Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[ParanoidDrone]

We had tons of timeouts (in 3-sock 5 minutes)--I alone had like 6, both wins and losses.

Our scene hasn't had a single timeout in any other format, including 2-stock 5-minutes or 3-stock 8-minutes.

I want to repeat the three golden observations of tourney running time:

• Actual in-game time is actually a rather small percentage of event time
• A longer match timer discourages camping and actually makes games shorter on average. (To a limit)
• Bo5s hugely inflate event running time--more than any other game-based factor.

2-stock 6-minute games tend to run on average faster than 2-stock 5-minute games, which in turn will tend to run faster than 2-stock 4-minute games.

Our last St. Louis 3-stock (8-minute) tourney actually ran faster than any 2-stock tourney we've had, in spite of a bracket reset. Each setup round took, on average worst-case, 12.7 minutes.

IIRC the 5 minute timer is locked, it's just a question of 2 or 3 stock.

I'm curious what % of event time is actual ingame time. You don't need to be precise, but a best guesstimate?

(Fun fact: "Guesstimate" is a valid word according to my internet spellcheck. Also, "spellcheck" isn't.)

 

[Thinkaman]

IIRC the 5 minute timer is locked, it's just a question of 2 or 3 stock.

Right--I'm not pushing for change on this issue, just trying to preach information that some might find unintuitive.

I'm curious what % of event time is actual ingame time. You don't need to be precise, but a best guesstimate?

It varies wildly. Bigger events tend to be significantly less efficient.

75% efficiency is off the charts, but possible.
66% efficiency is really, really good, and is what you see at well-organized locals with professional organization.
50% efficiency is average.
30-40% efficiency is what you'd expect at a national.

 

[STiCKYBULL3TZ]

What's the current, or widely used, method of stage banning in Bo5 sets? Do you ban one stage every win? Ban two only on your first win? Or don't ban at all in Bo5?

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

http://www.eventhubs.com/images/2015/feb/18/updated-evo-2015-rules-february-18/

So EVO has updated their Smash 4 Ruleset.... Thoughts?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

http://www.eventhubs.com/images/2015/feb/18/updated-evo-2015-rules-february-18/

So EVO has updated their Smash 4 Ruleset.... Thoughts?

This appears to be the exact same for smash 4; the update probably just applied to other games.

 

[thehard]

Wizard said he was fine with moving some stages from CP to starter, I'll bug him on Twitter about that again

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

This appears to be the exact same for smash 4; the update probably just applied to other games.

"EVO 2015 rules for Smash Wii U, Ultra Street Fighter 4 updated"

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

"EVO 2015 rules for Smash Wii U, Ultra Street Fighter 4 updated"

Well, I suppose I can put it this way. Could you direct me to what is changed? It seems to be the exact same rules to me.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Well, I suppose I can put it this way. Could you direct me to what is changed? It seems to be the exact same rules to me.

Before:
http://www.eventhubs.com/images/201...kombat-x-hints-3on3-characters-versus-mode-1/

Now: http://www.eventhubs.com/images/2015/feb/18/updated-evo-2015-rules-february-18/

http://www.eventhubs.com/images/2015/feb/18/updated-evo-2015-rules-february-18/

Also, isn't it usually 6 minutes for most tournies, rather than 5 minutes? Also 2/3 for all matches....
I suppose they probs needed it considering the size of EVO.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Old Rules:

• Game Version: Wii U
• Game Settings: TBD
• Dave's Stupid Rule (Not actually called this but that's what it is.)

New Rules:

• Game Version: Wii U
• BO3, 2S5M
• Starters: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville
• Counterpicks: Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Duck Hunt, Halberd, Lylat Cruise, Town & City
• Winning player may change character but must do so before losing player changes character.
• Dave's Stupid Rule again

He already confirmed items are off via Twitter so all that's really left is to see if he can shift two (or all) stages to starters. Then it'll be a fairly decent ruleset, if suboptimal.

EDIT: 5 minute time was said to be fixed due to time concerns.

 

[thehard]

Hey, I got a "Sounds good!" from him on Twitter after I suggested he add T&C and Lylat to starters.

Edit: The EVO ruleset just got updated on the main site. T&C and Lylat were moved...is that all it takes?

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Hey, I got a "Sounds good!" from him on Twitter after I suggested he add T&C and Lylat to starters.

Edit: The EVO ruleset just got updated on the main site. T&C and Lylat were moved...is that all it takes?

Wow, seriously?! LOL XD

 

[Claire Diviner]

So with talks of custom moves supposedly being allowed in EVO, what would this mean for other tourneys, like Apex or The Big House?

Personally, I'm open to custom moves being allowed, as none of them make characters particularly OP more than a little unpredictable, keeping players on their toes (though I've heard about some "one-inch punch" from Mii Brawler being too broken, so I dunno).

I can see equipment not being allowed for being inconsistent and OP (lol First Strike + Baseball Bat + Quick Batter), so their exclusion is fine.

