup to player ratio we can do things like:
Round Robin - everyone plays everyone. This is the best format bar none, but takes a long time. Not feasible with 100+ entrants!
Pools Only - Do select pools, top X move on, repeat until final pool to determine winners and payout. This has the disadvantage of no finals, but you get way more matchups and it's faster than bracket with limited setups (which Wii U will have). I've used this one extensively and it's always been a pretty big hit. If someone is super into finals you can always make the top 2 players have a final match, but we've always seen the last pool to be basically nothing BUT finals. No one has ever complained about the lack of finals at one of the events themselves.
Swiss format - if you don't know what this is, look it up. It's commonly used in chess. It involves making note of wins, losses, and draws. We don't necessarily need draws. In a nutshell, in round 1 you split the player base into two halves and you have the top half play the bottom half. So with 10 players, seed 1 would play seed 6, seed 2 would play seed 7, etc., etc. From then on you have equals play equals. So 1-0 would play 1-0, 0-1 would play 0-1, then next roudn 2-0 would play 2-0, 1-1 would play 1-1, 0-1 would play 0-1, etc., etc. It's a little complicated to wrap your head around the first time you use it, but it's been used in chess for a reason.
