Balancing Melee Rules - Please give this a read.

[o0silentshadow0o]

Problem:
I think we are familiar with our way of selecting a winner within tournament rules, but recently it has become an issue. Time over time we have seen that Counter-Picking gives a huge advantage for whoever chooses the stage, to the point at which top players such as Mang0, and Leffen comment "at a high level, Counter-Picking a map is almost a guarantee win." The issue that a rises with this is who ever wins game 1, essentially takes the set (since they can counter pick again for game 3 and win); this eliminates the whole point of having multiple games in the first place; in other words if you mess up anything game 1 there is a strict advantage given to your opponent which could be argued is highly unfair.

If you are not understanding what I am saying for either paragraphs, please look at the example bellow.

Solution:
I thought about this for a very long time, I tried many ideas, but all had there issues...... Then I realized a crucial feature of our rule that is Universally excepted as fair, the selection of the first stage. It is simple, effective, and very neutral, so why not apply this to every LAST game of a set. This completely eliminates the issue of having un-fair set's, because even if a player were to win game 1, he/she wouldn't have a strict advantage due to being forced in playing 2 Neutral games, and 1 counter picked, instead of the other way around. This change can be applied any where, including 3 out of 5 and of course 2 out of 3.

How to Apply:
When in the last game, the player who won first match get's to ban the first stage. Pokemon Stadium will be un-banned during the selection, and each player can only ban 1 stage at a time (due to the fact of having an even amount of stages).


Last Thoughts:
Please try to be open minded, I know this is strange, but try to understand how much of a benefit this can be. Also, don't leave ignorant comments; if there is something you notice that doesn't make sense, please just be mature about it and express your thoughts.


Example/Explanation:
Current way of selecting a winner:

Player X: Neutral Pick, takes game 1

Score: 1-0

You: Counter pick, takes game 2

Score: 1-1

Player X: Counter pick, takes 3

Score: 2-1, set over.



Theoretical Way:

Player X: Neutral Pick, takes game 1

Score: 1-0

You: Counter Pick, takes game 2

Score: 1-1

Player X: Neutral Pick, game 3 goes to most skilled player

Score: x-x

 

[pagedMov]

Honestly, the counter-picking system we use right now provides a clear definition of skill between two players. We don't really need to fix what isn't broken.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

Honestly, the counter-picking system we use right now provides a clear definition of skill between two players. We don't really need to fix what isn't broken.

Actually it does not, in all all what it determines is who won game 1 (Assuming both players are equally matched), which eliminates the whole point of having multiple games in the first place. Adding this new way will help to make set's more Neutral.

 

[Massive]

There are no neutral stage picks.

Even a stage as innocuous as Battlefield can become a counterpick if your playstyle isn't conducive to it or there is a matchup knowledge deficit. FD, Yoshis, FoD, and DL are clear counterpicks in a lot of matchup situations.

Part of the skill of this game is understanding how stages interact with yourself and your opponent. Stage choices matter a lot more when players are of roughly equivalent skill and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Finally, think about this: if counterpicks truly were a guaranteed win, we would never, ever see 3-0s happen.

 

[pagedMov]

Actually it does not, in all all what it determines is who won game 1 (Assuming both players are equally matched), which eliminates the whole point having multiple games in the first place. Adding this new way will help to make set's more Neutral.

Not really.
Just look at hbox vs mango at evo 2015. Mango wins game one, but Hbox wins the set. This is one of many examples.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

There are no neutral stage picks.

Even a stage as innocuous as Battlefield can become a counterpick if your playstyle isn't conducive to it or there is a matchup knowledge deficit. FD, Yoshis, FoD, and DL are clear counterpicks in a lot of matchup situations.

Part of the skill of this game is understanding how stages interact with yourself and your opponent. Stage choices matter a lot more when players are of roughly equivalent skill and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Finally, think about this: if counterpicks truly were a guaranteed win, we would never, ever see 3-0s happen.

I understand where you are coming from, but some of the things your saying does not apply to my idea, and the other is not true :/.

Your first paragraph:

Even though what you are saying is true, that does not apply to what I was saying because this idea does not eliminate the need for counter-picking nor is influenced by players preference in stage. In the "Neutral" pick players eliminate stages they don't feel comfortable playing, that's what is was designed for. Also counter-picking will still be in the game, but it will just be limited so players can't counter-pick twice and win.