For those against custom moves, my question is why? Other than characters being unpredictable, why should customs be banned? Pokémon games have tournaments everywhere, and many Pokémon can learn a laundry list of moves, for a combination of thousands of different possible movesets, allowing players to not stick to any standard moveset.

Dissidia: Final Fantasy, and Dissidia 012: Final Fantasy uses a similar system as Smash 3DS/Wii U, where movesets can vary depending on the character, and the players' play styles of said characters. They even allow equipment (barring obviously OP ones), and this doesn't factor in assists as well. They allow these things because they're readily available in game, even if they need to be unlocked, and Smash 3DS/Wii U is no different. Arguing against customs for being unlockable does no good either, as there are stages and characters that are unlockable.

The only bad thing I can see with custom moves would be an official tier list taking longer to develop, as each character's analysis would require analyzing their custom moves against other characters and their customs moves as well. Still, if the Pokémon community and the Dissidia community can do it, why not us?

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

So with talks of custom moves supposedly being allowed in EVO, what would this mean for other tourneys, like Apex or The Big House?

Personally, I'm open to custom moves being allowed, as none of them make characters particularly OP more than a little unpredictable, keeping players on their toes (though I've heard about some "one-inch punch" from Mii Brawler being too broken, so I dunno).

I can see equipment not being allowed for being inconsistent and OP (lol First Strike + Baseball Bat + Quick Batter), so their exclusion is fine.

For those against custom moves, my question is why? Other than characters being unpredictable, why should customs be banned? Pokémon games have tournaments everywhere, and many Pokémon can learn a laundry list of moves, for a combination of thousands of different possible movesets, allowing players to not stick to any standard moveset.

Dissidia: Final Fantasy, and Dissidia 012: Final Fantasy uses a similar system as Smash 3DS/Wii U, where movesets can vary depending on the character, and the players' play styles of said characters. They even allow equipment (barring obviously OP ones), and this doesn't factor in assists as well. They allow these things because they're readily available in game, even if they need to be unlocked, and Smash 3DS/Wii U is no different. Arguing against customs for being unlockable does no good either, as there are stages and characters that are unlockable.

The only bad thing I can see with custom moves would be an official tier list taking longer to develop, as each character's analysis would require analyzing their custom moves against other characters and their customs moves as well. Still, if the Pokémon community and the Dissidia community can do it, why not us?

Because I'm too lazy too type, here are some reasons why people are against customs:

Been playing brawl since 2011 so I assume you might referee to me as being a veteran..


I'm not a fan of customs because I believe smash is good enough with a very simple standard (Like the for glory standard).
All the other 3 smash games (More so Brawl and Melee) have both done fine without custom moves and Melee to this day still reins as the most popular smash game to play and it even comfortably dominating smash 4.

The other thing is customs have to be unlocked, not everyone has the time to take on such a giant task. We mainly depend on domestic set ups and in saying that not every set up will have all customs and its not going to work with somebody who has certain custom that may not be on a majority of the Wii U set ups. Yes, I know that the 3DS can transfer to the wii U and it doesn't take much to do but then two problems come up

1: Not everyone will have a 3DS version or never played it much/dropped it for the wii U

2: What about people who get the motivation to want to get into the competitive scene from for Glory? For Glory has been a great approach to people wanting to get good and I think we should accommodate that factor that adapting to customs might be a turn off for the newer people and as a Melee player and going to smash 4 from brawl its a huge turn off for me and tbh I'd rather just put all my time in Melee if customs becomes a thing and in fact would probs rather play Brawl over smash 4 with customs.

I understand customs would put more depth into the meta game and may improve viability in other characters but I just don't think its necessary. Learning a MU with 4 special moves is enough, learning so many different combinations is unattractive when we can just learn one.

Thats my input
Customs or no customs, I won't be using them. Lucario is fine without them and I've been fine with out them in the other smash 4 games and Project M
And if they ban customs again enjoy re-adjusting to your default move set.

EDIT: I don't know if many of you socialise in the sub forums of your character but the customs at EVO has turned off the prime majority of the good Lucario players..

I'm primarily a Melee player so I don't know how much my opinion counts here, but if customs become commonplace, I will probably never play Smash 4 again. Almost all of them exist purely to be hella gimmicky in some way or another and I really cannot be arsed learning the nuances of every single one just to know what to expect. Think about that as far as accessibility for new players is concerned.

Miis and Palutena however, I'm fine with them. They're straightforward enough, and perhaps more importantly, they're already unlocked, so getting familiar is quick and easy.

Personally, I like customs, but if customs are banned I'm fine with that and if needed, I can just re-adjust since I already primarily use Ganon's default moveset along with a few customs on the side anyway.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Because I'm too lazy too type, here are some reasons why people are against customs:

They're good arguments, but they're not necessarily strong enough points, save for the point of painstakingly unlocking them all, which I'll admit is a pain in the behind.

Personally, I like customs, but if customs are banned I'm fine with that and if needed, I can just re-adjust since I already primarily use Ganon's default moveset along with a few customs on the side anyway.

I play with a standard Rosalina just fine myself, but also use a custom Rosalina specifically for custom battles, so I'm good either way.

