Bennigan's Ruleset: A Thought Experiment

[BigglesWorth]

*Warning: Pretty much everything is long paragraphs or lists. TL; DR Everywhere! Don't read, if you don't like reading.*

Intro: ​

Spoiler

This isn't entirely serious. It's merely the result of a thought I had. I wanted to see what a ruleset would look like that encourages the greatest overall skilled player to win; not entirely dependent on counterpicking or the composition of the participants in the bracket. I also thought about how to give Doubles it's own format so to emphasize consistently working as a team being the factor for winning other than just running up a bracket. I wanted to think about a ruleset that creates a "mutually assured destruction" state between players in such a way that the most efficient way for players to win sets is by maximizing the amount of neutral matches they have. I also wanted the most diversity in tournament sets I could think of without compromising the other ideals. Finally (most of all), I wanted these ideas put together to create the most streamlined tournament experience that could be achieved while maintaining all the features. This isn't necessarily a suggestion (I know there's going to be at least one "NO WAY IN HELL" reaction *sigh*. I am not arrogant enough to say that this ruleset accomplishes the previously mentioned goals or that those goals are what the community even really wants in their scene. I am just saying my intent and leaving it up to you to see if you think it accomplishes that. Please, remember this format is completely put together from all parts. If you just don't like one thing, you need to see it as a part of the whole. I am serious. You may say after reading one part, "THIS IS STUPID" and then realize the other format changes make it work. So yeah. Thinking about what a more player skill focused ruleset has given me some interesting perspective: which is why I am sharing it. I hope it is a fruitful venture for someone else. Have fun.

Bennigan's Ruleset​

• Doubles: Modified Mass Swiss of 3/5 matches.
• Singles: RR Pools > Double Elimination Finals Seeded by Modified Score
• All Sets are Flex Sets (2/3 unless a 1-1 situation occurs and it becomes 3/5).
• 4 Stocks. 6 minute timer.
• "BenSR" Bennigan's Stupid Rule: You can not counterpick a stage that has already been played on.
  
• Characters are selected before stage striking and counterpicking.
• Double Blind is allowed at a certain point in the set and allows either player to elicit a third party to hear a each person’s new character selection and then have them repeat the selection (winner first) varifying if that’s the character they chose.
• Gentleman’s Agreement for legal stages is in effect only at one point in the set. Each player may a make a proposal for what stage to play on as a Gentleman’s agreement and the other player must answer a yes or no to the agreement. Each player (or team) only gets one proposal per set so if the both proposals are rejectied, then the set moves directly into striking.
• Neutral Position Start may be called for during before the start of a match between players. A neutral position start is an agreement that until the invincibility of the characters at the start of the match wears off, both players will move to the opposite sides of the stage without attacking each other and not on platforms. If the invincibility has worn off and both characters are facing each other then match starts; otherwise it will automatically start at 5:50 on the countdown timer. The match resumes normally other than the manual change of position.
• Warm ups (or “Hand Warmers”) are only allowed once at the start of the set and must end by the time the timer reaches 5 minutes counting down from 6.
• Communication by a player who is playing a set with anyone other than a TO for greater purposes other than retrieving a needed object, dealing with a physical handicap, or locating tournament faculty is punishable by a match, two stocks, or disqualification at the discretion of the TO. Coaching between sets (not matches) is permissible, but is not an excuse for tardiness.
  
• Late shows for people who do not show up to a called set or pool within 5 minutes are considered forfeits automatically. If both players are present and the starting set match does not start after 10 minutes the set or pool was called, all players are considered forfeiting at the discretion of the TO.
  
• Double Elimination Finals are Seeded (traditional) by Modified Scoring of Pools Matches: 2-0: 6pts, 3-1: 5pts, 3-2: 4 points, 2-3: 2pts, 1:3 1 pt, 0-2: 0 pts.

How sets happen:​

Spoiler

1. Paper, Rock, Scissors
2. Winner chooses the port they wish.
3. Looser places their controller in the port with proper priority.
4. Winner picks character
5. Looser picks character
6. Either player may opt to double blind or propose a Gentlemen’s agreement (only applies once and only happens at this point).
7. Winner strikes First
8. Striking goes 1-2-1 for Melee & 1-2-2-1 for PM
9. After match, match winner is locked (when applicable)
   
10. Match Looser chooses their counterpick character
11. Match Winner uses their bans (3 for PM and 1 for Melee)
12. Mach Looser chooses their stage
13. If the previous match winner looses, ruleset switches to 3 out 5 (In Melee=No more Bans)
14. Whoever won the first 2 matches or wins 3 matches, wins the set.