Second Paragraph:
There is a huge problem with allowing only 1 neutral and 2 counter picks, and this is not only coming from my mouth. Players such as Mang0 and Leffen have commented exactly what I am saying now.

Third Paragraph:
3-0 only happen 2 ways, either there is a clear skill difference, or that player was not playing good at all that day, which happens hence Leffens 6-0 on Mew2king.

Look I am not disagreeing with you when it comes to "lower level" game-play, because this system is fine there, but at the Higher end it becomes a problem.

 

[Kimble]

While I see your point, I think it is a little bold to say that counter pick advantage results in an instant win at the highest of play. As bagedMov said, top 8 at evo this year is a prime example. Stage obviously influences any matchup, but not to the proportion of automatic win. I think at the highest level of play, how the player is performing in the tournament factors in a little bit more than stage, just look at mango at HTC.

 

[GenNyan]

M2K lost on FD vs Leffen so your argument is invalid. Sarcasm aside, this is really a nonissue. And its not like game 1 isn't decided by skill.

 

[Xyzz]

So, the fix is moving the only relevant stage last? Since, apparently winning game1 is nearly irrelevant because the other guy is going to win on his CP anyways, right?

 

[Kadano]

I don’t agree with the idea of forcing playing on the striking stage again. Due to the opponent’s habit and unexpected character choices, you might reconsider the initial stage to be worse than expected.

Bones’ ruleset has the best solution imho, by using the same order for counterpicking as for striking (first character, then stage) which eliminates character and secondary guessing and also replacing the inflexible DSR with alternating stage bans that allow for more freedom and balance for both players, while ensuring every player can avoid what he thinks is the worst stage in a given matchup in a bo3 (and only having to play on that worst stage for one match inbo5).

 

[ECHOnce]

Theoretical Way:

Player X: Neutral Pick, takes game 1

Score: 1-0

You: Counter Pick, takes game 2

Score: 1-1

Player X: Neutral Pick, game 3 goes to most skilled player

Score: x-x

I'm gonna call "Player X" PX and "You" PU.

Scenario 1: PX took game 1 (the neutral pick) definitively. The reason is negligible; either PX simply outplayed PU, PU maybe had unlucky SDs, or PX got a lucky gimp, etc. From here, PU us put at a strong disadvantage, knowing that even if he does win game 2, he'll get counterpicked.

Scenario 2: PX took game 1, but barely – it was a close match, and both players can tell the game could've gone either way, regardless of the unfortunate mishappenings that led up to the close last stocks. For all intents and purposes, we can say the neutral pick did its job by not giving either a major advantage. Neither player has an unfair advantage going forward because they both get the same number of counterpicks.

Note that the two scenarios use the same rules, yet one of them seemed to give an unfair advantage to one player. This is not the fault of the ruleset, but of PU – he simply played worse. Whether he’s just a worse player, got janked out, gimped, SDed, or whatever, he lost the match. That's on him. He may feel like the result was disadvantageous, but that’s not what the ruleset is there for. The ruleset is there to keep the playing field fair for the duration of each match. One side will always win/lose by default, so the results will always be advantageous/disadvantageous, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to decide a victor.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

Alright, since there to many of you to respond separately, I will respond all at once .

I would like to firstly apologize in the response I gave to "pagedMoved," when I said game 1 determines everything, because like I said in my Thread it gives am unfair advantage, not a guarantee win.

Any who, maybe it's my fault, but I feel as if some of you like "Kadano" got the wrong idea of this, so I will explain it in more detail here. This idea I have is not a completely new way of selecting a winner, but instead a slight change in our current one. All the rules remain the same, except for the last game of a set, where both players have to Strike a stage again. What this essentially does is reset the Neutral Picks (Stage Strike) at 2, and counter pick at 1, instead of the other way around. This is a huge deal, because when you have 2 very closely matched players and both are playing well, the stage is the biggest key factor in selecting a winner. We all have our personal preferences where we preform the best, and the worst; so by giving the power to a player in counter picking a stage not once, but twice is a huge disadvantage.

The whole point in creating our system is to ensure a Neutral game, where set's are determined by skill, yet we give a huge gap in power towards the winner, seems counterintuitive :/. Reward for winning, and given dominance are 2 different things, that's what I feel we have yet to realize.