That said, I'm still all for custom implementation in competitive tourneys.

 

[GhostUrsa]

I was catching up on some Extra-Credits episodes recently, and they started talking about randomness in competitive games and how some games get around it. Url here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZI9kMsvRQ

The reason I bring this up is that they covered in this episode how competitive card games, like Poker and such, get around certain randomness and they brought up one way to get around it that I thought may be relevant to competitive Smash with how things like Sudden Death and % tiebreakers are still argued over.

They recommended playing the game Round Robin style, with the champion determined by who had the most victories during the Tournament instead of Elimination style that is used in most competitions. In games like Poker and such, with the game's main focus on the players themselves instead of the randomness of the cards it makes sense. For Smash, it could be an interesting way to not have to worry about Sudden Deaths at all. Yeah Sudden Deaths will happen for stalemates and randomness can make a player who's more skilled lose, but he's not eliminated from the competition and will still prove his worth in other battles. We can minimize the issue with the randomness to the point were it doesn't matter, and we don't have to use the weird % decision that makes no sense with how Smash is designed.

What do you guys think? Is this something that we should ask for some experimentation with in the Tournament scene and see if this is more ideal?

 

[Claire Diviner]

I was catching up on some Extra-Credits episodes recently, and they started talking about randomness in competitive games and how some games get around it. Url here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZI9kMsvRQ

The reason I bring this up is that they covered in this episode how competitive card games, like Poker and such, get around certain randomness and they brought up one way to get around it that I thought may be relevant to competitive Smash with how things like Sudden Death and % tiebreakers are still argued over.

They recommended playing the game Round Robin style, with the champion determined by who had the most victories during the Tournament instead of Elimination style that is used in most competitions. In games like Poker and such, with the game's main focus on the players themselves instead of the randomness of the cards it makes sense. For Smash, it could be an interesting way to not have to worry about Sudden Deaths at all. Yeah Sudden Deaths will happen for stalemates and randomness can make a player who's more skilled lose, but he's not eliminated from the competition and will still prove his worth in other battles. We can minimize the issue with the randomness to the point were it doesn't matter, and we don't have to use the weird % decision that makes no sense with how Smash is designed.

What do you guys think? Is this something that we should ask for some experimentation with in the Tournament scene and see if this is more ideal?

Intriguing idea. Especially for those non-pros who enter pools and have the misfortune of facing nothing but those who are far greater in skill than, like Mew2King, Dabuz, etc. Perhaps a tourney organizer could experiment with such a system and see where that goes?

 

[smashmachine]

I was catching up on some Extra-Credits episodes recently, and they started talking about randomness in competitive games and how some games get around it. Url here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZI9kMsvRQ

The reason I bring this up is that they covered in this episode how competitive card games, like Poker and such, get around certain randomness and they brought up one way to get around it that I thought may be relevant to competitive Smash with how things like Sudden Death and % tiebreakers are still argued over.

They recommended playing the game Round Robin style, with the champion determined by who had the most victories during the Tournament instead of Elimination style that is used in most competitions. In games like Poker and such, with the game's main focus on the players themselves instead of the randomness of the cards it makes sense. For Smash, it could be an interesting way to not have to worry about Sudden Deaths at all. Yeah Sudden Deaths will happen for stalemates and randomness can make a player who's more skilled lose, but he's not eliminated from the competition and will still prove his worth in other battles. We can minimize the issue with the randomness to the point were it doesn't matter, and we don't have to use the weird % decision that makes no sense with how Smash is designed.

What do you guys think? Is this something that we should ask for some experimentation with in the Tournament scene and see if this is more ideal?

smaller tournaments already use round robin pools

making the whole tournament round robin, however, is logistically impossible for anything that's not super tiny

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Swiss is a similar format to Round Robin except it matches up players with similar WLT ratios to each other. If time/size permits it's possible to do a DE bracket of the top whatever as well.

 

[smashmachine]

Swiss is a similar format to Round Robin except it matches up players with similar WLT ratios to each other. If time/size permits it's possible to do a DE bracket of the top whatever as well.

you should note that the biggest problem with Swiss is that you still need a large number of setups for it to run quickly, which is why it worked for the 3DS version (everyone has their own 3DS) but wouldn't work for Wii U inb4 128 Smash 4 setups

 

[Jaxas]

We run Swiss -> Top 4/8/16 (entrant-dependant) every week my local weeklies, and it works really well.
This is a local however, and while it works exceptionally well for that size-range, it would definitely not work for larger tournaments. It would require either far too much time or an abundance of setups.

Basically, it works well for smaller tournaments and weeklies (new players don't get eliminated Round 2 and are guaranteed matches against closer-level players) but it doesn't work out logistically for larger scale ones.

 

[GhostUrsa]

We run Swiss -> Top 4/8/16 (entrant-dependant) every week my local weeklies, and it works really well.
This is a local however, and while it works exceptionally well for that size-range, it would definitely not work for larger tournaments. It would require either far too much time or an abundance of setups.

Basically, it works well for smaller tournaments and weeklies (new players don't get eliminated Round 2 and are guaranteed matches against closer-level players) but it doesn't work out logistically for larger scale ones.