Melee Specifics​

Spoiler

Bennigan’s Stupid Character Locking (BSCL)

Every participants must register as playing 2 characters for that tournament. A person is locked to those characters for tournament sets (under penalty of forfeiting the match). The winner of a previous match must use their other registered character while the looser of the previous match may choose either of their two characters for their counterpick. This means a player needs to be good with 2 characters in order to do well in tournament.
Bans
There is only one ban and that's by the winner of 1st match to the 1st match looser's counterpick.
Legal Stages

· Battlefield
· Yoshi’s Island
· Final Destination
· Dreamland
· Fountain of Dreams
o Congo Jungle (Doubles Counterpick)

Yes, there is no Pokemon Stadium. Yes, that is intentional. Short answer to stage variety argument: Match variety is more important to this ruleset than stage variety. The idea is that this creates more interesting viable character pairings and greater amount of close to 50/50 matches over all. I may be wrong, but that was the thought process.

Project M 3.02 Specifics​

Spoiler

Bennigan's Adjusted PM Character Locking

The winner of a first game is locked to the character they won with in the first game. The Looser of the first game may choose from any character. After the 2nd match, character locking is no longer in effect for either player.

Bans
The Winner gets 2 bans at any point in the set.

3.02 Tenative Legal Stages
Layout - Top Row: Doubles Counterpicks Middle Row: Singles Counterpicks Bottom Row: Neutrals
· Neutrals
o Distant Planet
o Pokemon Stadium 2
o Battlefield
o Smashville
o Final Destination

· Singles Counterpicks
o Wario Ware Inc.
o Fountain of Dreams
o Dreamland 64
o Dracula’s Castle
o Green Hill Zone

· Doubles Counterpicks
o Yoshi’s Island
o RumbleFalls
o Skyworld
o Lylat Cruise
o Congo Jungle

I wanted Double Stages that really encapsulated the dynamics that Doubles produce. Giving them a separate list of counterpicks entirely differentiates Doubles as its own format even more. There are a lot of stages that would be fairly problematic as singles but make for really interesting double stages and so I really wanted those in there.

Edits:

Spoiler

-Adjusted the rules to account for the extended counterpick advantage in PM. Character Locking only occurs on the 2nd match.
-the DSR has been changed to BenSR: "A stage that has already been played in a set can not be picked again."
-Clarified language in regarding Neutral Starts and Hand Warmers.
-Changed the Stage list to 15 for PM. Considerations for accessibility and quick counterpicking changed the list.
-2 Bans instead of 3 for PM.
-Finally added tardiness and for not starting a match after being called. You have 5 minutes to show and more 5 minutes to start playing. I would think that would be fair.
-Stage changes involving Dreamland 64, Rumble Falls, and Final Destination.

 

[metalmonstar]

BSCL (character locking) sounds a lot like the Madden format. You register your character and then lock in a secondary. I just don't think it fits too well in smash. Smash is about the diversity of characters, stages, and the variables those two bring. When you take that away the game gets a little less exciting. It doesn't seem to offer many advantages either with the exception of viewers having an expectation of what they are going to watch. However with any character based game there is the hype behind the wild card pick.

I don't know how I feel about Doubles. It is good to try to come up with ways to give doubles more of the spotlight. I am just not sure how I feel about the proposed.

 

[BigglesWorth]

"....Smash is about the diversity of characters, stages, and the variables those two bring. When you take that away the game gets a little less exciting. It doesn't seem to offer many advantages either with the exception of viewers having an expectation of what they are going to watch. However with any character based game there is the hype behind the wild card pick."