 

[ECHOnce]

Alright, since there to many of you to respond separately, I will respond all at once .

By not responding to us individually, you deny us a response at all. Please read through our responses instead of lumping us together collectively as opposing views to ignore, and then explaining your original idea in more detail. We understood your idea from the beginning, and seek to help you improve upon it by pointing out flaws you must address.

EDIT: No need to respond in depth to every detail, or points that verge too far off-topic without good reason, but if you want us to help out by discussing your proposition, be prepared to at least acknowledge the help we're offering (or answer any new inquiries to better understand).

 

[Kadano]

I do think I misunderstood, however you worded your OP a bit strangely so one has to guess what you mean, really.

So if I get it correctly now, you are saying that the two players will stage strike for the x. game of a set that is played as best of x, and may strike to a different stage than they did for game 1, right?

In that case, are characters selected before the last match’s striking process or afterwards? And how are they chosen, with counterpicking (first previous match winner, then loser), alternating character selection or double blind pick?

 

[pagedMov]

"pagedMoved"

 

[{Lemons}]

As Xyzz pointed out your proposed change only shifts the super important set winning game to the final game of the set. If you really wanted to deal with this problem the only way to properly do it that I can think of is selecting every stage by striking. I am not in favor of this and I can't imagine many would be. Obviously very few stages would end up being played and would require a drastic (imo unneeded) rule change.

 

[Massive]

I think I understand what you're saying more clearly now.

However this point is important:

So, the fix is moving the only relevant stage last? Since, apparently winning game1 is nearly irrelevant because the other guy is going to win on his CP anyways, right?

Extending on the thought, why would you want counterpicks at all if you believe them to be a guaranteed win?

Why not just strike on every match?

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

By not responding to us individually, you deny us a response at all. Please read through our responses instead of lumping us together collectively as opposing views to ignore, and then explaining your original idea in more detail. We understood your idea from the beginning, and seek to help you improve upon it by pointing out flaws you must address.

EDIT: No need to respond in depth to every detail, or points that verge too far off-topic without good reason, but if you want us to help out by discussing your proposition, be prepared to at least acknowledge the help we're offering (or answer any new inquiries to better understand).

I didn't ignore any ones response, why are you being so rude? :/ I read everyone's response and since many of them were similar I decided to respond all together.

Also to your "edit," it's not that I am not prepared to acknowledge what everyone says, I just thought people had the wrong idea.

 

[Xyzz]

You didn't address what I and others suggested. Namely, your fix not solving anything, even if we accepted the premise that counterpicks were too big of an advantage to have significant competition on them.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

I do think I misunderstood, however you worded your OP a bit strangely so one has to guess what you mean, really.

So if I get it correctly now, you are saying that the two players will stage strike for the x. game of a set that is played as best of x, and may strike to a different stage than they did for game 1, right?

In that case, are characters selected before the last match’s striking process or afterwards? And how are they chosen, with counterpicking (first previous match winner, then loser), alternating character selection or double blind pick?

I am very sorry if I explained my self strangely, I can be very weird at explaining lol, but thanks for asking for clarification.

So basically game will be played the same, as well as all the games between the first and the last game (when I say "last game" I mean the game which will determine the set). Once the last game is met the person who won the first game will have to choose his character last, but he gains the slight advantage in Re-Striking the stage first.


Hope this is what you were looking for.

 

[Twinkles]

Awful fix imo, it's completely unfair to the guy who won a game earlier in the set because now he's arbitrarily told he doesn't get a CP advantage in a situation where his opponent did. Striking on every match would be more along the lines of a "fair" solution, but still not good because it eats tournament time and destroys any stage diversity in a set.

Part of the reason for having our limited stage list is so that stages don't just completely destroy MUs one way or the other. There's also the fact that stage picked first means anyone can pull out a different character to change up the MU on any CP stage.

 

[Plunder]

IMO there are FAR FAR FAR more pressing things to change when it comes to tournament match rules. This wouldn't be on my list since I consider the current system the most fair, but if it was it'd be like # 451 on my list.

Really a Bo5 every set and ROUND ROBIN would be the fairest, but "ain't nobody got time for dat" or so the kids tell me.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

I think I understand what you're saying more clearly now.

However this point is important:


Extending on the thought, why would you want counterpicks at all if you believe them to be a guaranteed win?

Why not just strike on every match?