That's the thing. You wouldn't need any more setups than is already necessary for your preliminary brackets. It could also be possible to do a high-bred of elimination and round robin. During the preliminaries, you do your round robin and after all the matches have cycled you grab your top 16 and they move on to the next set. Then it's round robin again with those to see who goes to the final, and so on.

What I see as the problem isn't the number of setups, but time constraints. The tournament would have to go for longer to make sure everyone can be covered. This would mean that the experience would have to be experimented with smaller and medium tourneys first to get the logistics out, and then the bigger tourneys (with the more money, exposure and such) could make it work with their multi-day designs.

Such a thing wouldn't happen overnight. But at the same time, there seems to be just enough people that don't like the current design to make me think that we couldn't do better. Video game tournaments don't have to worry about recovery time for physical injuries like martial sports need to take into account for tourneys, so it's possible that a hybrid of our current design and the style used from our non-digital brethren could work much better long term.

 

[popsofctown]

Swiss is really just a strictly better tournament format. You can get the same runtime as double elim if you just tell the "doomed" swiss divisions that can't top3 "you guys are done playing", regardless of setup count. With good setup count, you can allow lower level plays to compete beyond 2 losses. You know, lower level players, the ones that lose money when they enter tournaments instead of gaining it, and are a critical lifeblood for the community...

Most of the resistance to Swiss is TOs not wanting to learn to run it.

At a national level they don't work of course, but I think they would be great for the community at locals and regionals

 

[thehard]

I've seen some matches go near the 1 minute mark lately in 6 min. formats and it pains me that these would turn into timeouts in a 5 min. ruleset

 

[Pazx]

2 stock 8 minutes is the future.

 

[dav3yb]

So I posted this in the stage discussion, but I think it'll fit better here. I'm helping out with a local tournament, and have been mainly trying to figure out stage stuff, and writing up the rules for striking/banning. I just want to make sure I have the basics, so here is what I posted:

So I'll probably be writing up some of the base guide/rules for striking/banning stages, and i just want to make sure i've got a few things clear.

So for the first stage, striking 1-2-2-2-2-2-1, leaving the choosing player picking from the final 2 before striking the last 1 stage right? Or who is it that is supposed to start the striking, the player that is picking the stage, or the opponent?

for round 2, winning player bans some number of stages (would 3 be a good number for 13 stages? leaving 10 to pick from?) and the looser picks from the remaining stages.

IF round 3 happens, the player who is picking stages auto bans the last stage he won on in the set, and the winner of round 2 bans some number of stages.

is this the basics that need to be hit when tying put a guide/rules to strikes/bans? anything else needed/missing? thanks in advance. (also these explanations will be much expanded when i actually type up the how-to)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So I posted this in the stage discussion, but I think it'll fit better here. I'm helping out with a local tournament, and have been mainly trying to figure out stage stuff, and writing up the rules for striking/banning. I just want to make sure I have the basics, so here is what I posted:

So I'll probably be writing up some of the base guide/rules for striking/banning stages, and i just want to make sure i've got a few things clear.

So for the first stage, striking 1-2-2-2-2-2-1, leaving the choosing player picking from the final 2 before striking the last 1 stage right? Or who is it that is supposed to start the striking, the player that is picking the stage, or the opponent?

What this format means is:
- P1 strikes 1 stage
- P2 strikes 2 stages
- P1 strikes 2 stages
- P2 strikes 2 stages
- P1 strikes 2 stages
- P2 strikes 2 stages
- P1 strikes 1 stage, the remaining 1 stage is played on.

Also, 13 stages and FLSS? I respect the hell out of that. Good ****, man.

for round 2, winning player bans some number of stages (would 3 be a good number for 13 stages? leaving 10 to pick from?) and the looser picks from the remaining stages.

For 13 I personally like 2, but 3 works as well if you want to be more conservative about stage advantage. At the end of a long set, you'll have (depending on how your stage clause/DSR works) 13 - 6 (bans) - 1-4 (stages previously played), so it works out just fine.

IF round 3 happens, the player who is picking stages auto bans the last stage he won on in the set, and the winner of round 2 bans some number of stages.

Yep, pretty much on point.

is this the basics that need to be hit when tying put a guide/rules to strikes/bans? anything else needed/missing? thanks in advance. (also these explanations will be much expanded when i actually type up the how-to)

I would include the order of events in the online version. For example, this is how it looks for my tournaments:

Spoiler

Players pick their characters (can be blind picked). These are revealed before striking begins.
Player with port priority (P1) strikes 1 stage
Player without port priority (P2) strikes 2 stages
P1 strikes 2 stages
P2 strikes 2 stages
P1 strikes 2 stages
P2 strikes 2 stages
P1 strikes 1 stage
Players pick their customs. These can be picked blind, but must be revealed to the opponent before the match starts.