The idea (I'm not saying it accomplishes it) is there is typically 1-3 matchups that can stop characters from being considered viable for tournaments, depending on the prevalence of those bad matchups. The format would change the meta to make viability seen in terms of pairings. That means Falcon, Luigi, Pikachu, and others could experience a greater representation because they have strong roles in pairings required to win tournaments. So the idea is that there would be more character choices overall in tournaments. And if a mutually assured destruction situation exists as I hoped the rules creates then the first selected character and the according picks would be an overall greater amount of stages/character combinations in a given match in a tournament because they would vary based pairings be optimized to give the maximum number of neutral matchups for each player in that set. So if the rules do what I hoped they would, then that means diversity would be less within a matchup (that is every player x and player y face each other things will happen in z fashion) but there would be a greater diversity of matchups (that is there would more characters represented and different stages/character combinations due to the dyamics of different pairings). As another disadvantage it would reduce to wild card effect within a match (athough there could wild card pairings in the new meta). The main reason why it exists is to force a player to not win because they have a superior established system of character/counterpicks that gives them the edge in a tournament (since if they are already perceived as winning seeding works in their favor) and thus they can assure being paired with people they can counter. Forcing a situation where a person can not ride one character and has maximizing 50/50, 50/45 matchups on the stages chosen be their most effiecient way to win tournaments rather than trying to take advantage of as many 70/30 kind of counterpicks situations means the better player wins for being the better player; not because they set up a good situation for themselves within a tournament scene.

TL: DR version

1) While it would have disadvantage of making things between certain players predictable, it would also mean more character combinations within a set, more representation of different characters overall, and a greater diversity of what characters play each other on what stages because of the different dynamics between different pairings.

2) BSCL does have the disadvantage of leaving a lack of wild card options in a match, but doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility for meta upsets.

3) BSCL is supposed to (though it may not achieve this) make it so skill is the factor of winning by ruling out the exploitation of tournament seeding and counterpick rules to create advantage and the possibility of riding one character.
The idea is that it makes it not about the stages or the characters but the players.

 

[shairn]

If it wasn't about the stages/characters we'd go 20XX all the way and play fox only final destination.
Smart counterpicks are part of being a good player, and so is dealing with them. No CP is a guaranteed win anyway.

 

[DMG]

Character locking is a really bad idea. There's no fair way of applying it to Smash, unless you do it one way:

1. Both players are character locked for the entire set

Every other method is flawed. If you lock in the winner, the loser still has stage advantage and you can actually guarantee stronger CP choices than if the other person could switch. One of the biggest complaints for our current system is that loser gets character and stage together. To balance that out, we let the winner switch. Not letting the winner switch makes CP's even stronger (by a huge degree for the person who won Game 1 too).

If you want to lock the winner in his character, you probably shouldn't allow very many stage choices or disable stage counter picks in favor of just character switches for the loser. Winners are locked in other fighting games because stages have no, to little, impact on gameplay. In Smash, being stuck with a character on a bad stage can basically be a death sentence.

 

[BigglesWorth]

For Melee, the three things put into the system to make the defender's advantage not be overbearing are: 1) The removal of PS. (Which ties in with your suggestion of reducing counterpick stages) since it gave several higher matchups 2 or 3 heavy counterpick stages instead of just say one or two for those characters. Removing it reduces the number heavier go-to counterpicks and ties in to the 2nd part of the system. 2) Counterpicks have to divided between two characters in an essentially 3/5 set. Which means when making a counterpick and winning, you know it won't be available for your match with your other character. The idea being you need to maximize more 50/50 stages overall versus taking a 70/30 stage for a single counterpick also to pick characters in the first game that optimizes those 50/50 options versus an opposing pair of characters. 3) The biggest one is that characters are selected before stages. This means the player can't be surprised. The character matchups is already determined and the winning player gets a ban. They can (like 2/3 tournies) block out the worst or least comfortable stage for that the first counterpick (since they will loose if they loose the first two games). Everything else plays out like a 3/5 match if the looser wins, except that the previous character picks and turn orders create a pedictable series of matches where both maxmized their neutral matchups (hopefully).

I could be wrong. There may be character pairings that create better counterpicking scenarios verses other character pairings. After all, all of this is working off the assumption that 3/5 matches are generally seen as fair and with ban for the 2/0 option it is unlikely a person would be totally screwed from the counterpick. Like say if a Sheik/Falco player was facing a Fox/Jiggs player. It's obvious the sheik/falco player will go sheik first so that if they win they aren't forced to fight jiggs on the counterpick. If falco/shiek player wins the first game, the fox/jiggs has to go against falco and so the fox/jiggs player chooses fox. Now, Falco/shiek player gets a ban to not only suit the matchup to Fox/Falco but also preserve a stage valuable in case the Shiek/Jiggs matchup came up. It the picks should work out so that the majority of stage/character picks feel more even than in one pairing's favor.

 

[DMG]

The system might be more fair for Melee, since the majority of players are only using "good" characters and the stage list is fairly conservative at this point. It's not a good system for PM, since character counters for even solid high tier characters can extend through mid tier and the much larger stage list usually guarantees that the cping character will find 1 favorable or decent stage for the MU.