Well I still believe counter picking is a huge part of our system that needs be remained, because help must be given to the loser or else things fall out of balance. But giving to much power as well get's things out of balance, that's why I wanted to create something in between both. Also I don't believe Counter picking is a guarantee win, but instead a very likely win.

Hope I was able to answer your question.

 

[o0silentshadow0o]

You didn't address what I and others suggested. Namely, your fix not solving anything, even if we accepted the premise that counterpicks were too big of an advantage to have significant competition on them.

I don't recall any suggestions, but instead declaimers and your question (which you were asking for specifics, that I attempted to answer later on). The only person I missed when I typed my response above was from "ECHOnce" because if you look at the time difference, I responded 3 minutes after he did. And his comment didn't show up until a little after I sent my answer.

As for you thinking this fix doesn't work, is it okay if you express your thoughts as to why it wouldn't work?

 

[Massive]

I think a lot of the confusion/hostility here is stemming from the idea that this is basically unnecessary.

The existing system gives both players a chance to counterpick a stage if they lose.

Your system only gives the player who loses the first match the ability to counterpick, and then grants them multiple veto ability on the first winner's counter pick choice by stage striking.

If both players were of roughly equal skill, this grants the loser of the first game a substantial advantage. Not only do they get a counterpick, they get to have substantial control over what stage their opponent counterpicks due to striking rules.

 

[Xyzz]

It doesn't put them at a advantage, actually. The winner of the first game is still one game up, and well, CPs aren't autowin after all ;P It is a substantial, unneeded rubber-band mechanic though (:

 

[AscendantAquila]

Maybe I'm wrong but I feel as though if you win Game 1 in a Bo3 set you should be rewarded for doing so rather than this way. Plus IMO having to beat someone 2 games in a row including on a stage they counterpicked you to is what makes Melee so much fun to play. Besides how is it that fair if my opponent gets to CP a stage against me but basically I don't just because I won the first game (I know this has been brought up multiple times I just think it's important to note). Besides in a Bo3 there are stage bans which IMO do a good job for what they are there for.

 

[Massive]

It doesn't put them at a advantage, actually. The winner of the first game is still one game up, and well, CPs aren't autowin after all ;P

I completely agree with you, whoever wins the first game has the clear advantage because they need to win fewer games to take the set.

My intent was to show the logical flaw in the idea the OP had put forward. Assuming his idea of counterpicks generally resulting in wins, the person who gets the real counterpick is at a distinct advantage. Even given the conclusion the OP is putting forward, the situation he is advocating is actually less fair that what we're currently using.

 

[ECHOnce]

I completely agree with you, whoever wins the first game has the clear advantage because they need to win fewer games to take the set.

My intent was to show the logical flaw in the idea the OP had put forward. Assuming his idea of counterpicks generally resulting in wins, the person who gets the real counterpick is at a distinct advantage. Even given the conclusion the OP is putting forward, the situation he is advocating is actually less fair that what we're currently using.

I would actually argue for the opposite. As I tried to explain before (still unanswered), counterpicks give an obvious advantage to one player or the other, which is why each player needs to have the opportunity to use an equal number of them. Results of matches don't matter. Winning a match does not give you any physical advantage going into the next one. The only thing it can yield is a mental boost/downer, but that's not something we can control. It's the opportunities each player is given to win that makes a difference.

Standard Rules:
(A) Win Neutral, Win Counter = Disadvantageous opportunities for a reasonable early win.
(A) Win Neutral, Lose Counter, Win Counter = Neutral opportunities.
(B) Lose Neutral, Win Counter, Win Counter = Neutral opportunities.

Suggested Rule:
(A) Win Neutral, Win Counter = Disadvantageous opportunities.
(A) Win Neutral, Lose Counter, Win Neutral = Disadvantageous opportunities.
(B) Lose Neutral, Win counter, Win Neutral = Advantageous opportunities.

 

[Xyzz]

I completely agree with you, whoever wins the first game has the clear advantage because they need to win fewer games to take the set.

My intent was to show the logical flaw in the idea the OP had put forward. Assuming his idea of counterpicks generally resulting in wins, the person who gets the real counterpick is at a distinct advantage. Even given the conclusion the OP is putting forward, the situation he is advocating is actually less fair that what we're currently using.

Gave up trying to explain that... either they are trolling or aren't following logic. Wasted time in either case :x