Games 2-5:
Winner of the last game (P1) may, if he has not previously banned a stage, ban X stages (x is your number of bans)
Loser of the last game (P2) picks one from the remaining list, accounting for the stage clause (you may not pick stages you previously won on).
P1 may change their character
P2 may change their character
P1 may change their customs
P2 may change their customs
(This change must be told to the other player)

It's a little confusing and obnoxious, and most people don't care that much about blind picks, but it can matter and it's good to have it written down somewhere.

 

[dav3yb]

So, after round 2, do the previously banned stages usually stay banned? So for round 3 you'd have 6 stages banned (7 if you use Daves rule)?

I was under the assumption that for a new round, the bans were wiped and repicked. Maybe I'm just confused by some of the wording, or since I'm half distracted at work right now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So, after round 2, do the previously banned stages usually stay banned? So for round 3 you'd have 6 stages banned (7 if you use Daves rule)?

I was under the assumption that for a new round, the bans were wiped and repicked. Maybe I'm just confused by some of the wording, or since I'm half distracted at work right now.

Usually bans stay for the whole set. If I ban FD, nobody can pick it at any point following in the set. Including myself.

 

[dav3yb]

Usually bans stay for the whole set. If I ban FD, nobody can pick it at any point following in the set. Including myself.

OK. That makes 2 bans make more since to me then. I'll ask the guy who's putting everything together what he likes when I see him today.

Also, one final thing to clear up for myself: Daves rule, I understand, but those stages you cannot pick only apply to the person who won on that stage right? So unless it gets banned, I can pick FD even if I lost on it right?

 

[popsofctown]

OK. That makes 2 bans make more since to me then. I'll ask the guy who's putting everything together what he likes when I see him today.

Also, one final thing to clear up for myself: Daves rule, I understand, but those stages you cannot pick only apply to the person who won on that stage right? So unless it gets banned, I can pick FD even if I lost on it right?

That's correct.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... Here's a question. At what point do we start telling people, "If you don't have time to run 3 stocks 8 minutes, then you don't have time to run Smash 4"?

@ Overswarm

 

[Overswarm]

It is incredibly, incredibly frustrating seeing people going over the same information that has been figured out. We know how to do this stuff. It's been written down.

Information dump time. Engrave this in stone.


You want to know how to make a Smash 4 Competitive Ruleset?

There are two ways to make a ruleset. The first is Originalist -- your goal is to keep as much of the game as possible while making it competitive and enjoyable by all; you require tournament evidence rather than personal evidence to ban something. This is slower, but ultimately better and ignores preference (for the most part). The second is Constructionist -- your goal is to create the most enjoyable tournament experience that is also competitive as quickly as possible; playing in tournament on Pokefloats would be a no-no for a Constructionist as they would just look on it and say 'no'. They might also say the same thing about FD, or ban chain grabs, or ban wobbling, or ban pokemon stadium, or whatever. Depends on the preferences of the TO and the hivemind associated with the TO.

Are you a Constructionist? Then stop reading because you don't have to make sense. That's not your MO. You live off the idea of "you know best" and no logical argument can sway you. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as you can create a perfect ruleset immediately, but you can also screw stuff up. Depending on your hivemind (see: group of people near you) you can come up with entirely different rulesets. Most people, by default, are Constructionists. You aren't abnormal by being a Constructionist, it is just the odds are that you have no idea what you are talking about. It also means that information posted below won't help you as you already know what you like or dislike, so shine on you crazy diamond.

Are you an Originilast? Congratulations! Given enough time you will create the same ruleset as every other Originalist. Lucky for you, we've been doing this for a decade so we know what's up. You don't have to start from scratch and ask "can items work?" In fact, I'll tell you what to do right now. Here's how you run a tournament and make a ruleset.