Optimal character pairings or MU's are basically impossible for PM, and if you're limited to 2-3 characters a set then people will just shy away from "riskier", characters even if they naturally play better with them. A Luigi main has no incentive to cover his back with Jiggs, if Jiggs is bound to run into really bad MU's herself. Pushing people towards better characters, even if a character would normally be fine for tourney if you were allowed to switch, is the wrong approach for PM.

 

[BigglesWorth]

The system might be more fair for Melee, since the majority of players are only using "good" characters and the stage list is fairly conservative at this point. It's not a good system for PM, since character counters for even solid high tier characters can extend through mid tier and the much larger stage list usually guarantees that the cping character will find 1 favorable or decent stage for the MU.

Optimal character pairings or MU's are basically impossible for PM, and if you're limited to 2-3 characters a set then people will just shy away from "riskier", characters even if they naturally play better with them. A Luigi main has no incentive to cover his back with Jiggs, if Jiggs is bound to run into really bad MU's herself. Pushing people towards better characters, even if a character would normally be fine for tourney if you were allowed to switch, is the wrong approach for PM.

I see the point. There is a difference for PM for the character locking. You aren't bound to any number of characters for a tournament, you merely forced to play the same character you won the last match with. I am assuming that the overall buffing of most characters means that matchups aren't as nearly one sided in PM and if so then the development process would eventually take care of it. So you won with Jiggs, then someone picked a bad mu on cp, you had to play jiggs but you can counter their character with cp and switch characters. A lot of people stick to one character even if the matchup seems bad (there are exceptions). It really is a difference of experience and attitude at that point: The question comes down to "Are characters (Or Will Characters be) each be viable enough and matchups still not developed enough that locking a character for an opponent's cp wouldn't make an 20/80 or 70/30 situation?" That is a matter of how confident you think matchups are developed to make the call of definitive hard counter characters and how optimistic you are in the overall process. There's not a right answer in that case, its more of a wait and see if either are really the case kind of deal.

 

[DMG]

There are plenty of one sided MU's in PM. Part of the balance stems from characters naturally having 6/4 and better MU's across the cast against each other. Mid tier in PM is a huge RPS fight of countering and getting countered (by counter, I mean at least 6/4 or higher. Some people don't consider it a counter til 7/3 I guess). Top and High tiers aren't the only ones with strong MU's, the lesser characters will just have fewer strong ones. Charizard won't have 10 super positive MU's, but he'll still have maybe 5 vs decent characters, instead of losing to most characters above him and managing evenish with everyone else. Most chars are like that: going truly even will probably be rare in PM compared to 6/4 MU's for any side.

Locking characters promotes not just stronger CP's, but safer character choices to avoid the negatives of being locked. This goes against promoting some of the lesser, weaker, or riskier characters, and would impact realized viability since character worth in tournament would more heavily weigh on safety from CPing. If you play a character in tournament that is easy to counter, having to switch off is obviously a sign that the character has issues. At the same time though, you're allowing more variety in tournament since that weaker character could be played for at least 1 game without the threat of a really strong CP against them. Seeing Luigi 1 game of a set, then watching a pocket come out, is a much better scenario than Luigi rarely being picked due to the CP risks. Swap Luigi with like close to 15-20 characters though: they would be super risky and would face CP rounds that are stronger than what we currently allow.

 

[BigglesWorth]

Wouldn't that system then make balance issues more readily apparent since using those characters would come far ahead of the pack? That makes me interested. It's a double edge sword. It stratifies balance concerns yet causes the heavier commitment to certain characters making it unlikely people would switch back to those characters as mains after the change due to the commitment put into mastering a given character that works for a tournament scene. Of course that is a factor I didn't consider. Even if people are able to use like say a Luigi one game out of 5, would they bother instead of focusing on one or two more generally less countered characters (I mean after meta is a bit more settled)? Would the commitment to learning a character cause a less lower "tier" representation even without the rule?

Regardless, a great point you had is that CLing in PM is that (while it may reduce the Winners advantage for that counterpick) it increases the counterpick advantage of the first winner for the entire set.

Perhaps an in between, would be to make just Winner of the First match locked to character for the 2nd match only. After that, character locking off, then Looser has an extended advantage to justify the 2-0 condition of a flex set and still not further extended the Winner's overall advantage. Also that would allow the hypothetical Luigi to get his hypothetical 1 game and still show balance issues by what characters are needed to be starting character picks.