1. Items work competitively, but no one will ever use them en masse. Stop trying to use them.
2. You should use random stage selection for the first round if you can't create a good stage striking list.
3. To create a good stage striking list, you need 7 to 9 Starters. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQH_LUdkfkY
4. There will be people who only want 5 stages, or 3, and they will all be the same ****ing stage with slight variations. This is awful and they should be ashamed of themselves.
5. There will be people who hyper correct and say "let's use all stages to strike from". They don't know what they're talking about, ignore them.
6. You ban NOTHING without tournament evidence or extremely obvious visibility or near 100% world-wide acceptance of ban (see: Hyrule Temple, smash balls or items)
7. There will be people who want to ban something because it looks strong or has one strong instance. They will say "It's going to be a problem". Wait until it is. 99% of the time it isn't a problem. 0.5% of the time it is a problem, but only for the status quo who hate change. The other 0.5% of the time it actually is a problem, in which case you can ban the stage or technique.
8. Most of the time lost in tournaments isn't done in-game. It's done outside of the game. If anyone wants to lower the stock count or timer or the like, ignore them unless your tournament is super efficient.
9. Did you say "My tournament is super efficient" to the last one? IT ISN'T. Shame on you for lying.
10. Use Pools to seed players into more pools or into bracket to create a good tournament experience. When seeding pools, you should only seed the 1st seed for each pool (estimated), the rest should be randomized and separated by location only.
11. There will be people who want to seed all the way down to X, where X is who gets out of pools. These people are manipulating the bracket. If you can seed down to the number of people that would be in the bracket, just move straight on to bracket.
12. You don't know the exact rankings of any tournament, so don't pretend like you do. Seed ONLY THE FIRST SEED, if you seed anyone at all, for pools. Use pool results directly for bracket.
13. People will complain that they have a "hard pool". Ignore them. The majority of players cannot predict places 4-8 in a tournament and at least top 3 make it out of pools on average; logic dictates that if someone thinks they are in a "hard" pool they would at most be in 4th-8th place. The odds of randomly assigning 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishers to the same pool randomly is incredibly small.
14. People like to complain. Ignore them most of the time. When you don't, implement changes post-tournament.
15. Pools are important not just for seeding, but for helping new players get more matches in. Don't short change them.
16. Do you run all Pools? You should. It saves a crap ton of time.
17. The optimal number of setups is N/2, where N is the number of players. You can figure out how many matches you can run this way. If you have N=30 players, optimal is 15 setups. If you have 10 setups, you can play 10 matches, leaving 5 matches waiting.
18. When you have matches unable to be played, tell those matches "You are ON DECK" and put them behind a setup. The moment that setup is free, they play there.
19. You don't know what rules to use? Use 3 stock and 8 minutes. This works regardless of game.
20. Don't have enough time to run 3 stock 8 minutes? Then you're a bad TO. Fix that instead of mangling a game's ruleset.
21. 3 stock 8 minutes vs. 2 stock 6 minutes is a Smash 4 centric thing. You add ~1 hour of time to an entire event to run 3 stock, assuming stocks all take the average amount of time they do in 2 stock 6 minute games.
22. You want to encourage players to attend? Have pot bonuses for Out-of-state players and make events fun for new players to encourage locals to attend.
23. Don't have money for pot bonuses? Take 10% of the winnings out of each tournament and tack it onto a tournament every 4 or 5 months or so. If you have a tournament once a month and have 20 entrants on average, that's $20 per tournament. In 5 months you can add $100 extra for first place as a pot bonus, which will bring in all the regional talent you need.
24. Don't know how to make tournaments fun? RUN ONE GAME and make that game fun. Have singles, doubles, and then fun side events like draft crews, items on tournaments, banned stages tournaments, amiibo events, and other goofball things that you have time for.
25. DO NOT RUN MULTIPLE GAMES. In my 10 year stint of playing smash there has been a grand total of like 8 people I have met that can actually do this well. Most people can barely run one game.
26. The biggest thing to making an event work is to have setups. You find setups from players. Encourage people to bring setups by waiving venue fees for people who bring setups.
27. Don't just hope people bring setups. Individually reach out and get confirmation that people are attending and bringing a setup. If you get to a tournament you are hosting and you have a grand total of 5 setups and were needing 16, you should be incredibly shocked at how many people broke their word to you.
28. Ignore the East Coast unless you live there. They likely won't travel to your events more than once a year and you'll have maybe 1% of your playerbase that travels there once or more a year.
29. Ignore the West Coast unless you live there. They likely won't travel to your events more than once a year and you'll have maybe 1% of your playerbase that travels there once or more a year.
30. Ignore the Midwest unless you live there. They likely won't travel to your events more than once a year and you'll have maybe 1% of your playerbase that travels there once or more a year.
31. Ignore the South unless you live there. They likely won't travel to your events more than once a year and you'll have maybe 1% of your playerbase that travels there once or more a year.
32. You don't know if a stage should be legal or not? It should be. Encourage people to break it. Post the video on youtube of people laughing at how broken it is, collect ad revenue from video. Use ad revenue to pay whoever abuses the stage the most.
33. Only use one ban per set per player. Bans are used primarily for preference and for the crazy unique "this one matchup no this one stage can't be won ever" that don't effect the masses. If you allow multiple bans, you often hurt characters that rely on specific stage types and not the most common ones. This alters game balance. It's better to have 0 bans than 2.
34. A lot of things that are good for the game are hard to do. Do them anyway.
35. A lot of people will talk about "helping the scene" and "growing the community". You grow the community by having good events that are entertaining to those attending. The rest falls into place naturally.
36. Tell people where to park and where to eat. Give them specific times for when they can eat and when the venue closes.
37. If someone says "you should ban (X)", don't ask them "why?". Ask them to send you a PM with video evidence so you can review it. They won't. Because they don't have any.
38. People will always find a reason to complain. Remember that there is only one winner, which means N-1 people are going to have something to ***** about whether its legitimate or not.
39. Consistent events are better than one-off big events. Don't burn out.
40. TOs should make money. Charge a venue fee and pocket whatever you can. This encourages you to actually host more events, everyone wins. If you feel guilty, give out extra as prize money.
41. Drivers = attendees. Each driver can = 5 players. Reward drivers if you can with raffles and the like, or cut off their venue fee or something.
42. People say that they want evidence and data. They don't. Decide early on if you're going to fight bad ideas or not. If you aren't, give up and do whatever. If you are, do your own thing and collect data for those that will listen to it. Don't worry about those that don't care.
43. Tournaments are hard to run. If you don't know how a bracket works or how a pool works, look it up.
44. If you require a laptop to run a tournament, you aren't ready to run a tournament.
45. If you look at a bracket and say "Oh, these two shouldn't play each other first round" and those two players don't live together, team together, or were in the same pool, you're likely manipulating the bracket. Don't. Let them play.
46. This list isn't exhaustive. Just know that you're probably a bad TO and the majority of people are wrong about everything. The only thing you need to do is get setups, provide more matches, have less downtime, and let people have a good time. The rest is all details.
47. If you suck at TOing it is okay to still host. Just ask for help or only have one event.
48. 99% of all the TOs I see manipulate the bracket in their favor. If the TO doesn't ask someone else "does this look good" or that person isn't impartial, they are manipulating the bracket in their favor or their friend's favor. They may not even know it.
49. I could write these for hours because I've done this for a long time. If you're arguing in your head or want to post a minor critique or a line-by-line analysis, that means you aren't interested in learning but more interested in being right. This thought process bleeds over to TOing and creating rulesets, so recognize you are untrustworthy.
50. Every good TO has a helper or two. Find them and let them help you so you don't have to do everything yourself. You probably have been to a dozen tournaments and don't remember half the stuff I wrote up above.
51. Writing 51 instead of 50 so you guys don't think I had a plan, this was all word vomit train of thought. I could go on for days.

Why We Use Stock and Time video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAmI2HdBqw

Why We Use Stage Striking Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQH_LUdkfkY

Why Pools Only Tournaments are Awesome:
http://smashboards.com/threads/pool...aster-than-double-elimination-bracket.324691/


Random post after looking at a recent customs tournament:

So I've been collecting data by recording end times of tournament matches. They've all basically been about the same.

Here's the latest tournament results from whatever tournament dabuz just won where will got second:

Their 2 stock 6 minute matches took on average 2.7 minutes. That's 1.35 minutes per stock. 3 stock 8 minute matches collected in my data take on average 1.4 minutes per stock. That is a .05 difference. My other 2 stock recordings also took around 1.4 min per stock. For those who don't want to do math, It's 81 seconds (2 stock games at latest tournament) vs 84 seconds (3 stock games from others) per stock. With 6 and 8 minute timers.

The data set is pretty limited on both and both have outliers, but ~1.4 minutes per stock is the average. 4.5 minutes is enough to finish the majority of games with an 8 minute timer.

Of the last custom tournament I saw (dabuz won, will second), 3 games on stream were at or above the 4.5 minutes spent mark within their 6 minute timer:
Olimar vs. Diddy
Villager vs Diddy
Villager vs Diddy

Sheik vs. Olimar was close, as was another Diddy vs. Villager.

This is obviously matchup and player dependent, especially since the villager, olimar, and two diddys were played by a total of 4 players. >_>

The fastest common time people lose a stock is .75 minutes per stock (1.5 min for whole 2 stock game). There is a linear trend going up from this point and only 5 of the 50 matches were finished below that time.

With the 1.4 min per stock average, one game hit 2.8 on the button. 21 were above that time, 29 were below.

For 2 stock matches, after the linear trend starts upwards it continues steadily until you hit around 5 minutes. As expected, once there is a minute left on the clock time is increased dramatically -- everyone camps with 1:00 left on the clock. That's the magic number.

For 3 stock matches 8 minute matches, 1:00 left on the clock is STILL the magic number. This makes sense, as at this point both players still likely have one stock so it is basically the same situation as 2 stock games. You can't suddenly start camping earlier with more stock and time.

What does this mean?

First of all, run 3 stock 8 minutes. Seriously, the worst case scenario is it adds 6 minutes per wave. If every single game went to time per wave, the guy waiting in grand finals of a 5 wave bracket (standard 32 man) has added a grand total of 36 minutes to his set. That is the *worst case scenario*. This does not happen ever.

Given the average 1.35 per stock, if the 2 stock with customs event happened with 3 stock and we added 1.35 seconds per stock, it would have added a grand total of about an hour for the 50 streamed matches. An -hour-, for the entire tournament.

Second, knowing that 1 minute left on the clock is the time when people suddenly start camping... if we had a 5 minute timer a total of 3 matches simply would have been timeouts and 5 would have been in that danger zone +/- 10 seconds. Another 6 would have been within 30 seconds of the zone.

With a 5 minute timer, we should see a 15% increase of games that either time out or go to time.

But seriously, do 3 stock. Virtually every 2 stock game goes to last stock for both players and the winner is determined by whoever took the first stock unless the advantage player loses his high % stock within 15 seconds.

TL;DR:

It takes 1.4 min per stock on average. A 2 stock match takes 2.8 min, 3 stock match takes 3.6 min. A full tournament adds about an hour in length for 3 stock 8 minutes. Most 2 stock games go to last stock and whoever takes the first stock wins, unless they lose their stock within 15 seconds of taking their opponents first stock.

 

[thehard]

That was beautiful

 

[BestTeaMaker]

*Looks down at his ruleset, looks up at Overswarm's post, looks down at his ruleset again*

Yep, looks good so far.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The only issue I have with that post OS is that I lost attendees for charging venue fees.
I returned a bit in pot prizes but they thought I was making tournaments to get money.
They simply stopped attending.
No matter what I tried to get their attention, nobody bothered to show up.
There were events where literally nobody but me went to.

And after that I felt discouraged to ever host tournaments again.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1. There will be people who hyper correct and say "let's use all stages to strike from". They don't know what they're talking about, ignore them.

Care to elaborate on this? Because striking from the full list ensures that characters who are good at adapting to stages get to keep that advantage, and it ensures that nobody is given an unreasonably good stage. Like, we all know why 3 is stupid, and why 5 is worse than 9 - because it gives certain characters unreasonably good stages in round 1. But why is 9 better than 13? For example, if our spread of total viable stages looks like this for a given matchup between character X and character Y:

X +++++
X ++++
X +++
X ++
X +
X
N
Y
Y+
Y++
Y+++
Y++++
Y+++++

(Where N is "no advantage to Y or X", Y is "small advantage to character Y" and Y+ is "larger advantage to character Y".)

What's our best/worst case scenarios? Ideally, we want to end up at N. With 9, our best case scenario is ending up at N. Our worst case (the most biased set of starters possible) is ending up at X+ or Y+. With 13 (full list), our worst case is ending up at N, because our worst case and our best case are the same - you can't bias it at all. So best case is the same, but 9 can insert a bias (and given people's problematic predilection with Flat+Plat, almost certainly will).

Now, what if it looks like this?


X +
X +
X
X
N
Y+
Y+
Y++
Y+++
Y++++
Y+++++
Y++++++
Y+++++++

Well, in this case, with 9, our best-case is N and our worst case is Y+++. With 13, our worst case is Y+ and our best case is, well, the same (obviously). So a worse best-case.

However.

This is because Y is a better character. Because Y has better tools, is more mobile, and more capable of adapting to different stages. Why shouldn't Y get this advantage? Why should X get his 5th-best stage in the matchup round 1 when Y can only get his 8th-best stage? This tweaks the balance of the game in a way I can't see as justified, and I know for a fact @ Amazing Ampharos and a couple of others will back me on this. And of course, remember that worst-case - it's bad.

Other than that though, awesome list of stuff. Imma repost that on Smashlabs. :D

 

[Overswarm]

I could write these for hours because I've done this for a long time. If you're arguing in your head or want to post a minor critique or a line-by-line analysis, that means you aren't interested in learning but more interested in being right. This thought process bleeds over to TOing and creating rulesets, so recognize you are untrustworthy.

>:[

Truths:

• Stages are not black and white, but on a spectrum.
  
  
• A stage can be very good for a character in one matchup and very bad for the same character in another solely for its effects on that character rather than their opponent.
  
  
• Stages are not evenly distributed and we ban stages that are "too strong" for a certain character.

These are our stages for Smash 4: http://www.smashbros.com/us/images/howto/entry13-1.jpg

A standard "strike from every stage" with NO stage bans results in a wonky result. There's 42 total. 84 with omega version (83 if FD isn't different, I forget). Assuming stage striking from this list, each would get rid of N/2 to leave one remaining, or 20 or 21 stages each.

We have less than 20 stages available in a legal list. in the most varied stagelists out there, we'd have something like a dozen or so stages available. None of the available stages we currently have would be left if a single party decided they should not be.

So we have to ban stages and then strike from the rest at the very least.

With me so far?

Why do we ban stages? For many reasons, but in the context of this discussion it can be boiled down to "Character X will win on this stage a disproportionate amount due to the stage properties".

If we have a stage where Character A vs. Character B results in a 7:3 matchup on one stage and a 4:6 matchup on another, we can safely assume it is the stage influence that changes the matchup rather than character properties.

If we have 10 stages that result in the 7:3 matchup and 6 versions of the 4:6 matchup, striking from only those stages mean it is permanently a 7:3 matchup.

The stage then has the same effect that a banned stage normally would in that it allows Character X to win on a stage a disproportionate amount due to the stage properties alone.

This would imply the stage should be banned, but we all know that's silly -- we would have caused the issue via a tournament format.

The entire point of stage striking is to end up on a stage that is neither good or bad for either character. Characters don't 'deserve' a good stage simply by their good stages being more plentiful than their bad ones. That would defeat the purpose of stage striking in the first place.

 

[popsofctown]

The only issue I have with that post OS is that I lost attendees for charging venue fees.
I returned a bit in pot prizes but they thought I was making tournaments to get money.
They simply stopped attending.
No matter what I tried to get their attention, nobody bothered to show up.
There were events where literally nobody but me went to.

And after that I felt discouraged to ever host tournaments again.

If you live in Mexico, this might be a cultural difference tbh.

 

[popsofctown]

• Stages are not evenly distributed and we ban stages that are "too strong" for a certain character.

If you don't wait for that stage to show up and centralize some grand finals, that sounds like a Construction to me. Which maybe it is and with Constructions there are no right answers?